Common precepts of emergent biomoralism

Emergent biomoralism will be defined as the moral ideas which emerge as abstractions from cognitive biases. It is distinct from evolutionary political science in that a cognitive bias may or may not result in favoring one’s perceived group interests: it is merely a domain of beliefs which arise from common errors. Zodiacism may be described as a religious system which exploits cosmopolitan biomoralist cognitive biases to serve Luciferian religious ends. This is because emergent biomoralistic precepts are, by definition, highly intuitive. For example, an Aspergoid person need not be convinced at length that categorical, logical analysis is “good”—he needs only to be shown it exists to adopt it wholeheartedly and, lacking proper Christian grounding, he is likely to set it up as an idol to be worshiped.

A good example to characterize the distinction between Edenic evopolysci and emergent biomoralism is the emergence of Manicheism from binary thinking AKA dyadic thinking (Vox Day and Datapacrat’s terms, respectively). A binary thinker does not give mixed reviews of movies. It is beyond his comprehension to say something like “the acting was good but the music was bad”. He is limited to a single axis of analysis—there is only “good”, “bad”, and varying concentrations of these fundamental elements. Adjectives are then chosen not for their compound meanings but rather for varying strengths of the fundamental forces, e.g. “deleterious” does not mean secretly harmful, it merely means “somewhere between quite bad and very bad”. Typical Zodiacist Manicheism will limit its essential analysis to “order” and “chaos” in place of good and evil, although often conflating these categories. (In a SciFi or fantasy context one might prefer syntropy/entropy, homogeneity/heterogeneity, purifying/corrosive, enlivening/undead, etc.)

More examples:

Just World fallacy = abstracted social reciprocity
Karma = Egocentrism (as in child psychology)
Positivism = Solipsism + Self-efficacy
Idealism = Fetishism (in the religious sense, the inability to distinguish associations from the thing itself)
Materialism = Object impermanence
Nihilism = Ennui

I expect all five tenets of moralistic therapeutic deism are forms of emergent biomoralism. A continuation of this analysis would attempt to connect each recurring heresy with a population’s preferred fallacies. For example, the Catholic insistence on religious hierarchy could be traced to its adherents’ reliance on the appeal to authority fallacy, and likely correlates to a preference for large governments as well.

About Aeoli Pera

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

4 Responses to Common precepts of emergent biomoralism

  1. bicebicebice says:

    “I expect all five tenets of moralistic therapeutic deism are forms of emergent biomoralism. A continuation of this analysis would attempt to connect each recurring heresy with a population’s preferred fallacies. For example, the Catholic insistence on religious hierarchy could be traced to its adherents’ reliance on the appeal to authority fallacy, and likely correlates to a preference for large governments as well.”

    maybe all peoples have a built in selfdestruction mechanism, and a more interestiing look would be instead of “germans” or “the ancient greeks”, IF, certain edenic types can WIN at all in the long rune, if anyone can, or they need the help of another but anoter type might just precipitate the downfall, not saying it is inevitable but that is the question. the swede/german question is very easy, they are infallible, besserwissers that can’t make the best decisions, thus sweden is burning down right now because filling the country with sapes is better than having a firedefense because that is the swedish democraticly voted consensus on the subject and if the fire is a problem it is only a problem because we don’t have more immigrants here.

    Has Trump ever strayed from being an oompa loompa melon of the merchant-business class? No Clearly he is more stabile than an entire people, not prone to maybe not even capable of being swayed so to speak. This is what scares me the most, trained people who show no innate ability are mass-murderers in training taught to use anything as a weapon and they never dindunuffins because they are always right by consensus or some other shit. I hope sweden burns down to the ground and this hellish attitude disappears from the earth forever. Amen.

    Good post my dude very interesting

    • bicebicebice says:

      that was a bit confusing so here TLDR; one can only truly win by competing against oneself, if you start to become better than yourself you will be better than others who never went up against themselves barring a one trick savant-genetic freak.

      Some people might find this blackpilling because then you are truly your own man and fully realize that you can never fully depend on anyone for anything, this is why grown men only love God and their own children, and wait for Christ to come back and torch the world to separate the good from the bad.

      That is the end game.

  2. Ø says:

    I’d venture to say that dyadic thinking–that is, local coherence-obsession–has thus far been the great strength and the great weakness of Edenism

  3. Pingback: Re: Christianity as natural religion | Aeoli Pera

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s