I think you better reread the Tanakh – and see the words used about ‘men laying with men’.

But then, because Christianity is so much better than the religion that G-d Himself brought into existence, Christians have made a much better bible and took away all the terrible things said by G-d and, of course, changed to Jesus as god – and everyone knows that Jesus accepted every person, no matter if a leper or a prostitute.

Remember please: if men could control themselves there would be no need for prostitutes!

G-d also was VERY explicit about who people should pray to! He said: There Shalt be NO other god before Me. I am the I AM.

Christians are hypocrites if they are anti-Semitic, doncha’ think? How can Christians pray to a Jew and be anti- Jews!

Religion was supposed to unite the world – but Christians followed the lead of the Romans and decided to destroy Jews and anyone who refused to convert – all those missionaries have forced people in foreign lands into submission.

People should be more like Jesus, eh? Then those people would be Jews.

Jews do not start wars, they finish them.
Jews do not force people to convert – in fact, it is against rules of Judaism to try to convert. People come into Judaism because they choose to do so.

I’m just trying to keep the door from hitting me in the ass.

There is no door.

With Islam being the hardest religion to defend, I can’t blame you.

While this may be true in general, I hardly think it’s true of UR. If anything alt-rightish White Power! types seem to have a kind of weird attraction to Islam, rather than the other way around.

And in this thread of course, “Dmitry” does not fit that category, but, much as I like what little I can tell of the fellow from his comments, he’s kind of a walking advertisement against atheism, as the other atheist commenters on this blog have pointed out now and again.

Talha came here for PR reasons on behalf of his religion, and maybe to preach Islam.
Never trust a Muslim to be sincere!

You’ve tried to leave before and it didn’t work. IIRC my first exchange with you concerned your statement that you were leaving and then you didn’t.

In any case, good luck and thanks for the good info, especially on Islam.

I’m on my way out as well. I’m just trying to keep the door from hitting me in the ass.

Talking about your beliefs with more normal people – is a lot more challenging.

Does this mean that you are making a self-assertion that you are “more normal”?

I actually like Talha, because he has some inclinations for talking about metaphysical topics, about which I think all of us are idiots. To be honest, it’s more interesting to me to talk about this topic (religion, philosophy), than about politics, since it is actually challenging to think about.

If I know him in real life, I would agree to study some Muslim texts with him if in exchange he would read some book on Epicurus, Kant or Schopenhauer.

hanging out with the (reactionary) alt-right or whatever the exact term may be.

I wish you good fortune. But people you talk to now here are not “(reactionary) alt-right”.

Obviously some of those are here, and they are the easiest to talk to, because you will (like almost anyone) feel yourself to be better than them, which is self-gratification and support for your own position. Those people are usually damaged, morally and intellectually empty, which is why they are gullible for the their worldview – so it’s easy to boost your self-belief, even if you may be very wrong yourself. Talking about your beliefs with more normal people – is a lot more challenging.

If I believed that it was, I wouldn’t be doing it.

But is your belief correct or not? What does deeper intuition say?

That’s what is important – not your belief.

I’m not saying I know answers (perhaps I will go to hell, or be reincarnated as a cow for every steak I eat). But the point is, it would be your moral responsibility for everything, not something you can outsource to a book or other people (to outsource decisions itself would also be immoral from any intuition you were born with).

That is interesting. You outsource the killing of animals to others not having concluded whether or not it is morally correct?

Exactly – but I don’t suggest it is a good position.

Interesting…”who” gave us moral freedom if it is indeed granted?

“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” – Socrates

Cool – then I believe I have been quite clear; each collective of people should be able to live along semi-autonomous regions comprised of people that have the same beliefs that allow them a good amount of freedom as to how to draft laws for their community’s freedoms and restrictions.

It’s fine, if – which is the important part – people are voluntarily choosing to belong to the community. But if someone doesn’t want to be part of the community – will you let them leave?

Good luck, though I think you’re leaving because we are making you doubt your faith. With Islam being the hardest religion to defend, I can’t blame you.

I hope you aren’t leaving permanently? I also think it a good idea to disengage a bit from UR, though I’ve been on here a bit in the past few weeks with idleness from being a bit sickly.

You have nothing to be forgiven for in my case at least, but if you think you need it it is granted and I ask the same in turn.

Well, go with God, and may your own blessings be returned upon you, and don’t take any wooden nickels.

RSDB

Good luck, Talha.

I’ve also been planning to move on, as there isn’t really anything more for me to say to here. I just haven’t quite managed to do it yet 🙂

Habits can be hard to break…

And I think the alt-right or nrx or whatever they are has to be left to be themselves in the end…

Good luck breaking the habit 🙂

See ya around…

Also guys, it’s been a good couple of years hanging out with the (reactionary) alt-right or whatever the exact term may be. I’ve got to move on – going to be more busy in my local community and will be taking a massive step back from online activities in general.

I’m indebted to you guys for sharing your knowledge and perspectives with me and challenging my beliefs. I learned a lot during my time here.

Forgiveness is sought for those I gave offense to in a moment of zeal.

May God bless you guys and your families in this life and the next.

Imagine you die, and before God. Was it a sin to kill animals for meat or not?

If I believed that it was, I wouldn’t be doing it. Again, if I killed an animal I wasn’t supposed to or for fun or whatever, then I do believe I will be asked about it – which is why I don’t do it.

Of course issues of moral responsibility, are always related, very directly, to you, and impossible to outsource.

I agree – each person will answer for their own deeds, no doubt. The reason I use “we” is because I am comfortable speaking on behalf of Muslims on this matter since there really isn’t a difference of opinion.

follow certain texts and what other people say in establish “religious institutions”, then there would be no way to distinguish good from bad.

Well, one makes the decision to follow certain texts and religious doctrines or institutions so even that decision is a decision one comes to on their own. If they have confidence in the institutions and texts, then it makes little sense to me to nitpick every single detail – that just seems silly to me.

This is a factual claim.

Correct – posited without empirical evidence, but rather rational or inductive evidence; the two are not the same.

We have a very individual freedom, which is something very strange, and does not “fit” into current physics.

Agreed.

Personally I eat meat all the time

That is interesting. You outsource the killing of animals to others not having concluded whether or not it is morally correct?

they were not given moral freedom.

Interesting…”who” gave us moral freedom if it is indeed granted?

Our discussion is about what is correct set up and where there is “right” for government to take decisions for people, not what will actually happen.

Cool – then I believe I have been quite clear; each collective of people should be able to live along semi-autonomous regions comprised of people that have the same beliefs that allow them a good amount of freedom as to how to draft laws for their community’s freedoms and restrictions. The only worry then will be when they interact with people of other communities, but that can have a separate level of negotiation. Most people are concerned with what affects them on a day to day basis in their neighborhoods – if they want to hold an annual Bugger-your-own-brother Day in their community’s downtown – well, good for them.

Peace.

Find someone you disagree with. Call their view “Western”, including of people from over the border with Asia.

fwiw, I’m not from Asia; I’m born in the US and while I’m very familiar with my culture(having spent quite some time there), it probably would not be correct to indicate that I am totally accultured to Chinese culture, especially the modern version.

No – we have. Because there are some things not in dispute in the Muslim community; like whether eating meat is permitted.

It’s still “I have”. It’s your decision and choice. No-one is with a gun in front of you, saying “if you don’t eat meat I will kill you”.

If you want to use religious language. Imagine you die, and before God. Was it a sin to kill animals for meat or not?

Perhaps there was a mistake and killing animals is a sin (really, this is a kind of question beyond our current knowledge, and I will not speculate).

Will God say “it’s ok, some other people were doing it, and just copied them, so it’s not his responsibility”. Of course issues of moral responsibility, are always related, very directly, to you, and impossible to outsource.

And if you wanted to judge people morally, you would introduce “trick questions” precisely created in this way – “everyone else is saying it’s morally correct to do x”. That is exactly how moral person would be distinguished from the immoral one.

If you live in a world where all you have to do is follow certain texts and what other people say in establish “religious institutions”, then there would be no way to distinguish good from bad. But you can be sure, if (if!) such a model of reality is the correct one – then why were you mysterious given free-will and reason.

It’s quite enough when it comes to religion. Religious claims are not things you try to sort out on some kind of an empirical paradigm. That is why they are called; “faith”, “belief”, etc.

This is an artificial distinction, which we currently (but only recently) use for political reasons so we don’t endlessly fight, about areas of knowledge where we are very limited (or even believe where there may be no knowledge).

However, look for example at Christian system. You die – then you will either go to heaven or hell. This is a factual claim. Such heaven or hell would be real, or more real, than the cells of your body.

Problem is our knowledge of such thing, or even whether it could be true, is incredibly limited. For this reason, I would say Epicurus humbleness and delimitation around life, is actually very wise about the whole topic, and it’s a little sad that Epicurus didn’t become the more popular viewpoint historically.

However, even in our current, very limited situation, a person could read various “hints” or “indications”.

We have a very individual freedom, which is something very strange, and does not “fit” into current physics. It’s also very “strange” how particularly individual this is, and all your decisions located very privately in each soul. A suspicious person might say almost like a “game” (without sounding too much like Elon Musk) and your life set up precisely for this reason.

If a human is just another animal; then it is no different from one animal killing another animal – happens all the time. My cat kills birds and eats them – morality doesn’t come into the picture.

We can know for a fact this is not true. Regardless of your biological condition, you are set up in such a situation where you have to take responsibility for this decision, and it appears to have a moral quality in it, and (even worse for us) we were born at a historical stage when other options were are presented to you.

Personally I eat meat all the time (although if I had to choose to kill animals myself, I would probably find the decision less tempting). In terms of moral “depth” of decision, it is obviously more serious than whether to drink sugary drink or visit an unsuitable website. As it involves killing something which is conscious and wants to have a normal life.

As for cats. They are really not much less conscious and emotional than us. They even have some concept of happiness, sadness and friendship. But, – probably fortunately for them – they were not given moral freedom.

Yes – if it is in the public sphere. We do it all the time – which is why prostitution and other actions are interdicted. We actually have police departments called “vice” squads.

We are talking would be the correct system, not what is exact situation of America in 2018.

We’ll make that decision, thanks. Just like we really don’t care how other groups care to police themselves or not on things they consider sins or not.

Who is “we”? America? Sure, American government can increase its intervention in personal life and choices of its citizens, and with rising state capacity, the potential to regulate its citizens will only increase and increase. Our discussion is about what is correct set up and where there is “right” for government to take decisions for people, not what will actually happen.

I think a healthy culture has a good balance between official and unofficial rules, which creates security and freedom, which are both part of the good life.

I think the shockingly draconian prison sentences, barbaric and cruel, that are common in America – 20 years in prison for that white couple that used the N word and waved confederate flags at a black barbecue, 2 lives essentially destroyed – comes from our lack of security because we have no clear guidelines on how to behave and we feel we are on quicksand.

I am very sympathetic to Dmitrys ideal, but I am also interested in practical treasures that will really work based on the realities of human psychology.

My own spiritual ideal is of extreme freedom beyond “good and evil” as in Zen – but from a practical pov, I recognize that I may paradoxically be able to live more freely in a society where this kind of frightening freedom is not the norm.

To be fair to Dmitry, official rules can also become oppressive and repressive, and this is a very real danger. This is likely to happen in societies where there is zero unofficial sanctions and therefore the formal realm is trying to do double duty, according to my theory.

That is why we must avoid extremes and harmonize opposites in a fruitful union.

I’m not sure I understand. It seems reasonable to define attitudes that have historically characterized the West as Western for shorthand, etc.

I am not sure if you object to these labels specifically or if you object to the ideas that idea-clusters should have labels to assist in discussing them?

For what its worth, I recognize that countless Asians have what I call the Western attitude, and vice versa. After all, I’m a Westerner with what I call the Asian attitude.

It seems scarcely worth pointing out that each attitude exists in each region to some extent and I am merely using shorthand to describe what has historically characterized different cultures.

I certainly don’t mean it is any kind of racial “essence” or anything like that – but sometimes I forget that not everyone has read all my comments.

If you prefer, u can call them “idea cluster 1” and “idea cluster 2”, and them if it’s important to the discussion, I can describe where they appeared most prominent in which era.

Again, not “we have”, but “I have”.

No – we have. Because there are some things not in dispute in the Muslim community; like whether eating meat is permitted.

Internal consistency “coherent and sound” is not quite the issue

It’s quite enough when it comes to religion. Religious claims are not things you try to sort out on some kind of an empirical paradigm. That is why they are called; “faith”, “belief”, etc.

If the question was about something that could be worked out empirically: for instance, “Is the city of Paris located in France?” Then we could all agree on the answer.

Has person x sinned?

In that particular example, yes…according to us.

Does being different imply human can kill animals?

If a human is just another animal; then it is no different from one animal killing another animal – happens all the time. My cat kills birds and eats them – morality doesn’t come into the picture.

but it’s a decision which you will have to be responsible for

Of course. I consider myself morally responsible in the matter – which is why I wouldn’t eat carrion meat or from a cow that was pushed off a cliff, etc.

We are talking about governments here, presumably of America.

My idea is not completely workable in America in its current state. It is however workable from state to state; which is why Utah has some of the most restrictive alcohol laws.

Question now – should society be allowed to stop adults, who have full responsibility and access to knowledge of consequences, from doing something which only effects themselves directly, because it is “sin” and “damaging”.

Yes – if it is in the public sphere. We do it all the time – which is why prostitution and other actions are interdicted. We actually have police departments called “vice” squads.

Muslims can halt porn to other Muslims, but only if each of them has agreed to renounce their own responsibility to make the decision.

We’ll make that decision, thanks. Just like we really don’t care how other groups care to police themselves or not on things they consider sins or not.

mangoes

Excellent – a mango and mango-free millet! Good fences make good neighbors.

Peace.

Does human society require some kind of sanctioned order…

I would certainly posit this.

it ignores how the world really works. I.e it is abstract.

That was one of my huge issues with Libertarian thought. It was just waaaay too idealistic and theoretical about how human beings work.

will removing official rules merely create a worse unofficial tyranny?

The existence of something like blasphemy laws (in certain Muslim countries) actually keeps things from blowing up into mob violence (Pakistan is kind of an outlier in that sense – they have laws and still manage to blow up*). When a people know their very strong feelings of having their most important beliefs insulted have some judicial recourse, then they are calmer since they have an outlet.

Just think about how so many of the Whites here are pissed off that they don’t really have much legal recourse when it comes to people insulting them for their identity…you can almost hear the pot simmering – plenty want to go from point A to point ethnic-cleansing without much in between.

Peace.

*Well, some idiot in Pakistan just assassinated another Muslim scholar (way to go guys):

Maulana Sami-ul-Haq supported polio campaigns. Denounced suicide attacks. You may disagree with his ideology but he never supported any armed struggle against the state of Pakistan!

BIG LOSS #MaulanaSamiulHaq pic.twitter.com/RBfWBdbrYO

— Arsalan Siddiqy (@ArsalanISF) November 2, 2018

Lol we have arrived a “redneck argument” style. Choose two arbitrary labels “Western” and “Eastern”. Western = bad. Eastern = good.

Find someone you disagree with. Call their view “Western”, including of people from over the border with Asia.

formally defined arrangements with clear definitions and are uncomfortable

This is nothing related to Western or Eastern. Man, unlike animals – and for whatever reason one might create mythology about – has been given the gift (or curse) of reason.

Perhaps that fact could fit somewhere with Talha’s idea, for why we can eat other animals.

find it interesting that you seem bothered by the idea of different communities electing different standards by which to draft laws that govern their own people. Like, I’m not bothered by Buddhists streaming porn into their temples – but you seem bothered by the idea that Muslims would want to halt porn being easily available to other Muslims.

The question is, if you eliminate official governmental control will it just be replaced by unofficial social pressure which can be worse (wrong opinions can make you unhirable and friendless even though you broke no laws).

Nature abhors a vacuum and all that…

Does human society require some kind of sanctioned order…

I understand Dmitrys desire for there to be no sanctions whatsoever, but it seems utopian and shallow in that it ignores how the world really works. I.e it is abstract.

Assuming a world where society always creates some kind of sanctioned order, will removing official rules merely create a worse unofficial tyranny? (As we perhaps see happening today, and perhaps out of anxiety created by no official guidelines…)

And would creating clear official rules allow for a certain amount of unofficial leeway?

If you study historical systems, and pay attention to what’s happening today, it is by no means clear that discarding clear official rules leads to the greatest freedom…

But Dmitry does not wish to consider such interesting twists and paradoxes and wishes to see a 1:1 linear relationship to reality..

We have

Again, not “we have”, but “I have”.

This use of impersonal “we”, is wanting to remove responsibility for views, or outsource it to more people.

according to the parameters that we find coherent and sound. We have not according to the parameters you find coherent and sound. It’s an issue of disagreement of axioms and first principles. And it’s OK – we say you’re wrong, you say we’re wrong – we’re all adults here.

This paragraph is simply saying “it’s relative”. In other words, not useful noise.

If person x says “1 +1 = 2” and person y says “1+1 = 3”. The important question is, who has the truth, which is not answered by – “different people think differently”.

Internal consistency “coherent and sound” is not quite the issue, except insofar as extracting all possible conclusions from the statement required to make it coherent with others we believe, can allow us to disprove (or, if finding it consistent, increase probability of truth) of that statement.

Correct – according to his belief, he would not have sinned – and we would execute him just the same.

And let’s say person y executes person x because in his theory, saying “1+1 =2” is false and saying false things is a sin. Has person x sinned?

I have investigated the truth claims of the book and people of a particular tradition and find they are

This is good.

Again, let’s go back to first principles. If one claims a human is just a higher order primate, then what are we having a discussion about sin for in the first place? We don’t discuss monkeys eating other monkeys or other animals as having any moral repercussions.

Well this is better. “Human is different to animal” – this statement may or may not be true. Let’s say it is true. Does being different imply human can kill animals?

I’m not saying I know the answer to this question (personally, I eat meat) – but it’s a decision which you will have to be responsible for, and not by saying “in my acculturation they say, ect, ect”, which is only a way to remove yourself from the question.

And this is where each community that agrees on some basis on first principles should get together and decide what constitutes conduct that a society can interdict and what it can’t.

We are talking about governments here, presumably of America. If a group of people want to make a contract between themselves, to not eat meat, or to not drink coffee (or any personal decisions they want), this is perfect. If same group wants then to coerce other people (who did not agree to the contract), to not eat meat or not drink coffee, we have a problem.

For instance; watching porn is a sin and damaging, drinking soda is not a sin yet still damaging.

So far this question of “sin” or not has not been proven. However, I will agree with “damaging” and for argument we can say it is a sin. (By the way, I think damaging your body physically, which your parents have made for you, could also qualify as sin). Question now – should society be allowed to stop adults, who have full responsibility and access to knowledge of consequences, from doing something which only effects themselves directly, because it is “sin” and “damaging”.

Is this making people stronger or weaker, when we try to cover everyone in a safe bubble and don’t allow them to choose to take mistake which only effect themselves? Is this consistent with how people have developed in human history?

I find it interesting that you seem bothered by the idea of different communities electing different standards by which to draft laws that govern their own people.

Different communities electing different standards is perfect, but then belonging to community has to be a voluntary decision which each person decides, with full knowledge, at whichever stage – age 18 or age 21.

I’m not bothered by Buddhists streaming porn into their temples – but you seem bothered by the idea that Muslims would want to halt porn being easily available to other Muslims.

Muslims can halt porn to other Muslims, but only if each of them has agreed to renounce their own responsibility to make the decision.

Let’s say an island in Pacific Ocean with 11 adults. 6 decide to never eat mangoes. 5 decide to eat mangoes, peacefully, by themselves. Can morally, the 6 prevent the other 5 from eating mangoes and burn all the mango trees? No. But 6 can create a mango-free community, destroy the mango trees on their personal property.

Another adult sails to the island. He now has to decide if he will join mango-free group or the mango group – this is his decision. Both sides can present their arguments and all available knowledge on benefits and costs of mangoes.

Maybe this man joins the mango eating community. After a time, he discovers that mangoes are disgusting and cause him to vomit and feel unhappy. Now this man changes his opinion, and joing the mango-free community. What is his position in this community? Well, actually he might be stronger than them, as he has developed real wisdom from his mistakes with the mangoes.

From the outside, it does seem a kind of retardation, and I think it is a cognitively limited mode of operating that has its basis in a particular metaphysics.

If you accept the Western metaphysical assumption of absolute divergence of good and evil rather than these values being relative and in need of being harmonized, and that the world is tending towards the absolute triumph of “good” and eradication of “evil”, swinging to extremes is simply inevitable.

The only thing that changes is what fills the categories “good” and “evil” – yesterday it was the homosexual, today the heterosexual. Yesterday woman was seen as evil (the temptress, seductress, ensarer of man) today it is man who evil.

But man and woman depend on each other, and neither are evil.

You think you have

We have according to the parameters that we find coherent and sound. We have not according to the parameters you find coherent and sound. It’s an issue of disagreement of axioms and first principles. And it’s OK – we say you’re wrong, you say we’re wrong – we’re all adults here.

For these we need verifiable, empirical, objective knowledge.

Agreed. When hashing out religious doctrine and claims becomes equivalent to building a bridge, let me know. If you think it is the same, then again…back to disagreement on first principles.

and he would not have sinned.

Correct – according to his belief, he would not have sinned – and we would execute him just the same.

Have you sinned or not, if you kill an animal?

Again, let’s go back to first principles. If one claims a human is just a higher order primate, then what are we having a discussion about sin for in the first place? We don’t discuss monkeys eating other monkeys or other animals as having any moral repercussions.

But you cannot remove your own responsibility from this question by pointing at some other people or a book

I haven’t. I have investigated the truth claims of the book and people of a particular tradition and find they are sound. I never dropped any of my responsibility. I don’t feel eating meat is a sin if you slaughter it in the right way and ask God for permission – there is nothing incoherent about this position as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not asking for Hindus and Buddhists to eat meat. And this especially makes sense if people are in a reincarnation cycle where that cow could be your grandma that passed away a while ago. that seems coherent if you accept their first principles.

But in neither, is there direct causal relation to damaging the children of the father.

I agree. And this is where each community that agrees on some basis on first principles should get together and decide what constitutes conduct that a society can interdict and what it can’t. For instance; watching porn is a sin and damaging, drinking soda is not a sin yet still damaging. Each community decides the cost-benefit ratio according to the standards they agree upon.

I find it interesting that you seem bothered by the idea of different communities electing different standards by which to draft laws that govern their own people. Like, I’m not bothered by Buddhists streaming porn into their temples – but you seem bothered by the idea that Muslims would want to halt porn being easily available to other Muslims.

Peace.

Well, I think these questions are rather too large to be settled on this forum, and would take reading many books and living in non-Western countries for extensive periods in order to come to really make a judgement on these questions.

I offered you a different perspective, and I duly note that you rejected it – which is perfectly ok. As a good Western liberal, you opt for formally defined arrangements with clear definitions and are uncomfortable with the informal, paradoxical, and shadow side of life, which I find more fascinating, and often to be where the real action lies.

This is not unexpected and I don’t begrudge you this, but even though this is your preference I was hoping to develop in you an appreciation, at least, for the interesting shadow side of life and the surprising way things can be almost the exact opposite of their formal character.

But to be fair, I have not yet met a Westerners who can appreciate this mentality, and its existence in the West has been declining since perhaps the late 19th century, to where today, Westerners can only think in formal categories that have a 1:1 relationship to reality.

This is why I often say the modern West suffers from a peculiar “stupidity”, especially when it comes to humans and human affairs, although it is obviously very technically capable, even though this “formalism” is also leading to a decline in creativity.

And all this is OK, well, and good. The West has to be itself and go through its own mini cycles and work out its own ways of doing things.

Although porn obviously unpleasant at a deeper level

Do Slavic languages lack linking verbs?

Pork can be turned into charcoal, you know.

And soap. The Hanafi school has rules about the validity of the usage of soap that was once a pig. But it did not meet the same requirement as with wine to vinegar.

Of course, Imam Zuffar (ra), dissented and stated that you tax both – but the fatwa is not on his opinion in the school.

Peace.

*Interestingly, the Hanafi school will actually tax their wine (the Shafi’i school does not for the same reason as the pigs) because the wine can be turned into vinegar and thus has the potential (in its nature) to become a source of valid wealth for a Muslim as well.

Pork can be turned into charcoal, you know.

in the later Middle Ages, and it was a period of greater freedom and fun than today’s regimented technocratic system

I don’t believe there is historical evidence for this claim. And I can imagine that if we use a time machine and would leave you in an epoch without penicillin, after some weeks with pink glasses, you will be praying every day we would return and carry you “back to the future”.

serf officially tied to land or a wage slave who has no choice but to be at the mercy of bosses who fire

In the majority of cases, it will be much, much, much better.

In America in 2018, (I am sure!) your boss cannot arbitrarily kill you for example. But let’s say you are living up to first half of 19th century Russian Empire – well your master can kill you if he (or she) likes. In the “she” case, and if my teacher was not inventing this story – didn’t Turgenev’s own grandmother murder one (or more than on – I can’t remember exactly?) of the family’s serfs?

Thailand may be the world’s largest whore house but prostitution is actually illegal there….!

Well here is an example of “libertarianism by lack of state capacity”. Until the 20th century, this was how people’s freedom occurred in many ways. It’s one of the main real reasons why Russian Empire had more of certain kinds of freedom than Soviet Union did – not out of choice, but out of lack of state capacity to enforce laws in earlier epochs, which decreased by the 20th century.

Since theoretical (if not actualized) state capacity is continuously increasing, it becomes only more important to regulate state’s intervention in our personal decisions now, than in the past.

I rarely agree with you but I do agree that the West is annoying full of individuals who seem incapable of understanding anything except in terms of extremes. Its often feels like some form of advanced retardation or pathological obsession, as they surely have to see how impractical and counterproductive it is, but they can’t stop doing it.

We have – you haven’t. You still seem to be under the impression we are using the same epistemic basis.

You think you have (and you use pronoun “we” to dissolve your own responsibility into a herd). But “think you have” is not the same as “have”.

You might think you have built a safe bridge, or that you can fly (or “we think we can fly” – if you want to reduce your responsibility for yourself) – but this does not mean you actually built a safe bridge or can fly. For these we need verifiable, empirical, objective knowledge.

Why? Your definition of the word “sin” differs from ours.

In which case, murderer could say “my definition of sin is different to yours” – and he would not have sinned.

Don’t know – apparently he did for the people that killed him.

If something is sin or not, is not determined just because someone who kills you thinks you are doing sin.

So from one perspective, killing an animal and distributing meat to the poor is considered a virtuous act. From another perspective, you have killed another living being

Relativism is not relevant. It simply means that “other people are also doing it or thinking something”. But the real question, is whether this accurate or not. Have you sinned or not, if you kill an animal? Personally, I eat meat. But you cannot remove your own responsibility from this question by pointing at some other people or a book, and saying “it says in this book it is ok”, which is all you are – ultimately – trying to do.

the social costs of pornography usage are well-documented:

Many things have costs. Drinks like Coca Cola which contain sugar, will be more objectively easy to prove. The question is whether person who drinks sugary drink or visits certain websites, is responsible for that decision.

Now you want to convert the discussion into one about parents damaging children. But if a father drinks sugary drinks and dies from diabetes? Or this father watches porn and this can in some way undermine his relationship with his wife, and therefore his children’s success? In terms of damaging children, it will be easier to see causal correlation of damage for the former than the latter case. But in neither, is there direct causal relation to damaging the children of the father.

However, we have not determined that.

We have – you haven’t. You still seem to be under the impression we are using the same epistemic basis. Why? Your definition of the word “sin” differs from ours.

But has for example, Giordano Bruno sinned?

Don’t know – apparently he did for the people that killed him.

But in which of these dietary laws are you doing the least sins?

Depends on first principles. If they differ, then the conclusions will differ.

From a rational perspective, the “most likely to avoid sin” dietary will be Buddhist.

Why? In Islam, on the Day of Eid ul-Adha we are required (in the Hanafi school at least, others consider it praiseworthy) – if you have the money – to slaughter an animal and are then supposed to share the meat with family and especially the poor (many of whom only eat meat a couple of times per year). This is one of the happiest days in the year for the poor in the Muslim world. So from one perspective, killing an animal and distributing meat to the poor is considered a virtuous act. From another perspective, you have killed another living being which is wrong – a sound conclusion. Of course, we take the name of God over the animal before sacrificing to acknowledge we are seeking His permission and have no right to take its life otherwise (which is why we couldn’t eat the animal if some random guy just took a shotgun to its head).

From a rational perspective; if we weren’t supposed to eat meat, we wouldn’t have a set of canine teeth – which are obvious clues to us being omnivores.

they have to live perfect (externally) lives

Nobody said they have to live perfect lives. But the social costs of pornography usage are well-documented:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1215/

There is no debating the statistics. One can only debate if the cost of the damage to society is worth the benefit one gets from it.

And for that, I think it is best left up to the social collectives to decide that on their own – for members of their own group. I don’t really care to modify the behaviors of groups that don’t believe in the same first principles and don’t have the same epistemic basis as me.

If I ran a system with different millets; the atheist millet could make it a requirement among themselves to live stream each others’ bedroom antics to each others’ households and swap wives and husbands – have fun. Their non-religion, their people, their future.

Peace.

We already determined that; it is a sin. Why? God says

However, we have not determined that.

We have determined some, which can see are clear. For example, to murder someone, to sexually assault someone, to rob someone, to drive car in a way which can damage others.

But has for example, Giordano Bruno sinned?

Just last night, in the chapter of taxation in al-Hidayah, we discussed how a non-Muslim trader (who owns pigs) is not taxed for those pigs

I know this is not your argument. But look at dietary laws. In Judaism and Islam, it is wrong to eat pigs or to eat shellfish. In Christianity, you can eat anything, except in some days. While in Buddhism, you cannot kill any animal for food.

I agree that concept of sin is probably a good one, and is deeper for us than any religious acculturation. In addition, religion might show development of morality in man, by problematizing concept of diet for us. But in which of these dietary laws are you doing the least sins?

From a rational perspective, the “most likely to avoid sin” dietary will be Buddhist. This goes quite well with our more deep (deeper than religious) intuition, that killing other animals is probably not a nice behaviour.

A man watching porn or visiting a prostitute or etc. (when he knows that it is wrong and improper) can destroy his family – that has repercussions on his children; what did they do to deserve a broken home?

Maybe it is not nice if your parents are divorcing. But it’s also not nice if your parents cannot give you the best genes, or your parents are arguing, or your parents are poor.

On average, children of divorced family will surely be less happy, than of together parents. But still, many, many happy and successful children can come from those families, if parents still complete their duties.

It’s quite clear what is the duty of parents – to feed and raise their children. It’s not realistic the idea, they have to live perfect (externally) lives, and that it should be illegal for them to make a decision (e.g. watch porn, or let’s say expend time posting comments on Karlin’s blog instead of having romantic dinners) which may or may not have any causal relation to their marriage situation.

I do not see how this makes clear it isn’t socially conditioned, and I also don’t see any quotes about Asia or the Middle East.

More to the point than any of these, however, is a widespread revulsion, found in both genders, all times and all places and cultures, towards the man who plays the part of a woman. There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated — […

]

I wonder if this was the feeling in China or ancient Persia, societies that did not despise the feminine.

The West has always had a problem with the feminine and that is part of its dysfunction. Modern feminism is a manifestation of the ancient Western contempt for feminine qualities. A society that over-values masculine qualities is bound to spawn a movement of women wanting to be men sooner or later.

I wonder how things were in societies that did a better job integrating their feminine side and did not fear it so much.

Maybe its the same thing, I don’t know.

As usual, cultural criticism that only discusses the West and then draws conclusions about the ‘fundamental’ nature of mankind doesnt say much.

It is clear from the Greek Anthology that while buggery certainly occurred, it was furtive and disapproved of.

It really doesn’t feel that way when reading certain Greek works, though, e.g. Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists.

Disgust for homosexuality is certainly socially conditioned, as witnessed by the many societies which indulged in it so lavishly despite having easy access to women, like ancient Greece.

Firstly and if nothing else, a critical distinction must be drawn between homosexuality, per se and buggery, i.e., anal penetration.

I highly recommend this 2001 piece by John Derbyshire: How Perfectly Disgusting
Selected, highly relevant excerpts follow (all bold-text emphasis mine).

Now, supposing I am right in my assertion that talk of homosexuality brings buggery to the front of most people’s minds, it is not unreasonable to see why there is — as I believe there is — a widespread public distaste for homosexuality that can never be altogether eradicated. Buggery is, in the first place, unhygienic. In the second place, it spreads disease. And in the third place, it pushes important body parts past their design limits.

More to the point than any of these, however, is a widespread revulsion, found in both genders, all times and all places and cultures, towards the man who plays the part of a woman. There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated — […]

Christopher Hitchens in the New York Review of Books (9/21/00), writing about English boys’-boarding-school homosexuality: “Mutual and manual gratification is the rule. The employment of orifices risks the imputation of unmanliness.”

Even in ancient Greece, generally thought to be a culture very friendly to male homosexuality, this antipathy was clear and often expressed. The famous “romantic friendships” the Greeks favored, between an older man and a young boy, did not usually involve buggery. Greek fathers — warriors, athletes and orators, who believed women belonged in the kitchen — did not care to think of their sons “playing the part of a woman.” The classicist K.J. Dover’s 1977 book Greek Homosexuality, based on a careful analysis of ancient pornographic pottery, revealed that what went on was “intercrural” sex — between the thighs. (This was also the technique favored by Oscar Wilde, according to one of his biographers.) It is clear from the Greek Anthology that while buggery certainly occurred, it was furtive and disapproved of. In every consequential society, in fact, under almost all circumstances, buggery has been out of bounds.

weird ny global standard

Yes, NY has weird standards for the globe. Maybe try Boston?

Going to earlier discussion it has still at least some flavor of the British Isles.

Dmitry, you may consider that you have to achieve your goals in a world full of grim humorless authoritarian types who are full of fear and want to squash freedom and fun and control everything…there are many such people on this site… which calls for a certain amount of strategy.

Such people are not going away and can be quite dangerous, and we have to share our world with them – and perhaps we don’t even want them to go away 🙂

The Puritan will always be with us.

A system which denies their vision of the “good” (sic) life is one that will be unstable, and such people are often happy with mere formal recognition of their “rights” to deny others fun…

We see our current system already tilting towards tyranny because it was too formally free…

A good society must operate on multiple levels, the formal and informal, the inner and outer, etc..to satisfy each type of persons claims and even the many conflicting desires of any human being..

The problem with the West is that we have become all outer and no inner, all formal arrangements and no informal arrangements, all light and no shadow…

We have lost our inner life, and such a society is not healthy or sustainable…

That’s not quite how the world works…

Unless your standard for “very” is something approaching a pure Platonic ideal, that is.

Serfdom ended in the later Middle Ages, and it was a period of greater freedom and fun than today’s regimented technocratic system – it was not called Merry England for nothing, and a tremendous amount of propaganda was needed to get people to believe that today’s system is freer.

Its very interesting to read how at the beginning of the industrial revolution tremendous propaganda and social pressure was needed to convince people that the new system was better. There are some good books on this.

Dmitry, I want to analyze a system in its totality to determine how free it is – a system that has government laws on morality and behavior but is socially accepting of a wider range of lifestyles is actually freer than a system with no such laws but which in is socially intolerant, and in fact bosses and family and friends exert tremendous economic and psychological pressure to conform.

What difference does it make if you are a serf officially tied to land or a wage slave who has no choice but to be at the mercy of bosses who fire you for anything…a serf may actually be freer as the lord has obligations to him…

Point is, we should look past labels and surfaces and easy linear relationships and appreciate unexpected paradoxical relationships – like a formally repressive society may be informally freer than a formally free society – and appreciate the sometimes surprising reality lying beneath the surface….

I’m not saying I’m right here – but simply pointing to laws on the books isn’t going to determine the issue of how much freedom there is…

Thailand may be the world’s largest whore house but prostitution is actually illegal there….!

Japan “formally” doesn’t impose unfair tariffs on American cars but somehow they always get delayed at customs….

We Westerners tend to get caught up in what is formally true and not appreciate the surprising shadow side of life, where often the real action is…

It’s a strength in science but misleading in the human realm. It would be great if we could juggle both methods of thought better, as both are useful.

of tolerance of lifestyles in say the Middle Ages, where you could be

In the Middle Ages, most of us would be peasants, impossible to leave our master’s land.

challenging the mainstream conception of the good life can be met with fierce repression.

Americans may use social pressure to homogenize themselves to follow a certain profession or “good life”. But this is not the same as government authority preventing people from choosing a better (or worse) decision for themselves. This is the pretty important distinction. So perhaps Timothy Leary is the counterexample, as the government has suppressed his point of view. But you can read about similar American characters like Hunter S. Thompson who can live completely bizarre life in America, as full eccentrics.

you are comfortable within the mainstream limits

I would like if limits for people would be reduced. At the same time, when people are damaging others without their responsibility, then punishment could even be increased more than currently. The important thing is very strong order against damaging others, but full range of options for damaging (or benefiting – depending on the calculation) yourself.

How can I extract an argument for this comment from which to agree or disagree? It’s just some “buzz” jargons (“monoculture”, “liberalism”, “enlightenment”) placed into a sentence.

Americans are certainly weird ny global standard but quite bland and homogenized among themselves – there isn’t a proliferation of eccentric types and challenging – or even having an attitude of flippant unseriousness towards – the mainstream culture of technology, consumerism, growth, competition, and striving is met with a tremendous backlash.

It may be you find a tolerance of deviance within very restricted limits – but fundamentally challenging the mainstream conception of the good life can be met with fierce repression.

Perhaps you don’t notice this because you are comfortable within the mainstream limits – but this isn’t comparable to the kind of tolerance of lifestyles in say the Middle Ages, where you could be a beggar, a monk, a wandering minstrel, a vagabond, a mystic, or a merchant, a priest, a knight, a Lord – in other words extreme establishment respectability coexisted with extreme drop-out culture and a range of lifestyles that encompasses the two poles of human life.

Apparently you haven’t read the main blog post, or confuse the LGBT indocrination as some sort of enlightenment rather than the monoculture of liberalism.

traditional England, hierarchical, religious, and socially stratified,

English stratify by themselves. This is nothing created by imposition of authorities, but to some extent rebellion against it, and a longterm result of different kinds of spaces which structured into their system.

In Russia, for some many year, we have homogenized in centralized schools. In England, someone goes to Eton, another to Harrow. Each developing individual, cultural differences, unhomogenized by government officials. (Although this will not be the situation in a government school).

In England, even are schools developed especially by nonconformists educators, which create different educational styles.

You can see ones like this- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartington_Hall

“Dartington Hall School, founded in 1926, offered a progressive coeducational boarding life. When it started there was a minimum of formal classroom activity and the children learnt by involvement in estate activities.”

un-anchored cultures such as ours are afflicted with a profound

Americans are not unanchored – but they are perhaps a psychologically unstable culture. They are one of the most particular and idiosyncratic people in the world, whose only redneck chauvinism (paradigmatic in CNN and NYT model) makes them believe their ideas and culture are universal.

Even within their own country though, they are not particularly homogenized. It’s simply one of their cultural ideals to homogenize (clearly a result of the American Civil War of 1861-1865), which has creates all the different arguments and anger between different regions and viewpoints which we can see today. New York Times for example, is generally very angry towards Alabama, for being so different to them.

I’m familiar with tsun, of course, but ultimately this doesn’t actually mean that much. What is “natural”, for example? Almost anything you want to to define it at, ultimately. Its natural for a fish to swim. Maybe its natural for a man to strive, natural to intensively fertilize and natural to intensively work the fields: there’s certainly no lack of it in ancient China.

This is actually the ultimate “esoteric” insight of Taoism and Buddhism…and when fully grasped leads to a transformation of consciousness and seeing everything in a new light, but not necessarily to any change in behavior.

That is why I say there is no need for anything to change – you wanna strive, strive, you cannot escape nature. But your attitude towards striving can be one that is liberated or one that is in chains. Striving can be play and come from a place of security, or serious and come from a place if fear.

These traditions are about insight – liberation from illusion, not change in the physical world.

Until technology caught up. In hindsight it was clear that sailing ships was just part of a movement to create s connected world.

If you want isolated communities Lao Tzu has a chapter on that, and it isn’t based on technology…..

Neoliberalism.txt was neither the model for historical European culture nor are historical examples of in

Writing undefined, probably incorrectly understood jargon is not transmitting to me any information. This whole paragraph, had no content for me to either agree or disagree with.

not really possible to develop along unique lines: imported models or otherwise in any form of independence

Between countries, there are currently incredibly large differences under superficial similarities. Only talking to real Americans for a short time – and you can realize they are a radically different viewpoint, despite all the knowledge of American cultural products we have.

Current situation is a strange one though. Imported models can be like very different people trying to go to the same clothes shop. It can further accentuate the differences, where it’s very obvious who is trying to wear things they neither fit nor understand (with this lack of understanding sometimes resulting in expression of underlying originality). Some fat (let’s say American) woman’s underwear is on sale. A Russian man walks into the shop and buys this underwear, thinking it is a new kind of hat.

We had an interesting discussion about this topic a few days ago, in comments of Karlin’s post about Romanian writers.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/petre-tutea-on-russians/#comments

I am highly sympathetic to your idea that the ideal culture is one which permits eccentricity and weird lives to flourish, but you must realize that cultures firmly grounded in religion and traditional values and hierarchy have the foundational security to permit eccentricity and weirdness and that un-anchored cultures such as ours are afflicted with a profound sense of insecurity which leads to conformity and repression of eccentricity and weirdness.

At no time in history has it been more difficult to be an eccentric hermit, adventurer, drop-out monk, or just weird person as now, and no country is more homogenized than individualist America, whereas traditional England, hierarchical, religious, and socially stratified, was famously hospitable to all manner if weirdness and produced wonderfully eccentric people of genuine individuality.

Anyone who knows Japan knows that this intensely “repressive” and traditional country is magnificently productive of weird and eccentric types.

The fact is that you are making the mistake of going to a one-sided extreme which inevitably destroys what you wish to promote – tolerance for eccentricity and weirdness comes from the fruitful integration of security and freedom. Extreme freedom (in terms of no clear social rules or anchors) creates insecurity and thus intolerance of eccentricity.. And obviously extreme repression squelches it.

Until we learn to appreciate the harmonizing of opposites we will only occasionally stumble into a way of life permissive of weirdness, as a stage on the way to one extreme or another when the two polarities are adventitiously integrated.

The same way that sailing ships create isolated communities.

I cannot understand how the same technology which is the basis for global connectivity as well as the basis for developing space travel will become the basis for creating isolated communities on other planets.

Space travel would be a development of the global culture of hyper-connectivity that is based on modern technology.

The world is small now because of technology, not physical space. Expanding into physical space would not address the causes of the shrinking world but would be an expression of those causes.

I find your notion of isolated communities also Taoistic 🙂

This is not the impression of Laozi’s conversion with Confucius, but that shows how every philosophical tradition can be interpreted into almost anything, much like how Ming Neoconfucianists simultaneously “discovered” that Confucianism encouraged trade(to benefit the people) and isolation(to prevent corruption). We know who won that argument but it just shows that a lot of it is just redefined as needed.

I’m familiar with tsun, of course, but ultimately this doesn’t actually mean that much. What is “natural”, for example? Almost anything you want to to define it at, ultimately. Its natural for a fish to swim. Maybe its natural for a man to strive, natural to intensively fertilize and natural to intensively work the fields: there’s certainly no lack of it in ancient China.

https://www.soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010122king/ffc0.html

Then, notwithstanding the enormous acreage of rice planted each year in these countries, it is all set in hills and every spear is transplanted. Doing this, they save in many ways except in the matter of human labor, which is the one thing they have in excess. By thoroughly preparing the seed bed, fertilizing highly and giving the most careful attention, they are able to grow on one acre, during 30 to 50 days, enough plants to occupy ten acres and in the mean time on the other nine acres crops are maturing, being harvested and the fields being fitted to receive the rice when it is ready for transplanting, and in effect this interval of time is added to their growing season.

Its useful, of course. I think biology offers some of the best solutions for efficiency(and sufficiency) and its often worth observing biological systems. There’s a lot of lessons from nature. But in itself, it doesn’t really mean that much.

Problem here would be the weakness, not the access.

Sure – we are helping him out. He acknowledges it is wrong, has a problem and we (as his brothers) are intervening for him and saving him from doing stupid things, ruining his marriage, destroying his family, etc. Because we – as a community – have to deal with the ramifications of all that also; families don’t fall apart in a vaccum.

There’s also an epistemic problem of how we (society) know what constitutes weakness.

We already determined that; it is a sin. Why? God says so. Others are free to determine their own epistemic foundations for defining what constitutes weaknesses. Like I was mentioning, I don’t care to define that for other communities. Just last night, in the chapter of taxation in al-Hidayah, we discussed how a non-Muslim trader (who owns pigs) is not taxed for those pigs when he passes by the toll-collector because our community does not deem it to be any category of wealth* while others do.

There is no “we (society)” as far as I’m concerned without “we (mini-societies)”.

Government/authority’s main role should be to enforce very strongly order which prevents one person from damaging another without their responsibility.

I agree, but we disagree on what constitutes “damaging another without their responsibility”. A man watching porn or visiting a prostitute or etc. (when he knows that it is wrong and improper) can destroy his family – that has repercussions on his children; what did they do to deserve a broken home?

Peace.

*Interestingly, the Hanafi school will actually tax their wine (the Shafi’i school does not for the same reason as the pigs) because the wine can be turned into vinegar and thus has the potential (in its nature) to become a source of valid wealth for a Muslim as well.

Daniel, this is a serious mistake. Taoist texts are replete with descriptions of action that does not go against against the grain – most famously the butcher in Chuang Tzu who described to the king how his skill is so masterly because he is do careful to cut with the grain and not against it.

Taoism is a thoroughgoing mystical naturalism – action is a natural and spontaneous process, and enforcing an artificial passivity is an effortful attempt to interfere with natural processes and can hardly an example of “letting things be”.

It cannot be stressed enough that “letting things be” cannot by definition be a philosophy of enforced passivity, which is effort by definition and a form of repression and interference.

The Chinese term is “tsu-jan” – which means of itself so, naturally arising. This is not a philosophy of “repression”.

Now, a religious form of Taoism – the Taoism of the magical cults – did arise and is much closer to what you describe, and as so often happens came to represent a philosophy completely at variance with the original texts – as when magical Taoism becomes about the search for immortality when the classic texts embrace death ecstatically as a natural process and envision immortality as being part of these processes and not opposing them.

As for Taoism encouraging hermitage, this is its extreme form and one of its legitimate expressions, but at the same time Taoism along with Zen and Mahayana Buddhism developed a philosophy of engagement with society rather than complete retreat based on action following the principles of going with the grain, non-interference, and acceptance (i.e detachment), and even considered this a higher level of perfection than hermitage.

How many scholar elites, artists, officials, and intellectuals had their garden retreat where they practiced painting, calligraphy, poetry, and appreciating nature while not retreating from the world…

Neoliberalism.txt was neither the model for historical European culture nor are historical examples of individualism the same post-technologically aided noospheric unity. Its not really possible to develop along unique lines: imported models or otherwise in any form of independence these days, and the intrusion of foreign NGOs only further extends this issue.

Anything that encourages said independence is to be encouraged.

But your support for neoliberalism.txt is noted.

end result of liberal advocacy of “individualism”

Not really. Whole of European civilization’s development, from Athens onwards, is built on this model, and almost all our heroes would be demolished, and some were physically demolished, attempting to go their own direction.

with knowledge separation that was once done with distances and reduced communication

This is quite a different topic, and related to technological development. In the modern world, national cultures developed their own unique views on the world, precisely through their great men breaking from imported models.

There is weird interaction with the imported models though. Russian culture, at least the parts we most love today, is almost completely this interaction of importing other civilizations’ model, taking some years to digest, and then breaking it up into the new Russian way.

him off from it would not be violating his own code of morality because he acknowledges it is wrong, but just has a weakness.

Problem here would be the weakness, not the access. And in dynamic situation, sometimes lack of access (e.g. American Indian and the alcohol) is longterm cause of the later weakness.

There’s also an epistemic problem of how we (society) know what constitutes weakness. This could be resolved with empirical trial and errors. But also that what is weakness for one man, might be strength for another – where the most successful model, probably requires a person to learn for themselves.

There’s a lot of problems of deciding when or if a person should be viewed as an adult who should take their own decisions, and how to prepare children for this responsibility. And how to regulate wider advice available for them. But once this is possible, then people should be on their own tracks, where they have accountability for their own decisions.

Government/authority’s main role should be to enforce very strongly order which prevents one person from damaging another without their responsibility. But a person who does things society might think “damages themselves”, or illuminates options which might help others to “damage themselves” (which would be the crime of Socrates) – this has always been one of the main engines of development.

People are not an island. The end result of liberal advocacy of “individualism” is a globalist monoculture and much like crop monoculture, it is both boring and makes it much more vulnerable to any diseases that strike it out.

The only way to avoid that historically was with knowledge separation that was once done with distances and reduced communication. Without that now, we need to either recreate it with space travel or have other means of having separate communities with their own beliefs.

Problem is if he believes others, who are perhaps more advanced them him (perhaps less advanced than him), should be pressed to follow his weird path.

I agree – which is why I don’t believe people should be pressed to follow my path. See my comment about Yazidis being allowed to have full access to on-demand porn (and swap wives as much as they like, hell they can marry their couches); their religion, their community, their future…

Peace.

Whole point is people shouldn’t be pressed to be like this. People should be allowed to live all their own weird lives, and with their own strange ideas for themselves and following their eccentric obsessions and divergent decisions – as far as they do not damage other people’s responsibility. It’s in this way that man is climbing above, being simply, weak cattle, and we have developed most of our culture – precisely from the nonconformism and eccentricism of certain men, with the executed Socrates being probably the most archetypal example of our civilization.

Look at Talha for example. It’s fine if he wants to follow his strange religion, despite that everyone else here would say is misguided and absurd. Maybe he can even find out some knowledge for mankind from choosing this pathway for himself.

Problem is if he believes others, who are perhaps more advanced them him (perhaps less advanced than him), should be pressed to follow his weird path, which may be suitable for him, but clearly is not for others. But this pressing occurs in most majority Muslim countries (with some minority of cool exceptions like Azerbaijan), and it seems evidentially to have a very negative effect on those countries, which are generally far weaker, more dysfunctional, and contributing less than the rest of the world.

No, Taoism when taken to its ultimate conclusion is not to influence anything at all. Laozi’s conversation with Confucius indicated that he thought that it was a waste of time to find “wordly” solutions to anything.

Taoist rejection of “wordliness” also makes them heavily associated with “magic cults” and secret societies such as the White Lotus. In many ways, its highly esoteric nature is a natural outflow for elite members looking for something other than the rat race. As with medieval monasteries, they had outsized artistic influence and plays well with animistic influences that are pervasive in Eastern cultures(a variation of this being ancestral worship).

That said, Taoism is self-selecting against its influence in society since it encourages desertion from the political structure – heavily encourages hermitage. This meant that Confucianism has always been state-promoted, while the influence of Taoist thought has been through its ability to impact scholars through books like Zhuangzi.

Influencing things through minimal effort is not a bad idea at all, though. Its all part of the typical calculations for return and investment, etc.

Sure, but Confucianism supplied the necessary ballast, not legalism – and Confucianism has strong affinities with Taoism and may be seen almost as an “exoteric” Taoism.

Taoism is far too substantial to be defined as fringe as it was massively influential in the arts and even beyond – were there any Chinese poets or painters who weren’t Taoists?

While it’s true to say Confucianism always overshadowed Taoism, I don’t think Taoism can be seen.as anything less than the second major tradition in Chinese culture, permeating nearly every aspect of the culture.

“Letting things be” – what is meant is more like working withthe natural flow of events and subtly guiding them exerting minimal effort rather than trying to impose one’s will on events without regard to their natural flow, which is ineffective in the long run. Abd this, it seems to me, can be the basis for a healthy political economy.

Fair enough 🙂

But what is ignorance and what knowledge? To a Buddhist, Western scientific knowledge would be the definition of ignorance in a certain sense.

Ignorance may – may – be the belief that the “deep structure” of reality admits of final solutions rather than the recognition that every positive is interdependent with a negative, like the front and back of a coin, that they form a whole together and cannot be disentangled.

Its not that we should not address our problems – but that we should address them in a more sophisticated way based on the understanding of the fundamental polarity and interdependence of things in this world.

This would lead to solutions that are more like “swimming” than standing firmly on dry land, and something very different than the Western dysfunction with its extremism.

But – as I said, the West needs to be the West. It does not need to become the Orient. And fundamentally changing the West would contradict my own position as laid out here.

So – no “fundamentally” changing the West into a faux-Orient. But within the framework of the distinctive cultural assumptions of the West perhaps a counter-current can establish itself and exert some influence even if only in the margins. This would be “swimming” with the problem rather than solving it.

The West needs to contain an Orient within itself while remaining the West, while the East needs a West within itself while remaining the East.

Point is, at the end of the day, society has to function and not just “let things be.” You don’t get the Imperial Examination, what are the worthwhile normative values, how to identify virtue, etc. without serious and extensive thought being put into how to get a lot of people to work together minimally killing each other and without starving.

Taoism is present but always has been a bit fringe, though like most Chinese things, it has been syncrenized into the general flow.

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”

While legalism certainly is a feature of Chinese culture, Confucianism and Taoism have always been the dominant strains and have characterized the classical ages of Chinese culture.

I think a culture is defined by its dominant modes not its marginal modes. There was a substantial mystical current in the West, but Western mainstream culture has always been significantly less hospitable to mysticism than Asia.

Nevertheless, I agree its useful to point out that China has a not insignificant legalistic strain and the West a not insignificant mystic strain.

I think it really depends on ones implicit metaphysics.

I think solutions always create new problems – so in a sense I don’t believe deep down the structure of reality admits of there “really being solutions”. I think when we “really” create solutions, we also create new problems.

Don’t we see this with everything? We solved hunger to create obesity. Even penicillin is slowly leading to super-bugs.

So you and I just have different implicit metaphysics – deep down we think the structure of reality is just built differently.

I think we have to learn how to swim, while you think we have to get onto dry land where our footing is secure. Its just a fundamental difference that depends on our intuitive understanding of the deep structure of reality.

Legalism is very..legalistic.

Its a dodge when there really is a solution, or seeking to find one helps the advancement of knowledge, even down blind alleys:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/salon-demographics/

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/patriarchal-sexual-law/

Dag yo! That is even more strict than much of classic Islamic law on the subject (minus the stoning for adultery of course, no one beats that). Had no clue, but very enlightening – thanks for post.

Peace.

an the normal Standard-Arabic-literate person read all of it

This really depends on the style – certain forms are easier to read than others. It can get quite complex and become very difficult (though very elegant):

But Hajji Noor Deen’s style is generally very legible (and I’m not even a native Arabic speaker).

Wasn’t the Taliban doing it on the DL?

I am certain that some in the Taliban were practicing this, just as I’m sure LAPD’s Rampart division was massively corrupt and took bribes and other nefarious acts – but there is a difference between actual policy and those who surreptitiously use their authority to break the law.

You have to understand – one of the main reasons that the Taliban came to power was that they ended these kinds of problems in the civil-war plagued situation in Afghanistan. They may well have been brutal, but they established law and order:
“‘Like it or not, there was better rule of law under the Taliban,’ said Dee Brillenburg Wurth, a child-protection expert at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, who has sought to persuade the government to address the problem. ‘They saw it as a sin, and they stopped a lot of it.’…In Kandahar during the mid-1990s, the Taliban was born in part out of public anger that local commanders had married bachas and were engaging in other morally licentious behavior….During the Taliban era, men suspected of having sex with men or boys were executed. In the late 1990s, amid the group’s repressive reign, the practice of bacha bazi went underground. The fall of the Taliban government in late 2001 and the flood of donor money that poured into Afghanistan revived the phenomenon.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afganistans-dancing-boys-are-invisible-victims/2013/12/30/bb8e8a5a-7c2b-11e1-8f65-4cbb23028e62_story.html?utm_term=.01fc128c5a4a

Peace.

Confucianism did some things very well(filial piety and general focus) and other things very poorly(innovation and larger unity). Part of its strength came from how like Christianity, it could be and has been variously interpreted by this scholars to mean many things, including contradictory positions.

But even as early as the 1600s, Zheng Chenggong(from a Japanese origin) expressed his frustration that the Chinese would not honor the Emperor or any concept like the Japanese did in the same passion, as Confucianism set them to focus on their family so when he demanded that they fight for the Emperor even at risk of losing their families, few would be motivated to do so, they just didn’t find the Emperor all that divine. This is pretty amazing – even superstitious as they were, it just didn’t seem that important – the Emperor might be the magic son of heaven, but he’s still less important to than dad and ma(or maybe just a little bit more).

This was obviously frustrating and can creates its own low-trust issues, since while the source of low-trust is stable(family > all) and well-run small units of family can mean a pleasant society, it still that there’s no unified force for advancement or power. Arguably its one reason why Japanese society is actually much more collectivizing with its own advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment credited to Confucianism is the focus on metrics and examination as a form of “source of truth” above traditional relationships(even family), so that advancement was heavily tied to presumably fair metrics rather than nepotism. This is an incredible, perhaps even defining force of civilization in China(and East Asia) but it actually originally sources from Mohism, with the argument among others of “if carpenters use levels and traders use scales, why do not rulers have any means of measure?” Such ideas were later integrated into what we consider as Confucianism these days, with academic performance melding into Confucian notions of virtue.

It has its advantages, as well as its disadvantages – issues with shame culture meant that a lot of problems were avoided or hidden rather than solved.

But I think this is a design feature not a bug. The idea that all problems havesolutions is utopian and goes together with the Western notion that one state must win out in the end. Solutions for all problems is part of the good vs evil apocalyptic vision.

The Asian vision, based on harmonizing of opposites, seeks to manage problems rather than finally solve them, as solving implies eradicating one aspect of the situation and all aspects of a situation are seem as legitimate on some level and part of a higher harmony.

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/10/29/patriarchal-sexual-law/

That said, I agree about the lack of an “evangelical” perspective and a focus on the “practical” result, thus the Japanese saying of kusai mono ni wa futa o shiro(if it stinks, put a lid on it). It has its advantages, as well as its disadvantages – issues with shame culture meant that a lot of problems were avoided or hidden rather than solved.

I guess he wasn’t very discreet if they knew.

To some limited extent, but consider the quality of modern comedy having to follow “woke” guidelines versus classic comedy for one example. Regardless of politics, its just not very good. I see your point and its certainly applicable when working with a patron, but less so with the inchoate and shifting “opinions of importance” that bureaucracy classically delivers.

Re: “Faggots [sic] not allowed” sign on coffee shop window:

I’m curious, would they refuse to serve even someone whom they knew was homosexual but who was sufficiently discreet about it that it would not be apparent to others?

This is the usual CIA-driven garbage expected of Karlin. Yes Russians turn to Russian media, the best in the world….but it isn’t “anti-LGBT” just pro-common sense and intellectualism and morals.

You’ve got me confused. I had thought that Mr. Karlin considers “anti-LGBT” to be a good thing. Are you suggesting that is not the case?

When you join NATO and become a vassal state of the USA, you accept the whole package, gay marriage and gay parades included. USA enforced globalism is unmitigated evil.

Censorship of anything but the most informal sort is just toxic to art.

I may oppose censorship on political grounds, but it’s not necessarily “toxic to art”. Restraints are what make art. Sometimes they’re self-imposed, sometimes they come from outside. Either way, the craftsman works within them.

Frank Gehry says that his most difficult job was the one in which the client gave him complete freedom. He didn’t know where to start.

Of course, with Gehry, he doesn’t know where to end, either. But his point here is valid.

Wasn’t the Taliban doing it on the DL?

Toppling brick walls onto your partner is some hardcore BDSM.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/678883/Afghan-says-surviving-execution-proves-his-innocence.html

opposition to gay marriage corelates with low iq.

Of course. As Orwell said, some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.

Your extra IQ points have to work some serious overtime to wrap your head around this particular one.

The guy holding the cylindrical object looks quite fabulously suspicious.

Wasn’t the Taliban doing it on the DL?

I, for one, would welcome a Irano-Chinese movie about the Battle of Talas.

The calligraphy certainly looks beautiful, but I always wondered: can the normal Standard-Arabic-literate person read all of it, or is it something you need to put in years into “calligraphy fan” to?

This doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand. They packaged the things the people wanted, better made than found elsewhere, and the things *they* wanted together. Resulted as anyone following would’ve expected.

Hollywood is basically Satan tempting the least wholesome parts of human nature. Given modern technology I’m not sure how easy it is now to seal people off when half of the problem is their own bad side but maybe one way is to provide relatively less pozzed alternatives for those urges.

For example vampires used to be the bad guys in vampire movies with a subtly wholesome message (parasitism is bad) and so you can have trad heros fighting them and doing all the action hero stuff that people like – meanwhile in pozworld the vampires have gradually become the heroes.

develop unpozzed alternative media, including social media starting with:

1) a local version of facebook, twitter etc – a lot of social media revolves around family connections which would be naturally inward looking if you could separate it from the poz

it would need to allows robust levels of free speech so SJW ideas can’t become a monopoly of what kids hear growing up.

2) unpozzed children’s entertainment – it might be too hard to prevent teens exploring but you can give little kids a solid foundation. find out what parts of western media the kids are drawn to (Dr Who? Harry Potter? Disney?) and then make an unpozzed version.

#

this would only slow the poison but i’m assuming the west can’t survive like this for long (and if it does we’re doomed anyway so it won’t matter)

I have frequently made the point that it is absolutely false that the West is racially egalitarian and that this notion, perhaps derived from Christianity, is at the root of the problem.

The idea that the West is ‘pathologically altruistic’, etc, because Hajnal Line, and pathologically fair and honest etc etc…

Complete misunderstanding of the situation…

The correct term to describe the West is clearly ‘self-hating‘ which is quite a different thing from pathological altruism or fairness…

There is a clear racial hierarchy – it is just inverted…

The West oscillates between hating itself or hating others – but it cannot live without a devil to hate, there must be some evil force, usually concentrated in a race or nation, that needs to be defeated if utopia is to be ushered in.

Its true I do talk too much. I think I had to talk myself to the point where I saw the futility of talking.

I guess I’ll still talk, but just for the fun of it.