Éthique du CTMU

philosophie CTMU théisme éthique note-fouillis

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159240256862486/
Langan (7 juin 2021)

Comment: “If a person has only ever experienced evil, how can they possibly believe that such a thing as unconditional love could be real? They must first experience it before they can believe it. ‘Evil’ occurs, but it is irrational to judge it, for by so doing, one also dooms oneself.”

Response: Not exactly. If a person has been totally immersed in evil, there’s a pretty good chance that some of it may have rubbed off on him. While it may be justified to treat him with kindness in order to give his “good side” a chance to emerge, lavishing him with possibly unmerited “unconditional love” is not justified until his redemptive potential has been confirmed.

More precisely, “unconditional love” is an oxymoron. Love can be defined as a merging of identities, with or without the accompanying emotions and/or instincts. When opposite identities merge, they cancel (e.g., not-X cancels X). If you love those who are evil and therefore antithetical to your existence, then either you are badly confused and complicit in your own cancellation, or you are evil yourself. Either way, you are not qualified to pass a verdict of “doom” on more consistent viewpoints.

There’s an old tradition in the superhigh-IQ community of letting interested people participate in community fora irrespective of their IQs provided they don’t embarrass other forum participants by saying things that make everyone look stupid. Be advised that I can start enforcing this condition at any time. Just be careful, and make sure your remarks are reasonably intelligent Thanks for your attention.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10157004583722486/
Langan (5 mars 2019)

Question: “Does CTMU prove existence of Love?”

Answer: Yes. The CTMU proves the existence of love by showing that identities cohere, along with how and why.

Question: “Should one by following ones teleology Love everyone?”

Answer: No.Teleology requires opposition to evil and those who serve as its tools and resources.

Question: “Chris, why do you seem so angry and hateful towards people with different opinions while you could love them instead?”

Answer: I’d say that you are exhibiting a psychological phenomenon called “projection”, and that you’d best start asking yourself why you feel a need to be so vocal about your great and unconditional “love” for all others.

People are expected to be honest when posting here.

(23 Juillet 2018)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10156495940857486

Question: “Please explicate here or direct me to an explication of what is meant by selling one’s soul to the Devil so that I can avoid such a terrible sounding action.”

In the CTMU, standard physical causation is recognized as the limit of a deeper process, metacausation. Coherent metacausal relationships of events are called telons.

“Selling your soul to the devil” means allowing yourself to be acquired as a resource by one or more telons which do not conduce to teleology, usually in return for material advantages like money, power, fame, sex, and so on. For example, going to work for Evilcorp, running for office using campaign money tossed at you by would-be slavers on a quid pro quo basis, playing trampoline on the Hollywood casting couch, joining or supporting what turns out to be a deceptive and destructive political organization, becoming a proctor for the government-academia-media indoctrination complex, acting as an amoral enforcer or useful idiot for the parasitic oligarchy, letting evil fester under your very nose, generally being wicked … you get the picture.

Once a society is overcome by systemic corruption, selling your soul to the devil is frighteningly easy to do. Best avoid it wherever possible, bearing in mind that not everything is as it seems, and that the road to hell is paved with what may look and even feel like good intentions. An egregoreal telon tends to control the cognition of those it absorbs, leading them to perdition even as it convinces them of their righteousness.

God wants to love us all, but does not love unconditionally. As best one is able, one is expected to love God back and show it by word and deed.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159317841137486/
(13 Juillet 2021)

Question: “I know Chris has said many times that evil is very real and is emergent in an existence with Free-Will—that it is the active and conscious choice to deny God and fall into unconscious and ungodly existence (Hell). Isn’t Hell and evil still part of God and existence, and is a necessary byproduct? In a sense, it sets up a reference frame to help creation choose what it wants to be and what it doesn’t want to be, but neither is inherently good or bad? In the end it all comes back to God/Love one way or another?”

Answer: The possibility of evil is implied by that of goodness and virtue, just as the possibility of hatred is implied by love. This possibility is the price levied by God on His own perfection. To pay that price, God must constantly reject evil and those who do it.

Because evil is morally disinhibiting, it provides those telors which succumb to it with powerful advantages that ensure its widespread adoption and success. Anyone who doubts it need merely consider the global oligarchy. It’s a paradigm of dark-tetrad ponerology, having stolen everything that wasn’t nailed to the floor, everything that was nailed to the floor (by stealing the entire floor), and human freedom and dignity as well.

The evil cabal that has taken control of the world has proven its true nature by profiting immensely from murder, robbery, deceit, war, famine, pestilence, and now, from the very medicines allegedly intended to prevent it. Don’t make excuses for it - it will only use empathy as a license to spread and intensify.

Comment: “As Chris has said, Satan needs to come back to God.”

Response: Satan is the antithesis of God, and therefore cannot come back to God. Evil must be unbound before it is resorbed.

The fallen angel Lucifer is another story. Lucifer walks the tightrope between good and evil; his balancing act is inherent to the world and emulated by most human beings. Now that Satan has grown too strong, Lucifer must restore equilibrium by pulling away from evil and drawing nearer to his Creator.

Otherwise, Lucifer would share the fate of the world, and would have no more playground in which to run.

CTMU FB Group - 2021, May 11
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159177731087486/
About: Leo Tolstoy’s quote: “When you understand everyhing, you can forgive everything”

Christopher Langan: “Some of those below are making Tolstoy’s mistake: conflating (cold, impersonal) understanding with (emotional) empathy. In its broadest sense, understanding does not require the sharing of feelings. If one is sufficiently intelligent, one can understand the motives of evildoers in a clinical way, as opposed to suspending moral judgment, jumping into the heads of demons, and thereby cohabiting and cooperating with evil.

Use your dictionaries, and you’ll find that nothing I’ve said on this matter requires revision or apology. Limited overlap in the usage of two different terms does not mean that they are perfectly synonymous or semantically equivalent. I’m using standard and very distinguishable definitions of empathy and understanding, because that’s what it takes to verify their full relationship and proper application. While some of you prefer to conflate these terms, that’s a very dangerous thing to do. If that’s your choice, then you don’t have my blessing. Your attitude is a curse on society, and you’d best take care that it doesn’t become a curse on you.

Before you jump into someone else’s head and establish an emotional bond, you need to achieve some level of moral understanding. Run it through your moral filter. Do a thorough job; if you want to “empathize” with Caligula, Genghis Khan, Vlad Dracula, Stalin, or Mao, then your first job is to clinically understand their feelings, beliefs, intentions, and surrounding natural, social, and historical contexts. What formative experiences had they gone through? What were they trying to accomplish or rectify? How and why? What Tolstoy is saying is that understanding implies forgiveness (which ostensibly implies empathy).

What Tolstoy should have said is that meaningful forgiveness (and empathy) imply understanding. You can’t justifiably forgive someone without understanding who they are, what they’ve done, and why they did it. On the other hand, you can understand these things without sharing the associated feelings or attempting to justify them. What you don’t do is ass-backwardly empathize, get emotionally involved, and have your moral framework subtly twisted into alignment with that of your subject. Empathy is fine, but it’s not a blanket proposition; it must be properly bounded by prior understanding.

Tolstoy was a “Christian anarchist”. His misconception regarding understanding and forgiveness is no doubt based on the so-called “unconditional” love of Christ for mankind. However, Christ also loved God, and it is the responsibility of mankind to conform to the Divine Identity. This places implicit conditions on Christ’s love for mankind, as reflected in almost everything he said and did. It is possible to forgive mankind without forgiving each of its members. Some people, while they begin with the possibility of forgiveness, maliciously and/or foolishly refrain from actualizing it. Notice the implication. Where meaningful forgiveness implies understanding, and the objects of understanding are secondary telors, the overall reality they inhabit, and the full relationship between the two, Logos is its primary requisite. Without Logos, human beings are capable only of more less informed guessing about who and what is forgivable. That’s why final judgment is reserved for God. Thanks for your attention. ”

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159395412152486/
21 aout 2021

Quote

**Question: “**What are the CTMU definitions of good and evil?”

Answer: “There are several equivalent ways to characterize the distinction.

(1) Good is love of God and obedience to teleology or the will of God; evil is hatred of God and obstruction of teleology, or equivalently, antiteleological obedience to Satan, the antithesis of God.

(2) Good is the intentional maximization of the identity-operation (self-identification) of reality; evil intentionally blocks, retards, or reverses the identity-operation of reality.

(3) Good is the self-reinforcement of reality; evil is the self-negation of reality.

Et cetera. The better one understands the structure of reality, the more tightly and elegantly the distinction can be formulated.

The popular idea that “good is service to others, evil is service to self” leaves much to be desired. As long as the terms self and others can be identified with either good or evil, the idea has no definite meaning. Serving only oneself may do far less harm than serving others who are evil and facilitating their evil intentions; the greater good - true service to others - may reside in pursuing one’s own good intentions while refusing to serve the evil intentions of others.

In the CTMU, the good-evil distinction can be partially formulated in a similar way by distinguishing between the global identity of reality, “Self” (uppercase S), and the individual “self” (lowercase s). Using this distinction, one can then say “Good is service to Self instead of only to self.” Service to Self implicitly includes all others who have maintained healthy connections with God, i.e., who are sufficiently good that their souls remain intact.

Such distinctions must always be made in terms of Absolute Truth or Logos, the structure of reality. Otherwise they are nothing but opinion and utilitarian perspective, leading to moral relativism and blind consequentialism.”

[!à retenir]
In the CTMU, the good-evil distinction can be partially formulated in a similar way by distinguishing between the global identity of reality, “Self” (uppercase S), and the individual “self” (lowercase s). Using this distinction, one can then say “Good is service to Self instead of only to self.” Service to Self implicitly includes all others who have maintained healthy connections with God, i.e., who are sufficiently good that their souls remain intact.

— Chris Langan, Facebook CTMU Group (2021 August 21)

“Comment: “I do not understand the CTMU, I am intrigued by it, I find myself looking for answers and reassurances because I am losing a family member to cancer. My question is, do people sometimes come back in another as in reincarnation? I have always believed in the word of God, and the Bible and in Jesus!”

Response: According to the CTMU, everything is generated internally by reality, and conversely, there is nowhere else but reality for an entity to go once it “dies”. This presents the possibility that any living being, irrespectively of having exited its extensional body in a subreality that loved ones shared with it, can “relocate” - i.e., return to a given subreality or “go elsewhere” upon provision of another body.
However, we are now on a higher level of discourse, and there is more to resurrection, reincarnation, transmigration of souls, and so on than we can profitably discuss here. Suffice it to say that the CTMU, as the unique metaphysical language spoken by reality to itself about itself, offers qualified support for most metaphysical and/or paranormal phenomena including “life after death”.
Remember that each secondary telor, including every human being, is trialic and a medium unto itself. The dead can live on within you, sharing your consciousness. You need never feel lonely. Just remember to think well of the departed as they may deserve, and keep them in the light of God.”
— Chris Langan, Facebook (2021, May 21)

Question: “What do we gain by looking at the problem of evil in terms of egregores? I am able to explain evil-like behaviour more simply than by anti-CTMU forces in action, starting with inertia.”
First, while evil frequently exhibits an improbable degree of coherence, it often proves very hard to pin the blame on particular individual(s). To first order of definition, the term “egregore” merely labels this kind of coherence, which is otherwise virtually impossible to explain. One cannot simply assume that there exists a cogent conventional explanation of the phenomenon, at least until someone finds one and spells it out (good luck).
Secondly, “inertia” can be morally loaded. When your engine and brakes fail and your car rolls onward by inertia toward a group of pedestrians, you’d better realize it and turn the steering wheel before mowing them down and committing manslaughter. Irrespective of the inertia of your car, it becomes your moral responsibility to take decisive action. So inertia really isn’t a “simpler (non-moral) explanation” of evil at all - willfully failing to see it and stop or mitigate it is also evil.
Obviously, one shouldn’t blame all the evil in one’s life on one’s association with the CTMU. However, in some cases, evil is attracted to good as surely as the south pole of a magnet is attracted to the north, and it simply won’t do to deny it. This is because evil cannot succeed without actively or passively negating the good, and where active, this can take the form of opposition to or torment of good people. e.g., by way of liars and trolls.
More often than not, the negation of good by evil is passive; it consists of denying the good any opportunity to spread and any medium in which it can easily do so. But as illustrated above using the example of a runaway car, it is evil not to resist this kind of “inertia”, and even to ignore it or passively acquiesce to it. Acknowledging this is the first step toward the redemption of society, which some very evil people are presently degrading and dissolving in active and passive-aggressive ways.
An individual who aids society by recognizing and opposing this form of “inertia” gains moral justification and increases the likelihood of personal salvation. For those who do not, idiotically going with the flow is not something for which a free pass is automatically granted.

“Within each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring, contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human beings are such subsystems. The “purpose” of their lives, and the “meaning” of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology…i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.

If they do so, then their “souls”, or relationships to the overall System (“God”), attain a state of grace and partake of Systemic timelessness (“life eternal”). If, on the other hand, they do not - if they give themselves over to habitual selfishness at the expense of others and the future of their species - then they are teleologically devalued and must repair their connections with the System in order to remain a viable part of it. And if they do even worse, intentionally scarring the teleological ledger with a massive net loss of global utility, then unless they pursue redemption with such sincerety that their intense desire for forgiveness literally purges their souls, they face spiritual interdiction for the sake of teleological integrity.”

“Such is the economy of human existence. Much of what we have been taught by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines. But this much of it is true: we can attain a state of grace; we can draw near to God and partake of His eternal nature; we can fall from God’s grace; we can lose our souls for doing evil. In all cases, we are unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our existence, and doing right by that System and its contents, including other subsystems like ourselves, is why we exist. Sometimes, “doing right” simply means making the best of a bad situation without needlessly propagating one’s own misfortune to others; the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal misfortune is also a source of grace. Further deontological insight requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical implications.

Now for a couple of qualifiers. Because we are free, the teleologically consistent meaning of our lives is to some extent ours to choose, and is thus partially invested in the search for meaning itself. So the answer to the last part of your question is “yes, determining the details of your specific teleologically-consistent reason to exist is part of the reason for your existence”. Secondly, because God is the cosmos and the human mind is a microcosm, we are to some extent our own judges. But this doesn’t mean that we can summarily pardon ourselves for all of our sins; it simply means that we help to determine the system according to whose intrinsic criteria our value is ultimately determined. It is important for each of us to accept both of these ethical responsibilities.”

“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.” CTMU Q&A

“What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large. Thus, we have a new kind of theology that might be called monopantheism, or even more descriptively, holopantheism. Second, God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructive, creative intelligence. Indeed, without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure. Holopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are unknowingly situated. Why, if there exists a spiritual metalanguage in which to establish the brotherhood of man through the unity of sentience, are men perpetually at each others’ throats? Unfortunately, most human brains, which comprise a particular highly-evolved subset of the set of all reality-subsystems, do not fire in strict S-isomorphism much above the object level. Where we define one aspect of “intelligence” as the amount of global structure functionally represented by a given sÎS, brains of low intelligence are generally out of accord with the global syntax D(S). This limits their capacity to form true representations of S (global reality) by syntactic autology [d(S) Éd d(S)] and make rational ethical calculations. In this sense, the vast majority of men are not well-enough equipped, conceptually speaking, to form perfectly rational worldviews and societies; they are deficient in education and intellect, albeit remediably so in most cases. This is why force has ruled in the world of man…why might has always made right, despite its marked tendency to violate the optimization of global utility derived by summing over the sentient agents of S with respect to space and time.

Now, in the course of employing deadly force to rule their fellows, the very worst element of humanity – the butchers, the violators, i.e. those of whom some modern leaders and politicians are merely slightly-chastened copies – began to consider ways of maintaining power. They lit on religion, an authoritarian priesthood of which can be used to set the minds and actions of a populace for or against any given aspect of the political status quo. Others, jealous of the power thereby consolidated, began to use religion to gather their own “sheep”, promising special entitlements to those who would join them…mutually conflicting promises now setting the promisees at each other’s throats. But although religion has often been employed for evil by cynics appreciative of its power, several things bear notice. (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether or not they hold it to be real, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum. (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so. (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.
https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God

Teleological consistency
Q: I have read your CTMU and some of the Q & A on the Ubiquity website regarding the CTMU and find it extremely fascinating. Much of the information resonated with many of the things I have been contemplating for the last year (or so). I wanted to know if you had any further writings on the topic especially related to the following areas. (1) The nature of the interaction(s) of the multiple levels of consciousness. (2) The nature of the connection with God via our “souls”. Or just in general, the nature of the soul. Is it a more complex syntax in which we are embedded that facilitates this communication with God? Are we all embedded in it? (3) The nature of morality. Do “moral laws” have a basis in reality (loosely speaking). That is, if moral laws are mental constructs, how do the mental constructs of higher levels of consciousness affect the lower levels? That is, how does what “God thinks is right” affect us (lower forms of consciousness)? I realize that, to a degree, the above questions are really all the same, but if you have any essays or thoughts on these matters I would love to hear them.

I have more questions and thoughts but I can save those for later…

A: Yes, such writings exist, but they are (as yet) mostly unpublished. Don’t worry, I’ll get them out there somehow. As for your specific questions on morality, the following should suffice. 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.” Moral Laws
https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Teleological_consistency

Crédo

— Atlas : ”[…] from how I see it Chris, I see it, I see it like this : the more that the individual turns inward, which is usually catalyzed by their basic needs being met, that then the individual figures themselves out as the one, and when they figure themselves out as the one, then they… every action that they have becomes infused with that knowledge, they become a gnostic being, and then they work on the purification of their action to be more and more aligned with pure service to the collective. And in that process, what happens is their actions end up being meeting the basic needs of other selves or around upgrading the energy infrastructures to be more decentralized, more universalized ownership… Umm… not always that waybut i would say that the spiritual realizations trigger the external… Umm.. materialistic universalization.

— Christoper Langan : “Yes. Unless the universalization is being impeded by people that already own all the energy infrastructure, the monetary infrastructure, and everything else. It’s those impediments that we have to deal with. Other than that, everything that you said is perfectly there.

[…]

— Atlas : ” So, there’s a natural force that is the cosmos wanting to know itself and to realize itself, and then there’s what appears to be a more unnatural artificial force, which is ego… um… which is control.

— Christoper Langan : “Right, which is these 2200 billionaires or whatever you want to call them. Some of them are trillionaires, of course they’re not on the forbes, you know., richest people list, but they’re there. Okay… and these people are used to having everything they want, and they’re never satisfied. Okay… they don’t know what it’s like to do without anymore, and it takes more and more for them to even feel as though they’re gaining anything. So they’re sucking everything out that exists that we need into their own sphere, their own control sphere, as fast as they can. And we’re just starting to feel the results. It’s going to get worse and worse and worse. So in CTMU this is called a parasitic divergence. Okay… they’re basically in parasite mode.These billionaires, they don’t work. I’ve worked a lot harder in my life than they have. I’ve created a lot more value to human time, for instance the CTMU, but they’re stopping me from disseminating my work and getting it out there. Well meanwhile, they’re fattening like hogs. Okay… so I look at this and there’s just no offense [or butt’s about]?. All right? We have a problem. It’s a bad problem and we have to solve it. It’s not going to be easy and it’s not going to be… it’s not going to happen overnight, but we’ve got to think along these lines while we’re while we’re positively imagining what our future should be and actualizing it using teleconversion, the power of our minds alone, of our intentionality. While we’re doing that, we’re going to have to start dismantling some of the crap that stands in our way. You see what i mean? For a long time i thought that the elite were the kinds of people who, you know, basically rational people who were going to cooperate towards this end. Let’s restore balance, you know, that’s… that’s the way you get a sustainable society, is you restore the balance to things. Very few of these people appear to want to restore that balance, they just want to appear to want, to get richer and richer and richer, thusly making society more asymmetrical and more unbalanced. That’s a problem.

Source :
LANGAN, Christopher M., ‘Atlas’.(2022). “Simulation [#785] Chris Langan — CTMU”. Simulation, 1:29:36. https://youtu.be/T7NbZIi6UgY?t=5376

Q: Given my own self-awareness and inability to separate from reality, I have no doubt that this reality does exist (the proof is in the pudding). So while I do not need “proof” that there is a reality, that I am part of that reality, and that my awareness is reality’s awareness of itself - I do not know WHY all of this stuff exists (myself included).

If there is a reason that reality MUST exist, then that would also be the reason that I exist. Which is probably what I am really wondering. Is the answer that giving myself a reason to exist is the reason for my existence? - Bill

A: The first part of your “why” question is answered at the end of the above response to Celia. Since the meaning of life is a topic that has often been claimed by religion, we’ll attempt to answer the second part with a bit of CTMU-style “logical theology”.

Within each SCSPL system, subsystems sharing critical aspects of global structure will also manifest the self-configuration imperative of their inclusive SCSPL; that is, they exist for the purpose of self-actualization or self-configuration, and in self-configuring, contribute to the Self-configuration of the SCSPL as a whole. Human beings are such subsystems. The “purpose” of their lives, and the “meaning” of their existences, is therefore to self-actualize in a way consistent with global Self-actualization or teleology…i.e., in a way that maximizes global utility, including the utility of their fellow subsystems. Their existential justification is to help the universe, AKA God, express its nature in a positive and Self-beneficial way.

Such is the economy of human existence. Much of what we have been taught by organized religions is based on the illogical literalization of metaphorical aspects of their respective doctrines. But this much of it is true: we can attain a state of grace; we can draw near to God and partake of His eternal nature; we can fall from God’s grace; we can lose our souls for doing evil. In all cases, we are unequivocally answerable to the System that grants and sustains our existence, and doing right by that System and its contents, including other subsystems like ourselves, is why we exist. Sometimes, “doing right” simply means making the best of a bad situation without needlessly propagating one’s own misfortune to others; the necessary sufferance and nonpropagation of personal misfortune is also a source of grace. Further deontological insight requires an analysis of teleology and the extraction of its ethical implications.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180812182749/http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/Archive.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20170212160547/http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Nexus.html

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10160046520612486/
Gina Langan : “If you are destined for hell, you will not be reabsorbed. Rather, you will be shunned, and lose your connection to God and everything else in the process. Sounds horrifying.”

Freidank Eike : When people think of God, they think of a conscious, willful creator of the universe. Then they think, IF this entity exists, I hate it because of this and that. This differs from “I think it’s true that this entity doesn’t exist.” This is a mistake in thinking. The hatred, on the other hand, is also based on mistakes (for example, God can make a being that suffered whole again, while suffering is necessary for happiness to exist - so why hate God for that, for example?). In both cases, the person isn’t consistent with the overall structure of reality; ultimate reality doesn’t hate itself and ultimate reality knows that it has properties like teleology and refelxiveness. And the person risks losing the channel to God. When physical death + closed channel to God come together with the insight that they made a mistake, the person has a special option that we once discussed in a teleconference.

JM Di Scipio : Freidank Eike, is it possible for an individual to contradict ultimate reality? Surely their capacity for what appears to be a contradiction, which in this case is ignorance for hatred for a misconception they have of God, is accounted for in ultimate reality and even the overall structure thereof yes? Likewise would it be possible to be inconsistent with something that it is impossible to deviate from such as reality? Also, given God is Absolute and all encompassing, how can the channel you mentioned close? On another note, this reminds me that most all of these people think of God as totally external to themselves as well — thanks for the input!

Freidank Eike : As far as I understand it: The structure of UR, inclduing the invariant will of UR, exists identifiably and has to have a complement (e.g. the list of all contradictions from standard logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic) or hatred of certain aspects of UR). The complement of the structure of UR has to exist inside UR. UR can resolve the arising contradictions by denying contradicting secondary telors salvation and reducing the contradicting elements to UBT. Where you conform to the structure of UR, you can continue to exist; the rest of you needs to change.

Langan wrote this about heaven and hell:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159745522397486/

“In addition, an individual human sublanguage might be vectored into an alternate domain dynamically connected to its existence in spacetime. In this scenario, the entity would emerge into an alternate reality based on the interaction between her local level of consciousness and the global level embedding it…i.e., based on the state of her “soul” as just defined. This may be the origin of beliefs regarding heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo and other spiritual realms.”

It makes sense that if a person is good, that entity will emerge in spacetime into an alternate reality in a new body. Where can bodies exist if not on a planet?

Another alternate reality into which the entity would emerge is a place in spacetime where the entity is given the opportunity to change, as long as they have the potential to change.

The third alternate reality is a place for really bad people who will never choose to change. These entities will be pressured until they let go and then they will simply disappear.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10158358668157486/

Question 1: “Some have said that atheists who deny God don’t make it to heaven, etc. How do you explain, then, atheists who had NDEs of heaven?”

Answer 1: It could mean either of two things.

The atheist is merely confused about what he/she is, and is destined to see the light.
The atheist is clear on his/her atheism, but destined to repudiate it and make amends.

Question 2: “Would Chris Hitchens be in hell? I hope not, or else, what of Hitler! Shove Hitler in hell, I don’t care, but save the Hitch. He was a good man, never murdered, etc. Why should he (in the Christian tradition) get eternal punishment?”

Answer 2: Yes, Hitchens could well be in hell, and is certainly in Hell if he didn’t reach a last-minute accommodation with God.

Bear in mind that salvation would have been quite costly for Hitchens - he wasn’t just an atheist, but an atheist who used fame, prominent associations, and a powerful media presence to turn others away from God.

God sees extreme negative value in those who turn others away from Him - He wants them gone, so to speak. Sever your own soul if you must, but you’re adding immeasurably to your misery by compromising the souls of others.

Remember, soteriology is governed by a fundamental symmetry: the soul is a 2-way coupling, a symmetric correspondence. God sees and acknowledges only that which sees and acknowledges God.

God does not save those who refuse to see and acknowledge Him, thus causing Him to turn away from them. Taking into Himself that which denies Him would violate His own integrity, and the integrity of God is inviolable.

Don’t like it? Then it’s “Get the Spirit!” time for you, and you’d best get it while you still have the opportunity.

We know that Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris cancelled the CTMU. Fifteen or twenty years ago, they effected the following policy: “Stop arguing with non-atheists who try to argue for the existence of God! We hyper-rational atheists can only encourage them, lend them credence, and shed our personal glory upon them by even talking to them. CANCEL THEM ALL!”

Too bad Hitchens did that. If he’d kept an open mind and allowed me (or someone else) to convince him, he wouldn’t be in hell right now. But standing against Logos for that period of time, at a crucial juncture like this one, is not something for which Hitchens and his fellow travelers can be rewarded. Hitchens either groveled before God and begged forgiveness - and for his sake, I very much hope that he did - or Hitchens burns.

Comment: “I am so sorry. I hate myself.”

My response: Don’t do that - you’re made in the image of God and have innate value. But if you can identify and understand what it is you dislike about your life, then you can use your freedom to change it. Best wishes.

C langan FB, 2020, April 20 https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10158119364557486/

Crédo précis à retenir

Il n’y a pas d’autre source de morale que Dieu, donc si on se demande ce qu’il faut faire (“il faut” implique une considération morale) : il faut aimer Dieu, etc.

Quote

“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.”

Source : LANGAN, Christopher M. (2005). “CTMU Q&A: Moral Laws”. Mega Foundation Website.

Quote

“[Question: ‘What are the CTMU definitions of good and evil?‘] There are several equivalent ways to characterize the distinction. (1) Good is love of God and obedience to teleology or the will of God; evil is hatred of God and obstruction of teleology, or equivalently, antiteleological obedience to Satan, the antithesis of God. (2) Good is the intentional maximization of the identity-operation (self-identification) of reality; evil intentionally blocks, retards, or reverses the identity-operation of reality. (3) Good is the self-reinforcement of reality; evil is the self-negation of reality. Et cetera. The better one understands the structure of reality, the more tightly and elegantly the distinction can be formulated.

The popular idea that ‘good is service to others, evil is service to self’ leaves much to be desired. As long as the terms self and others can be identified with either good or evil, the idea has no definite meaning. Serving only oneself may do far less harm than serving others who are evil and facilitating their evil intentions; the greater good - true service to others - may reside in pursuing one’s own good intentions while refusing to serve the evil intentions of others. In the CTMU, the good-evil distinction can be partially formulated in a similar way by distinguishing between the global identity of reality, ‘Self’ (uppercase S), and the individual ‘self’ (lowercase s). Using this distinction, one can then say “Good is service to Self instead of only to self.” Service to Self implicitly includes all others who have maintained healthy connections with God, i.e., who are sufficiently good that their souls remain intact. Such distinctions must always be made in terms of Absolute Truth or Logos, the structure of reality. Otherwise they are nothing but opinion and utilitarian perspective, leading to moral relativism and blind consequentialism.”
Source : LANGAN, Christopher M.

Quote

**Question: “**What are the CTMU definitions of good and evil?”

Answer: “There are several equivalent ways to characterize the distinction.

(1) Good is love of God and obedience to teleology or the will of God; evil is hatred of God and obstruction of teleology, or equivalently, antiteleological obedience to Satan, the antithesis of God.

(2) Good is the intentional maximization of the identity-operation (self-identification) of reality; evil intentionally blocks, retards, or reverses the identity-operation of reality.

(3) Good is the self-reinforcement of reality; evil is the self-negation of reality.

Et cetera. The better one understands the structure of reality, the more tightly and elegantly the distinction can be formulated.

The popular idea that “good is service to others, evil is service to self” leaves much to be desired. As long as the terms self and others can be identified with either good or evil, the idea has no definite meaning. Serving only oneself may do far less harm than serving others who are evil and facilitating their evil intentions; the greater good - true service to others - may reside in pursuing one’s own good intentions while refusing to serve the evil intentions of others.

In the CTMU, the good-evil distinction can be partially formulated in a similar way by distinguishing between the global identity of reality, “Self” (uppercase S), and the individual “self” (lowercase s). Using this distinction, one can then say “Good is service to Self instead of only to self.” Service to Self implicitly includes all others who have maintained healthy connections with God, i.e., who are sufficiently good that their souls remain intact.

Such distinctions must always be made in terms of Absolute Truth or Logos, the structure of reality. Otherwise they are nothing but opinion and utilitarian perspective, leading to moral relativism and blind consequentialism.”

Important

In the CTMU, the good-evil distinction can be partially formulated in a similar way by distinguishing between the global identity of reality, “Self” (uppercase S), and the individual “self” (lowercase s). Using this distinction, one can then say “Good is service to Self instead of only to self.” Service to Self implicitly includes all others who have maintained healthy connections with God, i.e., who are sufficiently good that their souls remain intact.

— Chris Langan, Facebook CTMU Group (2021 August 21)

Quote

“(2) Atheists come in two varieties, those who are salvageable and those who are not, and those who are can only become less so when they allow those who are not to do the talking for them. Sadly, the wrong atheists have been allowed to do most of the talking, and have been tacitly supported by most of the others. This does not reflect well on any of them.

(3) I’ve had my hands tied for decades while the loudest and most dishonest atheists squandered mankind’s shrinking window of opportunity by mocking, belittling, and impeding Logos. This is not something that can be forgiven without the payment to God of a very considerable price. Do not expect most atheists to be willing to pay it, no matter how irrational it is to refuse.

That those who oppose Logos are doomed is a matter of logic, not emotion. God has no love for such malevolence; self-negation is not a luxury that God can afford, and His very nature precludes it. If a self-styled atheist wants to seek redemption, he or she may become a penitent. But the penitent, and not Logos, will do all the compromising, and not even that may save him. I suggest that you resign yourself to this, as God is perfect, and He cannot maintain His perfection while clutching vipers to His bosom.”

— Christopher Langan, CTMU Knowledge Base

Quote

Comment: “The hero and the villain both come from the same light, if God is directly realized evil can no longer be perceived in reality.”

Response: Whoa there. You don’t want to so directly “realize the light of God” that you are blinded to the good|evil distinction and can no longer distinguish virtue from antivirtue. Persistently imagining the nonexistence of evil is not reality, but delusion.

In fact, God perceives and despises evil, and if you were correctly seeing His light, so would you. For God, Who is the Ultimate Source of Being, evil is an undesirable side effect of Self-potentialization, which of course is a necessity of existence.

God values the system through which evil can be actualized, because it’s a necessity of Self-refinement. But God rejects those who commit themselves to its actualization and those who choose to empathize with them. This too is a necessity of existence.

If you empathize with evil anyway, thus tacitly aiding and abetting it and absorbing it into your own nature, you depart from God and end up wallowing in moral relativism and darkness of spirit.

Comment: “Framing it in terms of good and evil and of a singular creative intelligence which is unconditionally loving and the clash between the two perspectives can itself be modeled as a conflict between good and evil at a higher level (which is beginning as you read my comment and generate an interpretation of it).”

Response: As I’ve explained here several times, God does not have unconditional love. God has an identity, and its integrity must be protected. This means that any telor that willfully opposes His identity and intentionally negates or denies His existence is rejected.

God is not obliged to unconditionally forgive and save those who hate God and deny his existence, thus leading better people astray. In fact, by His very nature, He is obliged to reject them so that they do not take root in His being and undermine His existence and the viability of His creation.

Your attention to a higher-order reformulation of the problem of good and evil is commendable, but you must take care not to invert the solution in the process.
— Christopher Langan, CTMU FB Group (2021, May 8)

Quote

Comment: “There is no God vs Satan; there is Mankind making bad choices possibly binding an entity (Lucifer) to this Realm with us…”

Response: I’ve written a bit here on the distinction between Satan (the self-negational antiteleological conatus forced to derive its cohesion through wayward secondary telors and their beliefs, impulses, and power structures), Lucifer (the archangel of light, technically in a state of “rebellion” against God but walking the fence between good and evil), and God (unconditional good, total perfection).

Whether or not anyone chooses to admit it, the terminal domain is a walk atop the fence between good and evil. This fence represents the potential for any telor to bind telesis for good or evil. So to some extent, we’re all “in Lucifer’s boat”, so to speak, which is why some think of the world as “belonging to Lucifer”. But like Lucifer himself, the world is embedded in and carried by God, and it is God to Whom we thus owe final allegiance.

Note that some who call themselves “Luciferians” - including some of the so-called “elite” - are actually Satanists who are too stupid to know the difference. Lucifer, being an angel of God, ultimately needs to preserve his accord with God despite seeming to “test” God as he walks the fence between good and evil. Satan wants total destruction, the unwriting of reality. Even Luciferians cognizant of this distinction fall short of Logos and can easily tumble off the fence into Satanic evil.

The Satanists are the real dummies.
— Christopher Langan, CTMU FB Group (2021, February 9)

Quote

[Comment: “If a person has only ever experienced evil, how can they possibly believe that such a thing as unconditional love could be real? They must first experience it before they can believe it. ‘Evil’ occurs, but it is irrational to judge it, for by so doing, one also dooms oneself.”

Response: Not exactly. If a person has been totally immersed in evil, there’s a pretty good chance that some of it may have rubbed off on him. While it may be justified to treat him with kindness in order to give his “good side” a chance to emerge, lavishing him with possibly unmerited “unconditional love” is not justified until his redemptive potential has been confirmed.

More precisely, “unconditional love” is an oxymoron. Love can be defined as a merging of identities, with or without the accompanying emotions and/or instincts. When opposite identities merge, they cancel (e.g., not-X cancels X). If you love those who are evil and therefore antithetical to your existence, then either you are badly confused and complicit in your own cancellation, or you are evil yourself. Either way, you are not qualified to pass a verdict of “doom” on more consistent viewpoints.

There’s an old tradition in the superhigh-IQ community of letting interested people participate in community fora irrespective of their IQs provided they don’t embarrass other forum participants by saying things that make everyone look stupid. Be advised that I can start enforcing this condition at any time. Just be careful, and make sure your remarks are reasonably intelligent Thanks for your attention.
— Christopher Langan, [CTMU FB Group (2021, June 7)](https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159240256862486/

Quote

To what extent is it true that human beings are fallen and to what extent is it true that the accomplishments of humans should be celebrated?
They have “fallen” from a relatively undifferentiated state into a terminal domain which often seems to demand that one “sin” (break the Golden Rule) in order to survive, and certainly in order to prosper.
The accomplishments of humans should be celebrated to the extent that they advance teleology, i.e., the Self-identification imperative of God, without impairing the telor’s connection with God.
Was humanity on Earth a bad idea?
Not if you’re enjoying it here without making it too hard on others. Humanity would not be here if it were, on its face, a bad idea. Secondary telors are a necessity of metaformal evolution.
Should we have stayed in heaven?
People do not necessarily start out in Heaven. Heaven must be earned.
— Christopher Langan, [CTMU FB Group (2020, July 23)]

Quote

Comment: Felix: I get that you are saying God is testing our utility value to Him and then selects what (whom) to keep or to discard (painfully convince to abandon all existence). If this is true then I guess one of the most reasonable questions to ask is: How do I find out what is useful to God so I can be it?

What is the common (as in common medium, objective) part of the answer to this question?

I feel a strong drive to discover my purpose, and as much as I have rebelled in the past, I believe it may have a lot to do with instantiating God’s will. Should I just ask Him what He wants me to work on?

Response: “I get that you are saying God is testing our utility value to Him and then selects what (whom) to keep or to discard (painfully convince to abandon all existence). If this is true then I guess one of the most reasonable questions to ask is: How do I find out what is useful to God so I can be it?”

You pray that your rightful destiny be shown to you. No matter what you do, it will be a useful learning experience for God in the sense that He will learn whether he does or doesn’t want you around. Furthermore, even if you’re irredeemable, God will turn whatever you do into a new starting point for teleology.

For you, the problems arise when God sees that you’ve cost Him unnecessary time and effort for no good reason, setting things back so that the damage you’ve caused must be repaired before new progress can be made. You’d best remember the Golden Rule and learn how to properly apply it in a universal context. (It’s not always obvious how to do this.)

“What is the common (as in common medium, objective) part of the answer to this question?”

I think I’ve explained that - the above answer is general.

“I feel a strong drive to discover my purpose, and as much as I have rebelled in the past, I believe it may have a lot to do with instantiating God’s will. Should I just ask Him what He wants me to work on?”

You can try that. Of course, God may not be paying attention, but at least you stand a chance of contacting a higher level of your own identity capable of helping you construct an appropriate destiny.

As you already seem to have dismissed the CTMU mass awakening in favor of something all your own, this may be a solitary road for you, and you may therefore have to settle for something with less potential impact. But you may still find something that God regards as useful.

In any case, try hard to avoid doing anything that God finds harmful, for example, becoming a career criminal, BLM/AntiFa rioter, greedy banking parasite, or NWO-whoring modern politician.
— Christopher Langan, CTMU GB Grup (2020, July 23)

Quote

QI: “I’m thinking of God as the original variable, unconstrained in any form other than that which God initiates. But would not a variable under some level/form of constraint therefore be limited to some degree in its freedom to… reconfigure?”

A1: Yes, but in the case of God, that would be “Self-limited”. This is due to ontic closure, and the fact that the buck of constraint and causation always stops with God.

Q2: “God as omnipotent, sinless…could not have succumbed to the “apple” temptation?”

A2: God does not tolerate imperfection on the primary level of Self-quantization. But as for secondary telors and their imperfections in the terminal (physical) realm, those can be tolerated. That’s because they are not retracted to the G.O.D., i.e., the primary universally distributed level of Identity, but are localized and thus amenable to correction.

Q3: “Satan…apparently able to embrace imperfection, unlike God, imperfect, rebelled against the perfectness of God, humans no less, as a variable, constrained, or sin would not have persevered, yes, no?”

A3: Satan, the logical negation of God, hates God and amounts to “universal imperfection”. This denies Satan the coherence of God, which forces him to manifest on the secondary level, bleeding into existence through imperfect secondary telors.

Remember the CTMU “celestial hierarchy”. Where an angel is an agent of God, the angel charged (or cursed) with terminal existence is Lucifer. Like mortal humans, Lucifer, the Angel of Light, walks the tightrope between good and evil, channeling the perfect creativity of God into a world always on the verge of corruption.

This is a terrible risk that God need not and will not take. By taking this risk, Lucifer “distances himself from God”, i.e., “rebels”. But in quarantining the rebellion within Lucifer and thus containing the imperfection, God maintains His own high-level perfection.

Let God be praised.
— C Langan, FB 2021, November 26 https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159574219067486/

Question : No scripture or holy book has ever been interpreted the right way except for the people that made the teaching, afterwards it all faded away in name of money, power and greed. You begin to wonder what God really means to people. In my opinion, nothing more than an emotional illusion. I sincerely hope the CTMU is thé game changer in that and people will start to awaken to (absolute)truth so humanity can function properly, without it it is lost and doomed to perish under it own stupidity. Reconnect to the inner image of the Ultimate (Unique) Being that holds reality together as you.

Response : “Lucifer and human beings have different motives and means of “walking the fence”. Lucifer walks the fence looking for problems, things that might cause the fence to collapse. Human beings “emulating Lucifer” usually walk it for their own personal benefit and enjoyment, making Lucifer’s job harder.

Lucifer has nothing but contempt for such “followers”, especially when they try to pin their personal idiocy on him. The typical Luciferian fails to understand this, being a mere sociopathic moron who thinks he knows it all, but actually doesn’t know his ass from his elbow about anything but scheming and scrounging for personal wealth, power, and dark decadent fun at the expense of mankind.”

Question : “I have been wondering about the following for some time: if Lucifer is not absolutely antithetical to God but walks “the fence between good and evil”*, I suppose some people might be tempted to become his followers. What is the best way to discourage someone from joining such a cult?”

Response: That’s easy. He’d simply be adopted by the oligarchs and endorsed by the mass media (pretty much how anyone gets anywhere these days). All the “antichrist” would have to do is sign Satan’s contract on the dotted line, and the rest would follow with great ease. (You know, the contract that Jesus told Satan to file up his rear end in the desert.)

The problem, however, is that the ensuing theatrics wouldn’t actually fool anyone. Satan’s agents have blown their credibility all to hell, which is what I mean when I say they’re not even good enough for the devil at this point. So now the devil has a problem. His incorrigible bunglers may force him to drop the “antichrist” character from the script and ad lib a little.

Question : The “go with the flow people”, that want to save their children with the hope they get the full scope of the CTMU afterward. In my opinion, thé only thing you will receive is what you repent in the current format, and then you and this civilization die. I will never believe this is the way in getting the full scope of the ctmu to save humanity, it would be playing right in the cards of Evil! Really, I despise your kind of people. Parasite feeding on UTTER FEEL GOOD CRAP!

Response : I don’t know about that. Lucifer’s job is to maintain the good-evil standoff. The balance is no longer being maintained, as the unwitting tools of Satan have been lopsidedly accumulating wealth and power and criminally aspiring to Godhood.

As I’ve mentioned before, those perceived as the devil’s top minions, being in free-fall toward the pit of hell, have now become an embarrassment to the devil. So now the devil is being pressured to sacrifice his own. We’re getting to the “resign or be terminated” stage.

Remember, if God is forced to wipe the criminals, there will be severe collateral damage. That’s the way it works. No one gets to sit there and spectate from a safe distance. There is no “safe distance”.

Self-styled friends of God need to get off their asses, and even the so-called “friends of Lucifer” (e.g., the Illuminati) need to start listening to the boss before he hands them their pink slips. (The pinkness of the slip comes from the blood of him to whom it is handed.)

Question: “Is God imperfect?”

Answer: God is Ultimate Reality (UR); therefore, God is everything; therefore, God includes both the perfect and the imperfect.

Obviously, God is perfect on the highest and most universal level of being. However - and here’s the rub - God is “Self-refining”, which means that He keeps the perfectible and discards the imperfectible, thus to achieve His own ultimate perfection on all levels of being. (God’s drive to achieve ultimate Self-perfection even on lower levels of being is called “teleology”.)

What does this mean? It means that no matter who you are or what your flaws, you really. really want to make sure that God regards you as perfectible, i.e., sees no irreversible imperfection that might make your salvation teleologically impractical.
— C Langan FB 2020, October 7 https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10158651780662486/

NOTE

Il emploie bien plusieurs fois “reject” en alternative à “deny” ou “negate” :

“Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Alright, because he rejects… he rejects… He will create his own kind of hell, and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him.”

“People create their own hell, by rejecting their own highest level of identity.”

“God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity, the level that we all share with each other, we’re all united in God. But God is good, and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does, so if you deny God and you cut your… you basically… you’re cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you, and can no longer accept you into himself because he’s totally consistent, God is totally, completely self-consistent, and will not tolerate his denial. This is something that God can afford to tolerate, because something that is perfect can not tolerate, cannot absorb or simulate imperfection into himself. It can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while he’s got to exclude it”

“In the CTMU is something called the stratified identity, and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity, the level that we all share with each other, we’re all united in God.”

Source :

Comment: “The hero and the villain both come from the same light, if God is directly realized evil can no longer be perceived in reality.”
Response: Whoa there. You don’t want to so directly “realize the light of God” that you are blinded to the good|evil distinction and can no longer distinguish virtue from antivirtue. Persistently imagining the nonexistence of evil is not reality, but delusion.
In fact, God perceives and despises evil, and if you were correctly seeing His light, so would you. For God, Who is the Ultimate Source of Being, evil is an undesirable side effect of Self-potentialization, which of course is a necessity of existence.
God values the system through which evil can be actualized, because it’s a necessity of Self-refinement. But God rejects those who commit themselves to its actualization and those who choose to empathize with them. This too is a necessity of existence.
If you empathize with evil anyway, thus tacitly aiding and abetting it and absorbing it into your own nature, you depart from God and end up wallowing in moral relativism and darkness of spirit.

Comment: “Framing it in terms of good and evil and of a singular creative intelligence which is unconditionally loving and the clash between the two perspectives can itself be modeled as a conflict between good and evil at a higher level (which is beginning as you read my comment and generate an interpretation of it).”
Response: As I’ve explained here several times, God does not have unconditional love. God has an identity, and its integrity must be protected. This means that any telor that willfully opposes His identity and intentionally negates or denies His existence is rejected.
God is not obliged to unconditionally forgive and save those who hate God and deny his existence, thus leading better people astray. In fact, by His very nature, He is obliged to reject them so that they do not take root in His being and undermine His existence and the viability of His creation.
Your attention to a higher-order reformulation of the problem of good and evil is commendable, but you must take care not to invert the solution in the process.
— C Langan FB 2021, May 8 https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10159169876257486/

Langan: “That’s where Richie [Richard] Dawkins is going. laughter I’m just joking. Hell is simply the process of cessing to exist, of being telicly unbound and having your identity destroyed, because it is unacceptable to God. See… God… in the CTMU is something called the stratified identity, and God can be defined as the highest level of the stratified identity, the level that we all share with each other, we’re all united in God. But God is good, and he must exclude evil in order to preserve the integrity of his identity. This is what he does, so if you deny God and you cut your… you basically… you’re cutting your line of communication with God because you hate him so badly, then God can no longer see you, no longer wants to see you, and can no longer accept you into himself because he’s totally consistent, God is totally, completely self-consistent, and will not tolerate his denial. This is something that God can afford to tolerate, because something that is perfect can not tolerate, cannot absorb or simulate imperfection into himself. It can tolerate it for a while, but then after a while he’s got to exclude it. Alright, so this i what hell is. Basically your own highest level of identity is telling you : “you can no longer exist because you’re no longer in touch with me, you’ve cut your own identity in half, you’ve severed it”. It’s called the soul, the human soul, that’s what these… these levels of stratified identity are. They’re your soul, and once you… you interdict that, once you sever it, ok… you’re cut off from God, that way your own highest level of identity cannot communicate with you anymore, it can’t see you. So when you die and you beg on the death bed “please take me back in”, god can’t hear you anymore. That’s a terrible thing and I don’t wish it on anybody, but if people understand this, they understand the stratified identity, they understand what God is, namely their own highest level of identity, they won’t punish themselves with unbinding and destruction. Now because that’s a very unpleasant experience, everyboy wants to cling for for their identity in the end. It’s hellish. People create their own hell, by rejecting their own highest level of identity.”

[…]

Langan: “Ok well… You know… You’re right, I probably shouldn’t pick on Richie Dakwins, he is what he is, but Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. Alright, because he rejects… he rejects… He will create his own kind of hell, and that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. Ok? He’s no longer a big shot at Oxford University, he can no longer run around telling people how much he hates God, nobody wants to listen to him anymore. That’s what will happen to Richie, that’s his hell, and then finally, in the end he’ll just be melted down to nothingness, and the telesis of which he constists will be redistributed through the rest of the universe.
[…]
They [New Atheists] have a physical body, they are basically cohering with their physical body, and that’s what providing them and it fullfills their identity. They reduce themselves out of pure physicality. There’s not much left there, they have actually cut off their highest level identity, and that will affect them when they are retracted from the mortal play — you no longer have a body here that holds them together, and that’s it for them.”
— Christopher Langan & Curt Jaimungal, “Chris Langan on IQ, The Singularity, Free Will, Psychedelics, CTMU, and God”, Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal Youtube Channel, 2:18:07, 2:27:15 (2021, July 14)

https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Teleological_consistency

What about moral principles? are they simply human inventions ?

MG: What about moral principles? Should we take a ‘utilitarian’ view that moral principles are simply human inventions useful for specific social purposes, or is there more to them than that?

Chris Langan: The global limit of purpose is teleology, the purpose of the universe as a whole. Since morality is a function of purpose and the justification of purpose, the limit of morality is the teleological “morality” of the universe as a whole. Obviously, where morality is defined with respect to telelogy, it is as absolute as teleology itself.

MG: If moral principles have some sort of ‘real’ existence, how could we use our reason to discover what they are?

Chris Langan: It’s really very simple. Start with the utility of the universe, as embodied in telelology. Then parse this utility according to the structure of the universe.

Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/what-about-moral-principles/

Teleology : Telic Principle

Restricted to the teleological (“Why?”) level of explanation, MAP yields the Telic Principle: the universe configures itself according to the requirement that it self-select from a background of undifferentiated ontological potential or telesis. This requirement, amounting to a need for self-actualization and self-expression, is implicit in the MU form. The Telic Principle is responsible for converting potential to actuality in such a way as to maximize a universal self-selection parameter, generalized utility. (ANKORT, pg. 37)

The Telic Principle differs from anthropic principles in several important ways. First, it is accompanied by supporting principles and models which show that the universe possesses the necessary degree of circularity, particularly with respect to time. In particular, the Extended Superposition Principle, a property of conspansive spacetime that coherently relates widely-separated events, lets the universe “retrodict” itself through meaningful cross-temporal feedback. Moreover, in order to function as a selection principle, it generates a generalized global selection parameter analogous to “self-utility”, which it then seeks to maximize in light of the evolutionary freedom of the cosmos as expressed through localized telic subsystems which mirror the overall system in seeking to maximize (local) utility. In this respect, the Telic Principle is an ontological extension of so-called “principles of economy” like those of Maupertuis and Hamilton regarding least action, replacing least action with deviation from generalized utility. (ANKORT, pg. 38)

In keeping with its clear teleological import, the Telic Principle is not without what might be described as theological ramifications. For example, certain properties of the reflexive, self-contained language of reality – that it is syntactically self-distributed, self-reading, and coherently self-configuring and self-processing – respectively correspond to the traditional theological properties omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. While the kind of theology that this entails neither requires nor supports the intercession of any “supernatural” being external to the real universe itself, it does support the existence of a supraphysical being (the SCSPL global operator-designer) capable of bringing more to bear on localized physical contexts than meets the casual eye. And because the physical (directly observable) part of reality is logically inadequate to explain its own genesis, maintenance, evolution or consistency, it alone is incapable of properly containing the being in question. (ANKORT, pg. 38)

Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/glossary/telic-principle/

Are there benefits to the individual apart from collective benefit to the system?

Yes – salvation. (Those who don’t think they need it are in for a very unpleasant surprise.)

There are at least three major cognitive-behavioral “vectors” (an oversimplification) involved in moral pragmatism: (1) teleology, (2) the individual (for whom morality consists of alignment with teleology), and (3) society (including the legal system). Unfortunately, the society vector is now misdirected in such a way as to preclude a personally rewarding outcome for alignment of the first two vectors. In other words, in this social and moral climate, morality is often a material disadvantage for individuals. (This is what happens when you let society get away from you – it comes to be dominated by wayward individuals who supplant teleology with their own interests, and when one agrees to put these interests ahead of teleology for one’s personal gain, one must naturally share the consequences.)

This situation can be expressed as an opposition of physical practicality and metaphysical viability, which is defined as follows: where God is the source of existence, continuation of existence in any form whatsoever is contingent on alignment with teleology, AKA the will of God. For cutting off one’s connection to the source of existence – for “severing one’s soul”, in CTMU terminology – eternal death is the reward … and because eternal death is not something the individual really wants (despite any “naturalistic” delusions of material sufficiency), this can be very painful indeed … positively “hellish”. Therefore, it pays to be moral, and not to couple with antiteleological imperatives even when the self-interested minority calling itself “society” attaches grave penalties to the refusal.

What are the practical rules of morality? As morality is adaptive, that’s a technical question for which this venue is largely inappropriate. But one thing is certain: proper alignment with teleology amounts to proper alignment of the individual with the true metaphysical structure of reality. It follows that willfully blocking or impairing the widespread understanding of this structure is absolutely immoral. (This is why anti-CTMU trolls are no longer tolerated in any CTMU forum under the control of people who actually understand the CTMU; the proper destination of unregenerate anti-Logos trolls is hell, not fora which cultivate knowledge of morality.)

In life, moral thought and behavior are often costly. This has always been the case, more or less, which is why no one with true moral consciousness ever said that life was supposed to be easy. All we can hope to do is optimize physical existence within our absolute metaphysical invariants.

Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/does-the-ctmu-advocate-an-ethical-code-is-morality-relative/
(2018, March 4) https://www.facebook.com/groups/ctmurealitytheory/posts/10156154126537486/)

How do we evaluate the absolute morality of something ?

To evaluate the absolute morality of anything, a number of distinctions must be made regarding it, and a number of questions asked and answered about it. In discussing matters like (e.g.) homosexuality and racism, the proper distinctions are seldom made, and the questions are usually neither asked nor answered … and even where this is not the case, the discussion still tends to become personalized, emotionalized, and irrational.

Among the distinctions to be made are whether a given behavior is addictive, abusive, unhealthy, infectious or metastatic, voluntary or innate, socially or psychologically stressful or disruptive, or self-extinguishing on one or more levels of identity, and among the questions which must be asked is whether a given private behavior should be transported into the public domain, resulting in systemic desensitization and normalization. (There is an important difference between gratifying one’s deviant appetites in private on a completely informed and voluntary basis, and encouraging militants and flamers to cavort and and copulate on parade floats while using the legal system to push grade-school propaganda promoting deviant lifestyles for mandatory consumption by small children.)

Last but not least, discussions of this nature require an understanding of the nature of reality – reality is, after all, the proper source of all valid moral criteria – and the proper development of this understanding should not be preempted or discouraged by unnecessary emotional conflagrations at this sensitive stage of the game.
Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/how-do-we-evaluate-the-absolute-morality-of-something/

How to know if something is morally good ?

To be “good” for you personally, something need only satisfy your own short-term needs. To be morally good, something must satisfy higher orders of utility all the way up to global utility (teleology).
Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/how-to-know-if-something-is-morally-good/

If you are fulfilling your individual purpose, aren’t you neccesarily impacting society? And if everyone lived their telic and individual morality, wouldn’t that be the ground condition for society to perfect itself?

Not all individual purposes are teleologically consistent, especially in combination. If everyone were to autonomously define “morality” in a way consistent with one’s own purposes and qualifications to fill them, then we would have a massive conflict between teleology and “morality”. Such a conflict is not permitted, as would render reality inconsistent. It is therefore best to equip oneself to recognize teleology, and to choose one’s purposes accordingly.
Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/if-you-are-fulfilling-your-individual-purpose-arent-you-neccesarily-impacting-society-and-if-everyone-lived-their-telic-and-individual-morality-wouldnt-that-be-the-ground-condition-for-society/

Does God allow us to be slightely immoral if our slightely immoral acts help push humanity toward the human singularity ?

Morality is a blanket requirement with respect to intention; where harm can be reasonably avoided, one avoids it. However, “accidental immorality” is inescapable given the cognitive limitations of the human mind, and sometimes it is necessary to break a few eggs on the way to an omelette. The operative requirement is that good judgment, with full individual and group metacognition, always be exercised to the best of one’s ability.
Source : http://knowledgebase.ctmu.net/question/does-god-allow-us-to-be-slightely-immoral-if-our-slightely-immoral-acts-help-push-humanity-toward-the-human-singularity/

—

https://www.skool.com/compatriots/ctmu-derived-morality

Question de Omni :

CTMU derived morality :
I have been pondering this for a while and it is the biggest problem plaguing my mind regarding philosophy derived from the CTMU, that being the difficulty of deriving a concrete system of morality and its criterion as derived from the CTMU. I know that the basis for morality would be a binary of self-identification and its negation as analogs for ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’, but it continues to puzzle me through what system in particular this would be defined. How do we determine what maximizes self-identification? Is there a direct criterion from which the maximization of self-identification is derived? Would it be rule-utilitarianism? Threshold-Deontology, maybe? How do we determine, based off the CTMU, what maximizes that which is ‘moral’ in reality and minimizes that which is ‘immoral’?
Would love to hear your guys’ input on this.

Réponse de Langan :

In academia, ethics and morality are very poorly understood. That’s why the pseudocausal dichotomy (determinacy vs indeterminacy) and moral relativism have taken center stage. Formalism (absolute axioms, principles, moral laws) is opposed to consequentialism and social utilitarianism (morality based on outcome, e.g., the greatest good for the greatest number), resulting in an imponderable mess.
In fact, moral agents do not infallibly “determine” what is good and what is evil, nor can they rely on consequentialism (they lack the ability to foresee and symmetrically weigh all possible consequences). Instead, they rely on values and good judgment guided by Absolute Truth, which optimize the moral landscape with respect to these values in the presence of various uncertainties and ambiguities.
The good|evil distinction, though properly defined on God and His teleological will and thus perfectly valid in its own right, can be perfectly applied by God alone, who alone can weigh and wait out the consequences of human actions. One must align with teleology to the best of one’s ability, and cultivate the knowledge and good judgment to do so.

Réponse de Omni :

Would this then rule out notions of morality and application of moral propositions solely based on duty/some derived moral propositions taken to be categorically true, even if they might be shown to likely cause consequences adverse to human utility (deontology)?
Also, for complex moral situations, wherein it is possible we are within a margin of error on what is best and what is worst, what do you think are the most important distinctions to make that signify an order of alignment with teleology? I am curious to know when you assess moral quandaries or problems, what are the most forefront and significant distinctions and order of operations that come to mind?

Réponse de Langan :

“Would this then rule out notions of morality and application of moral propositions solely based on duty/some derived moral propositions taken to be categorically true…?”
No. Certain rules, generally conforming to the so-called “Golden Rule”, are the proper starting place for moral reasoning, and that much is categorically true.
For example, the Ten Commandments should obviously be followed UNLESS there is a very good reason not to follow them … e.g., the near-certainty of dire consequences. Deviate from this prescription at your peril.
“…even if they might be shown to likely cause consequences adverse to human utility (deontology)?”
When moral axioms jeopardize teleology is precisely when they should NOT be followed by rote. Telesis is adaptive. Refusal to adapt to either the rock or the hard place is nonadaptive and dangerous to teleology.

Ludwig A.

Explorateur

Dernières mises à jour

Histamines

Fromage

Prise de notes

Apprentissage et mémorisation

Finitisme mathématique

Table des matières