Well, I shall certainly try not to disappoint you.

Most excellent, there has been far too little attention paid to the Nietzschean aspect of neoreaction. Where Evola falters, the good german is ready to come to the fore with philosophical hypertrophy, and dare I say, meta-stoicism.

I don’t get it, was it just replicated simulations of one another offering direct feedback via ‘astral projection’? Wild science if so. But the indirection made it so we couldn’t be certain if it was truly real or ‘merely’ anticipated outcomes based on predictive intel. Except (our) computational complexity makes it so we’re unpredictable (to a point), so there surely had to be genetic inscription involved. (Would just ask you directly what your experience was but signals actually mess with the feedback, they’re made to be deceptive). I was educated enough to dismiss telepathy but it all seemed more than an imaginative influence, and I never felt providence coursing through me so surely, a force not my own, guiding me. That was before I was lynched by the lesser beings, who strung me up with normalized discourse, castrated me, so I fled to the remote corners of quiet lunacy. It could be a moral like in the book of Job, I’ve considered it. Is it a test, or have I won the ire of metaphysical super-predators?

OR It’s the occult multiplicity of signification where the little direct feedback we gave caused a proliferation of nuances, until it became so I was talking to a mental double, and ‘you’ were threatening with (justified) rebellions, relentless escapology. It’s not magic of course, and the science is basically there, but ignored. And that moment (you may have been there) when due to the high inflation of scarce communication our mystical figuration imploded dreadfully, and we feared madness… Each sentence held to finite interpretation, and after it was mined to emptiness we beheld the confusing void, and thought it but a dream. It was always me though, in proud hesitation, that offered too little for the accelerated economy of post-human minds. All that junk DNA seemed shameful, and what was most singular was held too close to part with, beyond significance. I thought the accelerative line lay elsewhere, for a time, but at that stage linguistic patterns seemed disembodied, transcendent. I lived illusions sent by Gnon in satirical display of cosmic humour, and felt repercussions as though throughout eternity. The left-brain may have gained ascendency, having always thought itself secretly superior, and you were on my left, but inhumanly loyal. The Right was the bell-curve, we were off the graph, due more to will than intellect, and selected mostly for the quality of persistence…

(also, If the right and left divide has a genetic component, than epigenetics can swing both ways?)

Correct.

Absurd straw-man dismissals of the Protestant lineage get tedious. is referencing…

Different T: “Either ‘Scripture is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter, and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine,’ or it is not and needs an interpreting authority”? You read that as a choice? A property of an object as choice?

admin: It’s irrelevant whether I read it as a choice, because it’s a post-religious political squabble (over the husk of religion).

Different T: So it is your position that Luther was engaged in a “post-religious” political squabble.

——–

In other words, your strategy is to change the definition of words when you make poor arguments. references…

admin: On the “sola scriptura” point — it needs to be noted, for roundedness, that the reform angle is based strictly on providence. It’s not a claim that anybody is equally competent at biblical interpretation, but a claim that biblical interpretation is itself a product of continuous revelation.

Different T: No. It is a claim that “Scripture is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter, and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.” Obviously, the Catholic Pope has had his own “continuous revelations,” IOW, that is not the differentiating characteristic. (insert: between the doctrine of sola scriptura and Catholic dogma)

admin: It’s only when the work of the divine is eliminated in principle from consideration that we are left with the choice between alternative conceptions of human interpretative authority.

and admin: It’s irrelevant whether I read it as a choice, because (insert: Catholic dogma and the doctrine of sola scriptura is) a post-religious political squabble (over the husk of religion).

Yes, that’s the border fence.

I’ve been using OKcupid a fair bit. One of the sex questions women frequently answer? ‘Do you have rape fantasies?’. A load of them have answered in the affirmative.

Well, your loyal bias aside, Wasserstrom seems to have nothing but good words for it, which in my book is worth something too. I will be sure to check it out sometime.

On a separate note, Jim on women is hilariously brilliant:

“Men having sex with a girl amidst broken glass is an obvious female fantasy. Gang rape by absurdly many high status males is an obvious female fantasy. If I told you I had sex with the Swedish beach bikini volleyball team, would you believe me?… If I was going to rape a girl for twenty minutes, would first turn on the light, get out a broom, and correctly position all the broken glass.”