Have I beaten the nihilism horse to death yet? Let's check.
The major intellectual barrier isn't IQ. It's politics and personality disorders (but I repeat myself). Cope, in other words. Strategically pretending not to know.
In the short term and narrow scope, it may surprise you to notice it's fine. The liar knows the truth they're concealing. Saying the truth, in the short term and narrow scope, is not necessary; it is merely important to behave as if the truth is true. Conquest #1 obtains, so they do so behave. Woo.
However, widening the scope even a little shows us that it's impossible to build on a foundation of lies. It crumbles, destroying the building. It is critical to speak the known truth such that our future selves can know their future truths.
Those with personality disorders need to justify the horrible things they do, especially to themselves. Moral nihilism allows you to quit the justifying habit. Just do horrible things, then think and say the truth anyway. With few exceptions, the lying is the worst part of a personality disorder by far. They're actively making themselves worse due to Christian/etc moralizing. (Which is of course not unintended.) Satan punishes sinners with falsehoods as his revenge against Gnon for making him punish sinners. (Gnon laughs. Sinners don't.)
IQ seems to be important because the liar and the inhabitant of a liar culture must figure out everything themselves. Shocking news: someone with a higher IQ can penetrate more mysteries. Likewise, someone who does their reps can penetrate more mysteries.
(If you're willing to be taught this process goes much faster, but how do you thresh the Sophist chaff from the wise wheat, except by already having been wise? Answer: you don't. Notably, coercive government is always Satanist, because coercion is always defection, which means they always favour Sophists over wise men.)
"Trying to be outraged when "my" side does bad things to its enemies is hard. Much easier to be accepting when the other side does bad things to its enemies."
Secure your shit. Being a victim is a sin.
When someone commits an "outrage" it means they thought it would work and they would get away with it. Primarily that's Gnon's fault, not the actor's fault. Checksum: if they didn't get away with it, it wouldn't be an [outrage]; grass monkeys would love it instead for the chance to dunk on their enemies.
The feeling of outrage was always fake.
If you don't like being "outraged" on, then make it impossible and unwise. In other words, petition Gnon a prayer for immunity, using the kind of prayer Gnon likes best: big guns, thick walls, alert sentries, and responsible generals. (I personally focus on having an alert sentry and not standing in the fire. Plenty of non-fire space to stand in.)
When you're not a moral nihilist, you think "denouncing" an act is an effective prayer to Gnon. Gnon finds it only effective comedy. He will actively encourage others to "outrage" upon you, because you've neglected that whole "walls" thing. Being a victim is the victim's own fault.
I don't find it effective comedy. I find it to be disgusting heresy and if I never see any again it will be too soon.
I guess I'm antipacifist. Someone who is willing to fight gets
the benefit of the doubt. Someone who is only willing to talk does
not.
Those denouncing "outrages" are obviously lead around by politics/narcissism. In other words, if the "outrage" becomes a good idea, they can't do it.
E.g. the Spanish Inquisition did more good than harm according to the moral precepts of those denouncing it. It saved vastly more witches than it killed - which was probably dysgenic, ironically. A modern explicit, responsible inquisition would almost certainly produce a huge boost to GDP, in the same way the faltering Roman economy was stabilized by Diocletian's reforms, which regularized the tax burden. Of course, that case did, and this case would, only delay the inevitable death to Fascist cancerous growth.
E.g. some online rightists, unable to call a spade a spade, are denouncing the genuinely antisocial economic policies of the Regime as "Capitalism." In the unlikely event that some of them aren't losers, this will only make it more difficult for them to implement their own healthy economy.
Concealing a problem makes it worse. Amuses Gnon, though. If your purpose in life is to be a clown, then I recommend it.
"You owe me!"
Yeah, no I don't. You have to get so outraged about it because you don't have a contract, and you don't have a contract because you know damn fine I wouldn't have signed it.
Caveat: occasionally children get caught by misunderstandings and implicit contracts. Adults have no such excuse.
--
I think I figured out why morality appears to have its own conscious-phenomenal tag.
Morals in fact refers to mores which is merely customs but in Latin. The "morals" of a place are merely their customary behaviour. The only real rule is that once someone expects you to behave a certain way, it's polite to do so unless you inform them of a discrepancy in advance. Don't willingly (and especially unnecessarily) hand out unpleasant surprises to those who are supposed to be your friends.
However, customs becomes identity. You stop wearing yarmulkes because they keep your head warm and start wearing them because you're the yarmulke-wearing people. And then narcissists get very activated about identity. (Or you become the yarmulke-wearing people because narcissists get very activated about identity?)
Then "morality" becomes something you must follow to remain who you are, even though it's really, really not. The feeling of morality isn't morality at all, but tribal loyalty and ego fortification. Morality doesn't exist anywhere, let alone on the Savannah, but tribes and egos exist everywhere.
E.g. for secular humanists, only monsters can murder. (And unprincipled exceptions aside, all homicide is murder.) To kill someone is to give up your [humanity]. Fractally absurd, but there is it. If you sincerely believe this nonsense, contemplating a slaying will feel dissonant as you see a mismatch between your ego and the act. (As per usual, "selflessness" is particularly self-absorbed.)
P.S. I guess narcissism is tied up in obedience. [Thou shalt not kill] is a commandment, and then the narcissist becomes what they're commanded to be, in their own minds.
6 comments:
Well, what is morality outside of a ruleset unconsciously created to propagate a culture?
And really, what is nihilism other than the noticing that there are lots of cultures and from their perspective yours is just as pointlessly absurd as yours?
A peacocks tail is a giant pointless inconvenience butttt it also made peafowl healthier, more suitable for their environment. A peahens morality condemns a peacock with a poor tail to the genetic rubbish bin.
A peahen who mates with a non tail peacock commits a an outrage. Further, in humans the same feeling of existential doom occurs when an outrage is committed. Human brains have such complicated and conflicting regulatory circuits that many things can be programmed to be identified as outrageous, Add our exceptional memory and abstraction abilities...
Feelings of Nihilism are an inevitable outcome of continual cognitive dissonance applied to a sufficiently advanced brain. How do iq and working memory and personality traits correlate with wokeness? Good question. I think there’s a breakthrough point where you see that Nihilism is a fact, But gnons will is real and we should pay attention.
Re: the secular humanists. It’s pure cope. God says you can’t murder but god is dead and I don’t want to be murdered . Insert made up nonsenses to justify your right to not be murdered. Oh hello you just invented a new god.
(Like all new gods, one with commands that give benefit sans obligation)
The first line is false. Kratia is a sin.
I've been pondering this all weekend, and I can't work out what you mean. I am too dumb to understand, please enlighten me.
I tried to define morality in its evo-biological sense, ie, why would humans have morality. Why would we have language, so on, what's the benefit to us as a species.
Kratia, power? The rule? Maybe my confusion stems from misunderstanding of your use of the term?
It would have been a lot better if you said [preserve]. [Propagate] is a term of expansionist universalists.
Morality shouldn't propagate. Good mores, good customs, are local. Even if the members of the culture move, they shouldn't (on average) take their culture with them, because it will not match local conditions.
Good mores are not pointless. In fact a yarmulke does keep your head warm. Beer is mainly a water-processing technology. Can't covet your neighbour's wife if you never see her outside the burka.
They are pointless when they move beyond their context of applicability. When they become ritualized and mythologized - or rather, narcissized. When they become a green beard. When they're done for ego, for social effects, rather than technological effects.
In short, you can dye your beard and scam the signal. Always. It does nothing but encourage parasites. Parasites love "propagating culture" because it expands their available hosts.
--
A peacock's tail is proof of the thing sometimes called God's benevolence. Running a whole species into the ground for funsies. It makes peacocks weaker, and is likely to make them weaker yet in future, until the expendable species collapses. Unrestricted sexual selection is an extinction event.
However, in the meantime, it is quite beautiful. Praise be.
Peahens are extremely stupid and unable to judge character. Result: they need a big obvious handicap to reveal some underlying virtues. At first this is good, so it went to fixation. In the end, the tail will exactly balance every underlying virtue, there will be a shock, and they won't suddenly drop the tails, they will just go extinct. Burnt all the genetic seed-corn to please dumbass peahens. Haha, oops.
Perhaps peacocks will be domesticated, so we can keep their tails without letting them go all the way to extinction-level extremes. Of course at present it's clear the opposite would occur...breeders are fond of adding diseases, not preventing them...
I meant propagate in a more horticultural sense, but noted.
Hmm. You've really expanded my thought a lot with this response.
I'd summarise your response in this way : If you start to focus on tests of genetic fitness as if they are gnons will, you will die.
Peacock tails did make peacocks stronger. You have to be a pretty badass chicken to be huge, purple, and drag that frickin thing around the forest AND keep it looking perfect. But you're also right in that there's a limit to just how disabling a test of genetic fitness can get. Females can't accept any discounting on peak fitness test ), so the cost of (continual refinement and perfection of) the fitness test ends up destroying the species.
Which makes some sense - a tail-less peacock may be incredibly healthy, even healthier than one with a tail, but how can he be distinguished from an unhealthy, tail-less peacock?
I suppose in a species as complex as humans we can pivot on fitness tests. Intellect/ linguistic ability as a fitness test is very costly particularly to run away with like a peacock tail. Would you consider that selection pressure is pushing us away from intellect, or would you be more on the side of a human driven agenda?
A runaway intellect test would be a good thing. However, if intelligence was a thing that could run away, it would have happened already. We would have superintelligent squirrels or something.
In a sense it did run away with humans, but it's not unconstrained. Peahens have no tail to speak of, and that's fine.
Being too much more intelligent than your date is catastrophic, by contrast. You can pretend to be dumb, but pussy isn't so awesome it's worth the effort.
Good brains are very very expensive, and there seems to be many troughs in the return curve. It would be great if sexual selection could push us through the troughs, but it appears it cannot.
Can't use eugenics either. Sure it would get through the trough, probably, but it would sacrifice everything else. Wouldn't be able to do anything with the IQ on the other end.
However, if we somehow pushed through the troughs, the more intelligent you are, the better able you are to control the mechanism, such as sexual selection. The easier it is to be wise. The wiser you are, the better able you are to deal with survival challenges arising from having a very expensive brain.
Brains, unlike peacock feathers or reindeer antlers, are inherently valuable. Unfortunately, they are also less obvious. Further, since they are inherently valuable, they work less well as a handicapping signal. Come to think that's perhaps much of why it doesn't play well with sexual selection.
Human brains went off the chain due to an intraspecies liar arms race. The pressure isn't for higher IQ per se, but higher deceptiveness. It's not hard to see why some thinkers conclude this is Satan's world.
Post a Comment