🐈

that dominant religions seem to have existed in history is just an element of backwards looking story-telling. at the time, dominant religions were never just “one religion” out of the “many religions” that “i just so happen to choose.”

more likely they were belief systems adopted with the same unquestioning and ratcheting attitude as political and moral belief systems are today. they are stripped of fanciful metaphors nowadays but the core mechanism is the same.

an “Identity” is basically a moral lens that allows for Judgement. no matter how many books you read or how much LSD you take, the ship of theseus does not get a new Name unless the moral lens shifts in a meaningful way.

this is why identities are mostly singular. a compass cannot have more than One North because it cannot have two headings. to have more than one moral lens very easily leads to apathy, paralysis, depression, frustration, etc...

being able to switch moral lenses isn’t all that better since it makes you appear crafty and weasel-like in the best case and schizophrenic in the worst-case. after all.... what is the moral lens that is guiding the choosing of when to choose which moral lens?

what good does a diversity of a hundred True Norths do? all it does is desensitize to the blood being spilt through passive aggression as people are shoved into each other hating each other while being forced to say that they love each other.

so... is there a virtuous manifestation of Tolerance and Diversity? at a gut level they feel virtuous.

let’s start w/ tolerance. if “regular tolerance” is a subtle fragmentation and atomization of anyone and anything that doesn’t conform to the system then “true tolerance” is some form of “everything is a finger pointer to the moon.”