On Spirit (Owl convo)

I just learned something from talking to a neurotypical right after watching the Murdoch Murdoch movie. When normies say “truth” what they mean is “sense of meaning”, i.e. not the facts themselves but an emotionally satisfying explanation of the facts. It makes sense then to say “my truth” vs. “your truth” because the sense of meaning is ultimately personalized. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s 100% subjective, because all these roads lead to a single point called God, but there’s definitely a big subjective component to the roads themselves. I think when Murdoch’s “Sword of Truth” breaks on the Holocaust narrative, it’s the artist coming to terms with the idea that facts (“truth” as autistic people use the term) ultimately aren’t a lethal weapon. Whereas he finds the neurotypical type of “truth” inside himself, in his sense of connection to other people and, ultimately, the world itself, and this is what he uses to defeat Pillar of Souls Anne Frank.

There’s a bit about this in the famous Ephesians 6 passege I point to sometimes, where truth isn’t the sword, it’s the belt. The belt holds everything else together, but it’s not an offensive weapon. Whereas the weapon is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”. This idea that the weapon is Spirit is important, I think, because it BTFOs conservatives, which is a noble task. When people are overly concerned with truth, and especially if they spell it with a capital T, it’s a tell that they’re in a defensive posture. It’s like Protestantism and apologetics in general that way. Protestants, being autistic, are really into facts and apologetics and “defense”. This may have something to do with the movement being born in a defensive posture against the Catholic church’s abuses.

But you don’t WIN with facts. You don’t ADVANCE with facts. You just defend and entrench your position. You win with Spirit. That’s what people are really looking for, and that’s why 2016 energy happened. People felt connected, like their lives had a sense of meaning again. The enthusiasm followed. 2020 didn’t have energy because it wasn’t about asserting anything. It was entirely defensive. In King of the Hill terms, Trump wasn’t attacking the circle, he was defending it. He wasn’t Making America Great, he was Keeping It Great. So in this RPG, facts are your armor rating and Spirit is your attack power. And that’s why the Flake Filter says not to trust people who make a big show of their honesty. https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/04/30/flake-filter-notes/ People who talk about truth a lot are revealing that they spend most of their time in a defensive frame, and people who spend all their time in a defensive frame never accomplish anything.

So coming back around to the Spirit Question, how is this acquired? It’s obvious in retrospect that the purpose of life is to interact with other people. Meaning is a more difficult question which will divide people, on account of the personalize element mentioned above, but something everyone can agree on is that the measure of a person is how they treat people regardless of circumstances. An overwhelming feeling of “oneness” and connection in general is what characterizes religious experience. What connects all created things is their relationship with the Creator, which is why the experience of that exaggerated feeling of connection gives us a sense of meaning. In sensing a connection with every created thing, we get a glimpse of the Creator. The more connections we see, and the more strongly, the closer we get.

That’s what people are getting at when they wax metaphysical about capital-L “Love” as a principle that undergirds everything. But this sense of connection is a very feminine mindset in the final analysis, because it has no sense of the relative importance of things. So even though the vision is beautiful, it’s gay to try to internalize and personify that beauty. That way lies transgenderism. Assigning relative importance to facts comes down to trying to accomplish things in particular, rather than trying to accomplish every good thing at once (which could be the definition of hubris). So even though men are drawn to visions of beauty it’s important to come back to reality and pursue a more realistic, less perfect beauty.

This additional requirement is what fundamentally divides the spiritual experiences of men and women. They are both driven by the beautiful vision, but the masculine brain has to then concern itself with lowering its expectations and focusing on an achievable vision of beauty. Hence the autistic definition of truth as being facts. If you have a masculine brain and Spirit (i.e. sense of connection via realistic vision), then facts are just tools for building the vision. Some are useful, most aren’t. But the assumption is that you already have Spirit, because the people who have it are typically too busy to communicate it. Anyway, suffering and near-death experiences tend to do a better job of communicating it, and these happen in the course of ordinary life (ordinarily). Whereas the only way to communicate “connection” to people that I’ve seen is to pour resources into people who are in such poor circumstances that they can’t rationalize it away as buying their favor.

Plus, altruism appears to just plain not affect R-selected people. Or maybe it’s just that it doesn’t have external effects. But I think it’s more about them feeling less of a sense of connection to other people in general.

Well if you think the world just owes you things, you aren’t going to find it a touching event if someone gives them to you

Right, that’s what I’m thinking. So it makes sense people are okay with waiting for economic scarcity to produce this sense of connection in people, rather than trying to fight back the night. Unfortunately, it appears scarcity isn’t the only thing you need.

^Mythic truth. But scarcity does lower the cost of doing people favors that touch them deeply.
People aren’t deeply touched by receiving a hamburger unless they haven’t received one in a long time. It’s funny you brought that up, because this discussion of “truth” definitions came from a discussion of reciprocity. When I hear people say that believing in the existence of evil convinced them of the existence of some kind of good (“God”) to balance it out, it’s an alien way of thinking to me. I think this is from failing to develop my sense of social reciprocity on a normal timeline (i.e. puberty, that time of strange attachments and future nostalgia). I don’t see any more evidence for the universe demanding “balance” than I see evidence for human rights.

It’s similar to the matter of the hawk and the squirrel
The squirrel thinks that the hawk is evil
The hawk is just following its nature
Evil being a perception, but not one that maybe looks at the whole picture

I’m of the opinion that evil, like good, is not explainable by natural causes. But that said it’s often misdiagnosed by the squirrel.

Not that I sdisagree with the idea that the universe as a whole is basically a death trap and the idea of evil is a useful one to beleive in to survive, but ia ree that logically the concept of an “evil” doesn’t lead to a “good” because the definition of “evil” is a subjective one
Ah yeah, we’re basically looking at this the same way
Anyway, manichean thinking is usually a fallacy

Neurotypical thinking in general is at best concerning matters of Spirit, and at worst ignoble lies. During ordinary times, they would be mostly useful fictions, but during times of decline we see that the remaining fictions are just cowardly copes pretending to be useful. During times of incline I suspect there would be more reliance on Spirit/connection and less reliance on useful conventions (because when you’re dumb and not particularly connected, convention is adaptive). These days I think of the skin I have in other people’s games as analogous to the “stake” I own in their company. The connection came first for me but this is a useful way of explaining it.

The way I really think of it is that the people I care about belong to me a little bit. And if they care about me, I belong to them a little bit. A strong sense of connection is a highly interconnected network of people “belonging” to each other. That’s why we refer to it as a sense of belonging, or why people want to be somewhere they feel they belong. There’s the sense that when I belong to you and you belong to me, or you belong to your land and it belongs to you, these things become part of each other. A gain for one becomes a gain for the other, and a loss for one is a loss for the other. Similar to owning stakes in each other.

Feeling this way about something as objective as “land” is a bit autistic, and feeling it’s reciprocating is a bit neurotypical, so I think that has something to do with neurotypical men being more territorial.

Relative to les autists? Interesting
Never thought about it before but the initial impression is that it checks out

I think autists can be possessive but are less likely to think their possessions would miss them if they were gone. I.e. Tex is not likely to feel like his spirit will haunt his Vault after his death. It’s just a vault, it doesn’t possess a part of him. It’s part of him but he’s not part of it. Which is fine, because reciprocity is a human construct. No one’s being defrauded here. There is a bittersweet feeling that comes with visiting the home of your youth and seeing that it’s moved on without you. Good practice for death, I think.

Or aging in general

Yup. It gives you that reality check. The things of this world don’t care about you even a little bit. Don’t get too attached.

The world rotates without you
I suppose a healthy philosophy is that there is beauty in seeing old things with new perspectives and the full grandeur of the universe can be realized tis way
Or something to that effect

You can get that sense of connection with the Creator from the new things and the old things. But I think it’s unlikely to feel as strong since it’s more distributed. More mature though.
I think you’re stuck appreciating it as a masterpiece more than feeling it as an overwhelming singularity the way a child does. More like the satisfaction of bacon, eggs, and coffee on a regular Sunday morning than the sugar rush of babby’s first Halloween. When I put it that way, I’m okay with it. Well, I was plenty okay with it before, but put that way I prefer it. An average Sunday morning with birdsong and peace sounds way more appealing than Halloween excitement. Or Sunday morning with children screaming, but still, eggs and bacon and coffee.

Yeah, the contrast is the overwhelming wondrousness of the whole versus the quiet pleasures of the simple
Funnily enough, the is what they seem to aim for in monasteries

But when you add screaming children I can see how breaking up wondrous complexity with stuff like Halloween is nice.

Seeing God/the divine/the Buddha in each and every thing, in the stroke of the paintbrush rather than the viison of the entire painting
I really ought to have a better idea of which religions do “monasteries” now that I mention this

Yeah, I can see that being true though.

Christianity and Buddhism do

Most religions have an ascetic tradition.

Islam really doesn’t, with the centers of study being just that…centers of study more akin to seminaries

I would expect it to track with the incidence of introversion and interiority in general.

Don’t know enough about Sufism or the Druze, but the more mystic institutions tend to be more…not dencentralized, but certianly lacking in institutional structures liek what we would think of as a monastery
^”islam doesn’t” referring to manastary tradition, not ascetic tradition, to be clear
Shinto, possibly. Don’t know enough to say

Everybody knows Muslim mysticism is smoking weed and assassinating Templars. (Blaze it.)

Judaism more like Islam, long scholarly tradition but not a monastery one
Shamanism of many other religions definitely not the same thing


Man, I’m really fascinated with this question now…why did some religions develop a monastery tradition while others did not?
Geography? Crtain climates favor it more than others? but if so, hw?
Don;t know enough about hinduism to analyze it

Well, what do Tibetans and Europeans have in common? Mountains. So there you go. It’s mountains.

Which are often thought of as holy places,
Places of divine revelation

Yeah, I started taking it seriously after joking about it. Places for LOOKING DOWN ON THE COMMON. Which actually makes sense if you’re trying to connect the dots. If you’re trying to feel the connection between things, you’d want to see more of them.

And do so in an environment away from possible human connection
Now, counterpoint, south america is mountainous along its western shore, but no monastic tradition there

Okay then, mountains plus IQ? Mountains plus cold plus IQ? Aryan admixture? I don’t think the Tibetans are supposed to be Yamnaya though. You know, it’s funny to me that Hindus are already vegetarian. It’s like the Great Reset already happened in India long ago.

The funny thing is that vegetarianism in India is a function of geography more than anything else

Maybe anyone who ate the bugs bigot just died off and the vegetarians remained.

Aryan ancestry/case as well (higher=more likely veggie), but geography is the biggest factor
Well you gotta purity spiral.

The funny thing about gaslighting is the gas rises.

There’s always at least one person that needs to go even further byeond
Yeah, I did consider the indo-european angle as well
can’t rule it out either
But again, east asiatics

Well, I just assume that they’re vegetarians because the original Indo-europeans said it would be so. And then after a thousand years they started believing their own bullshit, as Indo-europeans tend to. You can’t have an empire of 85-IQ mudbloods all subsisting on burgers. The economy would collapse. See also: America. So you have to get them on a rice and potatoes diet. Man, now I want a burger. I have chili, I’m gonna warm some up.

And cheaper to feed, weakens the body politic, ensures the position of the meat-eating castes…etc
Not that that explains why brahmins are above warriors but there’s room for a hypothesis about drift/believing the bullshit over thousands of years

(Blazin’ one for my homies in Texas with neither food nor heat.)

Who messes with Texas? As Tex says, the tech sez ITZ COMING

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O0BGa3rCRw

About Aeoli Pera

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

7 Responses to On Spirit (Owl convo)

  1. swell_dude99 says:

    aryan: if you touch my cow i’ll kill you
    hindu: oo shit big vhite god man say noo touch cow is sacred now
    academic: the adoption of ethical pacifism by ancient indians represents a major development in the rich tradition of bla bla bla

  2. Dexter says:

    So you’re Holocaust-pilled too? Some of the evidence I’ve seen put against it such as in Ron Unz and Arthur Butz’s work, or on CODOH, has been quite compelling when I consider it objectively (something I can do better than most). However, I’m very frightened of the implications if most of it really is a ‘hoax’. That’s not something that causes me to revise my view, but it really is a damning indictment of human objectivity and intelligence. What you say about normies is true.

    Found out recently that a family member, who is quite systematic and objective and liberal, believes that ‘Holocaust denial should be illegal because consequences’… quite surprising how people like this can believe such things. Many such cases. Sad.

    I don’t think one should completely ignore consensus completely, though – esp if they are on large-scale events, the prior probability that they are true is quite high. If you go down the rabbit hole and the evidence suggests otherwise, then posterior probability will be lower. This is what normies can’t do.

    If what these people (Unz, etc..) say is true, then history really is written by the winners.

    Any suggested readings on physiognomy? Koanic seems to have stopped blogging…

    Will post shorter comment next time, promise.

  3. wally says:

    ‘It’s obvious in retrospect that the purpose of life is to interact with other people.’

    Nah, not that. Ecclisiastes 12: ‘When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: Fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man.’ Pretty clear cut that.

    Be holy, don’t interact with unbelievers, unless you’re witnessing to them. If no go, shake the dust off your feet etc. Don’t be friends with them.

  4. aiaslives says:

    > That way lies transgenderism

    IDK if you knew this but something like ~20% of the Rationality (capital R) community is either trans or has some measure of autogynephilia. Kind of insane, realizing many comments on SlateStarCodex are from these people.

    > Plus, altruism appears to just plain not affect R-selected people.

    It does affect them, they immediately file you in the “sucker” category.
    If you teach sapes manners (“thank you”), you’re just cultivating a dependent mindset in them. They’ll start craving saying “Thank You”.

    > I think autists can be possessive but are less likely to think their possessions would miss them if they were gone.

    I think that’s wrong. The way I see it, things I stop maintaining (aka stop owning) just die for me.
    This is why taking pictures / writing down your experiences is important, and if doing it digitally, you don’t get to use backspace / delete. Writing it down on paper is much better because your handwriting communicates emotion in a manner that digital text can never.
    It’s weird but I even takes pictures of clothes that don’t fit any longer. Spend enough time in front of the mirror wearing a shirt and it becomes “me at 15yo”.

    > Well, I just assume that they’re vegetarians because the original Indo-europeans said it would be so. And then after a thousand years they started believing their own bullshit, as Indo-europeans tend to.

    This is true, BUT their sense of projecting into the future isn’t their social environment, but what their elders are doing. If they’ve been eating X for what their elders say is living memory, then they’ll only be dissuaded when it literally vanishes. And even after, there’s a big chance that something will just get renamed to the thing that vanished.

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 )

Connecting to %s