The 5 Laws and 2 Theses of Autoarchy and the Method of Philosophical Expansion

 The 5 Laws and 2 Theses of Autoarchy and the Method of Philosophical Expansion

The 5 Laws of Autoarchy

1. The Principle of Reciprocity

a. To do unto others as you wish be done unto you

b. to not do to others as you do not wish done unto you

c. to respond proportionately to harm inflicted upon you d. the motivator can be pragmatism or empathy and it doesn't matter which, because reciprocity is a universal rule for healthy boundaries and relationships

2. Ethical Hedonism

a. To seek pleasure and goodness for ourselves and others 

b. To avoid pain, suffering, and preventable demise for ourselves and others 

c. to seek that which is meaningful and useful 

d. to avoid that which is meaningless or useless

3. Neo-Luddism

a. To seek ethical advancement of humanity in the arts and sciences; in a human-centered way rather than by profit motive. 

b. to seek fulfillment and happiness over wealth

c. to protect our communities from exploitation by the wealthy

d. to seek the worldwide abolition of the slave trade

e. to protect traditional crafts, trades, and skills from being pushed into extinction by competition from factory produced goods and clankers

f. to love that which is beautiful in its imperfection because of the touch of human hands

4. Expressive Humanism

a. To recognize that there is no greater authority or absolute truth beyond the laws of nature

b. to recognize that there is no enforcer of right and wrong beyond humanity itself.

c. to value humanity for its 4 great characteristics of: curiosity, creativity, intellect, and potential

d. that the greatest form of worship of the human spirit lies in immersive fantasy LARP and building something that will outlast the people who built it.

5. Symbolic Immortality

a. To recognize that the great achievement of the individual is to be remembered fondly after they have died

b. to recognize that there is no afterlife except in the memories of others.

The 2 Theses of Autoarchy

1. The Stoned Ape Hypothesis (Modified)
   The original hypothesis was modeled by a very blazed psychonaut and isn't really viable. BUT, we operate with a modified and more reasonable version of this hypothesis, which is that ancient people and hominids did consume psychedelics, and altered states of consciousness are useful in overcoming some of the challenges of life and building culture. So while we don't think it made our brains bigger per se, it did lead to mostly positive changes on down the line, and we should keep the good effects rolling. That ceremonial use of psychedelics or hormones does improve our mental health and community stability. And we view these ceremonial uses as essential for our mental health and the building of our socio-cultural identity, in line with the second thesis. 

2. Theory of Evolutionary Psychology

This explains the "why" of people being the way they are and how it helped us survive in the past, and also what roles in society are suitable for us today. People with autism are really good at their specialty. It's basically how come there was always this one guy or gal in the village who was really good at something and did that so well that they were valued by their community despite being kind of hard to talk to. It explains why we dance. It explains why adhd people thrive as hunter-gatherers. It explains why cluster B personalities make excellent soldiers and surgeons. It explains food preferences. It explains why we have religion and why neurotypicals and cluster c personalities tend to be happier with it. It is kind of a cohesive theory of everything when it comes to human behavior. 

Method of Philosophical Expansion

So, being an ex-muslim and currently a western philosopher and bootstrapped sociologist, I have set this system of expansion up on a hybrid of past systems with the goal of being a way to expand the philosophical framework and flesh out particulars without creating a hierarchical leadership position or restricting the freedom of thought. (It was heckin hard to do.) 

 So, the direct democracy approach is what I personally favor for determining the majority and minority opinion status of a given idea. These are set up to function like Shari'a, where you have some broad general rules and vibes that can be applied to anything, And then you compare the circumstances and context of a problem to these laws to issue a fatwa (ruling) concerning the fiqh (more specific ethically derived rules for that situation). 

However, Autoarchy has no framework for a scholarly vocation like how Islam has the 'ulema ('alim singular), and it is instead worked out by debate and consensus polling. All members are assumed to possess intelligence and agency. And the positions on a topic are voted for to make a majority opinion and minority opinion which is recorded for future reference in a given congregation. Every congregation is expected to use the 5 laws, but to develop their own fiqh based on their circumstances and context. Rulings may be followed or disregarded at will, it only expands the philosophy and its reference material. You may choose to use past majority or minority positions to bolster new solutions, as precedent. And that is why both are recorded, with notation on the percentage of the vote recorded to show how the concept was received by the congregation and the record of the debate itself so that it can be reviewed for errors or interesting parts afterwards. 

Example

There's no set punishment for doing anything outside of the rulings, and I advise against punishing people for anything. It is far better, if you find something to be disagreeable, to recommend proportional response. No harm, no foul. If someone doesn't understand that they did something that is considered wrong, it is unlikely that they will understand why they were punished either. Of course, protect yourself, but, if it's not hurting anything, leave it be. Now, if there is a harm done, reparations and rehabilitation are the goal generally. In line with Law 1 (a, b, and c), and Law 2 (b, c, and d). See how that works? State your case, reference the parts of the law that pertains to it. If there is a disagreement, then you debate it. Easy.