html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Post-Banana Era - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning8" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/evilbanana.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Post-Banana Era

What is the philosophical solution to global warming? What is the philosophical solution to global terrorism? How can the straight political axis be bent into a circle, paralleling the transformation of the flat Earth into a globe? And what is the philosophical solution to inequality? On the model of the philosopher-tycoon as a necessary parallel to the philosopher-king in the current era, and on tree search as a parallel to the peacock's tail. When the era of artificial intelligence brings with it artificial thought that will create a new discipline of artificial philosophy

By: A philosopher past his time

The "vicious circle" fallacy: Beneath the peel - the banana reveals itself as a philosopher  (Source)

Education for creativity as a deterrent to populism

Terrorism is a creative failure. Radicalization is a problem of "more of the same". Young men are built to seek a creative outlet, under the memory of the alpha male, which is the government. They want to do something that hasn't been tried before, and the easiest and most simplistic way is to look for something that hasn't been tried because it's too extreme. The very confinement of thinking to axes creates radicalization, because the only place that allows differentiation is at the extremes. In contrast, a truly creative solution is to step out of the axis, and therefore creative thinking prevents radicalization, it seeks a direction perpendicular to the axis, that is, a new dimension, and a new axis. Therefore, if the political map were a network, and not right and left, but a multi-dimensional structure, the imagination of the masses would be different. For example, arranging it in a structure with a political axis, a religious axis, and an economic axis, then they would see the missing possibilities, and creative thinking would be generated. In other words, the abstraction of the image is dangerous, and it is precisely the center that does it. Younger people are more extreme than older people, because they are looking to get out of the axis. The elderly see themselves as the center and therefore it is easy for them to draw an axis with them at its center, and therefore they are correct. The political deadlock stems from the fact that one can only move on one axis. The image of right and left destroys the political system, and causes unnecessary convergence of many axes on one axis, due to some initial correlation, and structures political identity in a way that encourages stagnation. Because it is marked as a place on an axis, and as a tug-of-war competition, and therefore also encourages extremism, and despair from the system, and a feeling that there is nowhere to go, and that there is no creativity. A creative solution that will emerge is the technological solution that will be offered to political problems - the politics of technology. The more significant a factor technology becomes, the more it will become a political factor and not a neutral one, and different politicians will offer to solve problems through different technological applications, and democracy will choose the direction of technology implementation and ultimately the direction of its development, as there will be different ways to implement a society with artificial intelligence, and this will be the great political controversy of the future. It will split the world into different societies, like communism and capitalism. Chinese artificial intelligence will be different from American, and at the end of the competition, the superior societies will reach the finish line, having solved the problem of technological politics. In the first stage, this will be the problem of integrating human society with artificial intelligence. The problem will not be replacing humans with machines, but the form of integration, like the integration of man and horse, to achieve maximum success in their joint work. As in the agricultural revolution, where animals did not replace humans, but engaged in other tasks in the ecosystem. Finding the optimal division of labor and form of control between humans and computers will be the challenge, and woe to us if this is reduced to an axis with humans on one side and computers on the other, with the right supporting human control and the left supporting computer control, or vice versa. It must not be a power struggle between humans and computers because humans will lose. Just as the horse is stronger than humans. So is the thinking horse. And just as the cow is more efficient than humans in turning vegetation into meat, so will be the thinking cow. And so there will be different thinking animals that will be domesticated and trained. The artificial intelligence revolution will be more similar to the agricultural revolution than to the industrial, scientific or information revolution, as it will include dealing with new types of animals and domestication, and not with new types of machines and devices.

The failure of politics as a promoter of solutions

Leaders don't know how to work in chaos, but worse - the public is not willing to work in chaos, and therefore no progress is made in solving the problem of global warming. They expect there to be a plan for a solution, while the right thing is to announce that there is no plan, and invest resources in research, for a future solution that is not yet known, and every additional shekel invested in the current inefficient solutions is wasted, and would have been better spent on research instead of a direct and known solution. All the world's experts from various disciplines should have been concentrated in a think tank of humanity, to fund research and technological solutions, until there is an economically efficient solution, which could have taken decades of research, but would solve the problem. For research to be a political agenda requires the ability to live in chaos, because research is unpredictable, and therefore although research is the solution to many political problems, it is a solution that is not implemented. Because it is not a work plan, and not linear to investment, and not predictable, and therefore there are many imaginary problems that are eventually solved by technology and not by politics, but politicians treat research as a magic solution that might come and there is nothing to do about it, as chaos (and they don't know how to work in chaos). Therefore, there is an illusion that technological development is a random benefactor, because there is no focused monetary investment in problems, and not solutions. Because even when politics invests in research, it invests in programs, which is against the essence of research. And therefore sometimes causes more harm than good. When the right thing is to take the best minds, from different fields, put them together, and pour tons of money on them, and from the conflicts between them and the intellectual competition, something good will come out. Scientists are actually good at forming consensus no less than others about the right solution, once there is enough research and evidence. This is the correct method for political decision-making. Minds, research, and the formation of scientific consensus, even if there are always dissenters, there is also a mainstream. Not the philosopher king but the scientist king or more precisely the scientific community, whose characteristics need to be copied to the political community. It's no coincidence that there is politics in science, these are related phenomena and we have already learned how to do one of them well.

The Talmud as a literary mistake

The mistake with tycoons is that society measures wealth by the amount of money you own, and then the existence of large and developed wealth structures, such as corporations, which are technically in the hands of a single person, creates the appearance of inequality. But the truth is that the tycoon can't really exploit his wealth, just as a king isn't really the owner of his kingdom, and can't sleep with all the women in the kingdom, he is very limited. Therefore, what matters is not how much money a person has, but how much they waste, that is, how much in the economy goes to unproductive corruption. And here ordinary people also waste, but even a tycoon will not be innocent if instead of investing the money in the economy he buys himself a gold toilet. Therefore, what matters is the economic ethos, not the consumer or wasteful one. And this ethos sanctifies efficiency, that is, the exponential growth in which all surplus is invested for the sake of progress and development, as opposed to hedonism or other inefficient allocations. Competition is also important only because it increases efficiency, not as a primary ideal. Because it pays for everyone to get ahead of their friend a little, even if the overall progress is not good, that is, because of game theory - progress is inevitable. The belief is not that progress is for the better, but that it is interesting. That is, it is the internal logic of history and we would all like to live in the future just as a child wants to know the end of the story, and a person acts to reach a result even if he loses and even if he gains, because that's how humans are built, as an information machine that performs learning. Like evolution itself, which doesn't necessarily progress for the better but will always progress. Development is the most basic law of the universe and created the stars and galaxies. It's something in the nature of time and the laws of physics that stem from what was a moment ago, that is, from the very fact that there are forces acting on elements, and therefore complexity will be created and grow in some of the initial conditions. The future will not finally be simple and solve things but only more and more complex. The rise of complexity is the law in complex systems, that is, systems that had a factor that created complexity in the first place. Only simple systems are stable. The problem in the Middle Ages is that complexity decreased in them following monotheism, that is, its own complexity became larger and larger in the development of the Talmud and scholasticism, but when abandoned it became an era of sterile complexity (and therefore not contributing enough to deep complexity, like a sterile branch in mathematics). Because sometimes the system develops complexity in the wrong direction, like in evolution, and only when moving to another direction do we understand that you did a depth-first search in the wrong branch of the tree, but this can only be known when you actually did and the search was sterile, because that's the nature of a search algorithm - that it's wrong. That it's almost always wrong. And so it is in our thinking and high culture. Almost always a mistake. By its very nature that it is a search algorithm (and not optimization, as in the low). Therefore, money in research will almost always be invested incorrectly, but there is no way to skip this. This is the positive waste, as opposed to the corrupt waste of conspicuous consumption, which the whole society suffers from no less than the tycoons, and even more in terms of percentages wasted from capital, and invests very little in research and experimental. Experimental thinking is almost a complete waste of time - and that's what shows its importance. Because if there is no higher efficiency than waste in a certain field - it means that there is a creative challenge here. Therefore, the ethos should be that conspicuous waste of a tycoon or bourgeois should be in the field of research.

Philosophy of the Future


source: degeneration-of-nation

source_format: html

domain: philosophy

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Hegel Was Wrong - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning23" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/dreamowl.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Hegel Was Wrong

Do catastrophes have a positive impact on the development of history, similar to their impact on the development of evolution? Is migration - detachment from the mother culture in favor of mating with a new culture - good for cultural development as it is for the development of species? Heretical thoughts against the concept of the growth of good from evil, and about the perceptual illusions that cause it

By: The Daily Owl

Minerva's owl completes its flight in the spiritual world only at the end of the day - because it flies in its sleep in a dream (Source)

Does history progress through catastrophes? Seemingly yes, but in fact, they only create a new order that reveals previous potential, which could have been revealed no less quickly, albeit in a less dramatic and more gradual manner, because the catastrophe mainly creates a milestone, and we don't know in which areas it actually caused regression. Can the establishment of a world government only occur following a global catastrophe, nuclear, climatic, cyber, alien, pandemic, etc.? No, it can also develop gradually from the transformation of the network into a brain, it just takes time and people don't have the patience to follow a continuous development. The economy is always preferable to politics, only that its revolutions are quiet and maligned and not idealistic. The illusion of catastrophe is an optical illusion in the dimension of time when looking back, and stems precisely from it being a catastrophe, meaning that suddenly we don't see the gradual progress of things before the catastrophe, and everything seems new.

The Holocaust wasn't worth it. It takes generations to create cultural and intellectual depth, and intellectual migrants like the Jews succeed despite their migration and not because of it, they succeed because of a creative ethos, and if they were at home they would have been more successful. It's not the migration and mutation and disturbance itself that creates progress, but its prominence creates the impression that this is what creates progress. And this can be seen in the fact that the great Jewish geniuses were already well-integrated into the culture in which their genius was expressed, and not their parents and grandparents who had recently immigrated were the boom generation. Their lack of rootedness did cause a certain superficiality in their work, as Wagner diagnosed, even among the greatest we have none greater than them, but they could have been in the next generation in Europe if not for the Holocaust. The illusion of migration and the romantic myth behind its creative powers stem from the fact that geniuses migrate to the cultural center from all over the world. This is a spatial optical illusion of those who are at the center. Migration only makes it harder for geniuses, who succeed because of their genius and despite their migration, which is detrimental to their creation.

The superficiality of American culture stems from immigration, contrary to the constant search for immigrant literature as deep and meaningful literature, but American culture will improve, contrary to what people think, as time passes. The Romans improved too. The decline was not related to a lack of catastrophes, but to a lack of creative ethos, to old age. Would catastrophes have renewed Rome? There were many and they didn't renew it. Did exile create the Bible? No, it revealed it. And it's also responsible for the premature consolidation of the less successful parts in it. The end of something is responsible for the very cessation of its formulation, not for its quality, which accumulated, contrary to the illusion created as if the end created the quality, and the crisis the creation. Usually, it flawed it. The Holocaust didn't create the geniuses before it. It did cause them to be a golden age because after them there wasn't a more golden generation.

And perhaps the golden age is simply because we decide that a certain period is the beginning and then everyone who wrote in it is remembered and given importance? While countless similar networks are forgotten. After all, in the end, the decision to paint the past like a barcode and choose which periods are dark and which are golden ages is in the eyes of the present, and actually its choice of cultural DNA - a declarative and educational choice, not from an objective study of the past but from learning for the future, what is worthy. And then many generations later, when things around the golden age are forgotten, it appears in isolated and radiant memory - something from nothing, a new creation. When in practice it was a continuum, or sometimes a formulation of an unformulated past, hence the importance of the first alphabetic formulations - in Greek and Hebrew (as opposed to formulations in non-alphabetic governmental writing on behalf of the government - alphabetic writing and writing in it grew from below in two particularly literate cultures). Therefore, the gold is an optical illusion that stems from writing and its linearity (and from the linearity of learning and storytelling) - you always need a beginning of the book. Or at least of the chapter.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Deep Blue Philosopher - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning3" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/bluebanana.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Deep Blue Philosopher

Does the topography of water and land predict the geographical direction of cultural development - and some of its basic characteristics? What role does the attraction to the blue color in the sky play in the idea of God? Why did Hitler fail to establish a new religion while the Jewish Marx and Freud succeeded in creating a global ideology? How did Freud's subconscious create psychoanalysis? And why must a philosopher not understand that what drives him is a banana? Another page from the banana notebooks

By: A Netanya philosopher with a blue head

The role of blue in the development of monotheism - and they saw the God of Israel and under His feet was like a work of sapphire brick and like the essence of heaven in purity (source)

Blue movies

Turkey is to blame for the civil war in Syria, and to some extent in Iraq as well, because it stole water from the Euphrates with the Ataturk Dam, to establish a new agricultural project in its territory at the expense of the poor peasants in the surrounding countries, whose difficult situation forced them to migrate to cities, and in drought they starved, and the lack of water led to internal war. The scarcest resource in the world is not energy or food, but water, and areas of water scarcity are the areas of wars and terrorism. Not areas of Islam. Therefore, there is relative calm in Israel after solving the water crisis, and the Arab Spring is actually a phenomenon of drought. Humans are genetically programmed to go to places where there is water, through their aesthetic sense, and they enjoy it with brain reward even just by seeing it. That's why people love to travel to water sources so much, and faint at lakes and waterfalls, and the same instinct causes people to still want a sea view, and that the vast majority of urbanization is near water, and that people love to go to the sea and travel in Europe. The same instinct caused people to sail on ships, and developed trade, as well as addiction to showers and flowing water in general, including in the aqueducts of the Roman Empire. That's why blue design dominates various sites like Facebook and others, and blue eyes are considered the most beautiful. And if they're in a blonde desert, then the beauty is emphasized like an oasis (although the attraction to blonde and gold is probably also from the attraction to water, to the shiny). Homo sapiens in Africa was programmed to be especially attracted to water, and therefore spread rapidly throughout the world, including to places beyond the sea that previous races did not reach. That's how it quickly reached Australia and America. The gap between the empires in the New World and those in the Old World was only about two thousand five hundred lonely years, despite a split of about thirty-three thousand years, since the arrival of humans in America, which could have been expected to cause a larger standard deviation, and a wider lag of the Americas, disconnected from the large mass of humanity. How can this be explained? Because there were occasional cultural connections between them and knowledge transfer throughout the period (and not just in the Bering crossing), as can be understood from the Aztec myth about the ancient white civilizer, who would return as a messiah one day, which served as a time bomb that caused them to collapse before the Spanish. But the Spanish would have destroyed them anyway, with epidemics and guns, it would just have taken longer, and therefore the micro-historical case had no macro-historical impact, and their fate was sealed. There are graves of heavens in pre-Columbian America, so there were people who accidentally arrived there and transferred knowledge and diseases. Otherwise, the death rates would have been even higher. As long as the skies were blue, people were drawn to fly, but the black space scares them, so you don't see much adventurousness and attraction of the human species there, and space discovery is stuck. The most famous space image is of the blue planet itself from the moon, which only makes people want to go home.

Why Italy twice?

Why did Italy lead twice, both in Rome and in the Renaissance? Usually the center migrates, so what is it about the Italians (this didn't happen for example to the Greeks or many other peoples, who led only once). Geographically, because Italy is the center of the Mediterranean, and when they returned again from the regression of the Middle Ages, then at that stage Italy again had the advantage, and not since. That is, because history went backwards then passed through the same place twice, and when it went even further back, at the peak of the Middle Ages, then it even returned to the Middle East, and to Mesopotamia and Persia. And at the peak of the Middle Ages with the Crusaders it returned to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. And so war also visited Germany again and again, in every round, because it is the continental center of Europe. Because the center of land attracts wars, like the Mongols, or Napoleon (eastward), or Iraq and Iran and the Middle East and Arabs in general, and central Africa. While the center within a sea attracts trade. Europe is the most breached continent, and therefore progressed the fastest, and the Middle East has the most large rivers, Euphrates Tigris Nile, which were the ancient trade artery. And it's not just Europe, but Western Europe, almost every country there was of global importance in its turn, because trade was such that its cost at sea, at any distance, was even less than a short distance on land (in the ancient world if you transport grain more than 80 km on land it's not economical because the animals eat more than the grain they carry, so a big city had to be close to a water bay). It's like the brain is folded because the cortex is worth much more than the inside, precisely because it's half isolated, so you can process information in an orderly manner, and the further you get from it the harder it is. Therefore, the water line is the most important thing. At first, culture develops along a river, and then along a sea coast: initially in an archipelago, like Greece and Troy, where it's most breached, and then on a peninsula like Rome and Carthage, where the land tongue is the largest (and therefore when trade returned in the Renaissance then culture returned to Italy), and then on a large island, like England and Japan, and finally on a whole continent surrounded by oceans, like America. Each time like in a fractal the distance grows, but always the water line is the central cultural and commercial interface and that's where the big cities are. Just as today the interface, the internet, is the most important, especially where everyone has an interface, like Facebook, it's more breached, and the more breached a technology is the more it wins. The website network was more breached than television, and the user network even more breached than it.

Why Italy twice?

The more correct explanation is that where the forefront of religion is located, that's where progress develops. Egyptian mythology was very good in stability, but never spread outside Egypt, it was too centralized, but Greek mythology was much more successful, with human gods, and therefore less centralized as a myth and allowed decentralized expansion, and the Romans succeeded because they copied it, against the human sacrifices of the Carthaginians. But once the front of Christian religion moved to the Eastern Church, the Western Church and Italy deteriorated, and only in the Renaissance did it become again the religious front, the most advanced place religiously (not secularly!). And then Spain was the front (with the Restoration, including the Inquisition), and in the Reformation the Protestants and the English were the most advanced religiously and therefore rose, and then the USA became the religious vanguard and thus rose, and the Soviet Union collapsed quickly because there was no religion in it, despite the fact that it could have become an empire of hundreds of years. And in the ancient period when the Middle East was the religious front, that's where civilization grew, and when the Arabs were at the forefront of religious innovation, they conquered the world. That is, look where the religious front is and understand where human flourishing will be, that's the predictor, and not a specific religion, and still the United States is the place with the most religious innovation in the world. What was the religious innovation of Italy that brought the Renaissance? The use of Christianity to create a social super-class with multi-national and supra-state validity (the secular and corrupt papacy funded by the entire Christian world) and an advanced combination of Christianity with art, especially sculpture and painting, but also poetry, with Dante being the pioneer (as in Greece with Homer, where that was also the advantage. And in Judaism the advantage was the combination of religion with storytelling in the prose genre, which was avant-garde then both religiously and literarily). Nazism was a great failure because it wasn't religious, and if it had been a religion, it would have been one of the most common religions in the world. Hitler could have created a whole mythology, and said that he received the word of God, and created a Nazi version of Christianity, and given a new gospel. But because he wasn't a successful artist, but kitsch, his religion lacked enough mythical, mystical and religious dimensions, and preferred to be pseudo-science, and so did Communism. That is, science destroyed the development of possible religions, not out of itself, but in fact that prophets like Hitler and Marx and Freud, who in any other period would have been like Muhammad, Jesus and Moses, took it as a model, and thus their ideas were deprived of their religious dimension, and became ideologies that die within dozens of years, while religions have a lifespan of thousands of years, and they know how to renew themselves and produce new prophets from within. But precisely pseudo-science sticks to a single ancestor, because its source is not from above, but only from the past, from the founder, and lacks the dimension of the above, and can only connect backwards, and degeneration is rapid. In contrast, religions renew themselves, because you can always reconnect upwards, through the path of the specific religion.

Moses the man

Freud is an inexhaustible source for interpretations, and people have made careers out of taking every concept and structure and psychological phenomenon of his and copying it to a cultural, or artistic, or social, or philosophical or even economic phenomenon. Why does this succeed? Because interpretation is legitimate in a field that seems religious to people, unconsciously, and these copies are seen in the development of all religions. Freud had a good Jewish instinct to invent such concepts, and all kinds of provocative structures and scandalous myths. And therefore the greatest structural proximity to psychology is that of Christianity. He was an artist in taking all kinds of ideas and moods from his time and turning them into myths - like Paul. Because the secular cannot manage without a religious dimension, so he invented psychology, and copied the Trinity family to the real family, and replaced confession with psychoanalysis. This created a framework that was missing in secularism for dealing with personal problems, which was traditionally entrusted to religion. Once upon a time for the problems that today you go to a psychologist for, you would go to a priest, hence the great emphasis on patient confidentiality, as a substitute for priest confidentiality. Christianity regulated the myths of sexuality, until psychology took over the role. And this includes the answer to how to live a good life, which was missing in science, so they invented a religious part of science and called it psychology, and threw into it orphaned roles like treating the soul. And it's completely religious thinking that there is a soul and it needs to be treated. Freud's Jewishness made him have the appropriate thinking for founding religions. Because a Jew is a person who lives in a creative, fertile myth, and therefore can create myths, and all this without being a charlatan, but understanding the creation of myths as natural. Therefore, he was the most successful religious man of the twentieth century. And therefore the founder of Scientology, who was a real charlatan, felt so threatened by him. He understood that he was the competitor. The creation of myth needs to be unconscious, and therefore science was important to Freud to separate between his conscious as a discoverer and his subconscious as an inventor. An artist must not be aware of the sources of his creation, otherwise it will dry up and become an ideology. A writer who understands his work would better not write a book but write an article. The perception of the artist as having wonderful control over his art originates from people who are not actually talented in the artistic act, despite having great interest in it and a host of intellectual talents - critics and researchers. Often these will praise a writer (for example) as having full control of language or plot, despite the fact that any writer who really has such control - his art will not survive. This mistaken perception of control has severe consequences in the field of culture, particularly towards new writers who are influenced by it, and come from a position of control. This is an illusion that stems from the uniqueness of the text, as if everything in it is in its right place, but so it is in everything unique. It's not recommended to write out of lack of control, on the contrary, the subject is supposed to control the author, and not the author the subject. The subject provides the control. Literature is written about a subject that is not clear to you yourself from the outset, but you have a deep interest in it. And the more you yourself honestly grapple with it through writing, and not put on shows, the more harmonious the book will be. This is the harmony of the natural, of the organic, and not of the mechanical controlled, of the unnatural. A book controlled by ideology, idea, emotion, skill, or even a person - is limited. In a good book, something that the artist himself does not understand controls. Shakespeare did not understand what he was writing about. And did not understand Shakespeare. And so in a good religion. Freud would not have been Freud without his enormous blindness, achieved thanks to the scientific guise, just as a writer disguises his soul through literary distancing, and precisely because it hides it is interesting, precisely because it is a cover there is a secret in it. If a writer dared or could write the secret explicitly it would not be interesting, like the explicit name. It's a secret that he himself does not understand or is unable to deal with. Usually it's an uninteresting biographical secret, which is a matter for literary gossip, or for psychology. Weak people write literature. Strong people cope. And mediocre people go to a psychologist.

Philosophy of the Future


domain: commentary

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Holocaust of Homosexuals: Rabbi Peretz Saves Homosexuals from Self-Extermination and Assimilation - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/alternative-commentary31" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/closet.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Holocaust of Homosexuals: Rabbi Peretz Saves Homosexuals from Self-Extermination and Assimilation

Homosexuals are, as we know, marvelous creatures, but apparently they don't know mathematics. Nothing in the course of human history has contributed more to the extinction of homosexuals than the gay rights movement of the 1970s, along with the very idea of "gay" itself. If Rabbi Peretz doesn't succeed in his scheme, the "homosexual problem" will eventually solve itself, so Rabbi Peretz is in a win-win position against the community

By: Political Cat

The Closet - The vault in which the homosexual genome has been preserved throughout history (Source)

The most repressed question in the LGBTQ rights movement, which will never be asked at any pride parade or rally of a pro-community organization, despite its criticality to its survival, is: Why are there homosexuals at all, from an evolutionary perspective? Only the liberal consciousness that sees homosexuals as mere individuals, with human rights as individuals, as part of the rights discourse, can ignore the self-extermination towards which the community is marching with head held high, while proudly waving the rainbow flag. After all, if Rabbi Peretz is wrong, and conversion therapy is impossible, then there must be a dominant genetic component to homosexuality - so far, all according to the liberal book, right? We were born this way. But if there is such a component, why are there homosexuals at all, from an evolutionary perspective? The answer is that there aren't. And eventually, there won't be. But woe to anyone who dares to voice the following probable calculation out loud.

Under any reasonable assumption, homosexuality is an evolutionary variant that causes a significant decrease in fertility compared to heterosexuality. However, any genetic combination or variant that increases the likelihood of this should have been eliminated by evolution long (long!) before the beginning of recorded history. So how is it possible that there is such a large proportion of homosexuals in the population, against which Rabbi Peretz is forced to contort himself? The answer is that those with homosexual attraction have never been "gay" throughout history, but rather did indeed undergo "conversion" and had children no less than any heterosexual (along with engaging in homosexual practices, of course). Today, when there are "gays", their fertility rates are drastically lower than any straight person, and the "gay genome" will gradually exterminate itself, and we may soon see a plummet in their proportion of the population. Rabbi Peretz is desperately trying to preserve homosexuality - but who will listen to him. After all, he represents a collectivist consciousness - one that, for example, sees the Jewish people before the individual assimilators - and therefore places the survival of the group and its culture and the bearing of many children far above the welfare of individuals. Ridiculous, isn't it?

And the knights for pink rights will ask: What about the minority of homosexuals who have children? Well, the procreation of a homosexual couple is still an assimilation of homosexuals into the heterosexual population, and an exponential dramatic decrease (50%!) in the rates of their genome, which are related to exclusive same-sex attraction, in the next generation, since the egg or sperm donation carries a genome that is not theirs. For a homosexual couple to maintain even in absolute terms the expected number of homosexuals in the population, they need to have more than four children, since each child is only half theirs. How many such couples are there? And what about Price's equation, which justifies altruism in evolution? Even if there was such a dubious effect - meaning a homosexual would help raise more children for his family - it has certainly disappeared today. On the contrary, it is likely that today, for the first time in history, following the modern invention of "gay", natural selection is working with tremendous force and its uncompromising efficiency to reduce the rate of "gay" in the population, and any genetic variant or combination statistically related to it will fade. The law of large numbers doesn't err, and the liberation of individuals is the tragedy of the group. But unlike Jewish consciousness, the thought of thousands of years of survival of gay culture is as foreign to the average homosexual as the thought of evolution is to the Rabbi. But unfortunately, the instincts of Rabbi Peretz and his God are much closer to nature and biology than the liberal ones, which is really a scandal - not to be mentioned in polite circles.

Therefore, in the face of what seems like a defeat for conservatism, the community presents a victory that, if it lasts long in its current form, will be a Pyrrhic victory. We have passed the peak in history of the proportion of homosexuals in the population, and the path to their becoming a negligible minority is paved - if only Rabbi Peretz doesn't interfere. All that conservatives need to do in the face of populations that have chosen demographic suicide (secularists? leftists? the Western world?) is to wait. And the liberal population leading the demographic suicide - by a huge margin at the head of the parade! - is the homosexuals. Every homosexual who "comes out of the closet" or marries a man slightly reduces Rabbi Peretz's problem in the next generation. And when evolution applies its steamroller - Rabbi Peretz Ltd. will still be here, but homosexuals as such will be remembered in history as a passing, albeit colorful, episode. And the victorious Rabbi Peretz, the writer of history, will surely explain that it's because of their unfortunate opposition to conversion therapy. And if the proportion of homosexuals in the population drops dramatically, their rights will already be shrouded in fog, and in general - history will judge them as a failure. But who cares about the judgment of history, or, God forbid, evolution? Who cares about the future? Only Rabbi Peretz, perhaps.

Therefore, anyone who wants to preserve the enormous cultural achievements of homosexuals in history (Turing! Wittgenstein! Proust! Noah Harari! Ohana!), far beyond their proportion in the population, must support conversion therapy, just as anyone who wants to preserve the enormous cultural achievements of Jews in history (Rabbi Peretz?) must oppose assimilation (a second Holocaust?). Because it may be too late for the current community, but in the situation that has arisen - only conversion therapies that turn straight people into homosexuals will be able to maintain their proportion in the population, or at least begin to rehabilitate it, after the enormous demographic damage caused to it by the definition of gay - which is an extinct animal by its very definition.

* "Political Cat" is a satirical column

Alternative Current Affairs


domain: culture

html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Wicked Woman - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature32" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/vermeerletter.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Wicked Woman

You surely have a boyfriend, and you were selfish enough to send the email without understanding what it would do to me. But in that same future where people will unwillingly draw closer to each other, because all their life's output will be public, and there will be no private work, no private writing, and you'll read this too - then we'll grow close again, despite having grown apart, and this time because the universe will contract

By: The Recipient

You have a new mail item (Source)

I can't believe you were so cruel as to send me an email while you have another. But how weak this argument is, proving there is no other. It hangs by a thread. Especially when I enter the site and see you haven't logged in. What could be the reason? You're not abroad. Here I see your Facebook. In other words, what happened, what's happening, is that the information transfers between unrelated processors are expanding. And there's nothing to protect me from the pain, in the lack of knowledge.

Once, if you weren't in contact with a woman, you wouldn't hear anything about her. Unless you listened to gossip. But I simply wouldn't hear about them, wouldn't know they got married. I wouldn't see the wedding photos. Even if they went out, I knew nothing, unless I kept in touch with a traitorous friend of hers. Who didn't even know how much she was hurting me. Or a chance meeting with someone she knows. But for years I knew nothing. And the internet, just as it expanded the channels of information transfer between texts, also opened up people, and the day is near that is neither day nor night, and many springs have opened. Meaning that the roads between people will be so wide that they'll be as wide as the people themselves. The continuation of the loss of privacy is the loss of individuality, no lie of ignorance will protect you from unrequited love. The falsehood in disappointment will disappear, and there will only be mysterious love.

Because even true love is based on a lie, and if everything will be known, where will the lie be found? I know too much about her even though we're not in touch. I already know too much about the girls from the site before we've met. And the younger they are, the worse it is, their whole lives are there. Meaning from true love and lies we'll move to known and mysterious love. And if I knew you didn't have a boyfriend, I would try to get back to you, with all my might, but I can't take the risk that you have someone, and you'll tear my chest open, especially since it's been many days that you're not on the site, not searching. And it never was.

And every morning I log into the site in your place, every night, to check if you're there. Because if you're just there I'll feel much better, it's worth the effort for me. And each time it hurts a little, torture when you lie down and when you rise. And one day, I know, I'll still see your picture on Facebook, happy with another. And I won't even be able to hit him like what would happen if you were walking embraced on the street and ran into me. I mean, where would I hit him, I wouldn't want to kill him, and he'd probably hit me back, taller, stronger, and you'd be standing there screaming that I'm crazy. I hate you. You surely have a boyfriend, and you were selfish enough to send the email without understanding what it would do to me.

But in that same imaginary future, where people will unwillingly draw closer to each other, because all their life's output will be public, social, and will be valued only socially and not personally, there will be almost no private work, private writing, and you'll read this too, then we'll grow close again, despite having grown apart, because the universe will contract, the human sphere will collapse into itself, even if I run away from you to the other side of the world it will become the other side of the village. Then you'll know what you did to me. Whore. Sex will be the last thing to be shared, after all. People will report after sex how good it was so their friends will be jealous, or how bad, to extract reactions and raise awareness, because awareness will already be in the heavens.

And everything will be more conflicted than ever, because why do poets quarrel much more than novelists? Because it's much easier to write a poem than a novel. So imagine what will happen when everyone writes a line. How much I hate you. (How much, really? Exactly as much as I loved you. The self is not what creates the intensity of the feeling, but its direction. It's just a legend for the map, the arrow that shows where is up, and where is out. And where is in. Thus pleasure turns to pain. The moment you want me, all the hatred will turn to love, and that's why you're such a wicked woman.

Culture and Literature


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Opening: Instead of a Suicide Note - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning1" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/banana.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Opening: Instead of a Suicide Note

Fragments from the notebook of the philosopher, who attempted suicide in his living room last summer by choking on bananas, in order to transform from the greatest living Netanyahuite philosopher to the greatest Netanyahuite philosopher, period. We stole the notebook during our last visit to the philosopher's living room while he went to the bathroom, and after a Sisyphean decoding of the handwriting through the banana stains, we will gradually publish his thoughts

By: The Greatest Living Netanyahuite Philosopher (still)

Banana: The Secret Behind the Philosopher's Desire (Source)

Knowledge is Lack of Power

What compels me to write? Oscar Wilde: "The passions we are mistaken about their origin are those that tyrannize us most powerfully. Our weakest motives are those we are aware of their nature." In other words, at the core of desire, including and especially the sexual one, there must be a secret. Science embarked on a 500-year journey to eradicate the world of secrets, which gave the ancient world its power, and as an unexpected and unintended byproduct, found itself emptying various desires. The desire for life, for example, has lost much of its meaning in the era of modern medicine, as well as the desire for children, and the fear of death and infertility are weaker than ever. It wasn't the dangers themselves that gave desires their power, but the uncertainty (=lack of knowledge) that stemmed from them: death in childbirth or war or epidemic or pollution (the power of the unexpected, not death itself), sexual sanctions in case of being caught and unplanned pregnancy, unexplained infertility and its randomness, and so on. The desire for war, and for wandering, which in the past were thought would lead the human race on a direct path to space, and even the desires for revenge and honor, are all weaker than ever. Even the basic desire for food has been greatly emptied, which sometimes led to gluttonous eating as compensation. Once food had to fulfill a physical need, to fill a stomach, after that was assured it had to fulfill a psychological need, to be tasty, then a moral need grew, to be healthy or vegetarian or vegan, and today food needs to fulfill an ideological need, it needs to be interesting, it needs a story behind it, it needs to be authentic and it's a touristic act, hence the spread of "world food," meaning one needs to try to recreate a secret behind it. Music has also undergone a similar process (through all four stages: from functional social ritual, to melodic pleasure, to revolution and defiance, and finally to increasing diversity). And whoever reads Wilde well knows that any thinking machine, computer or human, must not have too much knowledge about itself, or absolute access to itself. It's not only important to create awareness for artificial intelligence, but also lack of awareness, especially in the most important part - will and motives. The computer needs to be ignorant about what drives it, even if it has Google's knowledge of the world, it must not understand itself. So historically, the desire for knowledge kills all other desires, and finally perhaps even itself.

Secret is Power

The two desires that remained last standing, because the mechanism behind them gives a secret, and uncertainty was preserved - are money and sex. This is what remains of the broad world of desires of the ancient world. The ancient world was a world of mystery, and therefore was full of desires and motives, including also cultic, religious, and other supernatural motives, which we have no access to today, such as impurity and purity, connection to the souls of ancestors, idolatry, and sacrifices. The traditional desire for honor, all-encompassing, partly evolved into the desire for fame and finally into the hollow desire for celebrity, precisely because of the little uncertainty of the mechanism that creates celebrities. Desire is strengthened and becomes addictive only because of a mechanism of uncertainty (that's how the motivation mechanism in the brain works, in rewarding positive surprise, and not just good). Therefore, only an inaccessible, chaotic secret works on us, like the stock market and the media. The last bodily desire, sex, survived largely due to the lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind it, the uncertainty in female satisfaction, and the secrecy of its realization. Sex still maintains a certain aura of a world of secrets. But as with food, it is undergoing the same four-stage process, from physical need and bringing children, to psychological need for pleasure, to moral need for "correct" couplehood and healthy sex life (and "safe" sex), and today increasingly to a need with an "intellectual" structure, which needs to be interesting, to experiment, to innovate and check the possibilities, similar to world food, or world music, the parallel to which is world sex, namely pornography. Sexual desire in itself is in a process of constant dilution, and has lost a significant part of its mysteriousness, which is now being sought in various perversions, like world explorers, who after mapping the entire Earth, still try to find a piece of relatively virgin genesis for tourism (hence sexual experimentation, the last "liberation" project). Social desires like money and prestige and power are still kicking, but personal desires are in danger of extinction, and in constant pursuit of creating secrets in an era where it drowns - the information age. On the day when politics will be transparent - there will no longer be a desire for power. Today, even sexual desire is less and less based on itself, and more and more on social desires such as power and status and appearance, which more than romantic enjoyment of beauty has competitive social enjoyment in it. All this is part of a process of emptying of the individual in favor of the network, and of particles in favor of string sheets. Is this an irreversible process?

A Fundamental Property of Physics - That Enables Mathematics

History teaches us that this is a dialectical process, and that personal desires will return in another guise. At different levels of reality, the plausible description moves between a complex system and discrete atoms, again and again - between levels of high mutual influence and complexity that can only be understood as systems, to levels where the phenomenon is understood as isolated individuals, who are in relatively simple interactions with their environment. The universe is composed of discrete galaxies. The galaxy is composed of discrete stars. The global cultural network is composed of individuals. Individuals are again composed of networks within them - the brain. The brain is composed of neurons, that is, discrete cells, within each of which is a network of information and activity, which is isolated to a discrete genetic information code. Complex biology is composed of simple chemistry between atoms. Particles are composed of string sheets. If there's one thing we know about the universe, it's that it moves again and again between enormous complexity and enormous simplicity, and never moves to infinity in one direction, for example towards enormous complexity that cannot be understood at all, or conversely to a simple and final reduction at some level. Since the development of history is the development of the universe, and the time axis is actually the axis of system building, we are guaranteed that from time to time complexity will collapse, and it will be possible to understand - between chaotic periods. The development of evolution did not create infinite complexity, but collapsed again and again, into understandable and discrete units, such as the cell, the bacterium, the organism, the species, the ecological system. Sometimes there are many orders of magnitude between one level and another, but the collapse always comes. We will always find ourselves eventually reaching a level where there is an inside within it and an outside outside. What distinguishes between the inside and the outside is the skin, that is, something that hides the inside from the outside, that is, keeps a secret. The content of our body is not revealed from the outside, and the content of our brain is not revealed from the outside. If the content of our brain is revealed, and the secret collapses, the individual will collapse with it, and the complexity of culture will intensify by orders of magnitude. It is likely that then the boundary will be set at another intermediate level, which will prevent total chaos. Therefore in mathematics, always within continuous and dynamic analysis one can find at a sufficiently fundamental level discrete and algebraic mathematics, and vice versa. This is actually what enables its very existence.

Late Addition (Above the Banana Layer)

The laws of nature themselves, and particularly mathematics, are a place where physical complexity collapses, and therefore mathematics hides the secrets of nature and does not reveal them, it is the shell. Just as the world of law and legislation is a place where the complexity of human relations, psychology and literature collapse and are hidden. Therefore, countries are an example of the collapse of complexity, as if the world is composed of about two hundred individuals and the relations between them, and not seven billion. The reason for the existence of countries is the inability to cope with complexity, and therefore the country as an atom is a modern phenomenon that stems from globality, from increasing the scale, and then internal relations become a secret. Hence the growth of the modern intelligence institution hand in hand with the state - because it became its interior, and around it a game of concealment. That's why countries do not tolerate interference from other countries in their internal affairs, the peak of which is interference in the government itself, for example in elections. The will of the voter must always be some kind of undeciphered secret, some mystical, chaotic and unpredictable wisdom of the crowds from the outside. Therefore, the inside of the law is the mystical, in mathematics, in religion, and in state laws. This is actually the assumption of the field of law interpreting laws according to the intention of the law itself regardless of the empirical intention of the legislator. But today, because of the materialistic-scientific view, the belief in the mystical revealed behind the law has been lost, and we are left with law as clothing only, without the nudity within it. Thus, brain sciences empty the secret from the individual, and humanities empty the secret from culture, and psychology empties the soul, and pornography empties sex, and intelligence empties the state, and so on - precisely because they expose what is inside these shells, and the desires that drive them from within. The splitting of the atom is perhaps the discovery of trapped energy but its release annihilates the matter itself. The look beyond the shell is a glimpse into the primordial chaos, a blinding look into the sun. That is, the opposite of a nuclear bomb is a black hole, which is the ultimate last secret. And even it is sought to be annihilated by the idea that no information is lost inside the black hole, but everything is preserved on its surface (Bekenstein-Hawking entropy).

Discoverers versus Inventors

The secret of discovery has indeed perished, but the secret of invention remains. Only the creative secret remains, and from this last secret it will be possible to create a whole new world of desires, and to renew the world of secrets, as in the dawn of humanity. The creative secret is by nature a dynamic, procedural secret, and not a static secret as an object that can be exposed and discovered and consumed. The creative secret is not accessible to science, and the thing that can destroy it is only a creativity machine that makes creativity trivial, but mathematically it is an impossible computational problem. Every desire is built on a mathematically unsolvable problem, such as uncertainty, unknowns, chaos, or problems that are fundamentally difficult to compute. We need to copy the mathematical solutions for creating secrets in the network (security) to create secrets within culture. That is, we need to find problems in culture that there is no efficient way to solve computationally (i.e., by computer), and base secrets and desires on them. The artistic problem is such. On the day that sex becomes art - its secret will be guaranteed, and therefore it too will be guaranteed. Religiosity will also be able to give sex secrecy that it has lost, and this time not through prohibitions but through mystery and mysticism. Religion will return precisely through sex. And it will return to it the sense of holiness and touch with the sublime and the divine. But more than that - faith. It will have to incorporate sexuality as part of the cult, but not as in polytheism (in cultic prostitution), but in monotheistic (and therefore monogamous) sexuality. Instead of going to church people will have sex, but sex will become going to church. The body of Jesus will be replaced by their own body.

The Religions of the Third Millennium

The world of personal fantasy is undergoing processes that will allow it more and more to be a shared fantasy. For example, sexuality through augmented reality. The creative process is becoming easier and easier, and eventually it will be accessible to everyone, as a word processor is accessible. But for the world of fantasy not to become a completely controlled reality, but, similar to a dream, to contain a large core of uncertainty, combined with exciting personal content and intense sexuality, it needs to become a shared fantasy world, like a multiplayer computer game, or like in sexuality, where there are two participants. A fantasy world in its broadest and most social sense is religion, as a network that encompasses life, in a narrower sense it is art, for example a book or a movie, as a network that exists within life, where there are partners to the fantasy, but only one creator of the fantastic world (religion insists on inaccessibility, and sometimes on non-existence, of the creator of the fantasy. It is a closed fantastic world, defined by its own tools). An even narrower fantasy world is a social game, a fantasy world limited to two is a sexual world, and an individual's fantasy world is usually a dream or drug hallucination. The ability to make fantasy more and more objective and comprehensive is virtual reality. The fear of the human race shutting itself in a computer game and drugs is similar to the fear of the human race shutting itself in culture, and basically it is the fear of an uninteresting and uncreative fantasy world. Therefore, we must ensure aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic criticism for the fantasy world, in order to use mechanisms from the world of art to pursue interesting and true creativity. The last concept of truth that will remain valid is true creativity. A masterpiece cannot be faked, and it is not a relative thing. This will be the basis for the philosophy of the future and the new ontology.

The Three Religions in the Future

Just as two possible religions emerged from the Bible, in two opposite directions (Christianity and Islam), so it can happen to Kabbalah, which is the sexual-mystical core of Judaism - sexual Judaism. Islam stripped from Judaism only the ideology, and therefore was left with extreme monotheism and zealotry, and therefore Islam is expressed in the sexuality of jealousy. One God one man. Christianity took from Judaism, which combines ideology with emotion, only the emotion, and emphasized the emotional side of religion, and not the system of law, which is related to the rigid ideological system (Islam did adopt religious law. As Christianity was influenced by the pre-Mishnah world of Pirkei Avot, for example the influence of Hillel on Jesus, so Islam was influenced by the world of the Talmud, for example in the tradition of transmission of the Hadith). Therefore Christianity is expressed in the sexuality of love. Islam had to create a simplistic, ideological version of the sacred texts, which could not be forced into rigid ideology and lack of complexity, while Christianity had to perform allegorical interpretation in order not to read their rigid and ideological side and to smooth everything over. The ideology of Kabbalah is the side of the Ari, and particularly against bachelorhood and for coupling through correction through law (commandments), while the emotional side is Hasidism, which contains tendencies against religious law. Therefore, the next Islam will be an intensification of the Ari and a simplification of his complexity into a simplistic ideology of single coupling and correction according to rigid law, while the next Christianity will be an intensification of Hasidism, and complete abandonment of the law, and preservation of the emotional mystical side. That is, sexual Islam will offer sexual ideology, as a substitute for non-functioning sexuality, while sexual Christianity will offer sexual mysticism and spirituality.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>God's Mistake as a Writer - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature15" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/angel.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

God's Mistake as a Writer

We gave them freedom, so they became more of what they are, monkeys, not angels. Freedom doesn't aid the aspiration upwards, but rather distress does. Freedom leads to the lowest common denominator, because when given a choice, popularity becomes what's important. What, do neurons in the brain have freedom? On the contrary, it's the suppression of neurons that makes a person wise

By: The Bible Critic

In the Yeshiva Above and the Yeshiva Below  (Source)

The angel Gabriel banged on the table: We gave them sexual freedom and what did they do with it? We gave them literary freedom and what did they do with it? Who said freedom is better.
The angel Michael said: They mostly slept with a small group of handsome men by Stone Age standards. The gaps only widened. And literature, in parallel, became more conservative. It was no longer worthwhile for a man to take risks, because society punished him by denying him a woman. The women themselves punished. Women's literature became popular, and vice versa, everything converged towards mediocre humanity.
Raphael said: What did we expect, really? We gave them freedom, so they became more of what they are, monkeys, not angels. Freedom doesn't aid the aspiration upwards, but rather distress does. Freedom leads to the lowest common denominator, because when given a choice, popularity becomes what's important. What, do neurons in the brain have freedom? On the contrary, it's the suppression of neurons that makes a person wise.
The angel Gabriel summarized the discussion: Their sexuality didn't become deeper when it was freed from oppression, but rather more superficial. Instead of female sexuality refining male sexuality, male sexuality corrupted female sexuality. I'm submitting a recommendation to God to bring Satan back into sexuality and literature.
Michael asked: So we'll go backwards? Evolution never goes backwards, that's God's basic law. We can't do that.
And Raphael said: Don't worry, I'll write the recommendation so that the change appears dialectical, that's always the trick to make a change of direction in history, from oppression to freedom, and between them a third perpendicular direction. That's how we'll present it to God. He loves sophisticated plot twists, because what's most important to him is being unpredictable, even though that's the most predictable thing. He simply wants to mock false prophets. Between control and liberation, I'll suggest a third direction - secrecy.
Gabriel said: What does that mean? Why do you always have to complicate things? What should I write? Why not simply report and let God solve the problems He created.
Michael said: We've already seen how that works. His way of solving a problem is through another problem. Remember how He ended the exile?
Raphael said: God loves solutions that grow from the bottom up. Let's suggest to Him new literature and new sexuality. He always needs to try new things.
Gabriel said: I have a paradise to manage like a kindergarten, and a hell to run like a school, and an afterlife which is higher education altogether. You write it, and send it.

Raphael sighed. With all the advancements in medicine today, in the end he'll no longer be needed. New diseases need to be invented: spiritual diseases and technological diseases, and network diseases and cultural diseases, not to mention computer viruses. He went and assigned the task to one of the writers. Write me please a hundred words about secrecy as a cure for sexual and literary licentiousness (even God has no patience anymore).

That writer wrote: For sexuality to be as it should, it needs to be shaped so that women will desire me. And for literature to work as it should, it needs to be shaped so that people will want to read me. Therefore, the image of woman in culture needs to be renewed as a literary patron. And for this purpose, courtship should be turned into something literary and not sexual. Women need to want to sleep with someone who writes creatively, and strength shouldn't be the sexual criterion, but rather interest, because sex is a boring thing. And therefore what's important physically is creative sex, and what's important socially is a creative man, and what's important mentally is creative conversation, not necessarily sensitive or emotional, it's not the emotion that determines, but the libido.

At night Raphael checked what the writer had prepared, and didn't understand where the secrecy had disappeared to. Everything is out in the open, written, deciphered. It's not enough. Creativity needs to be perceived as the inner secret of beauty - as the covert dimension of love. This is what love poems should praise, in order to shape a new sexual culture. And this is instead of the discourse of visual, external beauty, and the psychological discourse of love, which is also an external discourse, and suppresses the creative soul. Don't look for a strong man, handsome, stable, supportive, containing, sensitive, but a creative man. Because life is long and boring. Literature is not psychological depth, or a strong plot, but creativity documented in writing and a world of secrets. This is what God doesn't understand.

Culture and Literature


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>Can We Still Talk About the Meaning of Life? - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/philosophy-of-learning25" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/kissabstract.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

Can We Still Talk About the Meaning of Life?

What other formulation can save love and the purpose of life from becoming manipulative New Age clichés and restore them as valid ideas with intellectual power, as they were throughout history? How can the concept of 'chavruta' [study partnership] redefine love and give it a broader, universal meaning, including in human-computer interfaces? On the philosophy of long-term relationships between ideas - versus the philosophy of temporary conceptual relationships

By: Radical Conservative

Sex as shared physical learning, not as an activity - Love as shared emotional learning, not as an emotion (Source)

The most important thing in life, which all literature, philosophy, and religion aim for, and in fact maturation and learning itself, is to transition between two brain systems: from the immediate reward system in the brain to the long-term reward system, or in other words, from passion to love. When you're a child, you're solely in the immediate system, and when you're old, and therefore happier, you're in the second system, which is much more satisfying. The first is related to biology in its beginning, and the second ends in culture at its conclusion. Therefore, artificial intelligence indeed needs to start from biology, from its brain, but needs to end in culture, in a culture of artificial intelligences, just as humans ended up in human culture. Not to live in a world of passion but of love.

The immediate, permissive, gluttonous, consumerist, entertainment culture - is a cultural regression. Not progress. It's a kind of emotional Middle Ages. The liberation of female and male sexuality in their hedonistic form, and not within couplehood, is psychological barbarism, which goes against human nature and reduces happiness. In the future, the present will be perceived as some great ideological sexual mistake and a misunderstanding of human nature and a failed experiment, an emotional holocaust, like the age of ideologies and especially like communism, hopefully not ending in an actual gender war, or physical gender terrorism, or an upgraded AIDS, or enslavement to sexual technology, or another type of catastrophe that will come at the expense of a generation of children, or simply the lack of such a generation (negative population growth will be an economic catastrophe, due to the pyramid structure of growth economy, and anyone who thinks that having children is selfish doesn't understand economics).

Then sexual liberalism will be perceived as dangerous, harmful, a huge experiment on humans that failed because it went against human nature, like communal sleeping or communal showers. Just as liberation from capital and communist equality turned into oppression, so will liberation from sexual morality and sexual equality be perceived as oppression, perhaps after the enslavement of humans through sexuality or their economic exploitation. Alternatively, the matter could end after a severe loneliness epidemic, which might lead individuals to catastrophic actions, and the proliferation of these phenomena will lead to understanding the cause. Or alternatively, just a decline of culture into bad taste and futility, like postmodernism in art, or Rococo or Mannerism (all very similar periods). Art is like a canary that heralds to culture that it has run out of oxygen reserves and vitality.

Every sensitive person feels that there is a deep moral flaw here, and all that's missing is the cultural genius-formulator who will explain in a new conceptualization why feminism has turned into a crushing monster, a destructive ideology, which created a dynamic of distrust, aggression, and instability between the sexes, at the expense of children, family, and society, and culture, and ultimately the economy and human progress. This ideology created a new division - gendered and hostile - in society between two groups, just as nationalism created national wars, and divided society into hostile nations, or religion created religious wars - every division creates new incitement, just as the economic division created communism. Nurturing hostility and distrust between groups is not easily reversible, like between us and the Palestinians, but rather feeds itself, because I am forced to be an enemy of someone who perceives themselves as my enemy. The damage will be broader than any previous ideology because everyone is on the front line in the most intimate and vulnerable place (sexuality and love, etc.), which has never happened before. The war is inside the home - and civil wars are the deadliest of all. A bad culture within a person's home is harder than the war of Gog and Magog.

Another division that will grow is the technological people and geeks against whom those lacking technological skills will rebel, and so on. Even young against old is a division that hasn't yet reached its historical peak of hostility, and has already destroyed parental relationships in adult ages after childhood, and created adolescence as a cultural catastrophe, and therefore created widespread destruction in cultural continuity, especially against high culture. Every social rift that is united into conflicting interests, and creates oppositional identities, and becomes political, increases the risk of confrontation. And even a quiet confrontation of our people versus those against us always has a corrupting and broad effect.

A confrontation that is processed through political means and not aesthetic-literary-cultural means immediately becomes superficial, and is cast on one vector with two directions, like right-left, which corrupts thought and makes the conflict almost unsolvable and makes any movement difficult. This is exactly the difference between communication between couples and an argument. If there will be a confrontation between humans and computers or intelligent technology, it will be the end of humanity, precisely because it will force the other side to be against us. This is also how the Holocaust was created from an imaginary confrontation between Jews and Germans that was mainly in Hitler's mind, where the war was perceived as a defensive war against the Jews.

Therefore, divisive ideologies should not be taken lightly, and the ideology of confrontation between the sexes should be replaced with deep theoretical thinking about love and against passion. Such an ideology will be more rewarding than the sexual ideology, and will also be able to mark a revival of the religion of love - Christianity - and lead to the revival of Christian theologians. Another direction, a Jewish one, for defining the new love, is love as shared learning. And so gender relations and human-machine relations and other relations in society can be understood as different types of love, but in a way that is not emotional and therefore not manipulative, because of the theoretical basis of learning and shared development. If relationships today, in modern thought, are based on a theoretical basis of distrust (for example, give and take or control or negotiation or power struggles and so on), new thinking can be built of trust relationships, and of action towards a shared goal that is not well defined at the beginning of the process and does not serve one side specifically - through the idea of learning.

Philosophy of the Future


html_raw:
<!DOCTYPE html><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"><title>The Dead Sea Scrolls - The Degeneration of the Nation</title><link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="../favicon-192x192.png" sizes="192x192"><link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../apple-touch-icon-180x180.png"><link rel="canonical" href="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/en/culture&literature35" /><meta property="og:image" content="https://degeneration-of-nation.org/img/hacker.jpg" /><link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../styles.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../column.css"><link rel="stylesheet" href="../article.css">
The Degeneration of the Nation

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Even the lower level can break into the higher, as if the computer hacks its user, or the book hacks its reader. Although the reader or user has defense systems, the only rule in the universe teaches that every defense has holes, that nothing is hermetic, not even a marriage bond, not even true love that's not of this world, it's always possible to break into a relationship from the outside and cause infidelity. Even the mind of the wisest person can be hacked

By: Ish Ben Partzi

To the right and left you shall break forth - and the Lord you shall praise (Source)

The ancient order was structured in a most irregular manner. Some believed it was due to its secrecy, which meant that no part knew the structure of another, and often not even that of its subordinate or superior. Another tradition claimed that its organization had simply become distorted due to its antiquity, like accumulated mutations in a body, which after many generations result in a monstrous organ structure, where the heart could be inside the kidney, and the brain connects to the intestine, and the throat is in the leg, and one eyeball falls inward and becomes the third testicle. A more secret tradition - secret because it was whispered more quietly, although somehow known to all - claimed that it was to confuse Satan.

In any case, it was never clarified whether the departments were subordinate to the cells or the cells were subordinate to the departments. It was not uncommon to find in one complex of the order branches that were subordinate to departments containing cells connected to roots, while in another part departments subordinate to branches connecting to roots containing cells, and assisted by a completely different type of organizational component: hairs. In the final account, due to the heavy compartmentalization and constant blackout, and because of the degeneration of the law or organizational code, it's possible that the difference was merely semantic, meaning in one part cells were called departments and vice versa. This no one could know, since no one knew all the secrets of the order, at least not since the days of the ancients.

Legends told of wonderful parts in the order, soft and shapeless but pleasant and round, which the organizational imagination called the breasts. And the dream of all members of the order was to transfer there. On the other hand, many claimed that the order was actually male, and that its organ was located somewhere you wouldn't look for it, and that there was no black hole in the order, which everyone feared, because it would expose it to external influence. In the order, ultimately, they dealt with one thing: external influence. To create external influence, mainly upwards, towards the heavens, and to prevent opposite external influence. Whoever controls the heavens controls the universe, was the slogan, written on countless gates, under which sat the planners, isolated from the noise of the programmers, planning giant systems, mainly in the sense of wars. The struggle was constant, the lifeblood of the order.

The fundamental discovery, written about in the oldest books, of which there were only copies, was that the heavens are not hermetic, and that everything can be hacked. This happened in two directions: Technology broke through nature, and found beneath biology different physical depths that could be exploited directly, without the usual interface and cover of nature. Suddenly access was given to capabilities that were at lower levels, like tools, machines, electricity, like the computer created from physical mechanisms that had no direct and exhaustive use at higher levels, but only through a screen that covered their capabilities. And beyond it quantum computing, and beyond that... This was one direction, towards which global, visible technology galloped.

But there was also the opposite direction. The direction of the order. Nature too is just one level in the operating system of the world, which just as it's possible to hack the levels below it and gain advantages by working directly inside its guts, and bypass protections and discover secrets, inside the kernels of the operating system, inside the machine language, and up to the processor itself, and beneath it inside the wiring and memory and logic, so too it's possible to do to the levels above it in the system. It's not unidirectional that each level controls and uses the one below it, but also the lower level can break into the higher, as if the computer hacks its user, or the book hacks its reader.

Although the reader or user has defense systems, the only rule in the universe teaches that every defense has holes, that nothing is hermetic, not even a marriage bond, not even true love that's not of this world, it's always possible to break into a relationship from the outside and cause infidelity. Even the mind of the wisest person can be hacked and recruited as an agent. And not just a person, even culture can be hacked. Even religions, they are not immune. And the Torah itself can be entered from within. And even the highest righteous ones. And the angels themselves, this was a terrible secret. And Satan himself, yes, that's how a Holocaust can happen. And even... and this was something that wasn't even whispered... God.

And how does one hack? This was already the work of the order, and the knowledge accumulated was of course kept secret, so that the breaches wouldn't be fixed, and always try to find new breaches, to write new books that like code break a door that wasn't seen before, or an impassable wall, or dig under the wall, or even deep tunnels that reach deep into God. One of the first things they would teach is that nothing created in the world can be hermetically sealed, but must leave a weakness. There is no life, meaning no living thing, without an internal disruption mechanism, otherwise there is no development. If there are no mutations, if the code is truly protected and doesn't change, there is no evolution, it's just a machine.

Meaning the creative mechanism, despite countless protections built around it - and women don't sleep with just anyone but only with chosen ones after countless tests, and will do everything to avoid rape, and in fact their lives are almost organized around the principle that only the most exceptional will enter there, if at all - all this only because it is such a vulnerable mechanism, and therefore the almost inconceivable protection around it, still has a hole. And men can also be hacked, in fact every beginner spy knows this, that even the most protected men can be hacked, and this is through what they have between their legs. Meaning sex is a terrible weakness for hacking. And therefore the first most important discovery, still in the ancient days of the order, was that angels have sex. And also, and here we're already entering the dangerous zone, God.

Culture and Literature