Culture war, part 1

Religion is to genetics as bones are to muscles. The culture war Westerners find ourselves in is an existential conflict between competing worldviews. One of these worldviews is Christian, and the other is willing to believe whatever is expedient for winning (for the moment). The latter has been tearing at the cultural foundations of Christendom since its conception, leading to great confusion. Christendom has thus far been unable to make significant inroads against its competition’s worldview because the foundations are mysterious and difficult to discern through all its vagaries and deception.

What is culture?

Culture is the effort to provide a coherent set of answers to the existential situations that confront all human beings in the passage of their lives.

Daniel Bell

Here are some examples of existential questions:

What will happen when I die?
What’s the meaning of life?
How should I conduct myself?
Am I loved?

The answers to these questions are more important to us than our daily bread, and the pursuit of them goes far beyond praxeology and perhaps even psychology. Ravi Zacharias describes these dimensions of the human heart as the four pillars of culture: eternity, morality, accountability, and charity. If a culture loses its answers to these questions, it respectively loses the units of existence, essence, conscience, and beneficence.

What will happen when I die?
(Nothing -> loss of existence -> existentialism)

The other components are left as an exercise for the reader.

The human heart will not abide a vacuum. But this was part of the master plan to replace these components with materialist alternatives.

Eternity -> Utopianism
Morality -> Utilitarianism
Accountability -> Totalitarianism
Charity -> Socialism

You’ll please note that these are all religious conceptions of the nation state, which will be the subject of part 2. But we were created for worship, and as I said before the human heart will not abide a vacuum. Therefore these secular alternatives will, in turn, be replaced by their one-world religion equivalents when the cultural masquerade is concluded.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Culture war, part 1

  1. Koanic says:

    Profound

  2. glosoli says:

    Kind of feels like all of the ‘isms are packaged as a religion already.
    How else could so many people believe in a system that is clearly bonkers.
    Worshipping a Kardashian or a Clinton, believing that lies are truth.

  3. Santoculto says:

    The orthodox Christian charity seems wasn’t quite effective to provide social justice during the tzar regime.

    Seems a false dichotomy because both of existential systems are very similar one each other in crucial ways. Both are predominantly irrational.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      This appears to be a general problem. Power and benevolence don’t run together except on the larger scale (high trust makes bigger factories making bigger bombs).

      >Seems a false dichotomy because both of existential systems are very similar one each other in crucial ways. Both are predominantly irrational.

      My treatment here is intended to be pre-rational. And yes, they are similar in many ways by necessity and by design.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Aeoli, did you see this article linked on Scott Adam’s blog? Some Artificial Intelligence researchers found that algorithms that were delusional often beat the pants off truth-based algorithms in head to head competitions.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/09/06/492779594/what-if-evolution-bred-reality-out-of-us
    ” … an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won’t see any distinction between small and large — it only sees red — even though such a distinction exists in reality.”

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Yeah, I saw when glosoli posted that. Not really a surprising result, it definitely emerges in humans. I can’t knock it though, having children is obviously an extremely irrational and delusional decision but not a bad one.

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    “Given an arbitrary world and arbitrary fitness functions, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but that is just tuned to fitness.”

  6. Edenist Whackjob says:

    I need to vent about Myers-Briggs.

    I’m so annoyed with reading “you can’t change your archetype” again and again. It truly is astrology for nerds.

    Why can’t I change my type??! Is it somehow set in stone for all eternity? That’s either a categorical claim, in which case useless, or an empirical one, in which case requiring extra-ordinary evidence.

    There’s four ways MBTI can work:

    1. Closed system, empirical. Ie MBTI is based on reality and every deviation is rationalized (“you’re really using Fi, you just need to read the function descriptions more closely”). This one is truly bizarre. They give lip-service to the notion of MBTI being a map of reality, then leave no way to disprove the map. True cult behavior.

    2. Closed system, categorical. MBTI is more of a map-talking-about-itself, something like “all bachelors are single”. I think this is what most MBTI folks are really talking about. Sure, it becomes impossible to type-change, but that’s because the model doesn’t pull any weight anymore. It’s begging the question. It sucks people in with the lure of gaining insight and laying intricate puzzles – but it’s all self-referential so it doesn’t offer any real-world edge.

    3. Open system, empirical. See Dario Nardi, for instance here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/myers-briggs-and-jungian-cognitive-functions/50366-dario-nardis-neuroscience-personality.html What you find here is that the map “kind of” fits, but you start to see that there could be a much better one which covers the edge-cases. Once edge-cases start to become more common than the normal cases, you really ought to throw out your model. I look forward to the Nardi-Pera Type Indicator.

    4. Open system, categorical. No idea what this would look like.

    Thoughts?

    • Edenist Whackjob says:

      I guess #4 would be one where you keep adding epi-cycles. See for instance Beebe’s “shadow functions”.

    • Heaviside says:

      Ideally, a personality should be just as replaceable as a mask.

    • Koanic says:

      Psychogeometry is #4. You can’t change your cranial dimensions, but we’re always learning about expression ranges, and trying to alter them.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      This is a weird rant. Do you hang out somewhere with MBTI dogmatists?

      MBTI as stated is clearly a closed system by design, and categorical in its original conception. The fact that it corresponds to reality (more or less) makes it empirical (more or less). “Empirical” just confers greater rigor to this idea of corresponding to reality, meaning people put more effort, time, and thought into experimentally checking the model.

      I consider it an incomplete map, but also a very useful one to have around.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s