What does Yea Forums think about Christopher Langan? Is he talking shit? What do you think about the CTMU?

Well if Einstein said it!!!!
I have it on good authority that his CTMU actually makes sense once you give it the time and dedication it requires. Personally, I haven’t. I used to laugh at this guy when I was 18 so everyone else is forgiven for doing the same.

That doesnt explain anything

Langan just paraphrases the statement into his own words you dumbshit.

He is a hack. Read one of his "papers". lmfao Yea Forums you're better than this.

Then strip out the theological language and it still holds true.
The less conscious you are about reality, the less reality is conscious about you. If you're in a coma, the universe just moves on pretty quickly without you. Now what would be the inverse of this?

>still hasnt explained anything
Why are you still responding?

>the universe just moves on pretty quickly without you.
You're still personalizing the universe, even ascribing a "conscious" to reality. How is this stripping out the theological language? And if you're in a coma, you still exist and are part of the universe, even if you are not conscious of it. How would the universe be less conscious of you just due to your lack of awareness?

Don’t respond to posters who fear the G word

It's a convoluted Meister Eckhart ripoff

Attached: meister-eckhart-36954.jpg (700x360, 31K)

Nigga how tf am i God lmaooo

God is omniscient and fully perceives how we perceive.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOO
>I am DEPRESSED and God is the one to blame
>why in this age of luxury and comfort must I suffer so?

Attached: 1563601750923.png (782x758, 132K)

well you can manifest Yea Forums shitposts from thin air, for starters

Attached: 1564537463067.png (497x326, 110K)

>You're still personalizing the universe
I don't see the argument why it's not. I'm in it, I can experience it, I have agency in it, and I can mildly shape it. It's not an omnipotence, but it's still some potency and not nothing.
We're talking about the degree of agency relative to consciousness within the universe. I have a lot more agency than a rock. But if I'm in a negative state, I'm at the rock's level of universal agency.
A rock doesn't experience the passage of time, but we can. When I go to sleep and shut of my consciousness, then I can simulate what the rock goes through; the instantaneous "fast-forwarding" of time; which I regain when I become conscious again. So why does time "slow down" when I'm conscious?

So there is a clear differentiation of matter in regards to consciousness within the universe that we can experience on a qualitative type of spectrum. We can experience limited to no consciousness, and we are accustomed to nominal consciousness. But what about greater consciousness? Where's the potential here?
Is it possible to be more conscious then you were the other day? Can it be improved cumulatively? If so, how? What affects would this have on our agency, perception, and experience?

These are age old philosophical questions that got pushed aside for materialism. But they are still there and are still relevant. What are the relationships between our mind (and soul) and reality? Metaphysics and physics.

>The less conscious you are about reality, the less reality is conscious about you.
Is this what he's saying?
Retarded.

Now watch as he manifests a cock out of his anus.

The guy has the highest IQ ever recorded. He could be on to something, but he could also not be.

If you reject Love then you cut yourself off from Love; simple cause and effect.
If you reject the ultimate reality then you reject the essence of who you are, and you will cease to exist (spiritually).

There's not even proof of that. Even if true, he's a sperg who's good at IQ tests, not an intellectual. His ramblings are hilariously bad and evidence that he hasn't once engaged with any kind of literature in the fields he thinks he's revolutionizing.

He's /pol/- / reddit-tier.

Isn't it basically Hinduism? Its strange how all these great thinkers, Langan, Guenon, Hegel all become Hindu when they think a lot

>In the west, all philosophy is a footnote to Plato
In the east, probably Hindus lol

Hinduism the most faithful existent representation of the aryan religion of Hyperborea and Atlantis, you will have to find the thread in which user expounded on this in the archive.

>create sentient beings with a free will and force them to engage in your experiments all with the expectation and knowledge that they will fail, if not entirely then at least in large part
>tell them it's because you love them
>get mad when they don't enjoy this and reject it
I'm not the fedora wearing type, but to suggest that the relationship between God and man is equivalent is ridiculous, and by the same token, the human rejection of such a skewed relationship is equivalent to Divine rejection of man is also ridiculous.
There is clearly an uneven distribution of power here. The only conclusion to this line of reasoning, at least in my opinion, is that might makes right, and because God is more powerful than man, he is also more correct.
Feel free to let me know if I'm wrong here. I'm not exactly an expert.
It does not in fact hold true. The universe doesn't continue on because it rejects you or doesn't love you, it continues on because it is a machine. It is always indifferent. You are a tiny little piece of the cosmic machine, and the universe doesn't care when you disappear, because by its nature it cannot care in the first place.
Reality cannot be conscious or unconscious of you because it has no consciousness.

>Reality cannot be conscious or unconscious of you because it has no consciousness
what's more complex, an automated car factory or the car it produces?

Attached: 1562791147251.png (382x491, 96K)

Isn't the CTMU basically German idealism with some science thrown in?

Ultimate reality (God) is consciousness itself.
You can't have effects without a First Cause; you can't have mathematics without a Master Mathematician.

There is no definite proof that the universe is entirely automated or the sole existence of its kind. That's the issue with automated car factories; someone or something had to have built them.
To me, the trouble with the nature of the universe is that it's inherently tied to its origins, and our understanding of both is completely lacking. It all comes back to the "turtles all the way down" issue. What set the universe in motion? What started the thing that started the universe? So on.
Although I think it's dangerous to make definite statements about the nature of existence, I think it's fair to assume that the universe lacks consciousness itself. Unless perhaps the universe is God? Maybe human consciousness is an extension of the universe's consciousness?
I would also argue that if a conscious thing is produced by an unconscious thing, that the conscious thing is inherently more complex by its conscious nature. To me, it's like comparing a clock tower to a digital wrist watch; yes one is bigger and has more moving parts, but the other is clearly more advanced in its nature. Maybe this is fallacious, but it's how I see it.
That's part of the trouble I mention above, and I agree with you to a point. But again, how can there be an uncaused cause in an universe reliant on causation? It seems counter intuitive to me.
I think this would also imply that the universe is an extension of God's existence. Which maybe isn't too far off.

>how can there be an uncaused cause in an universe reliant on causation?
How can there be causation without an Uncaused Cause?

unbelievably based

Why is causation, a perceived structure of phenomena by humans who developed reason to understand causative patterns, a universal law with no possibility of breaches? This is my main problem with the argument. Yes, to all effects we can prescribe a cause, but we are literally wired to "make sense" out of things, to understand patterns or even see them where they don't exist. In fact, when painful things happen in our life and we can't make sense of it is when we mostly look for some "one" that is causing it, personalizing the universe into posessing some absolute meaning or end for your life. We can't really logically "prove" that there has to be an uncaused cause because we don't know shit about the structure of the universe besides within a system of causes and effects, which could not be a plausible system to understand, for example, an event like the big bang or any other model of understanding the origin of the universe. I don't know if this makes sense, but it's what I've been thinking about.

This is exactly the kind if thing I'm talking about.

Couldn't this guy breeze through university? What's stopping him at least getting a master's to be taken at least somewhat seriously, to at least have something?

Holy shit I say at least a lot, it's too early

What's stopping him is he isn't as intelligent as he'll have you believe. Read his Wikipedia page. He clearly wrote it and it's pure cringe. Read one of his papers. It's pure crankery.

>Sometimes I worry
good job

your reading level isn't as high as it could be even going through more ordinary works. that's okay you seem to have the mind to improve and succeed.

langan is very intelligent and can pack in a lot of meaning. not saying he's right, because I've never seen him justify his assumption of monotheism and I've heard him commit fundamental errors that contradict the more basic aspects of evolution (like advocating state-directed eugenics programs for depopulation and several comments made in relation to this, and others)

>I don't believe that I have an ultimate identity that is capable of protecting its integrity from those who deny its existence
well he claimed to literally just translate that from the other quote, so that should be a clue.
He is defining what god is here as something that protects its integrity autonomously and reflexively and is invincible.

He might be saying - 'if you don't believe you have invincibility in you you are lying and have turned your back on your destiny'

because that goes against his claim of what he is, or because of what he actually is.
Why would he beg for attention from people who only respond to authority under a hostile system?
What would it help for those people to read him? They respond to material not to the truth.

and for anyone who hasn't heard of the CTMU before, I skimmed over another impication, that we are created from an ideal model that is contained in langan's god

>ultimate reality
and why should there be any ultimate reality?
if you had one big bang, why didn't you instead have several others that collided and some that haven't yet or never will?
If any substance expelled from one source never meets the substance of another source, then there are two separate realities and evidence of it, as some of the substances of both sources would meet and the absence of the rest could be inferred from the structure of the ejection.

why isn't the first cause an effect of somewhat else?

monotheism is unjustifiable, come at me with your best arguments and I will send you to hell.

there was a sheikh with similar perspective (manunggaling kawula lan gusti). those imams killed him. those fucking bastard killed what could have been a philosophical revolution within islamosphere.

Some days I think that Langan is a complete fraud, some days I think that he's actually the next Kant and we're just sleeping on that fact. What I mean is like a Kant or a Schopenhauer or a Hegel he introduces a whole new conceptual framework and set of concepts to describe a wholly novel approach to idealism and reality, time will tell whether or not people will appreciate that conceptual framework as being accurate or at the least productive in terms of the evolution of ideas like Kant and others were.

>Reality cannot be conscious or unconscious of you because it has no consciousness.
Refuted by the hard problem of consciousness.

>I think if you're incapable of explaining a philosophical concept in layman's terms you're doing something seriously wrong
you're just very dumb

Anyone got his mega.nz?

I accidentally took it down... I'll reupload it before this thread dies.

he is remniscient of german idealism, as others have pointed out
i agree with this though. the reason he's reinventing german idealism is because he's not keeping up with/consulting academic philosophy

>thinking such ideas are novel in the Muslim world
read more, kafir

>i agree with this though. the reason he's reinventing german idealism is because he's not keeping up with/consulting academic philosophy

so he could recycle deleuze instead? nah

>A rock doesn't experience the passage of time

Neither does the Unconditioned.

>Plato

He is just a footnote to Orpheus

Stop worshipping academia.

How is eugenics wrong?

t. College dropout

Thanks

I really hate narcissistic faggots like Langan. They act like they have come across something truly world shattering, but it's just a repeat of the old. Langan just has the addition of being an arrogant, narcissistic faggot who relies on pseudoscientific jargon.

Just spend time reading about double-aspect theory, various forms of monism, and David Bohm's Implicate and Explicate order, and you'll understand what CTMU is about without the headache. For example, read image.

It really just boils down to the claim that monism = pluralism, or in other words that the multiplicity of appearances are in unity with the monistic underlying source. Big whoop. I'm getting tired of how much modern Western academia circle-jerks to nondualistic rhetoric.

Attached: langan_brahman.jpg (479x105, 14K)

Dont need it for wisdom

Isn't his version more up to date though? Reality being a meta language

There are hundreds, if not more, pseudoscientific explanations for nondualism rooted in interpretations or speculation of modern physics, linguistics, and more. David Bohm's Implicate/Explicate Order was the most famous onef. In fact, I would argue Bohm's delivery and arguments for Implicate/Explicate Order were much more thorough and professional than Langan's narcissistic shit.
The issue with you modern gullible faggots is you cannot distinguish metaphysics from empirical science. Science is much more crude than you think, and we're not going to be able to establish ontological claims based on it. In fact, scientific research isn't even done to uncover the ontological basis of reality, but rather it is done to create crude predictive models to achieve certain ends (i.e., the map is not necessarily the territory). Conflating these two different fields is retarded, which is why Bohm had the intellectual integrity to drop his Implicate/Explicate Order theorizing while Langan continues on, being full of himself.

Attached: Philosophy of Science.png (1023x780, 739K)

Wisdom is disgusting

free will is always better than the will of one man
free will is the voice of the gods, the only truth for humanity

Okay... here's the new CTMU MEGA link. Feel free to share it.

mega.nz/#F!XyQBBaZI!RDkSxKI7DVJ23u5MzDmnSA

Attached: christopher-langan.jpg (339x382, 25K)

VERY true, this is the meaning of the Old Testament, God being...eccentric per Man's will.

>But to the Mind-less ones, the wicked and depraved, the envious and covetous, and those who mured do and love impiety, I am far off, yielding my place to the Avenging Daimon, who sharpening the fire, tormenteth him and addeth fire to fire upon him, and rusheth upon him through his senses, thus rendering him readier for transgressions of the law, so that he meets with greater torment; nor doth he ever cease to have desire for appetites inordinate, insatiately striving in the dark.

Is the CTMU consistent with polytheism? I like his political takes but the religious stuff has too much vocab for me.

The CTMU is opposed to polytheism. See the CTMU principle of syndiffeonesis:

Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or difference-in-sameness. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that
any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the
same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

>relations
having kierkegaard flashbacks now

He's redpilled on blacks, feminism and Jews. I couldn't care less about his philosophy

Has he ever said how someone can become more intelligent?

Is Chris in this thread samefagging? Am I being trolled? Do you guys actually buy into this quackery?

>Chris shitposts on Yea Forums
Based

Unironically this. He's an underapplied upper midwit who thinks he's 3-4 sigma in intelligence (and is able to convince other midwits because he speaks in a convoluted manner)

Actual geniuses speak with absolute clarity. They don't spout vague bullshit. That he's reinventing the wheel means he's a lazy fuck who didn't read enough.

>Actual geniuses speak with absolute clarity.
Pull your head out of your ass, they attempt to speak with absolute clarity but because they introduce a sophisticated, subtle and highly specific and ideosyncratic language and conceptual structure there's absolutely no guarantee that their philosophy will appear clear to lay audiences. Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer are usually considered infamously impenentrable and are even shrouded in scholarly confusion and debate, even though once you understand the highly ideosyncratic concepts and definitions they introduce, they actually can become fairly straightforward. There's absolutely no guarantee you WILL understand it though, because that depends on your ability to comprehend.

Lol are you seriously implying that monotheism wouldn't just entirely subsume whatever you're describing? What are you running from, user?

I genuinely love seeing people seethe over the efforts of someone else, as if doing something that someone has done before is somehow wrong and that instead Chris should just browse Netflix and read the Greeks again like these wise lit posters

Ok maybe he's full of himself and comes across as silly as fuck in his comments - but when someone puts their ideas out there, even if false, in good faith, it really can narrow down the truth in contrast. If it's so obvious he's such a pseud and if clarity and brevity is the soul of truth then his detractors should be able to, with compassion and grace, produce simple statements that go beyond "oh he's just repeating x"

Is a dilettante enjoying themselves backing through a forest of confusion really trigger you sensitive fools that much? Many chuckles

In b4 t. Langan

Wow, Langan cribs Hegel even more than I thought.

Sophistry and meaningless language games.

Also IQ is an intellectual scam

blah blah blah, I love midshits who clearly don't write or think at a comparable level hurling these invectives like this around

Chris is a madman and a pretty smart one

Attached: ChrisLanganP.png (556x416, 685K)

You obviously haven't read him.

There there little horse

Attached: ChrisLanganGroomingHorses.jpg (640x480, 60K)

If you had a higher IQ your cope would be less pitiful.

If you dont demonstrate why you are correct, then your comment is meaningless.

t. Langan

No you're right, it's pure bullshit and the pseuds on here will defend it to the death without explaining why.

Let's break down that statement based on his intention and what it actually means in order to prove he's a midwit spouting gibberish.

What he meant is probably something like
>I don't have a core identity that is so unassailable, it will never get disassembled by other people's doubts

What he actually said, however is something incredibly retarded that only sounds smart to retards who can't parse its meaning.
>ultimate identity that is capable
How is an identity capable of doing anything? It either is or isn't.

>protecting its integrity
HOW could an identity protect its integrity? Does my identity of "male" protect my maleness? What the fuck does that even mean?

>from those who deny its existence
What he probably thought was something like, "How do I address people who deny the existence of the soul?" But when phrased the way he did, it makes no fucking sense.

It's all pure pseudery

God you're such a fucking retard. Sink America and reroll.

imagine seething this much over a facebook post

Explain what it means then you fuckwits.

>display your misunderstanding of langan
>call him a pseud
LOL

He's saying you can't deny your identity with the system without it costing you the identity you are trying to preserve. No identity can self-ground.

What is the significance of syndiffeonesis? That reality is "all really one thing"? I understand that, but I dont understand what is so significant about it.

But that isn't grammatically what he says, that's my point. What sophists/pseuds do is use grammatically incorrect, obtuse sentence structures and fall back on the old canard of "oh, you didn't REALLY get what I meant" whenever anyone calls them out on it.

Grammatically, he is asking, "I don't have an ultimate identity that is capable of protecting its (the identity's) integrity". This is sheer nonsense. What you wrote is grammatically different from what he wrote. You have inferred what he meant from a nonsense sentence.

It's literal fucking horoscopes for pseuds.

Its a corollary of his reality principle: nothing can be posited outside of reality without being made explicable by it.

Imagine being this befuddled by sentences in your mother tongue. You're literally retarded.

The worst part of Chris is unironically the IQ thing. It's been an albatross around his neck. If he had never taken an IQ test and stayed in Academia and presented the CTMU as a Ph.D thesis he would probably be regarded as a pretty great contemporary idealist Philosopher. He also wouldn't have a chip on his shoulder.

>wah wah words that i don't like wah wah why he be complicated it not nice wah wah i don't like to think wah wah

also if you're IQ is not reliably tested at 135 or above, literally just be quiet about the measurement, because it's obviously over your capacity to understand.

lol typos, carry on lads

lots of seething arts majors itt

no he wouldnt because it would be a garbage thesis lmfao

> smartest man alive
> had to ask the audience for this
> smartest man alive

Attached: IMG_20190802_233529.jpg (1080x775, 120K)

That's total bullshit though. Even if you think he's completely wrong it more than qualifies and you can see that because plenty of Philosophy Ph.D's do their thesis on idealism (Like Bernardo Kastrup for instance) and their ideas are fairly similar to Langan's at their core. So I have 0 doubt in my mind that it would at least win him a Ph.D to say nothing of its actual correctness.

cope

hahahaha. you dont study philosophy do you?

>a posteriori knowledge
aka normie tier shit

Well no, seeing as you can actually deduce it from the question. This could easily be an IQ test question.

That's not an argument. It's a fact that people whose ideas are kissing cousins to Langan's are awarded Ph.D's. If you didn't have contempt for Langan you'd realise Bernardo Kastrup and Langan are comparable and if the former can get a Ph.D I don't see any reason to believe Chris couldn't get one.

It being impenetrable is no argument either, because Wittgenstein's Tractatus was considered fairly impenetrable and yet it was obviously more than good enough for a Ph.D.

I seriously hope nobody on this board "studies" philosophy.

No it isn't, you have to know the Abbott and Costello routine.
The question doesn't contain enough information in itself.

If it makes you feel any better, I have a degree in mathematics and tried reading CMTU. The way he talks about set theory made me stop reading. Reads like something a crank would post on PhysicsForums back in the day.

WHO is on first

Notice there is no question mark. It's a statement. WHO is on first, so clearly he isn't on second, so WHAT must be on second.

I don't even know who abbott and costello are but I could get it.

>i have a degree in math so that equips me to understand metaphysics

ahahaha oh no no no no

pseud
could have put all his IQ on something useful for mankind

Well it certainly equips me to notice nonsense when someone starts incorrectly using mathematical terminology to bolster their sophistry.

I'm sure you could articulate why (you can't because you're just reading off a script)

langan is yet to be refuted

>stupid person's smart person
So an actual smart person then. Thanks for outing yourself as a midwit. You are truly the worst of the worst and deserve to suffer terribly in life.

Attached: 1561357716526.jpg (750x669, 80K)

>“Useful” to whom, and for what?

>Some people consider a basic understanding of reality psychologically and socially useful and even indispensable for the health of individuals and societies. (They’re right.) Once people are equipped with such knowledge, they can choose to apply it in more or less obvious ways, using it to guide and parameterize ethical judgments and personal, political, educational, and administrative decisions. (Of course, problems can arise for those who are completely uncreative, and need certified acadummies to explain to them, for up to several hundred thousand dollars over the course of a university education, how to think. Such people naturally have our sympathies.)

>Others want new gadgets or substances that they can use for various more specific purposes. The “cooler” the substance or device and its applications, the better. (It’s a shame when people find themselves unable to evaluate utility in any other way than by using teenage vernacular like “cool”, but that’s the world we inhabit.) Yet others want to run the companies that manufacture such substances and devices in order to make “buttloads” of money and be really cool. (Nothing like a bit of super-cool “disruptive tech” to become filthy rich and preside over your own personal empire even if you’re just a greedy, self-serving sociopath who had to steal it!) Others, already rich and powerful, may want new tech just for the purpose of sitting on it so as not to disrupt their own income streams (or major rivers), which they have monopolized and which may involve inferior tech with a great deal of economic inertia. (Talk about greedy, self-serving sociopaths!)

>But here’s the real problem with gadgets and disruptive tech: if there is anything about any given device or substance or technology that can be weaponized or abused for profit or pleasure, it will be. This is a virtual certainty in today’s shallow, hedonistic, and highly competitive world, and what it comes down to is this: if there’s any way at all for one’s “cool” inventions to circle around and bite one in the derriere, or bite society in the derriere, one can start the countdown and time it on one’s watch!

>Fortunately, a proper understanding of reality comes without this major drawback. Some people would call that a very good thing. (They’re right.)

Attached: 56.jpg (75x75, 5K)

Then you're still guessing. Logically, you'd have to the with the "I Don't Know" answer since the Second Baseman can be anything. So you can deduce that Who isn't the answer as Who is on first based (unless there's another baseman named Who), but you can't 100% be certain that What is what is on second based given the information.

Again, you have to the know the routine to be certain about the answer. I know it's "common sense" that What is on second base, but if you phrased the question without the a posteriori information, it wouldn't be solvable. Langan is probably overthinking it as some sort of trick a priori question, when it's an a posteriori one.

This

Attached: Screenshot_2019-08-02-23-57-28-281_com.google.android.apps.docs.png (1080x2160, 1.2M)

new tech >>> your gay theories

>duality
This is like the pseud's favorite word, holy shit.

There were only options A and B.
>overthinking
OK.

So a consumer product?
More soi?

Attached: soy philosophy.jpg (750x703, 99K)

There were 3 options.
The a priori correct choice is "I Don't Know"
The a posteriori correct choice is "What" (but requires knowledge about the routine)

Okay, what's wrong with it?

" independent scholar known for his claim of a very high IQ, supposedly measured at "around 195"

why cant he be a professor at a noble institution if hes so fuckin smart?

did you just learn those words or something lmao. why you whiteknighting a pseud, the question was pretty straightforward.

The smartest people reject academia, case in point - Nick Land

Bourgeoise faggot shit

You know why.
Academia isn't purely about intelligence. There is pedigree, politics, personality, gamesmanship, prestige, orthodoxy, et al that all have to get calculated on if you're given that coveted privliage to teach a one of those businesses (and let's not kid ourselves, it's a business).

It's it's own institution, with it's own hierarchy and secular theology.

>tech is only smartphones

Nick Land also has the most amorally materially nihilistic and misanthropic philosophy of letting the machines take over.
Hence why he only attracts like-minded misanthropic outcasts.

He is in the truest sense: the archetypal intellectual.

this
the "cathedral"(moldbug) would never let someone like langan gain influence

It's not really novel people have been saying this shit for thousands of years, buddhism, hinduism etc

"[C]onsider what academia is actually about these days. First, it comprises a diffuse multinational metacorporation which is unabashedly in business for profit. Tuition, government grants, research funding, sports income, endowments, investments - everything with monetary value feeds the bottom line, and this is ultimately all that counts. Secondly, its educational mandate has steadily given way to a mandate for ideological standardization, indoctrination, and socialization, putting it in the business of psychological mass production and social engineering. Unless one appears receptive to its standardized psychological conditioning, one’s personal qualifications are all but irrelevant to admission. Thirdly, academia is an intellectual trade union which, while admirably inclusive when the money and credit flow inward, turns highly exclusive when the money threatens to flow outward. Defy it or even try to jump the queue, and unless you're one of the chosen few, it will make an example of you. Best get it straight as quickly as possible: in Academia, Inc., it's strictly pay to play.

But despair ye not, for there is still the conventional route to academic certification: run the admissions gauntlet, sit there like a good little boy or girl for 4–8 years or so, soak up the ignorance and opinionation of your instructors while latching onto any crumbs of actual knowledge that may accidentally exit their mouths as they scramble to advance their academic careers, and incur the customary mountain of debt. Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll be grudgingly admitted to the club.

(Alas, I no longer have that kind of spare time on my hands. How lucky for me that I can nevertheless make nattering monkeys out of most professional academics, and refrain from doing so more often only because it feels like taking candy from babies. ;)"

>Fusion power bro!
>but why?
>so... we can build more material efficiently bro!
>but why?
>b-because it's profitable, cheap and cool
>but why?
>...
People existed fine in the past user. It's not like people 100 years ago were suffering because they didn't have a computer and Twitter to shitpost on, nor did they have despair when there was a internet outage. Suffering always exists and we just come up with new forms of suffering.

based

I think it's opposed to polytheism as the ULTIMATE thing, but in much the same way as you and I exist as individual images of god, polytheistic images of god can also exist.

Imagine the kinda damage Langan would do to the Cathedral system if given authority. The High Priests would crucify him like the Pharisees did.

That's exactly it, all these resources mobilized for what? Economic growth, the capacity to mobilize more resources ad infinitum

The accreditation monopoly needs to be wrested away from Academia. All the knowledge is already available for free and most universities offer their courses freely (but not their coveted accreditations).
Have an accreditation system setup like the GRD to standardize higher-level educational testing battery; making the pass-fail rates on par with academic rigor.

If you know your shit in a field, it doesn't pedagogically learned it, just that you can be verified to have a certain degree of expertise in that field that is not gatekept by 3rd-party institutions. You should be able to demonstrate that you are an expert in Chemistry without requiring 10 unnecessary humanities courses on social justice indoctrination and a 6 figure non-dischargeable debt.

>People existed fine in the past user.
thanks to technology literal slavery is over, life expectacy doubled, war over territories are absent (because of nukes), information is universally available on internet, we are few steps towards free energy and automation, its not about just consumption

>Nigga how tf am i God lmaooo

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (960x720, 125K)

>You should be able to demonstrate that you are an expert in Chemistry without requiring 10 unnecessary humanities courses on social justice indoctrination and a 6 figure non-dischargeable debt.
holy based

t. cultist

>takes concepts from eastern mythology
>sprinkles in some Christianity
>claims his CTMU can SCIENTIFICALLY prove the existence of his god concept
>cant prove shit then claims you just don't understand
>likes to use unnecessarily confusing language and post /pol/ tier shit on his faceberg account to appeal to a certain demographic
Is there anything I missed? Guys a fraud.

>I'm getting tired of how much modern Western academia circle-jerks to nondualistic rhetoric.
Can you really blame them when western thought and religion has largely been dominated by dualism for the past thousand years?

get crapped on

Attached: rsz_7978112884_e84ea62e9e.jpg (800x606, 76K)

>literal slavery is over
so we created a new neo-feudal slavery called the waggie
>life expectacy doubled
As people are kept alive to be worked and milked for all their material worth.
>war over territories are absent
Replaced by a New World Order of despotic globalism. Meanwhile a new form of warfare has emerged call the Soft Invasion of replacement aka "Zerging". Can't wage war to gain territory? Just use loopholes and gullible empathy to invade other nations under a humanitarian guise. Don't want things to get violent as we take you over!
>information is universally available on internet
Libraries served this function in the past.
Meanwhile the internet is quickly becoming centralized and heavily regulated by private interest. Cynically, the whole of the internet is merely a massive advertising and eCommerce platform with information being a positive externally (most likely an ephemeral one at that).
>we are few steps towards free energy and automation
Making most of humanity obsolete and given them no option to participate in economic activity.
Mark my words, misanthropic attitudes will prevail and concepts like "culling the poor" will become more mainstream from the global elite. The remaining middle class will buy into it until they themselves become "obsolete".

Don't buy into Progressive Historiography user. It just propaganda selling a positive narrative of your demise.

Shown the fuck out

>the Chad technophilic cyborg vs the virgin primitivist ape

Lmao this is your brain on video games

>GRD
*GED

"In the CTMU, “what God thinks is right” is encapsulated by the Telic Principle. This principle, a generalization of the Cosmological Anthropic Principle, asserts that by logical necessity, there exists a deic analogue of human volition called teleology.

However, due to the fact that God’s Self-creative freedom is distributed over the universe, i.e. His “Mind”, human volition arising within the universe is free to be locally out of sync with teleology. This requires a set of compensation mechanisms which ensure that teleology remains globally valid despite the localized failure of any individual or species to behave consistently with it. In part, these mechanisms determine the state of your relationship to God, i.e. your soul. If you are in harmony with teleology – with the self-realization and self-expression of God – then your soul is in a state of grace. If you are not, then your soul is in danger of interdiction by teleological mechanisms built into the structure of the universe."

ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God

Attached: 466464633668902.png (548x378, 287K)

Oh fuck, I think this happened to me

I have depersonalization disorder, and while I don't think the "soul" actually exists I think that for all intents and purposes this is the same thing as losing your soul, other signs of "soul loss" are things like depression and apathy. The part of my brain that could most aptly be called the "soul" isn't working right. And I think it's a law of the universe that you "lose your soul" if you don't live right, for example if you take drugs your mind/soul will degrade, if you eat too much, if you hold on to too much anger etc if, like me, you constantly run away from your life by burying yourself in the internet/games etc

Damn, I really gotta turn my life around and stop all my addictions, maybe then the depersonalization will go away

You didn't understand shit that's why.

lads is he the new hegel?

How?

I've always considered the soulless condition to be one without metaphysical sense. While physical senses are well understood these days (seeing, hearing, touching, etc.), metaphysical senses are where we get our non-material experiences; particular with our relationship with God. Generations of modernity has really robbed the human condition of these metaphysical senses. Meanwhile history is well documented of people's metaphysical experiences, so either they were all lying/delusional, or the modern man can't comprehend those sensations anymore (it appears to be the latter). Meanwhile you just have one mode of sensation which creates a positive feedback loop for ever increasing materialist views and lifestyles.

I don't know how you can get your soul back. Less hedonistic materialism will probably help. When people talk about matters of the soul, try to take them seriously as if they are seeing or feeling something you can't. I imagine it's analogous to trying to describe music to a deaf man who can't hear sound.

Na, probably more like Leibniz.

quora.com/What-do-physicists-think-of-Christopher-Langans-Cognitive-Theoretic-Model-of-the-Universe-CTMU

Holy shit the amount of cope and butthurt of people to deny something they don't like

Attached: 1559233818686.jpg (998x1020, 74K)

I think he's just taking monumental piss on all the left slanted pseuds. I mean he's no better than the rest of of continental philosophy, but at least his take has the perfect balance of bible thumping, pseudo science a narcissism to make it sound hilarious.

He's like some sort of Neil Degrasse incarnate, but for boomer neocons.

It's materialists who want a material unified field theory of reality.
When they see metaphysics in there, they'll naturally scoff and try to "shut it down".
If the soul exists, then scientists would have to admit that the universe isn't solely materially described as they would have no material way to empirically prove the soul exists.
You'd think scientists would be ecstatic about new discoveries, but not when it conflicts with their neatly reductionist worldviews i.e. it's a lot easier to treat people as biological machinery than beings with souls.

But what if he's right?

HAHAHA THE COPE FROM THE ATHESHITS

There's no right when it comes to bullshit circular logic gymnastics as there is no content at the end of the day in what lagan says. One can appreciate it linguistically, ie how well it is tailored to expectations of his audience - and by all means, he's straight ahead of anyone else in the alt-right scene.

There's of course Land, Moldbug, Yudkowsky but to their credit they did come up with some OC so don't fit quite as neatly into pure pseud category.

I'm not impressed with Land or Yudkowsky.
Yarvin has some interesting things to say though.

You are right, is easier for both them the slaves(people who deny it) and the slavers(elites) to make everyone believe humans are nothing but mechanical beings. The end result is clearly a dystopian like world, where both Moral Relativism and Social Darwinism reign supreme over everybody and everything.

Attached: george-orwell-596625.jpg (640x788, 116K)

Attached: 1561401564719.jpg (888x888, 128K)

>The end result is clearly a dystopian like world, where both Moral Relativism and Social Darwinism reign supreme over everybody and everything.
The elites finally managed to push a convenient philosophy that absolves them from any responsibility to the rest of the hierarchy. At least the Kings and Politicians of the past had at least some noblesse oblige.

very much like the Hindu conception of Dharma

>At least the Kings and Politicians of the past had at least some noblesse oblige.

Honestly, for me the conditions the world is in have been here for a long time, if they have varied on degree throughout history then that's another perspective of
of seing it. The past is linked to the present and thus to the future and so on.

Attached: occult2.png (818x591, 423K)