And why those citations has to matter?Originally Posted by DogOfDanger
And why those citations has to matter?
Because being correct matters...
This has very little to do with religion or idealism, actually it's the very materialistic nature of religious traditionalist that make them so fertile relative to the typical population. Procreation and child bearing are materialist concerns. What traditionalist religion does is make people very closed off to external idealism, and thus the commodifying nature of modern capitalism.
This is in fact a idealistic thing that is happening here, within the commodification of love and sex, either thru bourgeois romantic idealism, porn, prostitution and newer commodification of sex and relations such as Tinder and Grindr and such. The fetishizations of sex from it's reproductive and child bearing goals is a idealistic move and not a materialist one. Consumerism is largely idealistic, with branding, fetishization and other injection of idealism dominating. Within the commodification of all things within late capitalism, the inevitable alienation that results is completely predictable. When one looks at fertility rates and how it rises, it rises largely due to material consequences such as war, mass death and other factors and not due to cultural movements such as sexual revolution. The sexual revolution didn't happen because of some movement towards freedom(except maybe freedom of consumption), it largely happened due to the fact that new forms of commodities needed to be created in order to satisfy a new consumer base that had gained the ability to earn wages and money.
I understand you are probably misusing the term materialist here like most people do, but the reality is that we live in a world that has been massively commodified and fetishized, with various ideals implanted into the products we consume. Consequently most people can no longer separate their desires from the various distractions that have been sold to them, usually in a safer and less traumatic manner. Sex, love and romance are catastrophic experiences without the alienation that modern commodification brings, and in a sense this is why after major moments of trauma such as war, people seem much more willing to engage in these practices.
The nihilism that exists today isn't due to some lack of direction or mundanity, it is in fact the result of living in a time of relative plenty, to be bombarded by various commodified choices as well as self-commodification in various forms. People turn towards destruction and their own self destruction due to usually a misunderstanding of what happening but a instinctual desire to escape whatever they're in.
The reactionary response to these massive changes in society, mostly since WWII has been to look into the past towards something that didn't really exist any ways. Procreation and child bearing have largely always been a matter of the need for labor and/or due to incessant war and insecurity in most societies.
I do believe there will be a shift whether reactionary or progressive that will reject the existing commodification of some of humanity's most basic desires, of which love, sex are part of them. I see romance is largely a idealistic and bourgeois commodity that does not really make itself suitable for a majority of people and thus it doesn't really need to be addressed within this social movement. The places that chooses regressive and improper forms to address this will regress as societies, engage in great and traumatic disorder and probably fall into despotisms and weakness, but the birth rates will go up as they do after war and mass death.
I think friendship can create a kind of needed alienation in order for this sort of non-romantic relationship between compatible people to happen. For your friends that can befriend people and then turn into lovers this is likely they are adept at breaking down these alienating factors once they decided on romance while others such as you are unable to perceive and alter these barriers.
Thus preserving their natural idealism. You're basically making the same argument I made... but I don't know what you mean when you say this has nothing to do with the ideals or religion, it involves both.
The studies I'm referring to didn't measure romantic idealism by proxy via levels of procreation or child rearing, or some other practical measure. They looked at self-reported attitudes on things like foolishness in the pursuit of love, desire for exclusivity, levels of passion, etc.
There is the longstanding tradition that emphasizes child rearing, and certainly traditional religion does work to preserve that, but I don't believe that alone would significantly change levels of romantic idealism on a personality test. Because those practical considerations are very impersonal and non-idealistic. Foolishness in love, fantasy, exclusivity, dreaming of ones wedding day... that's what we're talking about. There should be some other explanation for the effect. The first explanation above is a good one.
I don't think so, but let's just define them...
materialist:
a person who considers material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
idealist:
a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.
of, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality.
ideal:
satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
romantic:
conducive to or characterized by the expression of love.
of, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality.
Materialism and idealism are not mutually exclusive. A materialist idealist is a person driven to pursue some ultimate experience of comfort or some other indulgence... maybe hedonistic would be a more accurate term for what we're talking about with fetishes, but whatever. In the case you describe of a person derailed by these corrupt capitalist ideals into pursuing fetishes - we can say there are debased ideals driving the person, but nonetheless the thing they're pursuing is a material indulgence, the thing that reinforces the behavior is a dopamine release which is a form of pleasure. I actually think the dopamine kick is the primary driver, not some ideal (which is ultimately a thought and therefor rational), but anyway there is no mutual exclusion.
But what must also be mentioned is the oxymoron of idealism - that in acknowledging a set of ideals are debased or corrupt... they cease to be ideals, because an ideal is perfection, and you've acknowledged the ideal falls short of perfection. I think most people who pursue fetishes or other perverse things actually realize what they're doing is not ideal, and are ashamed of such things - they see them more as irresistible instinctual urges that take hold. Infact usually people with the strongest ideals against such things as fetishes are those who have been plagued by them, there is this split in the personality where the person represses the fetish (that's their idealism), and then the instinct returns and they indulge in the fetish. This seems to me to be a common complex. Some people are accepting of their fetishes... but I think these people give off an exaggerated impression of themselves. And in any case, there are very few people who would announce at the Thanksgiving dinner table their list of fetishes to their friends and family... and so I think everyone is a little bit aware that these things aren't really ideal.
Romantic idealism is different than all these fetishes, because as we discussed earlier humans have a natural inclination toward mating and toward monogamy, and so the ideal of romance is one which serves a natural purpose and is consistent with the natural law.
Maybe we're headed into a conversation where you won't acknowledge there are any true ideals... but I'd argue that true ideals - those ideals which are ideal - are natural, and can be reasoned about and found to be consistent with the natural law. Meaning that they're basically evolutionary.
It would be a lack of proper direction, and misdirection toward pursuing the materialist ideals, having lost ones bearings. Fetishes are not something to live for, they're not inspiring. But as you said, people have a desire to escape what they're in - but where is that place that they are disconnected from, which they truly long to return to, the only place which could give them lasting fulfillment? It's nature, where they can be in harmony with the instincts. The ultimate source of these problems with the instincts is not merely capitalism, though capitalism does seem to focus especially on the sex instincts... but the source of problems with the instincts is the disconnection from and denial of instinct that was introduced by civilization... Well-formed ideals are those ideals which lead people to gradually unwind modernity and return us to the source of existence (though that's a complex process and there are many entailments to it). The romantic ideal in its best form is not some middle-class dinner table, as you seem to characterize it... I think it's easy to romanticize nature, and romantic idealism is related to an inner longing people have to return to nature, but I think that people can find a fuller realization of love and the ideals in nature. That's more of the benevolent side of nature. But of course love is natural, it was evolution that brought about all these instincts and chemicals that get released when you're in love. Even in the struggle to survive though there is some engagement and fulfillment that comes from it. The middle-class dinner table is thought of more as a miserable and disconnected place, and simultaneously a place of indulgence. This speaks to a deeper misunderstanding you have about religion - many of the major religions, including Judaism and Christianity, are at their roots panentheistic. This is something that people who don't believe in religion or take it seriously often get wrong, they'll mischaracterize it as being representative of the American middle class... it's a very common statement but it's not really justified by a reading of the religious texts. I would rather say that the middle class (or really any civilized person) often latches onto certain aspects of religious ideas as a potential remedy to this disconnection, it's due to an inner longing they have.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-16-2024 at 07:29 AM.
Romance is a bourgeoisie social construct! That's why you should replace it with duality instead so you'll never ever get horny again (even if you normally get horny just randomly looking at Scarlett Johansson or Jason Momoa or random people with abs or butts or whatever purely sensory thing say goodbye to that because socionics is like electronic castration) and you'll never even slightly like the person you're in a partnership with because they have the opposite personality and nothing else in common! And all your partnerships will be business transactions! Because romance is a bourgeoisie social construct!
There is nothing particularly natural or essential about any particular religious ideology. Different religions have vastly different takes on sex and procreation, and the history of religion and show vast shifts of it across human history. As human intelligence grows, mutually exclusive and fair relationships become more preferred vs relations of domination and exploitation. Historically religious traditions operate sexual relations on the basis of domination and exploitation. Marriage is as much a economic endeavor as it is a emotional one and historically it has been more so a economic one and a economically exploitative one. Any religious ideals around it have yet to resolve this exploitation, and thus when the choice is given to people and various commodities arise to mediate such an relation, it's not surprising people will choose to avoid such commitments.
Also historically, who you can and cannot marry has always been rigorously controlled(socially, legally) on the basis of class, race and various other factors. Whatever romantic ideals that traditional religion has, it has largely been to perpetuate this exploitation, it functions to facilitate procreation thru domination and exploitation but when people have a choice economically, it's easier for them to buy the other commodities available, functional or otherwise.
The only natural laws that are perhaps immutable in the world are laws of physics, any particular human practice around sexual reproduction or of any particular species is only a temporary adaptation based on some particular arrangement of DNA, so in a sense it is evolutionary but this means little as far as our capacity. Given we can gene splice and many other techniques to alter DNA today, these laws are mutable and perhaps should be changed. But ultimately only if it has a better adaptation to some particular trend of development.
There are many benefits to monogamy and such and perhaps this will be the trend of humanity, but it does not take any particular religions devotion to advocate for monogamy nor any particular ideas about romance to facilitate it. Atheistic nations have made illegal polygamy and advocated for monogamy just as much as religious ones, without requiring any sort of religious doctrine. The trend has moved beyond monogamy to also non exploitative relations, and this is perhaps also evolutionary.
Many religions are also atheistic, religion is merely a ideological adaption to some particular historical moment in order to facilitate a few misunderstood desires. And these belief systems disappear and appear with the passing of time, Judaism and Christianity will disappear into history much as the Greek and Roman Gods as well as any number of dead religions and gods.
Capitalism did nothing but craft new ideals in order to sell the commodities of capitalism, and these ideals might distract from the more primitive ones such as procreation and romance, but they are perfect in their own way for their own purpose. As these commodities are usually less lethal and problematic than child bearing or child birth and are more engineered to provide pleasure and comfort to people, they might choose these options and not the old options. As I mentioned earlier, child bearing and birth rates tend to rise quite a bit when war and mass death happens and this probably occurs for various reasons.
But I see what is happening today as largely a temporary period of adjustment as people come to grips with the vast amount of information and ideals they are subjected to by mass media, it is likely new forms of resistance against this distraction will arise and a new set of practices and traditions will form, this may even involve the sexual selection of individuals that will be largely impervious to this distraction, as well as cultural formations that can indoctrinate people against it. If religions survive, they will need to change and morph significantly in order to compete.
You’re worse than a paedophile, you disgusting piece of shit.
when people use google and your ill-conceived point which you've already doubled down on gets irreparably shredded before your eyes... you might almost shed a single tear. but no, in defiance tilt your head toward the sky and scream... AAAGGHHHHHHgghhhhh...... no... nooo, noooo.....
You’re so weird. Can you speak English? As in are you able to?
I won I won I won. I’m sick and you’re making my day better. Wooo. Bless you, I’ve seen you trying really hard in your posts! Even narcissistic people can grow. We’re watching you!
Religion is rooted in a metaphysics which attempts to answer universal questions about being, existence, purpose, the beginning of causality, and so fourth. In the case of monotheism it postulates that there ought to be some transcendent source of creation. From there it infers that this transcendental entity must have certain attributes such as consciousness, will, omnipotence, and so on. My point is these are some of the most basic and universal questions that can be asked, and there are only a limited number of possible answers to them. For example, any creature in existence is liable to ask the question: how did existence begin, when did causality begin, what is our purpose...? This is true whether the creature exists now, or 10 billion years from now, or on the other side of the galaxy, or galaxies away... because the questions are metaphysical. And there aren't that many different possible answers that are viable. For example, you could theorize that the universe was created by some spiky unicorn, but that answer doesn't endure... because the construct of spiky unicorn is not irreducible, you then are left with more questions than you have answers. A transcendent entity is an irreducible construct.
Now, given that a person accepts this metaphysics they may then consider that universe (nature) is a divine creation. And there is a direct line of logic from the metaphysics to that conclusion.
So there is certainly an essential metaphysics that religion is based on. It's not the case that religion is just obscure, incomprehensible cultural phenomenon that led to an obscure way of thinking. You may not agree with the answers it provides to these questions, you don't have to, but that's a different matter.
Religion is an interpretation of that metaphysics within a given historical context, among other things, but if interpreted properly there's no reason it should be tightly bound to that context.
People have vastly different takes on all sorts of things... I've heard people give vastly different takes on evolution, but we don't therefor conclude that the field itself is invalid, and that there is no such thing as evolution.
There are also many different branches of physics, and physics has evolved over time. Nowdays we're aspiring toward a grand unified theory of physics, and there are a few candidates. Only a very few physics theories are grand theories... Likewise not all religions make serious attempts at answering the metaphysical questions we mentioned earlier in a way that holds up to scrutiny. In a grand theory the emphasis is on highly abstract theorizing where form and structure of concepts takes precedence over some understanding of a socio-cultural reality.
Polytheistic religions generally place greater emphasis on the socio-cultural - which is more as you say an adaptation to some particular historical moment. But monotheistic religions are rooted more firmly in a highly abstract and formal metaphysics. And all the worlds major religions, including Hinduism, have a firm metaphysical basis.
It depends on what religion you're talking about, but the religious principles I'd consider more than just arbitrary social constructs are those which are consistent with natural principles. I suspect what you characterize as exploitative I would just consider natural and instinctual in many cases, because men and women are different. For example, testosterone makes men more aggressive and dominant while estrogen makes women more sexually submissive... the natural relationship between male and female is not one of an equal power balance. When you say the relationship throughout history has been exploitative one thing you do is interpret dominance outside of its historical and cultural context... It's certainly true that there have been instances of exploitation throughout history, but that's true today as well, and I don't think that's especially associated with religion per se. Again it depends on what religion we're talking about. But exploitation - that's certainly not the way love works, nor is it the way good parenting works, but maybe it's the way you view history. It's not the way I view it.
Let me first point out that some scientists have actually proposed a new natural law that is a generalization of evolutionary processes: https://www.reuters.com/science/scie...on-2023-10-16/
There's alot of ground that could be covered in this conversation. But I will just try to focus on this idea of human progress.
The way you define human progress is naively removed from nature. For one, it entails processes that pollute and destroy nature (all the industrial processes necessary to enable gene splicing), yet nature in turn enables human existence. So this notion of progress is not really enduring progress. As humans self-destruct nature reasserts itself.
Also, you didn't really escape the natural laws, they still continue to operate.
In evolution the novel traits that emerge are proper adaptations to the environment. With this artificial tinkering you're just selecting for what humans deem desirable, but the adaptation is not serving a proper function... Even if your aim was to select proper adaptations, humans have no real ability to determine what those are, the system is just way too complex. For example, even viruses serve an important evolutionary function - if you were to splice genes and make human beings resistant to viruses this would certainly improve our way of life, but it would actually undermine the natural processes of evolution and infact reduce human fitness.
Another example is... if you were to artificially tinker with and improve a predators ability to hunt, but without improving the fitness of its prey... the actual consequence may be that the prey gets hunted to extinction, which in turn results in the predators extinction... thus even an "improvement" to the predators hunting ability is not actually an increase in its fitness ... until you modify the dependent factors in the environment and bring them along for the ride.
The active processes that drive evolution are enduring, and a natural adaptation has a basic enduring quality. What it amounts to ultimately is life continuing over billions of years.
So when we talk about ideals... these natural principles are perfect, but the ideals you propose are flawed in that they have long term consequences and lack truly useful function.
Another example would be the average human lifespan... we could possibly modify our genes to prolong this, but this would probably decrease our fitness as older people would continue to use up resources without providing much survival-reproductive benefit either via themselves or to their offspring.
People don't desire a partner who's monogamous because they've been coerced into monogamy by the government. What people want is not merely an act of devotion and loyalty, but true inner devotion and loyalty... religion is spiritual and psychological, a government is just coercive.
I don't think the purpose of religion should be to enforce natural moral laws, but rather to explicate them. This varies from one religion to the next. In any case, by adhering to a religion you will make conscious those moral laws, and in so doing hold yourself accountable to them... and so religion does increase adherence. But certainly it is possible to recognize these things and abide by them without religion. Though without religion I don't think it's as common to adhere to the laws, and I don't think it's clear where the moral law comes from or that there's any real imperative behind them. So you could be monogamous, and it may be in our nature to be monogamous, but why should you?
I suppose any ideal can be construed as perfect in isolation, but if it conflicts with another ideal there's a rational imperative that we recognize the flaw in one or the other, and then either reject the ideal, or synthesize part of it into some higher ideal. Otherwise you're just left in a state of confusion and incoherence, pursuing aims that are flawed and bring about bad results.
Could be, though this is an adaptation to the modern environment, not the natural environment... and ultimately the modern environment is not sustainable. To adapt in an environment that's toxic and deteriorating is not ideal... would be better to fix the environment.
This is adaptive on the micro-level, but on a macro scale both the trait and the environment go extinct. So in a way humanity is actually devolving at this point.
The core metaphysics of the religion will always endure... the religion may need reinterpreting within changing contexts, in certain ways. But people already do attempt to reinterpret the texts in a modern context when they read the religious books - the people who take it seriously, anyway. Most skeptics, including yourself, treat religion as if it were pure dogma. But the fact is all the religious books were written by human beings... many of them are just interpreted applications of an underlying metaphysics. This interpretative process is actually not even so far removed from the practice of socionics, which you and others engage in - you're just taking some metaphysics and applying it to a real world context. Of course some religious books were also divined, and some principles are immutable, others are not going to change any time soon... but that's another conversation. There are of course significant historical events in the course of the religion but I think these too are less important than the skeptics seem to believe they are.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-24-2024 at 05:42 AM.
I sense in your comments a deep longing for the approval of a daddy figure.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-22-2024 at 04:43 PM.
dada
(as in like a spell)
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 03-24-2024 at 08:26 PM.
This "discussion" above is way worse than anything Sol has ever written, and guess who is banned (or rather "sanctioned", to be precise), and what will very likely be ignored in this badly moderated place where insulting each other like some retards is fine but having a different point of view is the worst offense...
- I wouldn't have banned Sol, and wasn't happy when I saw he was banned
- I don't know why this woman is bringing up pedophilia, but if you have some suggestion for what the correct response to that is feel free to give advice. pretty sure you'd retaliate in such a situation based on the way you're approaching me, but whatever
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-22-2024 at 06:45 PM.
He's a little creep and if you don't agree with me completely, then you need to take a long hard long in the mirror. There are many who will be very happy I have stood up to him. It's not just about this thread (obviously).
Right, I think I've had 2 conversations with you anywhere on this forum, both of which were public... so basically you can't say what I've said or done to you (you came at me out of the blue with this weird-ass insinuation) so now you just have to rely on these veiled references to... conversations somewhere, that were about something, something creepy which... is what, exactly? Can you name what that thing is? Go ahead.
@DogOfDanger I don’t care what you think. I just want people to know that I’m not scared of you. Honestly, you don’t deserve any more advice from me.
It's a lucky thing that you don't care, otherwise you may have to provide some substance to support your accusations. Very weak response for such accusations as you so casually throw around. Did the thread on Israel-Hamas offend you, by chance?
But I'm glad that you're willing to leave me alone, seeing as that's all I ever have wanted from you.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-22-2024 at 08:11 PM.
Excellent, goodbye!
Hey welcome back already! Did you go somewhere? Oh no wait... you never left, you're still here. What happened?
no all good, continue being a creep, if other people wanna love you, they can
So I can never escape is what you're saying? I guess nothing can save me now. Maybe I will be avenged one day...
Don't worry I'll make sure to quote all your posts just to make sure if the database accidentally deletes our conversation we don't lose it, I wouldn't want that to happen.
Go enjoy the forum, we all know you’re smart. Everyone’s learning, it’s ok. Now I really am sick and I’m going to bed.
Dog and Bethany sitting on a tree
That would be a tree somewhere in the middle of a lake of fire in the 9th layer of hell.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...AeADkXvUs03Q&s
"Men and women", that already sounds like the title of a romcom !
No..I like wholesome people. But it is funny when you clash with someone on here.
I will never understand how a man can be rude to a woman on the internet..or in real life, in a harsh way. Internet can seem more harsh because it's harder to control I guess. I will say, there was one person I clashed with more, he was proper psycho. Like Trump, when they just have an instinct to hurt. They might not even realise it, but it makes them happy.
I remember accusing my brother of being sexist, which he probably was a bit, but maybe exaggerated a bit to annoy me. I don't know why because I didn't have particularly strong views back then but SEEs like to hear what they wanna hear. But since I told him about some of my problems he seems to have suddenly grown up. Might be some other stuff too. Sometimes I wonder what I'd be doing if the pandemic hadn't happened and I hadn't got super into socionics, or things had happened slightly differently. I know I talk about him a lot, but I really did like Rebel, not just his comments, but the brief interaction we had. Not a 'daddy figure', but just this sort of caring presence.
So you intentionally start a conflict, you're shocked when the person retaliates, and this is justified because you're a woman, or something...?
It's clearly your strategy in these situations to weave in these political narratives and try to tilt the conversation toward that, in order to rally support for yourself. That's why you're mentioning Trump and your sex - these have no real relevance to the conversation, if you trace back the cause and effect it's all clearly explained by your misbehavior, but it's just a rally call to the fellow leftists to exert their arbitrary power over some outsider target, basically. I'll grant you that it worked last time with one particular deluded mod... it's just this online armpit though, I doubt it'll work as well elsewhere. Ultimately there's just no real substance to what you say, it's just a bunch of appeals to authority, little passive aggressive remarks you'd expect from a tween girl, appeals to your identity and political stances, but what is beneath that? There's nothing there.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 03-23-2024 at 08:36 PM.
@DogOfDanger well maybe I’m just not meant to be here, but I couldn’t leave without putting you in your placei am in a bit of weird place at the mo..
I think of what we're watching as more of a nature documentary. "Beta mating rituals.""Men and women", that already sounds like the title of a romcom !
lol
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
...But the 9th layer of Hell is supposed to be ice, and it's for people who betray others, not people who really are annoyed with each other on the Internet. Trees are in the 7th circle for violence, and in Hell they're all people who killed themselves. Speaking of which, that reminds me that this site is oddly full of people who want to kill themselves and there's just been another thread like that within like the past week. It's no wonder you can't say Hı̇tler because law enforcement would google Hı̇tler and then they would see people threatening to off themselves on this site and have to step in. Probably not a good site to hang around for that reason.
The Smiths- The Boy with the Thorn in his Side.
That’s how narcs see everyone..projection.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote