/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>Now obviously materialists don't believe in supernatural entities like God
Well, it is possible to be a materialist and still believe in daimons, since the daimons themselves would just be subject to matter itself. Epicurus presented this in his refuation of an absolute deity, which is different from proposing an invisible, but limited agency in nature. I have also shown that the ancient cosmogony is explicitly based in 'chaotic materialism', where "order" is emergent: >>>/edu/26082
>it is up to humanity to catch and punish "crimes" but in deciding what "crime" is morality is created and conflated with legality
In a sense, but order precedes law, proper. Morality is derivative of the loss of natural order, as Lao Tzu says. We can read Ovid (8 CE):
<The Golden Age was first founded, which, without any avenger, of its own accord, without laws, practised both faith and rectitude. Punishment, and the fear of it, did not exist, and threatening decrees were not read upon the brazen tables, fixed up to view, nor yet did the suppliant multitude dread the countenance of its judge; but  all  were in safety without any avenger. 
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/21765/21765-h/21765-h.htm
But what is the purpose of law? Cicero informs us (44 BCE):
<inasmuch as in each case some of those things which by nature had been common property became the property of individuals, each one should retain possession of that which has fallen to his lot; and if anyone appropriates to himself anything beyond that, he will be violating the laws of human society.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Officiis/1B*.html
<For the chief purpose in the establishment of constitutional state and municipal governments was that individual property rights might be secured. 
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Officiis/2B*.html
Thus, the establishment of law begins with the assertion of property rights, or the personal acquisition of goods by appropriation from the commons. This is the real basis of law, and thus of morality. Ovid tells us that law is principally based on vengeance (e.g. "An eye for an eye" in Levitical law), but what is transacted by this relationship? Compensation for an unrightful use of property. We read in the Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE) the rights of compensation for victims of crime, which also scale based on status - this system of "wergild" is present in all civilisations. Thus, vengeance only comes with the concept of quantity, and for this to have record, it must be based in valuing property. Quantity is a relation of equality, and compensation seeks to gain what was lost. The principle of equality is called "justice" by Aristotle, such that it is best that every man receives what he gives in proportion. This idea of equality is intrinsic to law, and so serves as the basis of morality. Thus, Hesiod writes that [Law], Justice and Peace are born at once;
<[Zeus] married bright Themis who bare the Horae (Hours), and Eunomia [Law], Dike (Justice), and blooming Eirene (Peace)
https://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodTheogony.html
Justice is a golden scale which weighs a judgement. Weight is a quantitative concept, where each man receives what he deserves. So, it is property rights which is the origin of law and morality.
>People reinvent morality forms like Karma in secular form to excuse this systemic weakness
Yes, but see how Karma is already economised. David Graeber and Michael Hudson thus relate these ideas to "debt". We still see the idea of owing "debts to society" for the criminal, and so on. The forgiveness of debts is thus a clearance of a conviction to service (e.g. the Levitical "Jubilee").
>an Exodus style morality is created
Nietzsche called this "slave morality" as a fantasy of resentment. Hell is the apotheosis of this desire to finally shit up the "mockers". You'll see extremely emotionally sensitive language in the Bible, a bit reminiscent of edgy school shooter types.
>Against this Exodus style morality comes the Ezekiel protesting "But I personally did not do anything."
Theologically, we do at least see in the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, Lot asking God whether or not there were still good people who lived there. Lot only gets down to considering 10 people as the threshold, while as you say, later on, this reduces to the idea of personal morality, most exemplified in Christian salvation.
>There is an ever ending debate in humanity it seems regarding whether crimes are merely breeches of the law or of a sacred morality which is objective and above the law
Well, Aquinas himself writes that law cannot be synonymous with morality since we are all sinners, so a perfect law would be tyrannical. Here, he is supposing a "perfect law" in conjunction with a "moral law". Is morality itself a law? That is the question. To Jesus, morality wasn't about following rules, it was about following the inherent virtues of faith. For example, as Paul writes, it is the letter of the law which kills, but the spirit which liberates. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for legalism, but in the name of moralism. So, there is an inherent contradiction. Aristotle himself speaks to this trouble, and so suggests the legality of private property, but for public utility, and so it becomes a means to an end, not an end in itself - the same as what R.H. Tawney writes regarding Acquisition versus Function (1920). We could also compare it to the idea of "trust". Trust in society must be the prerequisite of rights themself, since a trustless society is one where property is always insecure. Finally, property is most secure where everyone has it, and so Aristotle also suggests the redistribution of property, to minimise wealth inequality, which he notoriously wrote to be the parent of crime and revolution. Thus, an original immorality is the cause of crime, and here they meet.
>In comes mass surveillance as a promise to create God's Eye on Earth and "solve" the problem of undiscovered crimes by making everyone subject to a panopticon. A tempting offer, but one which should be rejected.
Surveillance is a trustless mechanism because it presupposes the existence of crime. So then, surveillance *in itself* is the death of order in favour of law, which then becomes tyranny (e.g. disorder). Where the letter kills, the spirit may bring life:
<And they sung as it were a new song before the throne
https://biblehub.com/revelation/14-3.htm
What's timeless is both ancient and always new.

>>2860231
>daimons
machine elves? psilocybin? second floor basement?

>>2860235
Every culture talks about "spirits" but only philosophers talk about the Absolute. There is no "absolute" in native belief, since the gods are all limited in their powers. When I discuss daimons therefore, I am invoking inherently limited persons who are invisible to humans. We could also call them "jinn", fairies, elves, etc. On "machine elves" in particular, Terence Mckenna describes these beings as made of light, cthonic, and also the souls of human ancestors. I suppose "seeing is believing", but that's my point. Materialism is theoretical, not empirical, so may deny the evidence of senses, lest the evidence of sensation comports to a better theory - that is, a better theory of "matter", which is inclusive.

>>2860318
Materialism makes no judgements about the supernatural. That is why honest materialists will be agonistic about mystical things. Reason why a lot of materialists are atheists is because whenever mystics get a chance to present their claims, the mysticism does not work in their favor (they can't prove it being real) and they are forced to reduce things to idealism and metaphors. Sad state of affairs for mythbros.

>>2860191
The slave owner example is a bad one considering how both the new and Old Testament say nothing against slavery, like the very Exodus you cite.

There are at least seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters “in everything” (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).

Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God’s blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment.

And yes, in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: “the slave is the owner’s property” (Exod 21:21). Both Old and New Testaments called for better treatment of slaves than many of the peoples around them, and the Law of Moses in particular called for better treatment of fellow Israelites as slaves. But slaves could be beaten (Exod 21:20-21; 1 Pet 2:18-20), and slaves could be taken as concubines (Gen 16:3-4; Exod 21:8-11) or even raped without serious consequence (Lev 19:20-22).

>>2860628
>Materialism makes no judgements about the supernatural. That is why honest materialists will be agonistic about mystical things.
Engels called agnosticism shame faced materialism. Also not every claim deserves to be entertained. Claims require evidence. If I say there is a purple ghost named Jimmy Biscuits floating behind your head but you can't see him because he's only visible to me and he isn't made of matter or energy so he can't be detected with any physical device, you are right to dismiss me as schizo rather than be "agnostic" about my claims

>>2860628
And there’s no better example for that than Ah-Cee-Pee acolyte Logo_Daedalus whose idealism leads him into making confusing and downright false analogies that strain logic itself (e.g., gravity being satanic, electromagnetism being divine light) in order to justify his own conception of Christianity that would be laughed out by every mainline Christian if he ever made his case.

>>2860669
Anon wasn't talking about literally believing in the bible, but about applying the logic of intergenerational punishment in a secular manner

>>2860678
Except that he used a biblical example, and used for his case slave ownership to demonstrate his point, despite the fact that slave ownership is endorsed in the Bible.

Not arguing against anon’s substance, but rather pointing out that he used a bad example and should’ve used something else like apostasy or promiscuity, things which are clearly prohibited in the Bible and happened very often across time and place.

>>2860682
whether slave ownership is endorsed in the bible is kind of besides the point. he's talking about how secular people come to believe in spooky shit like intergenerational punishment

>>2860674
I literally said this in the second part of my post.

>>2860675
I never understood Logo or why he was dutchruddering with Haz. I tried to grasp the essence of his posting, but I got lost. I don't know what denomination he is but I guess it's a mixture of Calvinism, Liberation Theology and some esoteric armenian orthodoxy with sufi mysticism all wrapped in a juicy neoplatonist pita sandwich. Logo said some of the weirdest things, all of which I saw years ago posted on 4chan. There is another guy called Matthew Ehret who is also similar to Logo. Ehret has a raging boner for Augustine and thinks that Simon the Magician invented gnosticism. Thinks russia and china are some jedi white knights and that the elites are building a UFO religion. (That last part may be true)

>>2860944
I'm sorry.

>>2860946
>Ehret has a raging boner for Augustine and thinks that Simon the Magician invented gnosticism.
Even Simon the Magician's wikipedia article suggests that. This claim does not originate with Ehret:

< Surviving traditions about Simon appear in traditional texts, such as those of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, where he is often described as the founder of Gnosticism

>>2860669
>the new and Old Testament say nothing against slavery
The Old Testament claims that Hebrew slaves must be made free after a period of 6 years, and there is also the jubilee after a period of 50 years which clears all debts and bonds of slavery. This trope is repeated by Jesus as the forgiveness of sins. Paul makes a strange claim that freedom in the spirit is slavery to God; thus, having a righteous master is the best we can hope for. There is no human freedom to Paul, only good and bad masters.

>>2860674
>agnosticism
You can be an atheist idealist, like Plato
>Claims require evidence
"matter" is a proposition with insufficient "evidence", since it is an a priori theory.
>>2860628
>Materialism makes no judgements about the supernatural
But it can, if it is proposed as such.
>That is why honest materialists will be agonistic about mystical things
If one was "honest" why would they presume a notion of "matter"?
>they are forced to reduce things to idealism and metaphors
Are they? Most "mystics" are entirely materialist in their beliefs, stating that there are higher and lower orders of emanations based on vibrational frequency in energy. The idealist cannot believe that "ideas" are "made" of anything, since they are uncreated; eternal. Engels discusses the superstitions of empiricists and rationalists in regard to the new science of his time; this is where the idea of an electromagnetic spirituality came from (e.g. Mesmerism).

Opium thread

>>2861126
I wish, opium feels great

>>2860978
<Surviving traditions about Simon appear in traditional texts, such as those of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, where he is often described as the founder of Gnosticism,[4][5][6][7] which has been accepted by some modern scholars,[8][9] while others reject claims that he was a Gnostic, maintaining that he was merely considered to be one by the Church Fathers.[10][11]

If you will quote wikifedia at least do it honestly.
All those "church fathers" were born after the events of simon magus. You cannot trust the honesty of these figures since they were ideologically motivated to elevate their beliefs as the orthodoxy while denigrating others as heresy. We know this because Christianity already had multiple flavors by the time of the epistles. Even if you take into account the hermetic origins of gnosticism, there is no way simon magus was the founder of it. A group of gnostics claimed that he was the founder but so do the Mandeans who appeared after John the Baptizer yet still regard him as their greatest prophet (and Adam as their first). There were a plethora of gnostic sects and tracing them all back to simon magus is nonsense. Even if you read Jesus, you can se how his statements about people not marrying in heaven got turned into the "women must become men" in the gnostic gospel of Thomas. The mere existence of Jesus was fuel to the gnostic fire because judaism and christianity are inherently contradictory, like ultranationalism and internationalism.

My point is Ehret is not an honest academic/researcher looking to understand the true nature of things, but is another new age syncretic orthoboy that is trying to corral people back into the same religions that failed to bring people closer to God so we will run in circles again.

>>2861110
>There is no human freedom to Paul, only good and bad masters.
The TRVKE that broke everyone.

>>2861113
Matter is the word for the conceptualization of that which resists our will. That is the ultimate redpill of what matter is. The "thing" that collides with our will is matter. Ideas are made of something because for these ideas to interact with our will, they have to be material in some way. For example even abstract logic collides with our will conceptually because it prevents our minds from saying P=!P. Trying to force this paradox wastes real energy and can cause a headache. However, if our domain was different and allowed P=!P, then our will would adapt to that.
Mystics live in a virtual fantasy land where they change the rules of their larp to fit their narrative. Scientists also do this sometimes, but it is harder because of money and other constraints, but absolutely it is possible to larp your scientism. AI datacenters are an example of this. The Serpentigena believe they can defeat randomness and acquire total control because in their larp, it's totally possible.
Lastly, my issue with mystics is not (true/false), it's more like (that's not how that works). Can we play around with this biofield stuff? Maybe in the future? Until then, we can't use it and hence I will be agnostic about it.

>>2861262
>The "thing" that collides with our will is matter. Ideas are made of something because for these ideas to interact with our will, they have to be material in some way.
So, is our "will" immaterial, so as to not be a process of matter?
>prevents our minds from saying P=!P.
This is interesting, since there are those who would claim that logic is not material, but ideal, yet you see that because ideas are material (by means of their self-limitation) that logic must describe matter. But is matter logical, itself? We can say that contradiction posits a contrary judgement upon a singular term (e.g. X cannot be equal to both A and B, if A and B are distinct). This has physical validity, in that two distinct objects cannot occupy the same space - and space-time resolves the difference between space and time, for example (e.g. if I say "I am standing where the Battle of Waterloo took place" I invoking a contrary instance in the same position, but since all spaces are composite with different times, the contradiction is resolved by making each event self-identical. This is obviously a "positivist" view of things). We can also relate logical "necessity" to causation by entropy (e.g. the arrow of time), etc.
>However, if our domain was different and allowed P=!P, then our will would adapt to that.
But here there is an issue; if ideas are material by their limits in logic, and matter theoretically facilitates illogical organisation, then how could ideas have the same materiality?
>Mystics live in a virtual fantasy land where they change the rules of their larp to fit their narrative.
Which rules do they change?

>>2861262
I wasn't trying to say Wikifedia or Ehret was correct (I don't have a strong opinion on this), I was trying to say where Ehret is getting his ideas from, and that they are pretty old and pretty common, rather than pulled from his ass. I thought you would find that interesting. It wasn't intended as a counterargument to what you were saying, but more as a supplement. Think of it like this

<wow this retard thinks A, B, C claims
>huh, that's interesting, he seems to have gotten his ideas from much older retards

>>2861689
Apologies for sounding combative. There is no reason for our disagreement since we are saying the same thing in different words.

>>2861273
>So, is our "will" immaterial, so as to not be a process of matter?
Yes, our will, free will, ability to choose, consciousness, sentience, "I" whatever we call the experience of being is inherently supernatural. We are the player behind the keyboard realizing our avatarization in the mmorpg known as "the universe" or what I call "the domain". Our memories are material though. However, I believe there is a supernatural component to memories or how they are interpreted. I have numerous times experienced the glitchiest of phenomenon when it came to memories and perception of things.
>But is matter logical, itself?
No, it is the opposite. What is logical is matter therefore a hypothetical absolute logic is something elusive. Our logic is derived from experiencing matter because it is self-consistent. I am willing to question the "fabric of reality" insofar as it is self-consistent. This is why I sometimes wonder if the schizos are actual schizos or they EPISTEMAI a deeper absolute logic that I mentioned earlier.
>Matter theoretically facilitates illogical organisation, then how could ideas have the same materiality?
Again it is backwards, our world is structured so that logic is derived from what makes sense from our experience. This means that even ideas themselves can manifest themselves differently depending on this arrangement of matter. The idea of floating islands makes no sense if you base it on OUR material world. However you can make a video game like Skies of Arcadia that does have floating islands. It makes sense in the game, but it makes even more sense if you acknowledge that pixels on a screen do not have meaning unless we teleologically ascribe meaning to them or receive that said meaning. A tokenization of sorts if you want to call it that, and not actual floating islands. The idea could not even be the same idea sometimes as I just showed, floating islands vs computer memory.
>>2861273
Like how the catholic church accepted creationist evolution. Or when religious people start claiming the bible is allegory.

>>2861730
no worries sinbad

threads like this always attracts the schizos

>>2861748
>Yes, our will, free will, ability to choose, consciousness, sentience, "I" whatever we call the experience of being is inherently supernatural
But is this itself not contingent upon natural preconditions? Can personal Will exist besides a body through which it is expressed? If not, then the Will is subject to matter, the same as abstract ideas.
>However, I believe there is a supernatural component to memories or how they are interpreted.
Well, memory is certainly mysterious, but also material. Memory is also not something inherent to brains. Upon this topic, I would suggest you watch this video on the daguerrotype (the first form of photography). It is absolutely magical, but also concretely physical.
>What is logical is matter therefore a hypothetical absolute logic is something elusive
But the point is that logic is fundamentally based in "laws" or restraints; a lawless logic cannot exist.
>The idea of floating islands makes no sense if you base it on OUR material world
Why not? Floatation would simply have a material cause. People in the 19th century could scarcely imagine the possibilities of the internet, for example.

>>2861748
>the experience of being is inherently supernatural
do you believe in souls, sinbad? I don't. I admit my own purely materialist understanding for how consciousness works is incomplete, but to me the supernatural, souls, assigning primacy to mind over matter, etc. all creates more questions than answers, and involves asserting things which lack evidence.

>>2862202
The soul can make sense, but an immortal soul cannot.