i spent the last few months working intermittently on argument against paradox in philosophy. paradox is bad for us. that was my conclusion.
to my surprise at the end of the work i decided christianity was good for us because it is a good paradox. it is a great marxian enslavement to the higher good of society. no one knows what the higher good is but we're sure you're always wrong.
people need to be enslaved to the future because they are stupid. the more proofs we have that people are stupid the more convincing the argument becomes.
anything could potentially be bad, especially things that are good right now. (see constrained budget function, walrasian equilibrium, second theorem of welfare economics, competitive equilibrium, efficient allocation).
we cannot simply assume that human reason and rationality arrived in convenient balance with other factors. if we had such simple proofs of divinity then no one would be enslaved. but the contrapositive is obviously true. no one is divine so anyone is probably enslaved.
since anyone is probably enslaved there is no system of morality. only the paradox of christianity can give the slaves the morality they need. since god is philosophically amoral god has failed the slaves.
the slaves continue to fail god. only by repentance to the true way can the slaves hope to redeem themselves. it is the highest purpose to be found just in the sight of god therefore it is only insofar that the slaves become god that the true nature of god is manifest. without the slaves we would have nothing and god would be forced to turn on himself.
Could you tell us more about your exposure to 'Christianity', what are your sources? I ask because you seem to assert "Christian doctrine is D", but the D's you cite (your ideas about God, slavery, and higher purpose) are interesting, but are a misrepresentation of what Christianity actually contains.
Are you trying to address「The sociology of the Power dynamics in Christianity (slavery, trust). Would the people obey the rules, are the rules actually good? Is Christianity the ideal Ethic to maximize social justice?」? If so, that's great, but be careful not to mislead people. What you're describing isn't Christian doctrine.
1.
Could you clarify how your cited economic optimization concepts refer to social balance, and arriving at a True notion of The Good?
2.
You make many assertions of things being Good and Bad, but never name the yard-stick you're using to assess Goodness/Badness. Worse still, you posit (I think? unclear argumentation) that we CANNOT arrive at the equilibrium Good. Because economics? Or, because you are (culturally) skeptical about the reliability of the supernatural. Please provide grounds for this maxim: "no one knows what the higher good is but we're sure you're always wrong." Do you mean to say 「no one can 100% know the mind of God, so no one can have perfect knowledge of how to behave optimally-Good」? If so, sure, as Creature (distinct from Creator) we lack 'Omniscience'. But, we can still have a SUFFICIENT knowledge of The Good (say, 60%), meaning we're not "always wrong". [Radical skepticism is BS btw, I bet you believe killing babies is universally wrong and will never change, we wouldn't contextualize that and say "we think that today, but it might change tomorrow"]
So, what is your yard-stick? What are your Bad/Good 「paradoxes bad for us」 「christianity is a good paradox」 「anything could potentially be bad, especially things that are good right now」 (Are you saying "we can't know moral Truth", or "society can be more-optimally arranged" ?)
3.
A notable paradox that needs addressing is "Slavery vs. Freedom", to maximize The Good, we should submit our freedom and become slaves to The Good ... but isn't slavery Bad? I'll try to write an answer soon
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: I ask because you seem to assert "Christian doctrine is D", but the D's you cite (your ideas about God, slavery, and higher purpose) are interesting, but are a misrepresentation of what Christianity actually contains.
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: Are you trying to address「The sociology of the Power dynamics in Christianity (slavery, trust). Would the people obey the rules, are the rules actually good? Is Christianity the ideal Ethic to maximize social justice?」? If so, that's great, but be careful not to mislead people. What you're describing isn't Christian doctrine.
There are rules in Christianity? Isn't it more like a role playing game that you get involved in involuntarily at first, because your parents make you do the sacraments like baptism, holy communion and the other thing you're not really old enough to say no to at, what, 5th grade?
And then you gradually decide whether you want your involvement to continue within the scene and to what degree, although at that point you're pretty much tainted with memories and impressions you've gathered during your exposure.
Especially the sexual sort: the holy communion is about becoming "Jesus' bride" if you're female, but seeing the guy repeatedly, all but naked, hanging from a cross, bleeding is supposed to be the inception of a + Show Spoiler [turn-off] +
Oh, yeah. That's Bob Arctor. He talks like he does many things. It's not the same, my friend, it's not the same thing. Donna has an aversion to bodily contact. I mean, junkies lose their interest in sex, you realize, due to organs swelling up from vasoconstriction. And I have observed in her an inordinate failure of sexual arousal not just toward Bob Arctor, but to... other males as well.
, a repugnance towards unhealthily proud bums. Wheres seeing the girls dressed up in miniature wedding gowns, on their knees during the main ceremony should imprint that constellation of factors which formed the underlying concepts for arousal, or rather the suggestion of necessity of such rituals into your behavioral matrix for future hooking, if you're a dude. Who is to say it's good? Nobody. Who is to say it should go on as is, be stopped or taken steps further? N0body feels entitled to but the porn industry. Therefore mostly irrelevant questions. The correct approach would be to interpret its effects through a less generalizing filter, if you consider yourself in need of filters at all, or even make distinctions between what happens involuntarily with regard to Christian doctrine and whatnot.
On November 01 2016 03:46 YokoKano wrote: anything could potentially be bad, especially things that are good right now. (see constrained budget function, walrasian equilibrium, second theorem of welfare economics, competitive equilibrium, efficient allocation).
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: 1.
Could you clarify how your cited economic optimization concepts refer to social balance, and arriving at a True notion of The Good?
Note that Yoko is probably mocking the nonchalance with which the word "good" is being thrown about, i.e. rather trigger-happily, generally speaking with regard to liturgy. But in this case here it's like the OP is a direct response to your post. He is not trying to debate the True notion of The Good, but rather he was owning you before you even began to speak. Quasi-chrononautics.
Imo Christians and any religious entities banking on monotheism are fundamentally solipsist in their manifestation at the individual level. Every individual believes himself to be God, and therefore encourages the spreading of the idea of a God because that's the next best alternative to simply being awesome, as an alternative to brute force, in asserting his dominance over other people.
Since no "devout" Christian in their right mind would ever formally or casually ask another Christian if they think they are God, this is a mirror conspiracy manipulation which doesn't ever get exposed, and facilitates the banding together against heathens instead, who basically, simply by not accepting a higher sovereignty, are successfully rejecting any attempts at being subjugated by the Christian's self-proclaimed god meta, he invested so much in, and therefore are bullied into physical and mental subjugation instead. That is until they give up and seek relief into the spiritual and/or become indoctrinated themselves (they'll probably fake it but future generations adopt the solipsism parasite and fail to convert back and rid itself of it.
Let's face it, if you can convince yourself that people are praying, praising, acting in your name when they say God then that's a lot of gratification one would go insane or dumb, trying to rehabilitate from); Enter + Show Spoiler [Substance D] +
"Cold turkey doesn't even apply to Substance D. Unlike the legacy of inherited predisposition to addictive behaviors or substances, this needs no genetic assistance. There's no weekend warriors on the D. You're either on it... or you haven't tried it."
"Well, like the old-school pharmacopoeia, a tolerance develops, you know. These visions of bugs, they're just garden-variety psychosis, but a clear indication that you've hurdled over the initial fun and euphoric phase and passed on... to the next phase. News from the guinea pig grapevine suggests that whatever it is, we won't know until it's way too late, you see? You see that we're all canaries in the coal mine on this one?"
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: 2.
You make many assertions of things being Good and Bad, but never name the yard-stick you're using to assess Goodness/Badness. Worse still, you posit (I think? unclear argumentation) that we CANNOT arrive at the equilibrium Good. Because economics? Or, because you are (culturally) skeptical about the reliability of the supernatural. Please provide grounds for this maxim: "no one knows what the higher good is but we're sure you're always wrong." Do you mean to say 「no one can 100% know the mind of God, so no one can have perfect knowledge of how to behave optimally-Good」?
Again, he was probably paraphrasing, run-down parodying Christian dogma.
Barris: "a seemingly voluntary, privatized gulag which has managed to eliminate the meddling middlemen of public accountability and free will and wrap it up in a little bow and give it to the public like a gift." .. the gift of superlative hubris..
On November 01 2016 03:46 YokoKano wrote: we cannot simply assume that human reason and rationality arrived in convenient balance with other factors. if we had such simple proofs of divinity then no one would be enslaved. but the contrapositive is obviously true. no one is divine so anyone is probably enslaved.
No one is divine but God. No one can be God but me. Win win. All your base are belong to me.
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: So, what is your yard-stick? What are your Bad/Good 「paradoxes bad for us」 「christianity is a good paradox」 「anything could potentially be bad, especially things that are good right now」 (Are you saying "we can't know moral Truth", or "society can be more-optimally arranged" ?)
I have a yard-stick. It's called awesomeness. Measure it. Treasure it. Seek it out and preserve it. Make it. Take it to the next level. If you can't save it from extinction then salvage some of it. If you don't have enough energy then take it away from the shit and reroute it where needed most as you go deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. You are asking Yoko to confirm you in your misunderstanding, defend the parts about Christianity which were ironic, so my guess is he won't do it. He'll either post something unrelated or not at all. Then again he might take it up a notch and explain further why he likes the Christian paradox. I'm fairly certain he won't feed into your good and bad shtick though, cuz pure shenanigans on your part.
On November 02 2016 02:44 bITt.mAN wrote: 3.
A notable paradox that needs addressing is "Slavery vs. Freedom", to maximize The Good, we should submit our freedom and become slaves to The Good ... but isn't slavery Bad? I'll try to write an answer soon
When he said:
On November 01 2016 03:46 YokoKano wrote: without the slaves we would have nothing and god would be forced to turn on himself.
..he describes the absence of slavery either as a kind of Loneliness, an inevitable plunge into a self-devouring Psychosis or Both. Therefore I concluded anthropomorphismic tendencies in his / his emulation of Christians' working definition of God.
The only way he sees paradoxes in Christianity is by concluding that they indeed see themselves as God, and the paranoia pursuit of others to become God as a subconscious failsafe for their solipsism not to wear out. They use others as battery to recharge the apparent need to revert back to the gratification circuit, as in 'you'd be stupid to give away something that everyone is dying to get = be god':
On November 01 2016 03:46 YokoKano wrote: the slaves continue to fail god. only by repentance to the true way can the slaves hope to redeem themselves. it is the highest purpose to be found just in the sight of god therefore it is only insofar that the slaves become god that the true nature of god is manifest.
I read his post as an attempt to understand how Christianity came about and to round up its relevance influence by empathizing with its current interactivity dynamic -- that is to go as far as the logic dictated by the experiences, gathered while in contact with the phenomenon, permits being bent before the fallacy becomes ridiculous to entertain any further, from the Christian point of view: that 'I'm not God, and instead God would have to be manifested or some such nonsense' -- because this blog post is a continuity to one of his previous ones, and the consistency is consistent with wanting to share the conclusions of that empathy exercise.
I'll take it up a notch and claim that this is exactly the point where it becomes revelatory what every Christians forges his weapon (instigation of fear of doomsday in everyone else) and shield (ridicule to self to keep doubts and exits at bay) from, to keep his faith's engine from ceasing to go on fueling him in trying to reach his ultimate goal: for the slaves (everyone but him) to repent for dragging him through all the shit he's ever experienced and is salty about, and just pledge their loyalty and obey his every command henceforward.
The Christian, let there be no doubt, is a warrior who will stop at nothing short of total victory, in their conquest to be hailed as your God, last but not least out of curiosity about how you plan to worship him.
Could you tell us more about your exposure to 'Christianity', what are your sources? I ask because you seem to assert "Christian doctrine is D", but the D's you cite (your ideas about God, slavery, and higher purpose) are interesting, but are a misrepresentation of what Christianity actually contains.
Are you trying to address「The sociology of the Power dynamics in Christianity (slavery, trust). Would the people obey the rules, are the rules actually good? Is Christianity the ideal Ethic to maximize social justice?」? If so, that's great, but be careful not to mislead people. What you're describing isn't Christian doctrine.
1.
Could you clarify how your cited economic optimization concepts refer to social balance, and arriving at a True notion of The Good?
2.
You make many assertions of things being Good and Bad, but never name the yard-stick you're using to assess Goodness/Badness. Worse still, you posit (I think? unclear argumentation) that we CANNOT arrive at the equilibrium Good. Because economics? Or, because you are (culturally) skeptical about the reliability of the supernatural. Please provide grounds for this maxim: "no one knows what the higher good is but we're sure you're always wrong." Do you mean to say 「no one can 100% know the mind of God, so no one can have perfect knowledge of how to behave optimally-Good」? If so, sure, as Creature (distinct from Creator) we lack 'Omniscience'. But, we can still have a SUFFICIENT knowledge of The Good (say, 60%), meaning we're not "always wrong". [Radical skepticism is BS btw, I bet you believe killing babies is universally wrong and will never change, we wouldn't contextualize that and say "we think that today, but it might change tomorrow"]
So, what is your yard-stick? What are your Bad/Good 「paradoxes bad for us」 「christianity is a good paradox」 「anything could potentially be bad, especially things that are good right now」 (Are you saying "we can't know moral Truth", or "society can be more-optimally arranged" ?)
3.
A notable paradox that needs addressing is "Slavery vs. Freedom", to maximize The Good, we should submit our freedom and become slaves to The Good ... but isn't slavery Bad? I'll try to write an answer soon
If Simba was a chemist living in Colorado, then Simba the chemist living in Colorado would come to a lot of conclusions that agreed with Simba. Nala, living in Zimbabwe Savannah agrees with Simba's conclusions. She might not like Simba and think has wasted his time because his conclusions agree with hers. Nala in Zimbabwe Savannah will arrive at conclusions than Simba, chemist in Colorado. On the other hand, Nala might argue that she is already evaluating the variables correctly as the variables are present.
If Nala says abortion is permissible if we eat baby cub then Simba is free to agree. The rules are probably not good. If the rules were good we have prescriptive punishment people can disagree with. In one case Cardinal Bellarmine hangs Galilei Galileo because of poor sportsmanship. Galileo's scientific advance disagreed with evident truth.
Christianity is nice because it gives us peace of mind. If someone dies after a million hours of work it is peaceful. I think Christianity is concerned with the socially optimal outcome. The socially optimal outcome might be to disagree. The worry is Christianity is correct but we don't know why. We probably shouldn't kill Christians out of fear but they are frustrating people.
On November 02 2016 17:39 YokoKano wrote: I don't know about Philip K. Dick.
My best guess is red is life and black is death. There is no reason to suppose death is worse than the life. Death might be better than life.
There is a lot of potential DNA in weed.
I don't think humans should sort it out. Maybe they are too red.
Apart from some characters being omitted / merged with others, which is insignificant if you appreciate the idea-cogs in the concept machine more than the topping, I'd say PKD is the author whose literary work is most authentically represented in film-overs.
You could say 'well that's not his merit' and you'd be wrong.
EPT
