David wrote:What's wrong with allowing people to make their own choices and mistakes? What does it matter to you how they choose to live?
Again, I find it amazing
that you are asking such bad questions.
Santiago Odo wrote:Your spirited defence of 'personal freedom', as I see it, reveals that you fail to grasp that 'personal freedom' is a sort of code for licence. And it is this licence that is, essentially, at the root of hyperliberalism. It does not lead to freedom and responsibility, but rather to enslavement to appetite and, then, to mass-forces which can hook that appetite.
Our life here, and the 'life' that allowed for the rigorousness of the thought of, say, Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, and by this I mean the achievements
of life, comes as a result of self-discipline. But more than that it comes about because of the taking into oneself of a sense --- I mean this like revelation --- of relationship with higher value. The primary, shall we say 'spiritual', revelation, is that man is free when he chooses that which limits, channels, and often thwarts his own personal will. But seen another way it is only the 'spiritual man' (this is an absolute rule I would suggest but I do not means this in the sense of tied to any particular tradition, though everything that we are, have, do and think does come out of one or another) who gains the perspective of far-reaching sight, and who then, in a relationship of reciprocity, channels his revelation back down into his own 'flesh', the flesh of the world, his culture, his milieu, his world.
I would suggest that, on one side of the pole, a man restricts himself, chooses limitation, consciously decides to understand and therefor to see that choices and actions have consequences, and teaches this to those around him, or insists on it through the creation of jurisprudential systems, regulations, et cetera, and accepts all this as part of his duty ...
...or he choses to expend his consciousness in licence; to give himself over to pleasure, to avoid discipline, et cetera. Surely no part of this needs to be further explained.
So the issue is not so much to stand in the way of someone lunging forward in concupiscence, or as they are enticed, captured and then driven by it (sexual desire is a huge motivator, maybe the largest one, in our present)(I think), the question has to do with how this has come about, and what motors and engines stand behind it, what its effects are, etc.
This is where I really do not get you David, not at all. The path that your admired sages followed, or many of them, is precisely one that is conservative, self-restrictive, spiritual and also a response to a revelation (an inner revelation, a recognition of truth and a desire to live in accord with it). There is a whole faction of men, and I suppose some women included there, who embody these characteristics, and these characteristics are quite opposed to the hyperliberalism of our present. And as I mentioned there are political theorists in Europe, now, who are writing on these themes and who recommend a cultural rediscovery of the conservative base and the traditions.
It matter very much how other people live. It matters very much what choices I make, whether what I do is unseen by others or whether it is displayed. This seems such basic, elementary stuff David.
In the West we defined our relationship to Being mostly in the Medieval period (Aquinas, Augustine, et cetera). The Medieval psychology, that is, the definition of the soul within the world of motion and matter (the mutable), is a foundational psychology that is still *operative* and functional. It is a highly reasoned and profoundly intellectual system of definitions of those men who sat down and reasoned things through. What we are as persons, that is as spirits moulded by culture, has come about directly through the restrictions imposed by the systems laid down. Paideia, the schools, the church, the monastery, but also the municipality, the jurisprudential systems, and then the local laws and rules as well.
I suggest that we are in a grand process of *falling away* as the structures around us have begun to dissolve or have dissolved. This is a basic perception that is understood and shared by many. It is simple historical fact yet, I have discovered, few employ it as an understanding or as a visualisation around which to construct a quotidian philosophy. The excesses of our present, and every one that you and Dan and Kevin reacted against in former times, come about when people give in to licence, in one form or another, in one way or another.
The whole purpose of spiritual life, and intellectual-spiritual life, and moral and ethical life certainly, is to recover the primal connection and then to work out, one by one, the rules by which we shall live. The whole purpose of a reform movement --- and this is what GF is, in essence (or was) --- is to offer to people a sense of what is possible, and then to articulate what is to be gained by reforming.
As I have often said, the problem is not that the rigor of the plan is wrong or *off*, but rather that you-plural are less the ones to carry forward the meaning and the sense of the thing that you desired to put in motion. I once said to Mother Spider that I would 'rewrite Genius Forum'. It has to be done. Let me say this: GF has been highly relevant to me because 1) it displayed an intensity of focus and defined what is at the base of it (masculine spirit, properly understood) and 2) because I quickly noticed that you-plural were not up to the task!
The question is how to become equal to the task that you yourselves have outlined. Right now, in these pages, you are largely displaying and for all to see just how far away from understanding you are. Remember: to engage in these processes you have to be willing to 'get bloody'.
Commander Solway, if you hear me! I declare my allegiance to Thy Projects and will serve in the Breitbart and GamerGate Battles! Direct me as my Wise Mind appears and raises the sword in Sacred Fury! Beat those pussies down!!! May the Masculine and Holy Spirit break through the gooey shell that encases David and Dan! I ask this in the name of the Absolute Non-Never-Existing Nothing, Amen.