The real logical end point “superhappies” won’t care about the things they agree to care about in the story. The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signalling inspired behaviour.
In its most memetically virulent form possible. I see a bunch of puritans lecturing and torturing each other over how evil they are, forever. I rather take a good boot stomp on my face forever than that. Humans are better at dealing with that kind of pain.
But obviously I could be wrong, I’ve changed my mind on this in the past before and I’m not confident at all in predicting the path of change. What I do have a high confidence in is that it is highly unlikely that a process like the evolution of a religious/ideological parasite/symbiont is to produce human friendly outcomes. I have seen Azathot’s work elsewhere.
The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signaling inspired behaviour.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
(Damn, just imagine how batshit crazy we must be looking to the average liberal here right now. :D)
P.S.: from Muflax’ post about Catholicism that you’ve linked to above:
I sometimes wonder, just for the lulz, what would the most un-progressive kind of belief system look like? It would have no salvation, no deliverance, no unity, no equality, no hope, no mercy. It would be painful, and gladly so. It would have strict hierarchies you couldn’t even in principle overcome. There would be no goal, and only purity. It would want you to be alone, sick and other.
Sounds reasonable enough. So… um… WTF? Why would the most progressive belief system apply the same torture to you, except with guilt-tripping you about Universalist morality instead of simpler, generic ways?
My line of reasoning here is dead simple. I just think that if there are only two possible stable equilibriums of values, and they are both at extreme ends of this ideological spectrum we see, and one equilibrium is like what Muflax describes above… the Universalist one has to be better for you and me.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
I have thought about universalism a lot, especially its monotheist or pseudo-theist implementations. I agree we should discuss this further in the future. I enjoy our discussions and find them intellectually productive so I’m looking forward to that (its why I don’t mind paying the 5 karma penalty to respond).
As we have debated over the past year or so both privately and publicly I feel more and more that we may not really have value sets that different, but disagree in our map of reality in certain vital parts.
I did say before that I consider “extreme authoritarianism”—like Moldbug allowing a Keith Preston to run a Preston patch and a Kim to run a Kim patch—to be just as evil or worse as “extreme totalitarianism”, like your hypothetical puritan maniacs. And both, presumably, have the super-advantage of finally having collapsed into memetic stability.
The real logical end point “superhappies” won’t care about the things they agree to care about in the story. The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signalling inspired behaviour.
In its most memetically virulent form possible. I see a bunch of puritans lecturing and torturing each other over how evil they are, forever. I rather take a good boot stomp on my face forever than that. Humans are better at dealing with that kind of pain.
But obviously I could be wrong, I’ve changed my mind on this in the past before and I’m not confident at all in predicting the path of change. What I do have a high confidence in is that it is highly unlikely that a process like the evolution of a religious/ideological parasite/symbiont is to produce human friendly outcomes. I have seen Azathot’s work elsewhere.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
(Damn, just imagine how batshit crazy we must be looking to the average liberal here right now. :D)
P.S.: from Muflax’ post about Catholicism that you’ve linked to above:
Sounds reasonable enough. So… um… WTF? Why would the most progressive belief system apply the same torture to you, except with guilt-tripping you about Universalist morality instead of simpler, generic ways?
My line of reasoning here is dead simple. I just think that if there are only two possible stable equilibriums of values, and they are both at extreme ends of this ideological spectrum we see, and one equilibrium is like what Muflax describes above… the Universalist one has to be better for you and me.
I have thought about universalism a lot, especially its monotheist or pseudo-theist implementations. I agree we should discuss this further in the future. I enjoy our discussions and find them intellectually productive so I’m looking forward to that (its why I don’t mind paying the 5 karma penalty to respond).
As we have debated over the past year or so both privately and publicly I feel more and more that we may not really have value sets that different, but disagree in our map of reality in certain vital parts.
I did say before that I consider “extreme authoritarianism”—like Moldbug allowing a Keith Preston to run a Preston patch and a Kim to run a Kim patch—to be just as evil or worse as “extreme totalitarianism”, like your hypothetical puritan maniacs. And both, presumably, have the super-advantage of finally having collapsed into memetic stability.