Religions typically have many silly rules which do not clearly establish their relevance to the goal of maximizing cultural evolutionary strategy. Judaism for example has 100s of rules in the Torah. Christianity for example tells us to never have sex without marriage, but doesn't explain clearly that the reason for this is because promoting a women's hypergamy is so destructive to a successful cultural evolutationary strategy. IMO, if the Bible was more direct to the point of relating rules to cultural evolutionary strategy and loose the superstition then it would make a lot more sense to smart, strong men.
In general, can complex concepts be explained properly to a child? What framework needs to be in place for a child to get from being able to speak to understanding predicate calculus?
Looking at it from a superorganism view, the collective human awareness may not have been able to process the ideas presented at that time without being significantly simplified until they became part of the culture - a maturation process on a collective scale. For a rigid enough mindset, studying geometry can elicit an anger response in the absence of an incentive to enforce patience and persistence. I suspect the teachings of Jesus at the time might not have been so different; just imagine explaining relativity to common people from the 19th century vs. people today.
On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.
And afaics, we don't need an unfalsifiable God for that.
Agreed -
Matthew 7:11. Do you agree that there is a small percentage of a population that can do this without reverting to the appeal of more immediate self-gratification in various forms? If so, a consistent focal point seems necessary to persist beyond human lifetimes and memories for those prone to reverting. History has proven that human leaders could not have been relied upon for consistency.
I'd prefer to ridicule or laugh at those doing wrong (or even be silent) while utterly obliterating them in the competitive race of cultural evolutionary strategy, not because I wanted to be vindictive but because I've found that the weak can eat me up and devour me (waste my time, etc). Strong men shouldn't need to make any blahblahblah, as their actions (e.g. proliferating their offspring of strong men) will make it so. Religion is weak because it requires a lot of blahblahblah to weak people who will never be entirely on board. A few words are enough for those who are truly trying to improve, as they are motivated to figure out what those words mean.
Nevertheless religion may be entirely necessary because the world will probably always have many more weak people than strong. Jesus said he spent his time with the weak, because that was were the low hanging fruit was where the most good work could be done. Nevertheless, I think still that finding the potential gems in the haystack of the weak will be more efficient with fewer words.
As you say, the weak are capable of overwhelming the strong due to sheer numbers. Didn't you admit your own past weakness? Is it possible that another may have concluded that you were beating your head against the wall and would never be entirely on board? Would that have been justification to dismiss you?
I was not motivated because I was not aware that anything was wrong. When I started to notice things were amiss I did become motivated, and so far have not become discouraged by what seems like a never-ending effort. I'm sure some had considered me a lost cause.
The point is that the weak became strong. Is it better to laugh and ridicule or to let actions speak and offer a few words as needed? Isn't the latter better for everyone? You're less stressed and the weak see a good example, even if they don't realize initially.
I've found that helping people too much usually destroys them. I believe in rescuing (even weak) people in moments of extreme distress where they could not possibly recover with their own effort alone. But I don't believe in helping weak people who habitually put themselves in extreme distress nearly all of the time, i.e. clearly not even trying to improve. In my view it is acceptable to help those who have an infrequent recurrent extreme distress if they are genuinely trying to figure it out.
Absolutely - let fools run into brick walls until they're ready to listen. Just don't stand in front of the brick wall when a herd of fools is running.
This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods -
Psalm 82:6My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.
I have been pondering the thought of what would a culture of strong men do with weak offspring. Would they outcast them from the group?
Excellent topic. I would wager a guess that it might be along the lines of
Spartan agoge, although some of the elements would be anachronistic.
I have thought that nature is stochastic thus even weak men are necessarily for resilience, i.e. Taleb's anti-fragility.
Thus we will always have the bell curve and I do think any strong men have to find a way to co-exist with weak mean, even if it is a contentious interaction.
Yes, a monoculture is prone to catastrophic failure; group-think can miss the most obvious of warnings.
I think that too much emphasis is being placed on weak aspects and not enough on indications of strength. Encouraging a latent strength allows for specialization to flourish, which in itself would be weakness without a social fabric to support interdependence in an appropriately structured manner. What that structure is depends upon the participants, and being part of the fabric builds confidence in the individual toward the structure (so long as it's in a healthy state, of course).
I am resigned to that when I die, I cease to exist except for my legacy. I do not feel any urge to know what is unfalsifiable.
Fair enough. I've had that perspective, so I'll simply share what changed mine.
If we are alone in the universe, it sure seems like an awful waste of space.It's stunning to consider how precarious humanity's existence is on earth. A myriad of known ways to be wiped out and all our legacies snuffed like so many candles.
Finally,
Pascal's Wager tilted me off the fence. What began as a conscious choice has become something far more surreal than I expected.
My gruff verbiage in that case is an attempt to be brutally frank. I think to be strong requires significant frankness about the characterization of weakness. Also I wanted to have the maximum impact while being succinct.
Also it is offensive, preemptive, pre-reaction to way Marxists and others who don't understand or agree with damned facts, tend to ridicule us when we try to use milder and calmer language to express these damned facts.
Yell at the ocean all you want and the waves will continue washing away your footsteps.
On forums, you've been looking for those who can grasp the architecture in detail or discuss controversial topics rationally. Take a step back after putting your work out there and let those with interest converse respectfully; those that can't will simply have to follow the thread or fade away. Hostility is mere noise, and reacting to it in kind simply adds more noise. Try giving yourself one paragraph in which to respond to antagonism.
Besides, inducing a stress reaction with antagonizing language tends to increase resistance toward getting an idea across.
The greatest insult.
It reflects that at this point we are in a war, and we are losing. We had better get our act in gear with actions. And not JAD's preference for a Trump dictator, because that isn't a viable solution. The solution must be decentralized and it must be an ideological shift in the thinking and actions of strong men. And to maintain that culture with male offspring, I think we require exposing the offspring to harsh realities of life, because words alone are not enough. And thus gruff verbiage may also need to be part of the mix of the education of male offspring.
Yes, there is no substitute for experience.