Parasitic Divergence

From CTMU Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


“Question: Can someone raised Muslim have anything positive to contribute to a discussion on the CTMU?

Answer: Yes, absolutely ... and he or she is welcome to do so. The deciding factor is how a given Muslim is is motivated. There is much good in Islam, and as long as a given Muslim abides by it, he or she is welcome.

Now for the caveat: as all who appreciate the CTMU should know by now, there is an insidious phenomenon called "parasitic divergence". Parasitic divergence is a divergence of utility functions mirroring the relationship between an obligate parasite and its host organism in social, economic, and political terms. Where church and state are merged, parasitic divergence can also affect religion.

Unfortunately, Islam as a whole has been locked from its inception into a parasitic divergence in which spiritual authority has been exclusively distributed among what amount to local political authorities with the potential for serious conflicts of interest on individual and higher levels of identity and utility. This parasitic divergence is obvious and irrefutable.

Here are a couple of videos which seem to explain the situation (I don't endorse any political or philosophical opinions that might be imputed to their producer(s), and please don't watch them if you take blanket offense at any criticism whatsoever of anything that anyone in particular calls "Islam").

[Videos removed due to defective links. Just go to YouTube and type in the following titles:

The True Origins Of Islamophobia Jihad in America and the History of Islam

To the extent that what these videos (and hundreds if not thousands like them) are saying is even remotely valid, the Islamic world has a severe problem with parasitic divergence, and obviously, this is not CTMU-consistent.

Remember, the CTMU is about spiritual unification - about interpreting all of the great religions in one overarching logical framework called "Logos" - and if one wants to weigh in on the issue, one is bound by CTMU rules of logic.

Stay within those bounds, and you can be perfectly comfortable here. If not, feel free to leave. [Additional comment asserting that Islamic suicide bombers are not following the Quran: "Suicide is strictly forbidden in Islam; this would indeed be commensurate with religious fundamentalism."

Response: Mohammed extolled martyrdom. Watch the first of the videos mentioned above - it attributes the Islamic penchant for suicidal martyrdom to a certain passage in Islamic scripture. The sourcing may be incorrect, but the inclusion of these words in Islamic scripture is not:

"By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred." [Collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari] ... and there's a lot more where that came from. It is made clear elsewhere in Islamic scripture that "Allah's Cause" includes jihad, offensive holy war, so it cannot be credibly maintained that suicide bombings are included in the Islamic definition of "suicide". Of course, one can argue about the meaning of "jihad". However, one's arguments must be fully informed. If anyone wants to construct a realistic, fully informed argument that jihad is strictly a nonviolent concept, then one can start here:

And lest anyone be disposed to maintain that Islamic calls to violence are heeded only by backward Muslims who all stayed in the Middle East when the free debit cards were being handed out to everyone willing to go West by the banksters who issue them in the first place, please watch the following video recently shot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:”


Chris Langan - What is the Parasitic Divergence? - CTMU - Great Filter - TOE

Chris Langan - The Parasitic Divergence