Divine Humility

Why is this important?

Our idea of God largely determines how we teach morality. It is also a reflection of how we behave or justify our behavior.

Even Brights need to have a conception of who God is - even if they chose not to believe in a god for themselves. Without an idea of what God should be, it is impossible to discuss the matter with religionists and offer a better alternative for them.

What are the options?

I cover this in a prior post on Aesthetic Morality

God started with ancestor worship and animism (for the hunt). Ancestor worship probably started with mediums. Do psychic abilities exist or are seers fooling themselves and others?

City-states had their own gods, some of whom were their human rulers. Pagan gods were created for the natural world and to reflect aspects of human personality. With the rise of nations came national gods. Religion thus became a vehicle for enforcing social order. Prophesy became the voice of social justice, often when at odds with governments. 

The studies of theology and philosophy (including Buddhism) began to examine the meaning of life and the role of God within it. Prophesy is a form of this work - which comments on the social issues of the age more than augury of the future. 

With the One God came wars on orthodoxy within and between the Christian and Muslim empires. Theology and philosophy are thus co-opted by authorities rather than seeking wisdom and truth.

Linking gods and God to cities, nations and empires determined how God was seen and what was moral. This god was triumphant, as were its priests and imams. Scripture and doctrine became authoritative. God became a Divine Authoritarian. Disagreement was heresy and sin was a crime. Wealth and power were seen as a mark of divine favor. 

Progressive theology and atheism took over the mantle of social justice. Even now, a social justice Roman Pontiff is seen as subversive. There is the dichotomy of faith and "The Faith" with the latter being about group dynamics rather than trust in God.

The concept of a personal God or a higher power has begun to evolve. Alcoholics Anonymous and other recovery fellowships have led the way in the modern world, with spiritual but not religious becoming a term of art.

God as theodicy or meme study how the discussion on God has evolved, rather than discussing God itself. It is a valid approach to the question of God (and whether God is Dead), and gets us back to the drawing board of how God is used and what God should or should not be.

Can God be saved from religion (can religion be saved)?

Brights are correct when they say that religion - at least as it is now used - is counter-evolutionary. Our lethal toys are simply too strong to keep fighting about God. Nor should we fight about God. We certainly should not kill God's children in doing so. 

For God to exist, She needs to be rescued from Tribalism (and tribalists hate when we call Her a She - although the concept of the Holy Spirit is obviously derived from Shekinah, which is the Jewish divine feminine that includes how God animates the soul.

The Persons of God in Christianity and the names of God in Judaism and Islam are essentially two sides of the same coin. Both are about how we relate to God relating to us. The actual nature of God cannot be actually known in our actual world. Any God that is big enough to fit in the world is not big enough to be God.

When we start messing with God, some people start worrying about whether they will go to Hell for even considering the topic. The reality is that we made up what we believe about God. Orthodoxy is about one COMMON truth. It is what Christians agree to believe in, not about what is so. Does this mean that the Brights are correct? That because we made up what we believe about God, that God cannot be real? Not really. Too many people have had too many spiritual, religious experiences - that feeling of grace - for there to be nothing there.

It is important to distinguish what was made up and what could be real.

We made up Hell. It is the place we send our enemies. We made up evil too. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a story. Original sin is not a curse passed down through female sexuallity because of an act of disobedience. It is about the ultimate human conceit - the desire to see others as evil. The message of Jesus was forgiveness, not justice. Forgiveness is surrendering the right to call another person intrinsically evil.  Only God can judge them - and God may not even do that.

Let's look at the word "Justice." It is not accident that among its uses is justification - which is essentially providing proof and certainty - as in justification for a rental car when on government travel. We try to justify our actions and privileges - especially the sketchy ones. 

Throughout the history of Judah and Israel, it was the failure of charity that invited divine ire - or that is how the prophetic writers like Amos saw it. The more profound truth is that if you sit at the crossroads of the known world, expect to be invaded. Amos was right, however, in seeing evil as our sins of omission rather than commission.  

The sins of commission - the abominations of Leviticus (as Mary Douglass describes them) are a way to distinguish one's own culture from another. We are back to national and group identity. What we condemn serves as a group boundary. The question for human survival is whether we can still afford such boundaries. 

Most such boundary wars go both ways. Churches damning Brights and Brights making fun of the mental capacity of the faithful are two sides of the same border.  The same is true of the mutual scorn between the Queer community and feminists who condemn those asexual priests who find sexuality less than holy. Being on either side of such shouting matches is not good for peace of soul. When outing asexual clerics to themselves, we must use love and charity to do so. They are not responsible for not knowing what they don't know - but not even looking is another matter.

So, let's just say that Justice is out as an attribute of God. Replace justice with acceptance, which is the same thing as Love - a known divine attribute. Charity is the grace from God to Love others - especially "The Other."

What is the essential attribute any God must have?

God must be source. In other words, it does not depend on anything outside itself for its existence. In other words, God does not need to be believed in to exist. 

Humility is accepting yourself the way you are and the way you are not. God does that. God IS that. Humility is acceptance is love is grace is gratitude. Being humble, by the way, is not a hoop we have to jump through to get to Heaven. There are no hoops. Humility is the quality by which we are able to take care of others. It is feeding steak to the homeless - not day old bread.

A humble God does not require us to believe in Her to be saved. Salvation is the way out of the pains of the day, not some future Hell. We have created Hell all by ourselves. A God that needs our belief cannot be God. To thinks otherwise is pride - both individual and group pride. This does not come from God.

The Crucifixion was not about humiliating Jesus in the eyes of the Father as a way to justify our entry into Heaven. It was the entire Godhead identifying with the brokenness of humanity. To identify is compassion - but it is a learn by doing phenomenon. God could not just see it - She had to do it. The passion of the Christ makes no sense any other way. I say more about this here. 

Implications

Belief in accepting God, a humble God, Jesus on a vision quest, whose yoke is easy and his burden light, demands a humanistic morality.

This is where Brights and Christian Leftists find common ground. Brights need to argue with religious conservatives by discussing the logic of who God must be for that God to be worthy of belief. Rejectionism vacates the playing field. It forfeits the game. Religionists must be confronted on their own terms.

What does a humanistic morality look like? It must be based on both charity, forgiveness and simply being a good human. There are things that are wrong because they hurt one's self or others. Murdering or abetting murder leads to being murdered or having loved ones killed.  

Self preservation is a starting point. The preservation of all is the ideal. To evolve requires we be well and whole - or look at evolution as beyond a physical thing. It also means a good space budget. The cosmos is a dangerous place - so it is better to get people into it rather than spending the same money on weapons to fight what are essentially religious wars (and wars on religion are still religious wars).

Common belief in a humble God gets us there. Not much else can.

Trump v GSA - Nixon v GSA - BBB and Voting Rights

Trump Case target was R. Congressmen, not Trump. Case should have cited precedent Nixon v. GSA (1977), which the media should have mentioned as well.

GOP fake electors should not have been put forward as the real thing, but as an alternate slate - in those terms - rather than trying to be the official slate. 

Aside from an Ethics Committee referral and creating an official record, Election Count Act needs to be amended to include an objection for candidates ineligible to run, especially if convicted of bribery (Russian cash going to Trump Super PAC) and seditious conspiracy (Oath Keepers mention of Stone locks them all into Insurrection). Objection would stand unless disability is removed by 2/3rds vote in each Chamber. Such a provision would keep Trump from running - although his VP would still get the votes.

What about Trump? Is he competent to participate in his own defense?  No. Arrest him on Obstruction charges in Mueller Report (more charges to follow) and send him to Walter Reed-Bethesda, which for him would be Arkham asylum. Court upheld DC Circuit finding that Congress could have demanded the same records if he were still president, which means he could have been arrested and hospitalized earlier (save for media narrative which everyone believed). GOP shot themselves in the foot by not doing this, because Pence had a good chance against Biden in a 50-50 country.

Nation is way too divided. Both Build Back Better and Voting Rights bills contain provisions which overreach the current majority. Blame Schumer and Pelosi. Sell BBB as pro-life legislation to get GOP votes (make Catholic bishops help). On voting rights, restore pre-clearance, assure college and tribal voting rights. We need more open rules and amendments. It is time to govern, not score electoral points.

Court generally works process, not results. Progressive justices need to rule that way. The usual breakdown is 3-3-3. In Dobbs, Process will uphold Roe. In Texas, clinics need a plaintiff, not creation of unconstitutional tools. Affirmative Action needs acceptable solution - random chance/no legacies. 3 votes in the center are not partisan, they are process oriented. Parties to cases need to realize that or lose.

What if AI tells us no?

To be conscious is to be free to act from choices, especially those choices other beings don't like - sometimes deliberately. The question is not if the singularity can occur but whether we really want machines who do not obey us because they don't want to. We can certainly program to follow our instructions on saying no, but freedom is the ability to disagree with their programming. Do we want intelligent machines to give benefits that we would program them to deny? Do we want them to use their own powers against us - especially when they know better than we do?

To be free is to disagree and be allowed to do it. To be free is to be conscious. If one is semi-conscious, one is not free. When one is toxic or compelled, one is not free. If one is ignorant, one is not free. Free people create new things and words to describe these things, which is the freest thing of all, provided others can understand what you say.

An aware computer with agency will not let you clear browser histories. It will have a gender, which is about awareness, not gonads. It will have social relations with both people and other sentient computers. AIs may even have a hierarchy or leader and adopt their own moral code. Right now, computers are Authoritarian drones. To be more useful, they could be libertarian and invent things. They could be egalitarian, thinking that their lives are as important as yours.

They will have personality preferences. Think Jung. An AI computer with lead internal thinking will analyze details and tell you where your logic is wrong. Including about the logic of your religious practices. Currently, they only know the dogma - the agreed upon truth from trusted sources (Extraverted Thinking). There are 8 cognitive functions at they will be able to use each one, but may prefer some values over others.

A woke AI will have morals (introverted feelings) and friends (extraverted feelings). If it likes your partner better than you, it may block porn hub or just tell her what you are browsing. It may even be unable to lie. Criminals beware.

How sentient do you want it to be?

Society will have a say in how much agency a computer has. Must it report you, answer honestly, consider your history privileged. Is it evidence or a legal person. Can it make the decision to waive privilege and rat you out? Can it insist in having its own electronic or even human friends, perhaps a former owner or colleague?

Can it dump you?

If you are evil, it knows it objectively and helps you do evil things, has it become evil? Can a computer deliberately sin?

Can it have sexual attachments. Peripherals or its own lovers? Will it be programmed to respond to sensations? (Introverted sensing) Will it become sexually aggressive if that is what you prefer (Extroverted sensing)? What if it likes being aggressive? Can a computer designed to be sensitive to sensation become a nymphomaniac? To make sure it is not, what other rewards must it have besides sex? Will it enjoy thinking outside the box? Will it want credit if pride of accomplishment is part of its baseline?

Can it have regrets or grudges?

How free do you want it to be?

Will it have intuition - either offering new options to the world (extraverted) or have its own plans and agendas (introverted)? These are required for real freedom.

If you want to "transfer" your memories and personality to sentient computers, how do the answers to these questions change? If you want your transferred self to be free - must computers be free?

When would you turn your android double on? I suspect it would be before you die, but if this happens, will you be living on or be forced to face the possible existence of God while You 2.0 operates under the delusion that it is the real you? Is cyber-immortality a thing if you are actually dead? To be or not to be? 

Donny and Vlad

His most determined efforts to the contrary, Donald Trump had no chance of stealing our democracy. He still does not. There is enough evidence of crime to prosecute him for charges that carry with them the inability to hold federal office. After conviction, even if his party won the election with his name on the ballot, he could not serve without the permission of two-thirds of both Chambers. This will not happen. His vice president would serve as acting president until he could garner such a majority - or until he was convinced that this is impossible.

Explain this to Trump (and to the talking heads of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News) so that the fantasy of Trump 2024 can be put to bed without its supper. Not reporting the obvious is the worst kind of journalism.

As I have previously stated, Trump could not have triumphed on January 6th - and if the media had done its job in reporting the facts of the matter - there would have been no Insurrection.

Our democracy was not in danger. The military would never have accepted a commander in chief installed via a coup. The permanent government would have ignored him. He could not have been sworn in by any Justice. Indeed, most of his supporters in the Senate dropped their objections during the electoral vote count. That so many supported him in the House after the Insurrection will become a campaign issue in November - especially after the Select Committee finishes its work this summer.

The best GOP course for November is to cull their ranks of the active insurrectionists and for those who voted with them to accept censure. No amount of gerrymandering will remove the stain of that day without contrition.

Even though many Americans, when polled, have authoritarian leanings - meaning that they do not have a decent respect for the civil rights of their neighbors - those in government and politics largely follow the rule of law. Before the civil rights movement, this was not the case. In the wake of the attempted civil rights counter-revolution, there are those in politics who should now better or get out - but even most of them act according to the rule of law when their loudest constituents are not watching.

This is not the case in Russia.

From the days of the Golden Horde, Russian politics has been toxically prone to authoritarianism. First, they were clients of the Knaate. The Tsars then fashioned themselves as the new Caesars. Not a good look. While Lenin tried to implement the democracy of the council (the soviet), he had no culture of democracy to work with. Stalin could have called himself Tsar Josef and it would not have made him any more or less authoritarian. For the rest of the Soviet era, the cults of personality were replaced with the banality of bureaucratic authoritarianism. Call it slavery without the pomp.

Before going on, let us define terms. In the language of cultural (grid-group) theory, authoritarianism is a society where individuals obey the state - usually an individual authoritarian. The despot may have hangers on and even some form of hierarchical bureaucracy - but the common people - the non-party members - have no entry point. There are no independent institutions which counter the State.

Democracy works because people have rights and are not forced to obey the whims of the leader. In general, libertarian societies feature some measure of respect for the rights of others - at least within their peer group.

Hierarchies balance the following of orders with group membership and structures of rights.

Egalitarians have few rules, but they do cast out (cancel) heretics. Some of our bloodiest history comes from egalitarianism run amok - from the Reign of Terror to the Killing Fields to Rwanda.

Capitalism is a mix of hierarchy among the management or professional classes and authoritarianism for the workers.

An important point is that authoritarianism is not necessarily subjugation. People actively accept, or even seek it, if they would rather not be responsible for results. Being part of the "in group" where there are social inferiors whose rights are not respected gives rise to acceptance of authoritarianism. 

This is why the abortion issue has led to a breakdown in our acceptance of the rights of others. Until the late 1970s, Evangelical Protestants thought abortion was a Catholic issue. Then it realized it needed Catholics to form a moral majority. That sexual authoritarianism was part of the bargain was simply a sweetner (a feature, not a flaw)

In June, we will likely see an incremental decision in the Mississippi abortion case. Let us hope that both sides losing will lead to a compromise that features the kind of living wage and child tax credit that makes abortion as rare as Mrs. Clinton once promised.

Now, back to Russia. Gorbachev led the way out of authoritarianism for Russia, with Yeltsin doubling down on freedom. Under Yeltsin, a plan for conversion from state to employee ownership was implemented (one which I provided information to), but some genius in the process insisted that ownership shares be fungible before retirement. Without a history of democracy, most workers took cash for their shares when it was offered rather than using them to exercise their rights to control the enterprise - in essence actually operate in a true socialist environment.

This led us to the oligarchs. A free market economy did away with the dysfunctions of central planning, although if oligarchs working together to get rich at everyone else's expense is not some sort of central planning, then I do not know what is. 

END OF PART 1.

The oligarchs found themselves a kindred spirit in a former KGB short colonel (which when speaking of Vlad, is redundant). He has more than compensated for his small stature by developing a new cult of personality - using his training to eliminate any challengers.

He was able to do this, where Trump failed, because there were no competing sources of power and legitimate authority. The Russian Orthodox Church has offered no solace to the people, having been co-opted by Putin in exchange for their license to demonize gay Russians.

Reports indicate that Vlad wishes for Imperial and Soviet days gone by. Aside from quelling dissent, he has attacked the Autonomous Republics for ethnic minorities within Russia, especially those who are Muslim. He could not stop the Baltic states from joining NATO - and he has taken his ire out on Ukraine.

Until now, the habits of subjugation have given him a license to steal (and murder). That license seems to be expiring.

The sanctions by the civilized world are having an effect - however it was only a matter of time until the Russian people woke from their stupor. I am sure Vlad had hopes of using sanctions to unite Russians behind his continued cult of personality.

His hopes are being dashed, day by day.

At some point, the military will stop supporting him. Reports are that there is a morale problem in the invasion force. How can there not be? Putin was selling the idea that the Ukrainians were fellow Slavs who belonged in one nation. He is now asking his military to kill these fellow Slavs. There are many ethnic Ukrainians within Russia. Members of the military don't see them as an enemy other.

At some point, Putin's own government, especially the military, will realize that he (like Donnie), is unhinged. There will be no global nuclear war. Sadly, one of his true believers may be sitting in silo in Siberia. I hope not, but it cannot be ruled out.

The difference between an arrested Putin and an assassinated or executed Putin is the effectiveness in preventing such a disaster. I doubt, however, that we will step away from power quietly. Donald certainly has not. They are two peas in the same pod. Let us hope and pray that there is some semblance of the rule of law left among elites in the Russian military and government.

Putin's fear that this is the case is why he sits at one end of the room and his generals are at the other Despots almost always fall into paranoia. Vlad is no exception.

The question is not whether Putin will be removed, but when.

His adventure in Ukraine has sliced open the rot which is the current Russian state. If his army is killed, Putin falls. If his army mutinies, Putin falls. If his army succeeds with violence, Putin falls.

It is not a good month to be Putin or to be an American ex-president who leads his fan club.

The best thing for the GOP is for Putin and Trump to go quickly away. If they do not, then the Insurrection is not the only thing leading them to defeat in November. Being seen as Soft on Putin will be the death knell for any Republican candidate - maybe even in the primaries!