"We should be clear that only those who have worked through Christianity have minds; Christians themselves do not and cannot have minds. This is just philosophy. The entirety of Europe is essentially always already this having worked through Christianity, that is literally what Europe is made of, post-Christian refinement. The US people are so interesting because of how they are combinations pre-philosophically of both Puritan repression and “immoral” joissance-like freedom, a sort of weirdly enlightened yet stifled “egoism”. Americans are children, and children are pretty cool. I suspect it’s much the same with Russians although I’ve never been these so cannot confirm that.
Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can’t just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it’s all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators. The European soul is much deeper and older than is the soul of Americans, I suspect it’s the same with Russians too that their soul is still highly youthful. Youth is good, but we can’t mistake it for some kind of philosophical telos capable of guiding truly mental efforts and values. Youth is great. But the love of youth stifles youth itself, since youth only exists to eventually give birth to trees from seeds. Complex ideological systems prescribe limits in which youthful energies are forced to turn upon themselves in interesting ways, so that minds can somstimes develop out of that, youth transcended as it is supposed to be. And we should also realize that youth achieves its fullest being in the knowledge and perspective that age brings. The being of youth is read backwards from the position of post-youthful subjectivity, in such a position youth is truly able to be realized meaningfully, if the heart is both strong and light enough in its wisdom for that. Trump for example is someone whose aged heart is neither strong nor light, therefore he is not post-youthful wisdom (philosophy) able to read back the being of youth in the present moment, so instead of that Trump is just a child in an adult body, like many people are. His many fits and tantrums and bullying behaviors are just the lashing out of a kid with family problems at home.
Emotions are not non-philosophical, emotions are the seed-logic and guide growth. Mind is delimited by what it is not, its “other” is a mirror in which self-reflections can developed. “Guilt is only the first form of knowledge; and pride, not even the first”. In this sense the German joke might be an expression of a more refined pride, and can be read ideally as the stirrings of mental activity but read materially as just the “oppressive parent figure” who children are supposed to lash out against. Bodies are never aware of minds, the mind is just, to the body, an alien principle that forces it here and there. Equating mind with body as Nietzsche/Foucault/Deleuze do from one direction and eastern mysticism does from the opposite direction is just a convenient mask to justify this situation to the body, to form a small sphere of mental activity that never needs to generate in itself any guilty feeling, and so isolates itself from what could properly be called “Spirit” in Hegel’s sense. Geist is mind-spirit, the body can accept this fact only when it forgets it, when it “falls into it” as the pure activity of the free play of contents at the drive-level and this is even below the contents of the unconscious reification that we were talking about, although those contents at the pre-universal level give raw impetus and cathartic potency able to negatively work universalism into and as world activity although again as a kind of delimitation of excesses, as Christianism.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:14 am
" And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production “bureaucratic” to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.
Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. “Keep trying, try better, fail better”.
"
I don’t see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It’s just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.
About automobiles. Let’s take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren’t using more solar power right now.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:43 am
Modern liberal humanist values are not values, they are merely the complex of social forces enabled by capitalism’s tertiary function that I talked about some time ago. They are not a mask for anything; they are a barren womb. The generation of epistemes is a process divorced from the metamorphosis of concepts in the dialectic, that dialectic is not the womb out of which the episteme or transcendent relation emerges, which is why Hegel and his geist will deceive you:
" In what I have written of the Daemonic, the real-ego and ideal-ego,
as time and eternity, or freedom and necessity, transcend themselves within one
another but also transcend themselves as a relation, thereby stabilizing this asymmetry,
for this later transcendence- the transcendence of the relation, which I call reification, "
This relation transcending as relation is what I was talking about with stasis and motion transcending itself as a relation through entelechy and energeia:
" so that a wholly new series of antitheses have developed- entellechia and energeia from stasis and motion, with the conceptual tension preserved or reified rather than dialectically relieved, namely in a higher order of terms approaching the episteme. "
You said: " Systems of ideology deployed at the level of the State are like the fences around the playground of American and Russian children. You can’t just expect those fences to be removed and anything but chaos and confusion to follow. Americans have no idea what to do with power, which is why they are so good at pushing power for its own sake, it’s all they can do, it cannot be used/spent for anything coherent except to sell coke bottles and hamburgers, which is also why American power in the world is so destabilizing and works so well with tyrants and petty dictators."
Your defense of this totalitarianism is obscene to me, but I take it as a result of misunderstanding rather than character. As I’ve been saying, liberal secular humanism isn’t an ideology. Liberal secular humanism is just the mask for an apolitical complex perpetuating the myth that there was ever an ideological struggle by posturing itself as the end of that struggle. Globalism, a European force with a European origin, which was forced upon America by the corrupt politicians you seem to think are necessary, is what has been making deals with tyrants and dictators and fucking off in the middle east. Is that the great “European mind” that still governs the US? It’s an octopus with its tentacles in the empty heads of the corporate rulership that has been forced on the US, that’s all. Our founders told us to do exactly the opposite. We were supposed to utilize our geographic advantage and create a continent independent from the rest of the world, where the masses were truly empowered and the polis was mathematically balanced in the branches of government, a true society to carry on the Greek spirit that was snuffed out so long ago before ever attaining its destiny. And that was stolen from us.
You said: " It is true that Russia and the US are alike in this way, but Europe has already transcended that. The power games at the level of “the real” of the US and Russia are not a transcendence but a stalling, a stasis as the relative youth of both US and Russia at the cultural levels (Russia and US were both made in the late 1800s to early 1900s) still cannot deal with the much more developed culture of Europe, whose cultures are actually roosting in US and Russia who now instantiate it at the political and “real” levels."
You have misunderstood much of what I have said.
Europe hasn’t transcendent shit. Europe is a regression that is in its death throws. Europe has diffused the core of its original Hellenistic insight through the infection of non-European ideas from the East and then the Jews, through the dialectic- it has identified philosophy with the dialectic, and the original insight that was lost is being reified in the agon of these collected shards of true Western intelligence- through the episteme, shards and seeds which Europe threw away and the US and Russia have been collecting. And through them a new ethos will be created, an episteme for a new political order. Christianity is simply the process of this diffusion, a waking up from the infection of non-European ideas, of foreign karma, which was perhaps needed in order to create the dream of history within which to mature these shards and seeds in secrecy until the time was right to establish a true independent order among the world-powers. In order to get back to the beginning of it, to reawaken the original intuition that transformed the barbarian Doric tribes into the first philosophers- we must go through to the end of it, hence history is the reckoning of its own end, and Christianity is simply the womb within which this has been taking place. Christianity was the mask, the dialectical womb for the episteme and the final revelation of Being, the final emancipation of philosophy, and it has not yet been thought through or gone beyond by anyone: liberal secular humanism is just a corporate byproduct of cokes and Iphones, of economics masquerading as politics. And Europe has thrown Christianity away to exchange it with liberal secular humanism! And the infection of European ideals and globalism is attempting to convince America to forsake it as well. And this liberal “culture” you claim Europe to have: is less than a joke to me. It’s an anti-culture.
Haha, Trump a “bully.” See, this pretend higher than thou “culture” to me just sounds like a prating old woman, a school teacher’s moral loft. Europe is an intellectual vacuum, the original heart of Hellenistic enlightenment has been totally diffused from it, the empty dialectic of history has absorbed it and ground it away with the rocks of foreign soul, and the womb of Being’s true revelation, namely Christianity, has been imported to America and Russia, and America will liberate the episteme that has quietly matured in it once the masses realize their emancipatory potential.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Last edited by Parodites on Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:58 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:50 am
Parodites wrote:
" And yes, technologies are invented often enough by genius individuals in garages, but it takes inherently bureaucratic systems of infrastructure and policy-making to scale up those inventions to the level of society at large. Ford needed the assembly line, he needed to make production “bureaucratic” to even make cars a feasible thing, General Motors needed to corrupt politics to buy out railways and streetcars to pave roads, for example; so much more so with computers and the Internet.
Government often gets the values wrong yet I claim this is mostly because it gets them wrong in practice, namely a failure at the political level. Similar to how I see human error as a means to overcoming that error, government is a means of overcoming that in government which is still in error. The solution is not to give up on the attempt, but to keep attempting. “Keep trying, try better, fail better”.
"
I don’t see what the government has to do with managing the Internet. It’s just a bunch of computers tied together with networks, there is no centralization or top down management.
About automobiles. Let’s take a more obvious example. A bunch of workers are using an outdated technology for agriculture, someone then creates a technology that does what 100 men do with the energy requirements of a single man. That puts a whole lot of people out of work. But it is a short term consequence. Because what has happened in reality is that a bunch of human labor has now been converted into free potential labor- as new industries must appear in order to make the technology market-viable. There is also always a bunch of unemployed people wandering around asking for jobs; the infrastructure that would need to be built around the new technology that originally put that group of people using its precedent out of work would need to be created. The demand for employment would cater to the transition; the corporate powers employing the new technology would be able to satisfy that demand by drawing on the pools of now free labor. So for example the automobile is invented; a bunch of stage coach making douches are out of work and will try to prevent the automobile from taking off; but the pools of free labor that exist create a demand for employment among the populace, so the infrastructure required to bring the automobile to market and make it viable would itself potentially satisfy that demand and thus the infrastructure would be able to be easily created without government intervention, simply by fulfilling that demand in the masses of unemployed workers. In order to bring the automobile to market, many factories would need to be made, and that would satisfy the constant demand for increasing employment, as it would allow whole new markets to exist, like steel, like oil, etc. No government intervention is or was required for this process to take place: in fact, exactly the opposite- the less government intervention, the more smoothly it all goes. With intervention, what occurs is a delay between the freeing up of potential labor and the emergence of industries centered around new emerging technologies that might satisfy the demand for employment in the populace. This delay in the primary and secondary cycles of capital transference I talked about awhile ago created by government intervention is the reason why we aren’t using more solar power right now.
I agree, I see it this way also. American capitalism at this level fully demonstrates the power of free market forces. But the point is that this power is so radical that it ultimately undoes itself, as once you convert so much human labor into mechanical or technological labor thus concentrating labor and displacing workers, the burden of the unemployed is just a cost to society; an available pool of unemployed potential workers drives down the cost of labor which is good for capital owners but there is no inherent mechanism in that situation of having a large pool like that that would inherently drive production in new ways: those unemployed workers can just as easily be used to dig sewers or work on assembly lines or whatever else that already perpetuates existing economic relations and products, it doesn’t inherently develop new relations or products. And in the increasing rate of displacement in modern capitalism we have millions of people becoming obsolete because their labor is replaced with non-human labor, all the largest corporations today employ relatively few workers (Google, Apple, etc.) with the exception of Walmart and fast food, but soon those workers will also be replaced by robots and besides that work-labor is menial and should be replaced anyway.
I’m not at all against free market destruction of old industries to make way for progress, but my point is just that at a certain point this destruction runs away with itself; machines and computers can theoretically displace almost all human labor, it’s just a gradual process we are on of doing that, the economy and society as a whole can only handle a limited displacement because too much unemployed reduces spending by consumers, raises prices, drains social reserves of capital for welfare, and can cause civil unrest and increase in crime. It’s a balancing act, and the economy can more or less find that sweet spot on its own, yet at the point we are at today with automation technologies the ultimate logic is that 90% of people will have no surplus labor to sell to the capital owners, this 90% will be essentially unemployable except in ways that utilize the lowest standards as humans can be pushed into extreme menial poverty-producing work simply out of desperation, so that the cost of sudh marginal cheap labor can actually be lower than the cost of running robots and computer systems.
That isn’t s good end, to have 90% of people either unemployed or employed in the lowest kind of work simply out of desperation. This is something I remember reading in Marx, he criticizes Smith’s idea of the economy because of how Marx saw there is an inherent imbalance between the position of the worker selling his labor power and the capital owner buying that labor power: the imbalance is precisely that the worker is immediately desperate for a job, while the capital owner already owns capital and by sitting around renting it to workers he isn’t desperate in that same way, he can always liquidate his capital and move it to other enterprises or simply into cash, market investments, etc.
Also my point about government bureaucracy was actually about bureaucracy itself and not really about government: bureaucracy appears in the private sector as well, every corporation is a small bureaucracy, a “little government” of sorts. The Internet may self-regulate like nothing else in the history of mass mobilized technology yet to build computers, electricity, to make code, to homogenize systems and code to each other so the Internet can be more or less universally accessible by any device, all of that takes serious corporate-level bureaucratic organization, the imposition of strict hierarchical structures upon workers and which structures are heavily administrative in nature. Likewise, to make sure computers don’t explode sometimes or leak dangerous radiation, to make sure companies aren’t polluting, etc. we need bureaucratic administrative systems at the level of society as such and which systems are divorced from a profit motive, so that the goals of those systems can be pursued without recourse to conflicts of interest and corruption that would ultimately reduce the effectiveness of those systems in pursuing their goals (making sure products are safe, making sure companies aren’t polluting the environment or hurting workers, etc.) There is a division in economy here, the point isn’t that the government should take everything over, that would be a disaster; the point is that neither should the market take everything over, that would also be a disaster.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:14 am
To your other post, the difference between our views I think reduces a lot to our different understandings of what “liberal” and “dialectic” mean. To me, liberal means the values of equality (all are “created equal”), human rights including freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance (the actual societal and economic (but certainly not “absolute”) instantiation of the notion of equality, namely equality under the law), and creative expression(science, art, philosophy-- learning as a value in itself), emotional sanity (romance, friendship, basically not seeing other as mere objects). To me these aren’t even political values, they are purely rational values, they are literally the values of self-consciousness or “mind” itself.
There is another dimension of liberalism called neoliberalism, which isn’t at all what Ive outlined above and which you seem to mean when you use the term “liberal”. As I see it: neoliberalism is an excess of true liberalism that was made possible as excess by the rise of modern capitalism, the converting of capital as such info direct sociopolitical value, the takeover of the political by the economic as you said. We agree here. But I divorce liberalism as Ive outlined above from its more recent excess of neoliberalism; they aren’t at all the same thing. People like Clinton use the image of liberalism to push their neoliberalism, for them liberalism becomes a convenient mask to hide other agendas entirely, and yet they are still required to wear that mask in public and to at least a little bit pay fidelity to the mask. That is the key: the Clintons and other neoliberals are playing a dialectical role of synthesizing two opposite forces, the forces of true humanity (politically identified by the liberal values I mention above) and the forces of neoliberal domination, objectification of humans, crude physical power, capitals accumulation as an end in itself, etc.
I want to have a dismantling of the neoliberal dimension too, but I don’t think that can just happen overnight or by some world nuclear war, because the internal conflict must be totally realized namely capitalism must be reckoned with true liberalism, true civilized rational human values. What are your civilized rational values, do you have any? You mention the Hellenistic project; equality, freedom of speech and assembly, tolerance, creative development of sciences and ideas and art, all of those things I just mentioned were present in Ancient Greece. Yes they had slaves but that is just because they didn’t have machines to convert human labor into autonomous labor, as we have today. From what I understand the Greeks didn’t even treat their slaves that poorly.
I think you and I want the same thing, more or less, unless you reject the values I outlined above, in which case what are your values here?
As for the dialectic, there are two ways to read it: that things develop as a result of their inherent internal contradictions, or that the developments is external as two different opposing ideas come together and are only overcome by being enveloped by a third, larger idea that retroactively reorganizes and defines those two original ideas. I see both forms of the dialectal logic are at work in humanity and the world. But I’ll keep reading Hegel and let you know if and when I find in him the principle of the daemonic and the excess, and the logic of reification as you’ve laid out. It seems to be erroneous that Hegel is often thought of as proposing a totalized Absolute toward which history progresses, as if the internal tension of difference in the material-ideal could ever be totally dissolved; I don’t see him saying that at all, his point seems much subtler than this, as I was explaining in my newer post on self-valuing. But as I said I’ll keep reading and report back what I find.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:31 am
Hegel thought that the dialectic emerges because matter is imperfect. That’s the reason history exists at all for him. Because matter, because Being itself is imperfect, so nonbeing emerges as its negation. Then the two terms struggle and synthesize creating spirit or geist, in a process attempting to extract the original imperfection, and we go on and on. Absolute spirit is the perfection of logic toward which history is progressing in Hegel. Not that subtle.
Exactly as you said- freedom of speech and treating people equally under law aren’t values. It’s just basic social contract stuff. Those are not my values, because they aren’t values. They are things I agree to under a social contract because without them society could not function. Liberal secular humanism, out of which both the common species of leftism and neoliberalism have emerged, is not that simple: it involves the myth that the struggle of ideology has ended and that it is that end, it involves the myth that Christianity has been surpassed and God has died, etc.
Neoliberalism is connected to what I called liberal progressivism, which communism and fascism proposed themselves as alternatives to in the great war of the 20th century. It’s evolved into the SJW feminist black lives matter shit because it is naturally focused on rejection social forms associated to the true ideological conflicts in Christianity, it is focused on turning over the power of the masses which they concentrated in their religions to the hands of the State- all these ideas of having gone beyond those forms of society, the nuclear family, marriage, Christian based things- all that is just brainwashing by the State to convince people its good to renounce their emancipatory potential and turn their power over. But both it and the liberalism you speak of as equality of races and relativity of cultural values- they are both expressions of one thing: liberal secular humanism, born of the Enlightenment era. The left-right paradigm is an expression of that basic source in liberal secular humanism, which Nietzsche championed as the death of God. That basic source is as I read it just the result of “Identifying philosophy with the dialectic itself”, which I talk about at the end of this message. Through it, politics has been brought to an end, as capitalism in its tertiary stage was enabled by it to form a devastating complex of social forces, connecting military, media, science and globalist regimes together under one will.
" Russia and US really only exist today at the symbolic level, attested to by the fact of the orgies of military prowess and drive-psychology out in the open and asserted by Russia and the US as if any of that constituted a fucking personality or an ethos, which of course it does not. At the ideal level it would be hard to say that Russia or the US even exist, evidenced by the silly political games of dick-wagging and the fact that US cultural hegemony constitutes a fucking coke bottle."
These globalist European motherfuckers are the ones that infiltrated our system through corrupt political classes and convinced us to become their central puppet in the bid for a globalist superstate, by granting access to our military to foreign nations, fucking around in the middle east and moving around the chess pieces in the game of power for the benefit of our European allies, sending tens of millions to Israel every goddamn 24 hours, etc. This military dickwaving you are talking about is the result of the globalism you defend; it is the result of European manipulation, not American spirit, which is based in completely opposite intentions.
The anti-Americanism and pro-globalist, pro-idealogy, pro fascistic, pro-European, pro politically correct liberal stuff is difficult for me to take, so restating myself as objectively as possible with no personal feeling about it: Christianity is the dialectic of history: it has absorbed the material of foreign non-Western cultures. Identifying philosophy with that dialectic has produced liberal secular humanism and its “values”, which are actually nihilism, enabling economics and the social complex formed around capitalism to masquerade as politics. But the epistemes born of the reification of our cultural inheritance I talk about are connected to a completely independent process of emergence, the epistemes- ontic, immanent, and eventually the transcendent episteme, are the result of reflectivity reproducing its own negation from that leveling dialectic as a positive or guiding image of thought. By reproducing the negative core driving the dialectic for the dialectic, the dialectic is dissolved and transcended by the episteme. Thus Christianity will eventually reproduce its own negation as its object of thought and reignite the flame of Hellenistic insight, the transcendent episteme to serve as the fulcrum for a new wheel of time.
In Hegel’s system you cannot even begin to claim that the negative core is in the dialectic: the negation appears only after the affirmation of Being is made, which contains the original seed of imperfection that the dialectic is attempting to dig out of matter. So in Hegel, the dialectic is generative- it is what is making the philosophic ideas, it is creating them. But in my system it is leveling them, it is an artificial process began in Greece that is destroying the primordial intimation of Being that Heidegger didn’t understand and which transformed the ancient tribes of Greece into the first philosophers, and the true process of philosophic creation has been stalled culminating in the diffusion of European culture, and will only begin again after finishing the project of Christianity as I mentioned above.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:43 am
Your use of entelechia and energeia seem to mirror Hegel’s use of material and ideal, the logic is that actuality is always already the “work” for the sake of the ideal which it can never truly reach or realize in practice (because of how energeia and entelechia remain eternally apart) but nonetheless which can be reached and realized as the transcendence of the relation between these into higher forms. I think Hegel might agree that the original tension is preserved, yet even in that preservation new possible forms and ideas are emerging, new “epistemes” if that is close to your use of the word here. New modes of human subjectivity. The way an Ancient Greek saw the world is quite different from the way we see the world, our respective subjectivities are different in part because of how the older relations between entelechia and energeia as categories of the self have transcended over time as new contents develop and push new forms. I tend to see this development as somewhat minimal, in that the rational values of consciousness are still the same now as they were back in Ancient Greece and those old Greeks were still understanding those values to some extent just as we are today. The mind must basically reckon with non-mental reality, pure physical need and imposition of crude force; this imposition is always trying to drag life back down toward its lower dimension of energeia without entelechia, but could never really succeed in doing that because of how the physical material are already organized “ideally” to begin with in so far as we are speaking of being as human being; and this points to the accumulation over time of cultural artifacts as ideas that increasingly fill out, with both clarity and confusion, the content-spaces of expanding human consciousness.
My understanding of the reification is that it is a preservation of the original tension and the application of that tension upon new domains. The classic example of the French Revolution being one excess posited as reaction to another, leading to the pendulum swinging from too far in one direction to too far in another direction; the tensions (internal contradictions, essential split of entelechia and energeia) latent to the original position reappeared in the tension of the new position as reaction, and these are precisely the same tension in both cases, yet the transcendence here is that the tensions are negative or passive in the original moment and become active in the present moment. The “synthesis” occurs when the new moment’s momentum collapses and a still newer moment appears, one that works the tension as activity partially back into the passive ground of the original moment, yet not as passive as it had formerly been in that original moment. The tension is still there, a political and economic tension for example, but it has moved a little from passive to active, meaning that the tension is slightly more able to reshape existing relations in society and the world.
After the French Revolution and even after Napoleon it wasn’t as if the original tensions which led to the revolution were now gone; they were simply moved a bit more out in the open, as new ideas of legality and democratic participation were allowed to seep into the idea of monarchy. This isn’t an immediate relief of the tension, it is using the tension in a new way to reshape existing sociopolitical and socioeconomic landscapes. And those landscapes in turn also end up reshaping individual subjectivity in the sense that individual subjectivities are always in a large way locally produced by the forms and dominant ideas and relations of the society in which the individual comes up in. To me this all speaks to what you say about reification, but correct me if I’m wrong.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:09 pm
It’s important for me to point out that I didn’t say those things weren’t values, I said they weren’t political values; I said they are rational values, values of reason as such, values of (self-) consciousness.
Do you not agree? What do you think are the rational values of self-consciousness as such, qua self-consciousness? I know you don’t believe in social construction, but do you really think these I listed (equality, tolerance, freedom, creativity, emotional sanity (non-pathology)) are merely social contract theory and nothing besides? That sounds like pure social construction theory to me; the social contract doesn’t come from nowhere, it comes from the rational requirements of self-conscious being qua that very self-consciousness itself, applied socially as it always is going to be since there is no “pure individual”, in a self-conscious species the individual is a created thing (thus the very meaning of the ideal, entelechia, the universal, etc.)
Edit: I feel obliged to also point out that I am not a totalitarian.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:41 pm
One example I can think of easily where government intervention produced great results, and when dealing with massive unemployment shows how the government is a key player in helping this situation out, was the Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC was created by FDR during the Great Depression, it gave work to millions of unemployed men in creating infrastructure, conservation and forestry. The government is basically a giant pool of money in this sense that it can fund large scale projects like this. Millions of people got real work (they weren’t just digging holes and then filling them back up again), conservation of the environment was progressed literally and in the understanding of the public, and the workers gained valuable marketable skills that were later used in the economy at large after the program ended. Much of the infrastructure that was build by CCC still exists today and is used every day, easy example is state and national parks. I’ve heard interviews with old guys today who were in CCC, they were saying that it was a great experience for them, they learned real skills and got paid so could support their families back home.
I want to see more stuff like this today. The dogma of those like Trump and the modern-day GOP/tea party movement is that such projects are inherently bad, wasteful, economically disastrous, yet in the case of the CCC it was a huge success. If I detest any idea thoroughly it is this idea that government is inherently evil; yes government can be evil, but so can private citizens and corporations, and none of these entities need be evil but may be given certain circumstances, yet may also be good as well. The extreme anti-government idea today in modern Right politics is pure ideology, it is another radically hyperbolic claim among so many others and Trump is just dumb enough to say it all out loud without a filter, so we can get a nice glimpse inside this particular brand of pathological thinking. Just because I reject the idea that government is inherently bad or evil doesn’t make me a totalitarian or a fascist, nor does it make me an apologist for the actual evils of governments.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:21 pm
In my system, the core of negation is driving the dialectic (in Hegel it is driving physical reality, it owes itself to the imperfection of matter itself) to constantly reify conceptual tension in higher terms, from stasis and motion to energy and entelechy and onward. Because the dialectic for me lacks the affirmative core that it has in Hegel, it cannot stabilize the relation and arrive at a synthesis. Without a synthesis, the dialectic cannot generate new concepts, it can only reify the original tension in higher series of abstractions. But if the dialectic reproduces for itself its own negative core, an episteme is generated: so far two have been generated, the ontic with the Hellenes after grappling with Asian and Egyptian concepts, then the immanent by the Jews working off the Greeks, with the transcendent appearing in Christianity but not yet accessed. When the episteme is generated, the dialectic is annulled and the original intimation of Being which Heidegger longed for is grasped, shining through our historical, dialectic distortion, if only as a fragment: the circle of history is drawn back and re-initiated and a new subjectivity emerges along with a new karmic aeon or order of the world, again, so far two have been completed, the Greeks and Jews, with the ontic and immanent episteme. The transcendent episteme will bring us back to the full witness of Being: which, as opposed to Hegel, has no imperfection- the original insight witnessed by the Doric tribes was a perfect seizure of transcendence into the world and turned them into the first philosophers, they willed Greece into existence on its foundation, which we have lost to the distortion of the historical dialectic, which only appeared because the original Greeks let themselves be infected with foreign systems of thought- imperfect systems, which introduced negation to what was a purely affirmative mode of thinking.
Europe with its aristocracies and tyrants and monarchies and now the EU… The US was founded on the first temple dedicated to the people; from our founding documents there was outlined the system of government through which a new order of the world would be established, a self-administered polis, the first truly free populace, free of political elites and centralization and ideology- the first populace free to think for themselves and generate true values; that’s our culture, not fucking coca cola. Coca cola is what we were left with after our globalist leaders betrayed us and sucked up all our power. But in this new continent, the dialectic which has diffused the European soul can still be broken through, and the episteme generated for a new age. But the tools needed for that transformation of the soul of the masses, Christianity, have been damaged, through liberal progressivism, and our politics manipulated by Europe, through its globalist reach from out of the Reich’s failures- the fucking krauts set up the basis of the EU when they seen they were falling. But Europe’s failure is already assured, America can still rise, and claim the destiny that has been denied to it by the scheming world powers, its destiny of novus ordo saeclorum, to inherit the soul of the West and become the central cultural beacon in the world, with Europe declining into an afterthought, a refuse, an atavism, a failure, a ghost, as merely ceremonial as its monarchs are.
And in this new order of the world, once the transcendent episteme is realized, man will return to what the Doric tribes witnessed, and the last age will resemble the first. Spontaneously there emerged in the ranks of the proto-Socratics fully formed philosophies, and a similar cultural explosion will take place- in America, not Europe. Europe renounced and gave up its future.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:26 pm
As to what my values are? Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to god. The US was based on a self-governing populace. The kind of EU style top down centralized government- indeed, that is always evil.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:42 pm
The centralized federal government points a gun in my fucking face and tells me to do shit. That it sometimes does good and that private self-administered powers can sometimes do bad is meaningless. The self-administered government springs from the will of people; the centralized, from the few- it’s involuntary, it’s tyrannical. I’m opposed to top down government centralization, not bottom up government from the will of the people.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:44 pm
I think the one thing I don’t see yet is how the core of being is affirmation. Nietzsche definitely thought this, I used to think it too, but I don’t see it that way anymore. Pure affirmation in itself would be meaningless, an endless circle collapsing to nothingness without a constant input of contents to keep that circle going. I think the self and being as such is indeed affirmation, but not “at bottom”-- at bottom this affirmation is a logical structure of self-reference that requires constant input from the outside in order to maintain itself coherently, in order not to collapse into non-existence (madness in the human sense). Could the ideal ever fully assume the entirety of its contents into itself without remainder? That seems the only possibility for pure affirmation, yet that project would only come at the end of being and never could be the case at its beginning, for the simple reason that once the self-affirming logic obtains it begins eating its experiences in order to convert affirmation into ‘real substance’ and if it did not do this then it would simply sit there, not doing anything.
How exactly do you see the core of being as pure affirmation in itself? The way I see it is that affirmation arises as a consequence of the relations among contents, a kind of “storm” in being."