Free earth..

Slavoj Zizek

Kurt Vonnegut

Plato

Cows...

Meritocracy.....

Teach a man how to fish....

Alien peace...

True beauty...

Atheism for the clueless Theist....

There's an accusation out there that Atheists are mean spirited people. It's not true. If you bring up the subject of God, yes, they are likely to have no consideration of your feelings on the matter. Often, this is taken as an inherent attribute of the "immoral atheist". In fact, Atheist tend to study A LOT about ethics because they feel responsible for their actions, and don't want to do the wrong thing to others. Religious people look for people to coincide with, indirectly. They pad themselves with people of their values, and pretend that they are good natured, but, how they think of others, or how they act around those who are different is the true measure of who they are. Atheists spend time to really evaluate these relationships. The hostility comes from thousands of years of illegitimate power, effecting the humans on this planet. We are aware of YOUR history, even though you don't seem to be. Don't blame us if that history is shit, and you chose not to notice.

I pulled the graphic below off a religious website. First, morality is partly objective. You can't even understand your reality, without objects, and their being, including yourself. You are a body. Your body is an object, with perceptions. Life is not generated BY your perceptions, which is how religious people always want to see it, for their opportunistic agenda. Your perceptions allow you to view patterns in nature, OUTSIDE yourself, BIGGER than yourself, billions of years OLDER than yourself. Your perception of these things, much larger and older than you is what is subjective. Don't be so ridiculous as to think that since YOU chose to pretend that these things change to the individual, that they actually do change. Your belligerance in seeking the idiots path to hedonism, and your crackhead like desire to preserve that at any cost is what drives you to the conclusion that YOU ARE SPECIAL, and THE UNIVERSE EXISTS FOR YOU......it doesn't! That's how Atheists understand morality. Because we let life BE life. We don't tell it how to be for us.

Belief is illegitimate....

The workplace is the perfect microcosm of meritocracy. If someone is made a lead, but that person is not a hard worker, or effective, yet they are paid more because they are liked, personally, rather than functionally, that is entitlement. It follows that the people who are functionally good workers SHOULD not respect the lead in any real sense. What happens is, believers add their own belief driven paradigm where nothing real matters. All that matters is I sprinkle pixie dust on your shoulders, and I give you the authority to be the lead, even though you don't deserve it functionally. Then, the believers come with pure authoritarianism to enforce their arbitrary appointments. These two different systems are not two sides of the same coin, or qualitatively equivalent in any sense at all. One is illegitimate, belief based power, and one is legitimate, functionally based power. Now, belief has the power of physical contingency, and can cause real physical difference, and, in that sense illegitimate power is just as potent as functional power, BUT power of belief IS illegitimate, and will always be illegitimate and should not be respected in any way, shape or form. It's the difference between giving a loaded gun to a child, or giving it to a trained gun owner. Believers, when the child blows himself or someone else away, will say it's all part of the plan, while the functional power says "You can't give a gun to a baby, idiot."

Friedrich Nietzsche....

Alien annihilation....

A formulaic representation of humanism...

Here's my first attempt to finalize a formulaic representation of humanism, based on a Buddhist style seed that promotes individual growth, rather than caging a person in prohibition.

1. Follow these simple steps:

1. Provide for yourself.
2. Don't block another from providing for themselves.
3. Help the less fortunate.
4. Don't block another from helping the less fortunate.

2. The second step is: Understand, in the simplest sense of morality, and practicality inherent in life itself, it is to your benefit to get along with your neighbor.

3. Understand the 3 apple problem. Know what causes conflict, how justice and fairness emerge, and understand that which we will forever be learning.

Dissipate corporate culture....

Life in the industrial age, in a country like America is sooooo mundane and repetitive. Monotony is insanity, I'm convinced of that. Humans are born absolutely unique, yet proportionately similar. We desire change, but, we want desirable change. Also, we want desirable change to happen to us, and for us, but we want change. In our mundane lives, we have to seek out the change, at much risk to our livelihoods. It gets to the point where, just to have some change, we actually find ourselves wishing for UNdesirable change, just to have SOME kind of change happen. We wish for a large earthquake, or asteroid. We don't necessarily want anybody hurt, but if society was somehow shaken up, and it generated SOME kind of adventure, at least it seems to us, we would gain our spirit of change back from the great industrial age cleansing of human spirit. Art, music, books, and movies keep us alive. Without entertainment, we would literally go crazy in our industrial age world. You know America, other countries have a social connection to their families, and their neighbors. Their rule of law, medical and schooling may not be up to our standards, but their human spirit, and their social connection is alive and well, while ours, if it comes back at all, will definitely have to be rebuilt in a new age, after our corporate culture is dissipated.

Nanny algorithms...

To study history and philosophy was to understand how to use the past, to project into the future. When technology moved along at a snails pace, planning using the recent past, and even the distant past was a reasonable proposition. Now, as technology permeates society, the more effect it has on our daily lives, the more unpredictable our daily lives become. The governments we live under now are antiquated. We keep marching ahead full speed, and nobody has enough control of the beast to back off, and make an evaluation of the situation. We just keep marching full speed into the future, answering the call of market capital. Pretty soon, we wont be able to even function without nanny algorithms.

Neighbors....

Basic empathy, and humanism come of a very simple idea. We don't need years of book study to understand it. Pretend there's only two people on the planet earth, who live near each other. I know the other can kill me, and I can kill the other. The other also knows this. Now, we can live in fear of what the other MIGHT do, or we can live without fear, but just with the anxiety of the unknown, but it's just a basic fact of life, that if I communicate with the other, and we find common ground, there is comfort. I know, that since I just brought my neighbor some food the other day, and we sat and talked for two hours, all is good. Of course, there's always the possibility of an anamalous freak out, where my neighbor will become dangerous to me at random, but, ultimately, a friendly equilibreum is practical. It's a NECESSARY mutual agreement between two people who have the ability to annihilate eachother. I know this is bleak. People come together, because they want companionship. They need companionship, but to those who only see life as a quantitative, coincidental coexistence, even for them, the minimum survival practicality is communion.

The odd humanist.....

So, it seems I might be quite an odd humanist indeed. I totally see how other humanists may see me as odd. I have a formulaic view of humanism, which, I think as far as humanists go that's rare, or non existent. What I'm seeing mostly is appeals to history, and appeals to authority, compiled in heaps of information describing "something" called Humanism. My question is this though, is that simple enough to gain adherents without years of study? It seems like these well studied, pedantic humanists, while on the right track themselves, may not be creating a simple situation for those who don't sit around reading all day. Recently, a friend said I was a reductionist. Something I wasn't sure how to take, but after seeing some others in action, I actually think it's a compliment. I've been able to reduce all the humanist generalities, and categories into a couple simple formulas, and patterns. My goal has always been to simulate Buddhism. Develop a seeding model, rather than a prohibitive cage, like other religions. Humanism has failed to provide a simple set of conditions for the non-bookworm. I hope to move forward with that on this page.

Gambler's fallacy...

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo
fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is
the mistaken belief that, if something happens more
frequently than normal during some period, it will
happen less frequently in the future, or that, if
something happens less frequently than normal
during some period, it will happen more frequently in
the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).
In situations where what is being observed is truly
random This belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

AI meme...

God....

God is the generalization of generalizations. God is everything, and in that everything, is actually nothing. Faith is necessary when attempting to particularize God, because particularizing God is actually a crime. Particularizing an absolute generalization is impossible, so, it must carry the caveat "Just trust me." Annihilate idiosyncratic faith based oppositions to necessity. Annihilate the impossible as possible, God the object. God, as object can only exist, in the way Universe as object exists. Pantheism. The generalization of generalizations shouldn't even have a name. Even religious people understand that. Once you give it a name, you generate an impossible scenario. You have belligerantly used language to objectify, the un-objectifiable. The significance that has had the name God thrown at it is pure power. It reflects magnified back to us the significance we project on to it. It's not conscious. It doesn't care about you. It's not listening to you. It's pure power. Pure significance. We have got to refine what we project, so we can receive in return kalokagothia, and ataraxia.

Racism...

Posts about racism can easily turn into essays for me, so, shortly, let me say, racism is a lot like life, not entirely relative, not entirely known. If I say, "I like Mexican food.", that's a racist comment. Most people don't have a problem with that comment, so they don't consider it racism, because they don't understand exactly what racism is. Racism is basically making judgements good or bad about races of people. So, should we all not talk about different foods we like because it's racist? Saying "I like Mexican food." does promote division believe it or not. But the subject, food, is a benign subject, so we let it go. Ethics works like this. The closer you get to necessity, the stronger the focus becomes on erradicating the division. If I were to say, "Mexican food is terrible.", that judgement of inferiority takes on more power than just a passing "I like Mexican food." Why? Both statements are about food. I believe, in general, people want to get along. So, acknowledging division in praise of something, while still perpetuating racial division, is not even noticed as racism though it is, but, making judgements of inferiority along racial lines is frowned upon, and called "racism" even though it's only half what racism is. Let me cut it off there.....lol