Rising Up from Being Beasts of the Field

.

QUOTE: "I think that the closest that we can get to an absolute truth might be termed “objective truth,” which starts with an objective assessment of existence and leads to falsifiable conclusions. In a sense, one starts with axiom(s) and follows the logical consequences."

Yes, but remember how the Founding Fathers/John Locke look at truth and “lock one into the other.”

1 – God’s Law = Absolute Truth
2 – Natural Law = Objective Truth
3 – Civil Law = Relative/Subjective Truth

I agree that the best “we” can know is the objective truth… but we must go higher and acknowledge the existence of this Absolute Truth – because sometimes the objective truth changes, with history or technology or what not, what is true today is not true always.

An example of this is found in Orwell’s book 1984. The storyline is essentially a struggle between the Relative Truth (or lies) surrounding the main character who believes in an External Truth.

And, aside from direct philosophical discussion about “finding Truth” – what I keep seeing is the necessity for Truth to exist. An external truth – one that can’t be changed – one we can’t deny. Whether there actually is Truth might not be as important as the human need to believe in Truth.

There has never really been a civilization that has ever existed that didn’t have some form of religion.

In order to “rise up from being a beast of the field” we need to grab onto a Truth – a never changing one.

In Angry Harry’s piece Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, he points out how the more you emote, the less you think… and which sex would one think, even by their own admission, is the “most emotional,” and which sex, by their own admission, “is more in touch with their emotions?”

Alright ladies, I’ll believe you.

But it is also clear that, the more you emote, the less you “think.” The more your emotions lead you, the less your reason leads you. “Passion” is all great and fine, until it becomes “murder in the heat of passion” or a bazillion other things resulting from a highly emotional state leading to a person “not thinking.”

Life by “passion” is the life of living by instinct, which is the life of an animal.

Now, I am not a neurosurgeon either, but I have read of the “three brains.”

The first brain/lower brain/reptilian brain is the one that doesn’t “think.” This is the one where your fight or flight comes from and a whole host of other things that don’t involve “thinking.” It is also where our sexual instinct comes from.

"Mating behavior does NOT get mediated in the new brain, or the cortex. It happens in the brain-stem and spinal cord, the old or “reptile” brain.

In the days when such experiments were still allowed, you could open a cat’s skull and suck out all the cortex. Sexual and mating behavior was not affected at all, but social behavior was destroyed."

The next brain is the mammalian brain, and this is the brain where emotions come from, or "our passions." Animals have emotions. Ever separate a cow from its calf? Ever seen a dog wag its tail when it sees its owner?

The new brain, or cortex, is where we “think.”

So, in order to “rise up from being beasts of the field” we have to “think.”

As we get assaulted with things – violently or emotionally or in any number of ways – our brains “shut down.” The “thinking brain” will shut down in favour of the mammal brain, which will in turn, in emergency, shut down if it has to and run completely on instinct – fight or flight. There is no “thinking” or “emotion” in it. It just “happens.”

So, we have to keep “rising up” in order to find enlightenment.

And now, these highly emotional creatures with hairy triangles between their legs, what do they do to us? They get our emotions running all the time. All of the girls that wing their shaming insults around are trying to control men emotionally instead of rationally.

There were several posts near the end of The Elusive Wapiti’s totalitarian essay a while back where we were discussing Schopenhauer and Weininger’s observations on female manipulative behaviour, and how women have challenges with truth and a lack of moral character because, to women, their passions cause them to change the truth to be that which they want it to be right now. If it suits her to change the truth 20 minutes later, she will do it, even though it contradicts what she said earlier 100% – and she actually believes it, it appears!

The Feminine is constantly manipulating away from the truth with emotions.

If there is an external unchanging standard of truth to compare things to, men can much better pull themselves out of being led by their mammalian brain, and lead themselves by their “thinking” brain.

By the way. Guys like Weininger as well, he talks about the Male Principle/Condition and the Female Principle/Condition.

This is true – the Masculine and the Feminine is within each of us. Just like in the diagram of the Yin and Yang, there is a dot of the opposite within each half. What happens is that men have the Masculine Principle as their dominant characteristic while females are dominated by the Feminine Principle. No-one is “purely male” or “purely female.” This is why you get variability between the behaviours of individual men and women, but still can generalize behavioural characteristics that relate to each sex separately.

.
.
"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you…"

.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Men, Religion, and Morality

The ever-diminishing role of Christianity in our society is pretty interesting, and of course, is tied into all of this stuff about Marxism. It’s a pretty difficult subject to discuss dispassionately, which is what is required, and is necessary for rational thought to move forward.

I've read that Harvard was originally mandated to be “Protectors of the Truth.” And at the time, they felt they could actually identify truth, because during that age, they used the Bible as an anchor of “Absolute Truth” to identify what was true and what was not.

When Hegel came out with “The Truth is Relative”, it set the whole system into the toilet because it got rid of the “anchor” of Absolute Truth. The concept of God is “black and white.” God’s word is “Truth.”

However, of course, we are able to recognize that truth often does change, or, truth often is relative.

And herein lies the entire problem, I think. Human nature, and the need to control it.

In many ways, I agree with Hegel & Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well… that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur.

The human brain is enormously malleable, and it naturally tends to lean towards “Relative Truth.” We often use our brains to justify what we would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Jail is full of innocent people. Morality is forever malleable unless attached to an absolute truth.

From an anthropological sense, human beings naturally create religions. Every civilization that has ever existed has adhered to some form of religion. It seems to be a necessity for the human condition. And, look at how different morality can develop in different ways. Think about the typical movie scene of the virgin tied to a stone slab, about to be sacrificed to the Volcano God. The people that lived in such civilizations thought nothing immoral of such a situation, yet, when other civilizations encountered them, they were horrified by their “lack of morality.”

Morality can go in many different ways, and indicates that indeed, from a big perspective, “truth is relative.”

But even if it is, it is not a good thing for civilization to not have any absolutes. It’s for similar reasons that we have the Rule of Law and a Legal/Court system. You and I can argue and argue, and both of us will create a belief system for ourselves, justifying our position to ourselves, and creating a reality in each of our own minds – which will forever contradict the other’s view of reality. Therefore we must have a court system to decide, hopefully with impartiality, what is right and what is not. An absolute. Without it, things would never function.

A civilization needs a religion in the same way.

And all things considered, Christianity was not the worst one we could have wound up with. The way I look at it is, when everyone points out how hypocritical and evil it has been in the past… well, that is not Christianity per se, but rather, it is the nature of humans that is trying break free from the bounds that Christianity tried to place upon them. It doesn’t matter whether Christian or Marxist or Muslim or the Jedi Knights, it is human nature to try and manipulate and force one’s will upon others. In that sense, Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor. I think the history of the West would have been a lot worse without the Bible than it was with it.

If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it's because it is firmly rooted in the concept of “Absolute Truth” which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation. The Bible zaps it into oblivion as the two cannot exist in the same philosophical space. The Bible is timeless... it doesn't change with the times nor the political environment. How we interpret parts of it might alter with the times, but the book itself stays the same - and that generates certain "goalposts" that stay constant in our society throughout the ages. Things can only be manipulated so far before the Bible starts to constrain them.

It is for this reason as well that far-left politics is so adamant about Evolution. And again, one has to look at the Evolution debate a bit dispassionately.

Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory because it was the “science” that supported their political philosophy – namely, that the Truth is Relative. Evolution indicates that the truth is forever changing. What was true yesterday, is no longer true today. Therefore, what is true today, does not neccessarily have to be true tomorrow.

This was great for Marx because he is preaching the political philosophy that man’s condition can be “altered”, basically by use of force. One can therefore “force an evolutionary direction” upon mankind. Kinda like how an arborist prunes a tree to control how it grows and shapes itself.

Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about “truth.”

This is why the left gets angry so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a “plan,” which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth… and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they claim… so does the Creationist side… the Intelligent Design side doesn’t, however, because it is much more dispassionate, in my humble opinion. It is unfair to lump Intelligent Design in with Creationism, and yet politically, that is often how it is dismissed.

Much of anthropology has been shattered by the insistence of adherence to this as well, and anyone trying to suggest that those “primitive” people from the past were perhaps a helluva lot smarter than we give them credit for is automatically drummed out of the discussion and called a loon. And yet, the ancient Sumerians had the knowledge to “weld” gemstones together, which is something we still can’t replicate today, and is just one example amongst dozens of mysteries regarding the ancients' knowledge.

The religion debate is interesting, because it is about Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth.

If a society always tends to “create” a religion, would you rather have one based in Absolutes, or would you prefer one that is forever malleable?

It has elements that come down to the similar situation as, would you rather live under a government that was ruled by whim and emotion (Democracy), or would you rather live under the Rule of Law? (Republic)

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

The Garden of Eden, Absolute Truth, and Relative Truth

I think there is something very fundamental about Absolute Truth over Relative Truth which is the very basic to the nature of humans… that which separates humans from animal living and allows us to rise up from being beasts of the field.

Of course, the “tool” which humans have been given by God or by Nature – our equivalent to which every animal has been give his specialty (elephants have tusks, giraffes have long necks) - is our ability to choose, and of course, along with the ability to choose necessarily comes the ability to question. And in order to go from question to choosing an answer, there is the necessity to rationalize. Virtually all of human power resides in this feature. These are things humans can do which no other animal can do. Everything else works on pure instincts.

But…

This power we have to choose is like all power – it has the potential to be dangerous as much as it has the potential to be beneficial. I think the concept of “power needing to be tempered” before it becomes something useful certainly makes sense. And so it is that our human mental abilities need to tempered, or perhaps a better phrase is "anchored to reality," or else we humans also have the ability to “think” ourselves right off the rails and into la-la land. We humans kinda have a lemming feature built into us where we “think ourselves to death.”

In fact, this is the story of the Garden of Eden in a nutshell: It is a story of the battle of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth, and the danger of what happens by placing the Relative Truth higher in importance than the Absolute Truth. It is a story about humankind’s ability to bend the truth to over-ride reality… often with dire consequences.

There was only one rule in the Garden… DON’T EAT FROM THAT TREE! There was only one truth that Adam and Eve had to follow… and here is where it gets interesting, because Eve was deceived but she was not particularly lied to. In fact, the serpent’s assertions are perfectly valid, although very craftily worded:

- The serpent was right when he says “you will not surely die.” (He was right, they did not surely die… After being tossed from the Garden, God offered them a path to salvation and eternal life – if they chose to follow God’s path).

- The serpent was right, when they ate the fruit, their eyes were opened, and they did become like God and gain knowledge of good and evil.

And then Eve’s female rationalizing hamster wheel starts churning, mired in Relative Truth.

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”

Because it was good for food, pleasing to look at, and desirable for gaining wisdom… Eve rationalized to herself why the Relative Truth which she wished for ought to be able to over-ride the Absolute Truth that existed.

Ahem… could placing the Relative Truth we create in our brains over the Absolute Truth that exists in reality be the “original sin?”

Also to note here in the Garden story is the difference between men and women, and something we also often speak of in the Manosphere: Adam, the mangina, simply went along with her.

.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 RSV “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Adam was not deceived. He sinned willingly. Eve deceived herself with her female driven hamster-wheel of relative-truth laden brain… but Adam was not deceived at all. He was standing right there and was not deceived; Eve gave it to him, and he was still without sin at this point. But like a mangina eager to please, he said, “sure thing, Toots!” and swallowed ‘er down whole.

Adam sinned willingly, but Eve was deceived.

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’… (Man’s Curse)

It’s pretty clear.

Between Adam and Eve, God expects a different level of cognition… God expected Adam to “know better” than Eve… because Adam has the capability to know better.

Of all of the things that were in the world during the Garden, the only thing not directly from God… is Eve. She was created from Adam, who was created in God’s image. Adam is copy of God, and Eve is a copy of Adam… Adam is “one step closer” to God/Absolute Truth than Eve is.

And, when regarding how male and female brains “work” in order to ascertain “truth,” this holds true – men and women “find truth” in different ways. G.W.F. Hegel describes the phenomenon in the following way:

“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel

Women, because they are herd creatures by nature, find Truth by consensus among the herd. If the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 3, then it is right, because the herd says so. Tomorrow, if the herd thinks 1 + 1 = 1, then that will be right, because the herd says so. The herd is always right. This is why women are more attuned to fashion, which is forever changing, and it is the underlying cause of the phenomenon in Game known as “Social Proofing.” Women believe a man is sexually valuable because the rest of the women around her find him sexually valuable – not because of any particular iron clad attributes or principles mind you – but simply because all the other women believe a guy is hot, so will the next woman believe it as well. The herd’s consensus is what is right, and it is subject only to itself.

You can see this all through females’ nature, in that right down to even their genetic make-up, they huddle around the average/mean in far greater concentration than males, who exist outside the herd and exists in the outer extremes of averages. ie. There are more males than females with an IQ of 140, but there are also more males than females with an IQ below 70. The males are on “the outside of the herd” and the females ARE “the average,” or, they are all clustered around the average. (Heh, this even goes into female psychology, where far fewer females desire to truly stand out from the norm – in areas such as company CEO - than men do – and the differences are significant!).

In this way, it will always be males, in the aggregate, that are better equipped to “find Absolute Truth.”

"...while I was still searching but not finding - I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all." -- Ecclesiastes 7:28

It will be the males who will, like an angry MGHOW, declare: “BULLSHIT! 1 + 1 = 2!!! I don’t care what you say, I don’t care if all you cows believe 1 + 1 = 2.5, I will refuse to comply with you because, dammit, 1 + 1 = 2!

In this way, it is important for the male principle to lead the female principle, because the male principle is closer to Absolute Truth than the female principle. The female principle is almost pure Relative Truth. Now, the male principle has relative truth in it too – lots of it! Look at all the manginas out there! Men desire to follow women’s Relative Truths because that is what we would do if we behave like animals, driven by our baser instincts. But man’s mind is better equipped to discover Absolute Truth than the female’s, and thus, having men/the male principle leading a society will lead to that society following much closer to Absolute Truth… a much safer place to exist than a world full of Relative Truth, where nothing stays real.

"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you..."

Because you listened to your wife’s Relative Truths… you were cursed, Adam.

You should have held true to the Absolute Truth, and all would have been fine. Even after she had already bogged herself down with her Relative Truths, Adam should have been a MGHOW and stuck to his principles based upon Absolute Truth. All would have worked out fine for him.
.

.
- It was Eve who seduced the man - in compensation there is no undertaking more appealing to a woman than to become loved by someone who has gone astray and who now, in loving her, will let himself be led along the right path.  This appeals to a woman so much that she is not infrequently deceived, because such a person puts everything over on her - and she believes everything - perhaps also because the thought of being the man's savior is so very satisfying to her. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals
.

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Feminine-ism: The "Nicest" Ideology in the World

“Feminine-ism” is a manifestation of the “feminine spirit” or, the “feminine principle.” Often we refer to “the totalitarianism of women,” and really what it is is the feminine principle which is trying to impose niceness on us. This is the underlying evil of the feminine principle. Women have no concept of cause and effect, but they do want everyone to be nice and they are willing to use totalitarianism to force it upon you.

“Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbours whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. … Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as ‘macho,’ a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. … Men are happy for men to be men and women to women; women want us all to be women.” -- Fred Reed

Look at the Temperance Movement that arose at the exact same time as women’s political power starting coming into our culture. Ah, Prohibition! Some men (and even a few women, gasp!) are lousy with hooch, and some families are negatively affected by it. Therefore the government should pass totalitarian laws forcing everyone to be nice and sober all the time. Of course, this led to the rise of wonderful citizens such as the mass-murdering Al Capone and his mirror image, the thugs with guns that enforced the laws at women’s insistence. But as always, everything women do is indirect so when their totalitarian actions caused a massive disaster, women easily side-stepped the blame and said, “See! It is the evil men who are the criminals, and it's the violent thugs with guns that leave other men bleeding in the gutters. Oh my, we are such victims now, we can hardly walk the streets! Pass more laws to make everyone nicer!" It's a dangerous spiral that “seems nice” on the surface, but quickly turns into an ugly totalitarian monster where the only “safe” and “nice” thing to do is sit at home and watch the ceiling fan go round and round – until, that is, women start talking about how it would be “nice” for the environment if we only have electricity for 3hrs a day, and so they pester and badger men to impose more laws upon society to make everyone “nice” in that regard too.

There are no limits to how much “niceness” women will impose upon others. The one thing women have actually invented is a quite remarkable perpetual motion machine which creates laws imposing niceness forever and ever.

Women view us as little boys and they want us to play nice. If we don’t play nice for them, they have lost control… because men don’t play nice at women’s insistence. Men might play nice for their own reasons, but never at a women’s insistence. Boys succumb to mother's power but men realize the true nature of women and that the “unfair sex” can’t keep two thoughts straight in their head past the next glittering trinket that distracts them, completely clearing their heads of whatever thoughts someone falsely deduced were actually in there to begin with. Women have power over little boys – watch a woman looking over her brood and how she gets them to “play nice.” She exercises her power over them to impose “nice” on them, and if they aren’t nice… “Wait till your father gets home!” – More indirect social aggression, with the intention of imposing “nice” on people – through the force of others.

The males of Western Culture are suffering from a form of arrested development because of the overwhelming feminization of our society. Women don’t think they should let males grow out of boyhood (where women are in 100% control of them) and into men because women have zero control over a man. And despite their protests to the contrary, they get extremely aroused when in the presence of a man - someone they can’t control because he has risen above her petty bullshit in the same way that an adult rises above the pettiness of a child.

Look at everything that feminine-ism has imposed upon society:

- No more grades in school, because failing is not “nice.”
- No more keeping score in schoolyard soccer games, because losing isn’t “nice.”
- No more boys playing with finger-guns, because that is not “nice.”
- No more women having to raise their bastard spawn alone, because it isn’t “nice” of men to make her pay for her mistakes, erm, right to choose, like a real adult.
- No offensive language in the workplace since that isn’t “nice” either.
- No boss demanding she work a full day for her pay, rather than “flex-timing” at his expense – because it would be “nice” for him to think of the children, rather than keeping his business afloat (and providing jobs for others).
- No men hitting on them that they don’t like, because they don’t find it a “nice” experience.
- Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice.

Eventually, everything which is not forbidden will be mandatory. That is the end result of feminine-ism.

Hmmph! No more Mr. Nice-Guy! It's what both society, and women, desperately need. 

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Further Reading:

Philalethes #1 – Feminist Allies?

The War Against Men – by David Shackleton