True Left

"Instead of necessity driving invention, Western Civilization discovers unnecessary knowledge first"

Westerners have a compulsion to fill space, whether it is physical space, informational space, space inside a painting or any other kind of space. We have identified this as a characteristic of Yahweh-worship:



https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg9346/#msg9346

This also goes back to what I was saying here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg9999/#msg9999

I am tired of False Leftists presenting curiosity as a positive trait.
...
does anyone dispute that Western civilization is the most curious civilization?

But the confusion further worsens when some False Leftists (clumsily attempting to praise children) claim that children are curious. Are children really curious? No, they are not. For a simple example, when children move into a new house, they will certainly want to leave no room in the house unchecked. This is what gets crudely mislabelled as "curiosity" by False Leftists. What the False Leftists neglect is the that children hate moving houses in the first place; they would almost always rather stay in the house they have already become familiar with. It is adults who like the idea of moving houses.

Children are philosophical, not curious. Children are disturbed by not understanding what is going on, but would prefer the truth to turn out to be more simple rather than more complicated. In contrast, the progressive Yahwists in the other topic want to ensure that they forever keep creating new complexity on higher and higher orders so that they never run out of things to accumulatively understand. The difference between these two attitudes is the difference between philosophy and curiosity.

To the extent that Western civilization is more curious than non-Western civilizations, we can safely say that Western civilization is more adultlike than non-Western civilizations, something I previously also noted in aesthetics:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg6238/?topicseen#msg6238

Another way to describe Western aesthetics is as more adultlike. This is clearly the case for painting, as young children spontaneously draw in 2D:

and non-Western painting is mostly 2D, whereas Western painting tries to be as 3D as possible:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg3980/#msg3980

But I would say the same is true of other forms. For example, you say:

"I find Pueblo architecture quite beautiful."

but would you furthermore agree that it is more childlike?

https://www.cardcow.com/images/set655/card00864_fr.jpg

Conversely, would you agree that Western architecture is by far the most adultlike?

https://daytonperformingarts.org/wp-content/uploads/1920_A_Performance_Images/1920_A_OP4_Baroque.jpg

I believe that Western civilization considers itself superior to non-Western civilizations in the same sense that adults consider themselves superior to children. And just as children have been mostly conditioned to agree that adults really are superior by accepting the adult standards of superiority, non-Western civilizations have similarly been mostly conditioned to agree that Western civilization is superior by accepting Western standards of superiority. Only we can see that the truth is the complete opposite. This:



is inferior to this:

Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg13288/#msg13288

The unspoken assumption underlying his claim is that a thing has to be new in order to not be boring. This is a progressive assumption, which we disagree with. I find that many new things are boring despite being new, whereas many old things are not boring despite being old. This is because I am an absolutist. Whatever is boring will always continue to be boring, and whatever is not boring will never become boring. Whether or not something is boring to me is determined by the quality of the thing itself, and unrelated to how familiar I am with it. Musk, in contrast, lacks such perception. To him, what is boring is anything that he has become too familiar with.

Thus someone like Musk can never be satisfied, because everything that exists at any point in time will become boring to him eventually, whereupon he will desire even more innovation, over and over again without end. In contrast, someone like me can be satisfied forever simply by successfully finding the quality I seek.

In short, Musk worships Yahweh whereas I worship God.