I have long studied a wide variety of religions because I believe truth can be found in every belief system, and when multiple sources agree on a point it increases the probability of that being true. In fact finding a text that contains only falsehood no matter how you define/interpret its words is practically an impossibility, hence:
Axiom 11: there is truth in everything.
Having studied many points of view also makes it easier to establish rapport with proponents of those views. Understanding the cultural background of statements is crucial for being able to change belief in them.
For example if someone tells you the earth is flat you can try and find some truth in this belief, maybe reply "when we observe the ocean it is true that there is no visible curvature, what other evidence do you have?" Then when presenting evidence for a spherical earth instead of trying to definitely prove your viewpoint is correct you can adopt the viewpoint of simulation superposition and say something along the lines of "given the large body of research showing the earth is round it would be hard to put us in a simulation where the earth is flat". The more evidence you have of the earth being round the harder it would be, shifting an astronaut to a flat earth is a lot harder than someone who has never left their hometown and knows no physics. We created a simulation where the earth was comprised of 4 flat earths connected in complex ways and sent the mythbusters to investigate.
As an inverse to the above axiom, illustrating that sacrificing rapport to disagree is a harmful reflex, I invoke:
Axiom 12: you can always find something to disagree about.
Even if I make a statement that is true by definition like "goodness is good" you can disagree by saying some ignorant actions motivated by goodness actually cause harm and hence aren't good. Now obviously this is true and it is important to find where a statement is false, however if you base your reply on the intent to disagree you wont create rapport. Instead you could create a department in your mind like the one in the movie World War Z that treats any information as if it is true and explores what is needed for it to be true. So if someone tells you there is a zombie apocalypse going on, instead of exploring all the reasons making that unlikely for your reply you can start exploring the ways it could be possible and reply something like "ok, if aliens are here, and many governments openly admit encountering crafts with vastly superior technology, they would likely have the power to release a zombie virus, where do you think the virus originates?" Thus creating rapport and initiating a discussion to explore the reasons for the persons belief, both of which are needed for the counter reasoning of a zombie virus spreading being unlikely to be absorbed by the person with a firm belief in a zombie apocalypse.
Cultivating such an automatic reflex to agree is also important for safety, say a dragon makes a statement and it is spread to lower realms being repeated for example by powerful politicians, say a metaphysical Mussolini whose headquarter exterior clearly shows he expects automatic agreement from his subordinates, or you can be under the influence of a Mao-like regime where criticizing the governments policies can land you in a labor camp; there are clearly very real risks associated with automatic disagreement that go beyond just being bumped down the cosmic conversation. Of course it is important to be able to disagree with statements made by superiors but as information travels between realms and minds it is necessarily corrupted by translations and interpretations, so by automatically trying to fit statements to a situation that makes them valid you not only increase rapport with the source of the statement but also don't stand in the way of the information traveling to realms associated with your mind, where you might be seen as an authority figure. Standing in the way of the spread of beneficial information can be a serious offence.
Also always remember DoD (Depends on Definitions). Definitions are not true or false. Someone told me we have to use a definition of God based on the bible, to which I reply that is a mixture of idol worship and a misunderstanding of what a definition is. Anyone can define anything, you don't have to be Shakespeare to create new words, and much like a defined variable in a program can have the same name but a different value in another scope so too can the word God be used with different meaning depending on context. For example a more mystical definition that I sometimes use is that God is Love, an insight I received from a mescaline experience, or rather the insight was that all matter is Love.
The model of reality I am presenting in this book can however be more or less true. If I claimed it to be absolutely true, no doubt some Developer could put me in a simulation where it is false. At the same time it is trivial to implement any model/story as a simulation making every mythology true in some sense, and that is not even needed to use characters as symbolic links to entities with similar choice profiles, something a simulation makes more concrete. One can also use real humen as such symbolic links, obviously since our human forms are also being simulated and not inherently more real than a simulation of Sauron or the Demiurge.
Habitually establishing rapport will lead to you having more friendship, and who you're friends with to a large degree determines how much evolutionary help you get. If who or how much is more important is debatable, but no doubt friendship is one of three pillars of power, along with meditation and suffering.
Updated on 2024-12-22.