The perversion of the Machiavellian-Cartesian conquest of nature is the perversion of a perversion, and thereby a fulfillment.
When I spoke of “[t]he Original Occupy Movement, the Movement of the One, the 1%, the 1 as Opposed to the 0, which in the Beginning We didn’t even acknowledge as a concept, a number, a Symbol”, I originally wrote “the Movement of the 1”, meaning to allude myself to Brahmavidya: Primordial I. The Roman 1, the I… “We” is a lie so long as nobody says “I”: for then “we” can only be a collective of non-Is… And though it’s not a matter of only saying “I”, only doing “I” is, again, a lie as long as one doesn’t dare say it.
Our society was grounded on the “we” which is a sum of zeroes, or almost-zeroes. But because of its success, the almost-zeroes have grown–like a cancer, threatening to overgrow society. Weeds, and not the one I just vaporized! Making fun of them doesn’t help; that rather makes it accepted. Makes what accepted? Idiocy. I will further analyze Western idiocracy for you.
I’ve often wondered–especially in traffic, thank God–whether many people are really stupid or really anti-social or both. The answer is that there isn’t really a difference. Being in busy, “bustling” places means bumping or almost bumping into one another–and all the time in each other’s “aura”, as “spiritual” people may call it. Society uncivilizes!
When people fly–and not just fly–through each other’s “aura” all the time–and note that “aura” like “spirit” etymologically means a movement of air–, they get a group-aura–which soon has a brown “colouring”, seeing as how many different colours go together in it.
As I was saying, our society was based on the lowest common denominator. But this principle naturally leads to idiocracy (ochlocracy, as the Ancients called it). It leads to the more or less accepted Idiocy of those who do “I” before saying it–and much more than saying it: usually thinking as well, and often even looking!
Our society was based on an idealistic misunderstanding of that phenomenon, that potential reality. This Summer, I wrote: “[W]hat is noble about the man in the street who votes for Trump, or Wilders in the Netherlands (see my ‘Nietzsche Contra Wilders’ essay), Brexit in the UK, etc. etc.? It’s supposedly that he dares say it.” But the reality-TV idiots I’ve spoken of are in principle considered uncivilized trash, and incredulously ridiculed as such. “Civilized” people are supposed not to be selfish, or not to be selfish in such overt ways. But how civilized are most people, anyway? The truth is that most are only half civilized–not to go into more precise fractions.
The two “pure” (ideal, theoretical) paths are the completely instinctive and the completely reflective–leap without thinking and think without leaping, sense your way through the world–life, spacetime–and behold a mere reflection of it in one’s mind’s eye, respectively.
Classical society was based on the ideal state of those most inclined to the latter. By means of a “noble lie”, the most civilized secured the support of the more but not much, much more than half-civilized necessary to suppress the much less than half-civilized. But modern society’s “civilized”, believing boorishness is better than suppression to quite an extent, if not ultimately, will often rather take the side of the least against the most civilized. For example, it seems high intelligence and high sensitivity are considered a luxury problem compared to being “mentally challenged”. Yet will the problems that challenge even (and especially) those most up to that challenge not by definition tend to be more important?