Two attitudes toward the range and strength of taboos

I’ll use transubstantiation as the example. Conservative theologians will write entire books full of big theological words about why it’s a profound mystery that we can’t talk about directly. Liberal theologians will write short op-ed books saying it’s not a mystery, and this communion thing is old and overrated and we don’t need it anymore, we’ve evolved beyond needing it. Progressives would be better described as transgressives, because breaking social rules for the sake of breaking social rules is their core value (see also: swearing, drug use, and anything that seems like a good idea to an alienated young person). This is a great example because communion isn’t all that mysterious as these things go, and we do need it, so both types of theologian are wrong. If Christians eat together and talk about Jesus, that’s communion, and the symbolism is “you are what you eat” so if you eat the body of Christ you become the body of Christ. The rest is window dressing.

Cue the screeching.

I think what divides progressivism and traditionalism is a person’s attitude toward taboos. Conservatives have a preference for increasing the range of what can’t be spoken of or thought about, creating more taboos of greater tension, whereas liberals have a preference for deconstructing taboos and releasing the tension associated with them. This is an extension of the common observation that both continue to exist in the genepool as a way of regulating the speed of social change, where conservatives are generally the people whose reproductive strategy would benefit from keeping things more or less the same. This is my evopsych explanation for why traditionalism is correlated with a general factor of adaptivity but somehow traditionalists are still dumb as a box of rocks. (As a rule, if you want to understand human culture start with the belief that there are no good guys, but there are certainly worse guys.)

It’s because understanding a taboo leads to catharsis, and catharsis leads to change, which is a risky strategy. Therefore people who have more to lose and less to gain have a strong disincentive to think about anything relevant or important.

About Aeoli Pera

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

21 Responses to Two attitudes toward the range and strength of taboos

  1. yahoo says:

    A lot of big words to figure out how to directly talk about things that can’t easily be directly talked about. My interpretation of communion isn’t that you become what you eat, since you don’t literally become what you eat (it becomes you, you eat it because it’s appealing, you rob it of its essence in order to make it your own) it’s God giving us the ultimate chance of reaching him in the language we understand. It’s not a finality, and I guess that’s why it can’t be put to words. Not that I really understand communion, I’m a very bad christian. If I ever felt the need to eat a love one it’s not because I want to become him but because I treasure his presence so much I don’t want him to leave me. The aspect of it being appealing is where you start becoming what you eat.

    You’re obviously not saying that if we eat enough cows we become a cow, but it’s true that revering something (finding it appealing) will eventually lead to immitation. A hatred of God would naturally lead to a hatred of men, since men are made in the image of God, even if imperfect (very). Therefore we should interact with people. I think that’s your reasoning.

    I attempt to break taboos (deconstruct my morality) in order to understand them and try to speak in a language that taboo-breakers speak, I’ve encountered very little success with the people I want to speak to. Biggest barrier is that taboo-breakers have no concept of things necessarily having to be the way they are, so that things can change to fit whatever they feel it should be instead. The only difference between me and them is, if I’m right, what I say will work more often than not.
    >don’t cuck your sons
    <yeah, but, like, is that really bad? whoever said we shouldn't is oppressing us, things don't have to be as constrained as you think it is, dipshit
    <yeah, you're right, but like, we're all gonna die anyway so why not live life to the fullest
    <yeah, but I'm winning

    • yahoo says:

      >it’s not a finality
      Should expand, being accepted by God into heaven isn’t the final conclusion, the end of time, the final point and reason for existing. It’s be antithetical to claim God has an end.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Biggest barrier is that taboo-breakers have no concept of things necessarily having to be the way they are

      I sometimes wonder what it would be like to realize that the biological purpose of my existence is to make life more difficult for better people. If I did

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        …what purpose would that serve in evopsych terms? What would that imply about how I should live a moral life?

        I think this is unambiguously true for a large number of people but I don’t see much incentive for self-awareness.

        • thisiscorrect says:

          plainly put youre firstly not intelligent enough to grasp anything and secondly you are a hindrance to a better society. nothing you did helped anyone out.

          you made life far more difficult for everyone with your insentient ramblings. you are a lone wolf of chaos.

        • yahoo says:

          >I sometimes wonder what it would be like to realize that the biological purpose of my existence is to make life more difficult for better people
          Maybe relieving. I can finally be myself without even the slightest bit of shame! There’s probably a more elaborate moral explanation for their existence but I don’t have the mental energy, resources, or wit to figure it. I like Made in Abyss’s justification, everyone is just finding their value.
          I’m trying to figure it out, as it’s a very important question for me. I don’t even have the correct understanding of what motivates someone to such pure spitefulness, but I feel there’s some sort of love for something beyond the self in there. In the way that a murderer will kill someone because he feels that life is too fragile.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Something I’ve come to realize is that the gifted population seriously underestimates the impact of envy on everyday behaviors. They understand pride, etc., because those are emotions they’ve felt strongly, but they don’t tend to know what it’s like to be possessed by powerful, long-lasting enviousness.

            • yahoo says:

              I use to visualize the world as a desert, everything is a prop and an illusion overlaying the sand. Everything we perceive is really internal, we have no way of proving the existence of something that precedes our experience of it, any claim to that is really a claim of self-conceit. Right, until recently I didn’t realize there was still an intellect, a logic, that our own interacts with. Regardless of whether something is real it still follows the same principles of that intellect. Whether it’s real or fake it still affects us, and shouldn’t be automatically dismissed on the basis that it can’t be part of the logic of physical phenomena, especially since we can’t make a claim towards knowledge of that phenomena. Now I realize it’s not logical to claim the world is a desert and not also accept that my own mind is one too. Can this be put into anything actionable? No, there’s still the question of why it’s possible to do anything to begin with, and what moral reason can we claim to do anything within it.

              Right, we exist, all of our being is created by God, all the things we experience is one allowed by God, everything uses God’s wisdom to move and live. Our intellect is a pattern of changes and the patterns within changes of those patterns, our flesh is the material in which the fire of our intellect sustains itself on. The fire itself doesn’t change, the material must. Complete inaction of the material will extinguish that fire. The greater the material the greater the flame, the greater the intellect the bigger the apparent soul, but in reality we’re a small spark and our fire can be extinguished by a single blow. The soul exists regardless of whether it’s alive or not.

              I envy God, in the same way I envy anyone smarter than me. That’s probably the cause of original sin. I see no method of convincing someone that God doesn’t, in fact, just want your suffering, that he loves you. I can’t convince them of it but neither does that mean giving up on trying to help. I acknowledge I’m probably insane and I could just be blowing hot air, trying to convince people to not have fun. But I believe my own bullshit. It does hurt. This is all I can think of and I don’t think it’s complete.

            • jimbo says:

              Most people recognize deep down that our world is fucked up, amd God allows it.
              Don’t credit Him with wisdom, He is self-taught, He is managing a transition to a world where humans ascend, angels descend. He was never meant to create all of this, but He is a risk-taker. Good that He is.

              Satan still is in heaven, God amazingly can’t let him go. Until He does, nothing much good will happen. God is not perfect, we suffer as a result, for now. But He will change over time, when He has better advisers, and Satan is gone, although even Satan will be spared the lake of fire, like everyone else.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              God grant me the confidence of an internet heretic.

            • yahoo says:

              >I see no method of convincing someone that God doesn’t, in fact, just want your suffering, that he loves you
              That’s not the problem. The problem is they see weakness in God, that you should by the rules just because he’s said so, if God loved them or not, if he wanted the best for them or not, is irrelevant. Because they can they do. If he can’t contain them that’s clearly his fault, not their own. There’s no punishment for acting out, even if they are they’ll do it again. That’s their nature and the only cure is annihilation.

              I’m just posting out my thoughts and I feel that’s wrong to do here, especially since it’s not elaborated enough. I’m sorry.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              You wouldn’t be the first to write a blog in the comments of my blog.

  2. yahoo says:

    It’s all just Pascal’s wager. Accepting that the marshmallow will eventually come, believing in the adult, or rejecting that another marshmallow will ever come, what we have now is all that should be accepted. They’re trying to steal the marshmallow from you.

  3. I'd rather be a Centrist than a Conservatard. says:

    “where conservatives are generally the people whose reproductive strategy would benefit from keeping things more or less the same.”

    Yeah man. I’m a conservative. Yahooooo. I get my fast food daily. Can’t eat that healthy stuff like those retarded liberals. Then I might have to change, And all change is bad. Oh and my wife will actually lose some weight. Can’t have that now. The Smart Boys at the gym might take a liking to her, and I’ll have to admit I’m a freaking loser. Yeah man Conservativism FTW!

    • yahoo says:

      Being fat and overweight would be a transgressive flaw. The average Jap would better characterize Aeoli’s conservatives than a stereotypical American conservative would.

      • bicebicebice says:

        the lowliest top hat and cane 19th century conservative would have a hard time differentiating between a modern conservative and a liberal tranny just as any sinner from biblical times would cry HERETIC nonstop in the current year, can a conservative be made or are they naturally genetically born?Edenism is sorta like that Christian denomination tex converted to I don’t remember the name

    • Low Taxes, Free Markets, and Fembeen says:

      Me too. I literally get off on owning the libs with based Blacks and tranny housewives! As far as I’m concerned, nothing says, “Libtard OWNED!” like having a gay Black guy in a dress spout your stale talking points in order to prove that the Republicans aren’t, in actuality, a bunch of racist transphobes. You don’t have to be racist or transphobic in order to support low-taxes, deregulation, or monoclonal antibody treatments, and my traditionally FEMININE ladyboy housewife agrees with me!

  4. yahoo says:

    As God is the only objective measure of good, and that good isn’t something unique to either conservatives or transgressives as both of these things are only true relative to the other, the problem isn’t so much which edenic type is most worthy of heaven as it is of what precisely it is God measures when he judges us. By default I’ll hold that the spirit isn’t the flesh, and from that I’ll conclude with I have no clue what comes from the spirit and what comes from the flesh. I don’t know of a way of knowing so I’ll plan for the worse and hope for the best.

    It seems incredibly unjust for God to create a people just to damn them, unless I were to assume they simply had no souls to begin with. Look at jews to see where that takes you. I’m more prone to believe it’s a position built off of resentment and confusion, trying to make your own answer for why people don’t behave precisely as is demanded of them, as you expect them to. I won’t make a pretense of anything beyond ignorance. It’s probably best to just kill everyone you disagree with, if you can, but so far that hasn’t really worked out.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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