Soycial Oil of the Divine Snake & Cultivators Cultivate Self-Harm

 When writing, the virtue signalling fails and one's true issues come forth.

 "He tried, but he kept coming back to that disastrous commerce raid. Where was the compassion there? Where was the compassion for his Earthly Realm brothers and sisters? When he sat with Brother Long through his last night, perhaps that was compassion, but so what? Wasn’t he dead anyway? All the people he gave first aid to, all the lives he saved, didn’t they die anyway? And yet somehow, he and Hong, the ones who hid, survived and collected the rewards. And the one who earned best was the one who spent their lives most easily- the great hero Ku.

"A person who achieved great merits for the sect. Who tamed a mighty monster, and slew a great villain while weakening, very slightly, the power of Black Iron Gorge through sect-sponsored banditry.

"So damn compassionate. So compassionate, so frugal, so humble, it made Tian want to puke. But somehow, somehow, the heretics were worse. It seemed like it shouldn’t be possible, but they were."
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/107917/sky-pride/chapter/2335156/chapter-35--the-first-of-the-three-treasures

 Despite his intentions, the author has correctly modelled a realistic situation. Probably this is cryptamnesia, he's copying an event he saw in real life, except with fantasy instead of distracting, irrelevant details. 

 The one who spent the lives of others, intentionally and with callousness aforethought, got the most rewards. This is exactly why the heretics exist. The orthodox have set up a soyciety which doesn't punish this sort of behaviour, which means they set up a soyciety which does punish this sort of behaviour, by being incapable of defending itself from the heretics. 

 This ku seemingly accrues great rewards. All of which will have to be spent defending himself against someone higher up likewise spending his life with callousness aforethought. He might die anyway. You perform all these moral [sacrifices] and it turns out the profit is 0.
 The amish are as happy as billionaires, but never had to deal with HR. Never have to make a "voluntary" contribution in their lives.
 If you follow this thread to the end, it's about mortals pretending they can provide a replacement of the divine, and likewise pretending they don't notice how comprehensively they're failing.

 In real life, rewarding viciousness rather than discouraging it will directly fund heretics. If spending lives is subsidized, then you maximize the subsidy, maximize your payday, by spending as many lives as possible. The [heretics] in this story are merely doing it without the denial phase, as another example of the fact Jedi are a kind of Sith. Sith, but with a shallow, monochrome whitewash. Which is another way of saying everyone, even dumbass fiction writers, knows christians worship satan; christians merely say they oppose satan. When the bibble claims nobody is righteous, not a one, the subtext is, "Nice job, keep up the good work."

 In this story - not that the author does or can know this - defence against heretics would require that the wuxia level cultivators can trust the xianxia levels not to fuck them over.
 "The orthodox cultivators, Ancient Crane Monastery very much included, genuinely believed in the three supreme virtues."
 Nope! Not even a little! Haha, good joke! The virtue-signalling managed to flicker back on, see. When the author stops telling the story and starts describing the story he thinks he's telling; the story he wants you to believe he believes he's telling.
 The wuxias can't make the relevant reports without being ripped off or even directly punished. The messenger will be shot, thus nobody carries messages. Hence, the heretics can operate with sufficient impunity. The wuxias are mistaken for allowing themselves to be associated at all with the xianxias.
 Should have joined the heretics. At least, lived in their city.
 Don't get horrible curse poisons crippling you for life if you're on their side, if you can win a war against them from afar, you can win even easier from inside, heretics clearly have hiding arts which you need against the xianxias...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Choosing the orthodox path is assenting to barbarism and betrayal. Wrong in every way unless the goal is self-mutilation.
 Which is why the wuxias associate with the xianxias; getting killed was the point. They don't change because it's working as intended.

 Xianxia in general is embarrassingly accurate. Hardly anyone makes it up the ranks... It's specifically because they all assent to self-mutilation. The only ones who achieve transcendence are the misfits who tried to cut off their own path and failed. That's why it's rare, why it seems there's no set path, no blueprint. It's trying to end up in Hell and missing. By [overcoming] the will of [Heaven] they mean overcoming their own free will. Internally overturning a cosmic law to avoid having to simply choose a different choice - that's xianxia.

 The [tribulation] they get when ascending the stage is Heaven trying to helpfully kill them, the way they wanted. "Bro that isn't how you commit suicide, here, let us help." And, the bards tell us, it is indeed helpful nearly every time. As often as could reasonably be expected.

Ultimate Law, Morality but Real, Alphomega Justice

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits, of the individual scope and the wide scope, is often found under the umbrella of morality. There is no such thing as universal mores, so that's an issue. This issue can and should be solved individually, and I will now explain in exhaustive detail. Keep in mind that, as it turns out, making it non-moral and just fixing it solves all supposed problems found under the [morality] umbrella.

 

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits should be decided by making society benefit the person, and as such upholding society is always the best personal move. The tension is fake and γαι, more on that later.

  Bitcoin doesn't fix it, but a simple contract does. Society agrees to provide benefits to the member, according to their individual preferences and costs thereof, and in exchange the member agrees to provide benefits to society so that society is capable of maintaining and increasing its benefits.
 The member agrees not to harm society's ability to provide him with benefits because he can't gain more from such harm than he loses in the benefits.
 The member agrees to let the society use force to stop him if he contravenes his stated word.*
Society agrees to pay its debts and to forgo enforcement on the member if it is found to have failed to provide the benefits, or to have applied unagreed costs.
 They agree on a method of determining when the contract is breached, which is isomorphic to deciding the exact terms of the contract.

 *Which is why 98% women don't go well with contracts, and can't be full members of society. If you try to use stated words like this, enforcement costs will exceed the benefits of the contract. Unprofitable. She should be a member of a family which deals with society on her behalf and likewise deals with the foid on behalf of society.
 It's hard to tell through all the modern degeneracy, but perhaps enforcing the given word of a male peasant is also more expensive than any benefits society can receive from the peasant. Like women, the peasantry has to be held in conservatorship, though in this case by a lord rather than by a family.
 In each case, rather than agreeing not to cause harm, the livestock in question has to be physically prevented from having the opportunity to cause harm to society. If this can't be cost-effectively done, then they are wild and go in the wilderness, not in the city.
 If you can't marry a woman you can't rape her either - not part of society, these roles don't apply. On the topic of exceptions, perhaps 1% of women don't have to be held in conservatorship; rare but not vanishingly so, and it's feasible to test for this in advance.

 

 Notice that this contract is not a phd dissertation. You don't have to be a world-historical genius giant astride the world to think of this. In part this is why I can speak abstractly. I don't need to specify an engineering blueprint for arbitration, because you can competently figure that out for yourself. Difficulty: average adult level. The difficulty of the idea is not what prevents anyone from using it.

 What's hard about this is in fact that's it's so obvious, that it really is like explaining that the sun rises in the morning. The challenge is having it occur to you to try at all. No really, imagine that vividly; you're having an issue with a subordinate at work, or a contractor, and it turns out the root problem is that they don't know the sun rising makes it morning. How long does it take until it occurs to you to explain that the sun rising makes it morning?

 The contract is not used because mortals make soycieties, not societies, and the point of those is to harm their members for the benefit of other members who claim to benefit on behalf of soyciety. Collectivism. Often, causing harm and getting away with it is the whole benefit in question; just in case you thought soyciety had any shred of legitimacy.

 Anyone who doesn't want to solve the tension of person with society by making society benefit the person is obviously trying to benefit a person, themselves, at your expense. Fake and γαι. They are a criminal, and they go in the stocks.

 Empires fall because they are soyvilizations. The purpose of soyvilization is self-mutilation, it works as intended, thus soyciety dies. 

 Having done malice, let's also do stupidity. 

 The usual method of philosophical morality is a weird combination of bottom-up and top-down, where they try to apply morality top-down by deriving it bottom-up from principles.
 We already know what we want from society. Benefits in exchange for service. It's a lot easier to test a prototype for errors rather than attempting an exhaustive search of all possible moralities. Turns out there aren't any errors, you can just do the obvious thing. Sign a contract with society's representative such that you're promised benefits in exchange for services, and apply a reasonable arbitration and enforcement mechanism. That's it.

 

 I feel it's important to repeat that it's ungrateful for society to provide no benefits. Being a member should profit the member. If society doesn't value you, there is no reason for you to value society, or more precisely there is no reason for you to value your contribution to society if society itself doesn't. Go ahead and believe it. Don't spend stuff to no benefit, even beyond not cooperating with defectors. Society should express its value of you in cold hard cash, because it's sufficiently difficult to fake that signal. Taxes are soyciety, the exact opposite of how a society functions. You should be charging society rent for the privilege of your membership.

 I charge soyciety rent too, but you can always con a dishonest man; its illegitimacy means it can't enforce any demand for benefits in return. Its attempt at parasitism makes it vulnerable to parasitism. The only downside is that eating soyciety means eating soy. It's a food, that's what it's for, but on the other hand it's soy.

 

 There is no reason the individual benefits of the individual members can't be individualized, except cost constraints. And logical coherence, which applies to everything. Some benefits cost society more than the individual can or is willing to provide in return. Next you can't value costs not being costly, or value receiving more from society than you can afford. Meta-values are generally invalid, due to the series failing to converge.
 Within reason, everyone can have their own idiosyncratic social contract.
 More importantly, this is Freedom. !!Freedom!! even. Any reasonable arrangement of values is compatible with this social contract.

 Insofar as being individualistic is costly, then perhaps some conformity is accepted for higher reverse-taxes. It depends entirely on what the individual wants, how much they want it, and how much they can pay society for the privileges. The contract can be re-negotiated, again subject to transaction costs, but when it's valuable it can be done. 

 Because it can be re-negotiated, I don't have to work out arbitration and enforcement from first principles. If something isn't working, try something different. Can simply use known solutions until a problem is found with them through praxis. Can use new ideas whenever and to whatever extent is reasonable. In short, your security doesn't have to be my business, the business of theoreticians. !!Freedom!! Likewise anyone who chooses wrong doesn't damage my business. He has to take responsibility himself.

 In some cases power and flexibility have no tradeoff, no conflict. In the case of the social contract, not only can you maximize both, increasing one increases the other. 

 All enforcement is what the individual finds reasonable. Or they don't sign; they don't sworn to contribute to society. 

 Enforcement on those outside society is highly contaminated by [[collectivism]]. If you think about what they want at all, with the exception of offering them something to entice them to sign the social contract, you're getting scammed. They won't pay you for your regard; they don't value it. Giving them any regard is imagining value they don't have.
 Treat outlaws like outlaws. Outlaws might be bipedal and featherless, maybe they can speak a language, but in spade language they're wild animals and should be treated like wild animals. Do whatever it takes to minimize the costs they impose on you. Force them to stay out, basically; pay the cost of a fence and you're good. The only correct place for an outlaw that's inside city boundaries is a zoo. Their complaints are as meaningful as a buzzing fly unless they're making a credible bid to sign the social contract and be subject to its rules. 

 For anyone confusing outlaws with other societies, note that societies should sign contracts with each other. What is valid diplomacy? What is invalid? How do passports work? What is an act of war? It says all this in the contract. Agreed to in advance. 

 Sadly mortals do not have reasonable arrangements of values, and can't form societies. Regardless of their ability to adhere to their given word, they will choose not to adhere to it; breaking their oaths is a common terminal goal for mortals. Soyciety only. They swear, that they might betray. Have to pick up some loyalties if you don't have any, or you can't betray them.

 P.S. Get fucked all the way up your ass, plato. Get fucked until your brain is pulped from the bottom. Justice could eat feet first and you wouldn't know what hit you. "Why am I dead? What happened?" Get fucked except you would probably enjoy it. I suppose that technically means we both win. Soyciety is footnotes to plato, society is anti-plato. Soyciety is when plato is under-raped.

 You may note that soycieties do try to mimic society in certain respects. There are, allegedly, rules about diplomacy. It always ends up startlingly corrupt. There's no explicit social contract because the owners of soyciety refuse to pay penalties for breaking their word. And soyciety members mindlessly let them. On the contrary, diplomacy rules are designed precisely to be subverted preferentially by one group instead of another. Result: catastrophic decay.

 Moral of this story: don't be human. Discriminate against humanity. Humanity is why you can't have nice things. Help me find other anti-humans.
 Alt: prove me wrong. Sign a social contract and form a society. Pwn me good, show me your gigantic reverse-tax bill.

Minor on Collectivism

 Collectivism is when an individual claims to be all of a community, and thus benefitting him individually is beneficial to everyone. E.g. if you empty your wallet into his, everyone becomes richer.

 Spade language is important because it makes stupid lies sound stupid, and collectivism is always a stupid lie. 

 If you both really did get richer by paying him, he would be able to pay you for the privilege, out of the profits, and emptying your wallet into his should end up with more money in your wallet. He wouldn't have to appeal to [[collectivism]], he could appeal to your self-interest. This obvious scam is a scam precisely because it doesn't work that way. Indeed moderns have this whole [investment] thing where you do this the non-scam way. Nobody has to justify stocks or bonds based on collectivist reasoning. 

 If it's collectivist and not obviously a scam, that means it's not obvious.
 If it has to be justified using collectivism, it is unjustifiable, and they're confessing.

On Aggression, Stingers

 Honeybees have valuable honey stored in expensive wax. They're kind of laissez faire, live and let live. "Oh you need this flower? Cool bro, I'll be done in a second here." They're not doormats but they don't make a big deal out of small things.

 There's yellowjackets, who look like right assholes and are. They have worthless and hideous paper nests. "Oh? Looking at me funny and/or not looking at me funny? I'll kill your entire bloodline." They'll sting you just because.

 Then there's bumblebees, who are so docile it's hard to understand how they survive in the wild. Many folk doubt bumblebees have stingers at all.

 Yellowjackets really are assholes for no reason.
 It's karma, they're the remains of an asshole immortal; almost certainly was such an asshole he killed himself.

Bears Repeating: The Political Formula is Perverse.

 Divine right of kings? Result: king does the most profane thing he can bring himself to. "If I do this, will you love me anyway? If I do this will you love me anyway?" Psychosexual.
 
 Only a cluster-B can take a position in a black government. The marked self-hatred drives a constant need for affirmation. A power addiction is like any other addiction; the source is a failure to elicit love from mommy. Drugs are poisonous, which leads to tolerance, which leads to overdose.

 The only exception is Exit. If you try to prove you're the genuine article thus put up a berlin wall, everyone leaves before the first course of bricks is laid. Nobody is trapped. Nobody still around to see your touchdown dance.

 If your political formula is consent of the governed, are you really in charge if you merely carry out that which has been consented to?

 How are you supposed to get your fix if you carry out your duty?

 Consequently, democratic representatives concern themselves with doing that which provokes the most dissent. Moldbug's Impact. If you can get away with it, you know you're a real chad. Not some virgin who has to [listen to the people].
 "If I do THIS will you vote for me anyway?"

 How can you get your fix when you can be voted out? Imagine being the dumb kind of junkie that has to pay for her heroin. How gauche. What a rube.

The merchant caste is inherently the loser caste.

 Highly feminized.
 This is one reason to believe the great filter is in the rear view mirror, and it's given h. sapiens a big fat F.
 The warrior and merchant castes are founded on destruction, not creation. The scholar invents the weapons, the warrior uses the weapons, but it's the merchant who creates the weapons, via trading with other losers.

 Not to mention, in circumstances the warrior can become subservient to the woman-merchant. It's unhealthy if the head doesn't lead so this isn't all bad, but unfortunately the jock can beat up the nerd, so mortal soyciety is inherently unstable. The warrior has to consistently choose humility to make it function, and the warrior is not one to understand the long term like that.

 As an example of circumstance, the warrior can't into debt  (long term) and shouldn't be allowed, but why would the merchant forgo their greatest debt slave? Especially since the merchant has no leverage over the scholar (he scams the scammers) except via leading warriors around by the nose. When the scholar, the brain, bans debt for the warrior for his own good, the skid tells the jock the nerd won't do his homework anymore...

 There's other things too. In peak societies, the warrior:peasant ratio is 1:100. If you have fixed assets to defend, like kernel fields, mines, factories, no warrior is so elite he can defeat 100 cannon fodder. Never mind the cannon fodder is also lead by a genuine warrior. In modern times you're lucky to get a mere 2000 fodder per warrior.
 The merchants supply the cannon fodder. They tell their ""friends"" to enlist. They're also the ones that administrate a draft. If they tell their ""friends"" not to enlist, the warrior is on his own.

 Cannon fodder is slow and vulnerable, so the warrior can still defeat them, provided he doesn't have a kernel field they can fetch their tubs of lard up against. That is: soyvilization is inherently weak. What if he gets all his bird feed by stealing it from the soyvilization? Why build factories when you can steal from the factories build by dysgenics dumb enough to breed cannon fodder?
 However, as we can see historically, the warrior has a raucously perverse need to avoid slaying the golden goose. The one time the warrior appreciates the long term, he holds back when the soyciety he pillages starts to flag.

 Turns out that's strategic defeat. The soyvilization only has to win once. They wipe out the warrior. The warrior has to win every time.

 Soyvilization is worse than barbarism. Unfortunately barbarians are too dumb, they can't bring themselves to lance the infection.

 Anyway the merchant caste is the loser caste.
 Merchants, as in the example above, are all about obeying norms. Who chooses the norms? Not the merchants, lol.
 Merchants are inherently dishonest. They compete to have the most friends, meaning they're the lowest-common-denominator caste. To say [cope merchant] is redundant, because every merchant is a cope merchant. They cannot possibly stand against the verbal destruction of the scholar or indeed the physical destruction of the warrior. Like women, they are cowards. Like women, they're all about [getting along]. Like women, the only aggression they can wield is passive-aggression. Merchants (fascists, democrats, egalitarians, christians) are only male in the most brute technical senses. Merchants do not have good breeding. Merchants are the caste of, [if it saves even one life], by which they mean even one customer.
 This wouldn't be such a serious problem if merchants didn't deal in intra-tribal competition. The traitor, parasite caste. They should be all about positive-sum trades, but instead focus near exclusively on scamming their alleged [[friends]]. All about eating without working. In a 100-man band, there's only so many real friends you can make before you've caught them all. There's only so many spears you can knap in a day, but you're still awake. There's only so many spears you can trade before everyone has one, and then what do you suppose they turn to?
 This still wouldn't be a problem if either warriors or scholars could into positive-sum hierarchies. Instead, mortals gonna mort. It would be weird if they didn't choose decline, fall, and death.  

 

 

 

 Democracies suffer immensely from the blood memory of already having supplied everyone with spears.
They call it [overproduction], and you've never heard this from a journalist, have you? It's mainstream political science. The idea - which is still current to a fever pitch - is that the factories will make so much stuff the peasants will be satisfied and put themselves out of a job. What if they only have to work 20 hours a week to get everything they want? Or only 10?

 Well...then nothing? This isn't a real problem. But your leaders...excuse me, [[[leaders]]]...including d.trump, absolutely think it is. Because, like everyone else and particularly women, they are still hallucinating a savannah. They still see only 100-150 people. They can't see iphones, they see stone spears. Made by hand.
 And if everyone has a spear, if they don't scam someone, they're [gasp] gonna have to hunt for their own food. It wouldn't have gone well then, and consider what happens now to fat, old trump when he thinks he might have to hunt for his own food. Which he can't not think. Mortals are dead, and like all dead things, cannot learn. Everyone will laugh at their hunting efforts, at best. All the skilled hunters are also the best warriors...

Some fighting things that aren't said out loud.

 The common sense is that every attack creates some opening. Done correctly it's an opening your opponent cannot exploit, but it goes meta: it's impossible to always pick the unexploitable opening. To attack is to open a hole in your defence.

 You can defend perfectly, but doing so gives up any opportunity to attack. You have to stand too far away to initiate an attack they don't have time to respond to, precisely because you have to give yourself time to respond to all their attacks. You have to bunch up too much to riposte in a dangerous way. As you're standing back, they can carefully plan an attack that has no riposte.

 You win a fight when the opponent makes a mistake. If neither make a mistake, it is a draw.

 Not merely in martial arts. In a gunfight, you can put yourself in a pillbox without any windows, so you can't get shot, in exchange for being unable to shoot back.

 This generalizes to life. You can only win by giving Reality the opportunity to make you lose. If you can't lose, you don't prove anything. You can't gain anything at all. 

Chaos Theory Too Orderly

 Chaos theory doesn't really work. It only allows chaos among basically-identical states.

 If a small effect can snowball, it was going to snowball anyway.

 Mortals have many cognitive deficiencies. If a mortal sees one snowflake cause an avalanche, she thinks removing that snowflake will prevent the avalanche. "Ha ha! I caught it!"

 Then the sound of her voice causes the avalanche. If she manages to stay quiet, a snowflake the next day causes the avalanche. The avalanche was so sensitive that it was going to happen regardless. A small event didn't [[cause]] a big event, a small event [triggers] a big event that has already been set up.

 For a butterfly to knock down a domino and set up a domino effect, someone has to have already set up the dominos. Unless he also takes them down, with effort close to what it took to set them up, squishing one butterfly merely means it's the next butterfly that will knock them down.

 The weather is chaotic because the weather largely doesn't matter. It will balance out. If through [[[chaos]]] it's a hot day here and a cold day there, it will also, later, cause a cold day here and a hot day there. And if it doesn't, it's because it wasn't chaos, it was another inevitable avalanche.

 I mean, you can try to squish all the butterflies, but it's easier to take down the dominos.

 Admittedly, when a bunch of hair-trigger avalanches set each other off in a chain, it can look spectacular. As in, it overwhelms the wetware RAM, consuming the space needed for logic or perspective.

Quantum Cope And Hagen

 Reminder that most quantum woo is merely physicists being deliberately confusing.

 Dear cophenhagen interpretation, what is an [observer]? An [observer] is any interaction. Another quantum particle, also in a superposition, can be an observer. And that's overkill. The particle can observe itself, especially when warm.

 Really. That's it.

 An [observer] is when A bumps into B. Instead of meditating in closed-door isolation. Or, for that matter, when A bumps into A.

 A warm particle forms nodes in the waveform more often, which gives it more opportunities to slam into itself, thus knocking itself out of its own superpositions.



 Did you know? There are essentially no hard videogames. It's the players that are hard. Some players are extremely challenging indeed.
 
 Quantum mechanics isn't hard.

 Quantum researchers are challenging. Especially intuition-challenged...

 I figure they do this because they can't describe what an interaction is. They can tell you that a waveform collapse happens, but they can't describe what happens. They can't tell you why.
 Posturing. Social move, not scientific. Unlike scientists, quantum researchers don't exult mysteries. Like merchants, they cover them up. Researchers too soft. Have to flinch.

 What's the feynmann diagram of a particle knocking itself out of superposition, lol? Lmao?
 P.S. You don't need the double-slit experiment. A single slit suffices, which you'll hear from nobody else. Feel free to wonder why they're making it overcomplicated.

 The theory was named after copenhagen because it's cope. Heisenberg was telling on himself (and snarking on bohr et al).

 Philosophy went bad long before the 1945 catastrophe. Physics was also ahead of its time in places. Makes sense: these are the high-IQ majors. They didn't need to see where the wind was blowing, they could see in advance where the wind was going to blow. They could adjust so they would already be aligned with the wind when it blew.

 At the expense of science. At the expense of truth. Revealed preferences.