Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GGWP" data-source="post: 37593" data-attributes="member: 93">There has never been just one group of self-interested elites in history, it&#039;s always conflicting opportunists. We live in a fortuitous age where pillage, plunder and famine are rare in developed nations. Thanks to modern society diseases of abundance and old age are the main causes of death. Most people are &#039;winners&#039; under this system. It&#039;s a relatively gentle system. It&#039;s not manipulation if there&#039;s mutual benefit, it&#039;s symbiosis.Money has symbolic value, so it does have value. It has value because it is a currency bound by laws and institutions, so it is a social impetus and organizer of labor. Paper money has almost no innate value, but this is a good thing, if the materials for money had high innate value it would create scarcity and dangerous deflationary effects. You could replace money with anything. It&#039;s a method to spur primitive man into forging connections with people they would&#039;ve hunted based on tribal differences and it provides a selection pressure for agreeableness, novel thought and at least a bare minimum intelligence; it&#039;s actually a great thing. The centralization of it less so, it&#039;s the sign of a declining culture. &#039;Jobs&#039; and &#039;Imaginary Points&#039; are not worthless in that they are social tools used to sculpt people having certain behaviors conducive to a harmonious social order. In the end, everything is about directing behavior.Love and Romance do exist, people feel them. They are emergent properties of the brain. You are employing reductionist logic because you feel that your life personally does not hold coherence or meaning, right? Even so emotions do &#039;exist&#039;. Great works of art exist because while they are just &#039;brush strokes of oil and pigment&#039;, they embody definitive spatial patterns that make them &#039;great works of art&#039; . They are interpret-able only because of the accumulated, emergent patterns accrued in your mind overtime. The universe requires intelligence to observe it and make distinctions, it&#039;s holarchical and decipherable through (tentatively) Bayesian feature extraction. Materialists believe that everything can be reduced to material properties, but intelligent observers can decipher patterns that add a qualitative layer. Autistics and sociopaths have genetic discrepancies in Oxytocin processing which may alter their ability to experience normal pair bonding, they mistakenly conflate this with pair bonding not existing in the first place. We have a bad habit of ascribing this &#039;harsh nature&#039; aesthetic to the natural world, it implies that normies lack robustness and their domestication is negative; this is a way to protect our ego from acknowledging loss of social function.There is a discrepancy in multicultural societies because Europeans are predisposed to Western Faustian Altruism™. This has a long history but mainly lies with the widespread adoption of Christianity in the West during the First Millenium&nbsp; - &#039;Love thy Neighbor&#039; ... Fundamentally at odds with the Afro-Asian patrilineal dynasties that had more culturally closed-off endogamous practices (Caste systems, Confuscianism, kinship-based tribes in order to survive in the harsh savanna). Therefore I get what you are saying but there is not just one singular mode of cohesion in society.It sounds like you would like the mathematical discipline of &#039;Game Theory&#039; which strips down life to games of winning and losing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GGWP, post: 37593, member: 93"] There has never been just one group of self-interested elites in history, it's always conflicting opportunists. We live in a fortuitous age where pillage, plunder and famine are rare in developed nations. Thanks to modern society diseases of abundance and old age are the main causes of death. Most people are 'winners' under this system. It's a relatively gentle system. It's not manipulation if there's mutual benefit, it's symbiosis. Money has symbolic value, so it does have value. It has value because it is a currency bound by laws and institutions, so it is a social impetus and organizer of labor. Paper money has almost no innate value, but this is a good thing, if the materials for money had high innate value it would create scarcity and dangerous deflationary effects. You could replace money with anything. It's a method to spur primitive man into forging connections with people they would've hunted based on tribal differences and it provides a selection pressure for agreeableness, novel thought and at least a bare minimum intelligence; it's actually a great thing. The centralization of it less so, it's the sign of a declining culture. 'Jobs' and 'Imaginary Points' are not worthless in that they are social tools used to sculpt people having certain behaviors conducive to a harmonious social order. In the end, everything is about directing behavior. Love and Romance do exist, people feel them. They are emergent properties of the brain. You are employing reductionist logic because you feel that your life personally does not hold coherence or meaning, right? Even so emotions do 'exist'. Great works of art exist because while they are just 'brush strokes of oil and pigment', they embody definitive spatial patterns that make them 'great works of art' . They are interpret-able only because of the accumulated, emergent patterns accrued in your mind overtime. The universe requires intelligence to observe it and make distinctions, it's holarchical and decipherable through (tentatively) Bayesian feature extraction. Materialists believe that everything can be reduced to material properties, but intelligent observers can decipher patterns that add a qualitative layer. Autistics and sociopaths have genetic discrepancies in Oxytocin processing which may alter their ability to experience normal pair bonding, they mistakenly conflate this with pair bonding not existing in the first place. We have a bad habit of ascribing this 'harsh nature' aesthetic to the natural world, it implies that normies lack robustness and their domestication is negative; this is a way to protect our ego from acknowledging loss of social function. There is a discrepancy in multicultural societies because Europeans are predisposed to Western Faustian Altruism™. This has a long history but mainly lies with the widespread adoption of Christianity in the West during the First Millenium - [I]'Love thy Neighbor' [/I]... Fundamentally at odds with the Afro-Asian patrilineal dynasties that had more culturally closed-off endogamous practices (Caste systems, Confuscianism, kinship-based tribes in order to survive in the harsh savanna). Therefore I get what you are saying but there is not just one singular mode of cohesion in society. It sounds like you would like the mathematical discipline of 'Game Theory' which strips down life to games of winning and losing. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread