Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:59 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Yet in the coming war...
Which is exactly the type of post-Christian, post-evangelical hysterical dystopian prose I think you should be distrusting.
On the contrary, it is important that we become fully aware that there is a yearning for war brewing in the minds of many people. There is no point in suppressing this reality. We won't be able to deal with the matter properly if we suppress it.

In Europe in the 1930s, so many people tried to pretend that the rise of fascism wasn't happening, that Hitler and Mussolini weren't dangerous, that life would continue on as normal, etc. And so the whole dark movement was able to gather steam without any real hindrances.

Wisdom does not go around trying to fix the world or voice fear of broken things as he'd be digging his own philosophical grave with every attempted repair or prophecy. What the wise can do, is promoting reason, identifying passions when they're blocking reason, provoking questioning and promoting doubt. And that modest goal is already immense in its encompassing scope.
I'm not sure why you are wanting to put limits on what a wise person would do.

If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it because such a scenario doesn't fit within the neat confines of "promoting reason, identifying passions when they're blocking reason, provoking questioning and promoting doubt"?

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:26 am

David Quinn wrote:Can you give an example?
If you mean an example of why I think it was a pedestrian use of logic I would answer that in Kevin's responses, always short and terse and quite limited, he only defended himself against what I have understood to be your 'false accusations'. I don't know if you want to rehash it all.

If on the other hand you ask me to provide an example of why it is that I opine, without certainty, that you are assuming that your enlightened view, that is, as an enlightened person (you either are or you are not), which is a claim that you definitely make, that you suppose your enlightened stance has enabled you, and does enable you, to *see* things and events with some special clarity, which is to say a clarity that results from your enlightenment, I think this can be done. It is part of the written record here.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:48 am

David Quinn wrote:On the contrary, it is important that we become fully aware that there is a yearning for war brewing in the minds of many people. There is no point in suppressing this reality. We won't be able to deal with the matter properly if we suppress it.
It's not me who is suppressing the yearning for war of all ages, displayed in all history books for the last centuries and beyond. Referring to just another possible new one is just a bit of well, mundane view.

Perhaps living in Australia can make a man dull and disconnected form world history as such? Just in my own town I can walk through the witnesses and remains of many wars directly fought here, ranging from centuries of bloody wars with Spain, France, England, of course the carnage of WW2, the mess in Indonesia and meet the veterans of the various limited campaigns in Yugoslavia Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would not even mention the many more wars over the border in France and Germany which always effect everything. Indeed, the continent of Europa always had war and our current peace is just a deceiving blip on the screen as wars are still thought by everyone, all cleverly located and "controlled" at a safer distance. Although that's failing as well: the violence and carnage comes back to haunt us here: real karma.
In Europe in the 1930s, so many people tried to pretend that the rise of fascism wasn't happening, that Hitler and Mussolini weren't dangerous, that life would continue on as normal, etc.
I think that was initially my point but you claimed my view was "too dark" etc. You're refusing to see how dark certain things might be just because the banality of evil has perhaps this time another face? It's not doom I preach here though, I just don't see much difference historically and also look at things more using your own analogy, that of rescuing people from a burning house. It doesn't matter how bad the TV show is they're watching inside the house or the structural quality of the flaming building. The focus is always on a whole different type of emergency.
Wisdom does not go around trying to fix the world or voice fear of broken things as he'd be digging his own philosophical grave with every attempted repair or prophecy. What the wise can do, is promoting reason, identifying passions when they're blocking reason, provoking questioning and promoting doubt. And that modest goal is already immense in its encompassing scope.
I'm not sure why you are wanting to put limits on what a wise person would do.
Feel free to go around trying to fix or warn the world for impending doom. There's little reason in that and I can explain.
If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it because such a scenario doesn't fit within the neat confines of "promoting reason, identifying passions when they're blocking reason, provoking questioning and promoting doubt"?
But such instances have nothing to do with sagehood. Even the most feminine minded mother type will rush to save the child. Even animals would rush in. And that's exactly my point, this thread proves you're overruled by some odd emotion, some badly defined obsession with the spectacle of US politics which make you jump through all kinds of oddly shaped hoops to still justify your rather thoughtless looking input on this particular matter.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:53 am

David Quinn wrote:In Europe in the 1930s, so many people tried to pretend that the rise of fascism wasn't happening, that Hitler and Mussolini weren't dangerous, that life would continue on as normal, etc. And so the whole dark movement was able to gather steam without any real hindrances.
I personally think it is a very good idea to devote energy --- enlightened or only normal and average energy --- to the question of what exactly is developing in our present. We already know that the US is very capable of starting wars, and has started wars, and thus we can know with a high degree of certainty that there are people and factions interested in war. So, I have no argument against your concerns in this regard (nor any of your voiced concerns about Trump et cetera).

I do however have various questions about the statement, quoted above. I am no historical expert but one thing I have generally concluded, always with reservations, and that is that the two WWs were events of complicity. That is, everyone participated in them. They were co-created. And there is an important statement that must be made, in my view, which will enable a proper perspective-footing to be established. Germany was vilified and by that I mean turned into the enemy. I do not mean to excuse brazen militarism nor any of it. But I have come to understand that when Germany began to become too powerful it was transformed into an enemy. And when one does this one tends to *project* villainy and thus to place it outside of oneself.

Additionally, the term 'fascism' is too simplistic for a genuinely complex phenomenon. To use this term in this blanket way will eventuate in bad understandings. At the base of so-called fascism there are to be found various forms of hard social conservatism. And this social conservatism arose as a response mechanism to rapidly expanding Marxism and Communism. When confronted with that --- and I mean as a *contagion* --- people will tend to grab hold of their social conservative ideas, beliefs, practices, etc. So, fascism is indeed a real thing, this I do not deny. But it has a close relative which is social conservatism. And this conservatism, in my own view, has many sound and necessary features.

What is rising in our present, and I encourage you to do the reading and not to fall into stereotyped view (as you seem to again and again) is a 'genuine social conservatism' that is described, and is branded, as 'fascism'.

The 'dark movement' is, of course, your description of things which you see going on, or which you imagine. One must take into account that these views are pre-fabricated and pre-digested for consumption. In my view of your understanding of things I see you as slipping into this error. I will not say, and I do not mean, that there are no dangers present. But what I will suggest is that there is as much of a 'fascistic' danger in the present power structure, and by this I mean the existing established power-structure, and that it stands as a possibility that if anything at all morphs into deep control projects it may be the existing 'NSA structure' with the existing networks. This does throw a bit of a wrench into your view, that is if I have understood it correctly.

Therefor, I stress again, that what I have come to understand of the rising Rightist movements, and let me begin by noting that it is a philosophical right, is attempting to philosophise and alternative to the insidious present which no one refers to as 'fascistic'. If you were ever to read Alain de Benoit or Guillaume Faye and Pierre Krebs (among a wide group of theorists) you would clearly see that these people are seeking an alternative to the madness of the present (if I may put it so dramatically).

Therefor, I say that their views have more in common with a conservative GF philosophical view, and it is indeed this, and so more in common with what I understand of Kevin's philosophical position than the position that you have articulated. So, I se Kevin as only defending certain modes of view, and resisting certain excesses of the hyper-liberal mind-set which is summed up, too generally, as the SJW hysteria.

Again I am overall baffled that you articulate the position that you do (if I have read it correctly).

For example, you fall into the view --- potentially false! --- that Russia is some sort of demonic adversary. I am not at all convinced that this is the case. I think it must be clearly seen that, in fact, the great danger if it comes, and as it seems to be coming, is from the rumblings of US militarism. I do not see an alternative to that view. If there is one please provide it.

I mentioned the Wotan essay because we are dealing, it would appear, with hysterical contagion. What I mean is that it seems to be afoot. The question is Who will become infected by it and begin to act it out, and Who will remain immune? And what is 'immunity'?

(It is a very interesting essay, perhaps I will provide a PDF version that can be read.)

I have this already formatted. It is just one page but of an interesting Jung quote:

Image

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:09 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Yet enlightenment is spoken of as a positive thing, a desired realization. One seeks it for some reason, or to put it another way one desires to stop doing something with or to the 'self' in order to gain something. Freedom? Well-being? I do understand --- in the sense that I can feel it --- the realization of someone like Ramana Maharshi. But here, realization or enlightenment is not ever spoke of in those terms.
A man gotta do what a man gotta do. Certainly the examples given on the forum of sages and thinkers do not reveal that much outer freedom or well-being on display. Intensity, for sure. Dedication, passion and counter current. And the desire to boil it all down to essence, to strength, to powerful statements wherever possible?
So, whether one is sage or just some normal person attempting to make his way through life all that one really has are local, small, immediate choices within small and immediate circumstances.
It's just that the uncertainties, the randomness and the influence of ones habitual thought patterns will, at some point, start to outweigh all "raw" clarity (right view) any one could ever deploy. It doesn't mean not to try, not to take a stab a it. It's the foolish daring, the explorer spirit which has saving, redeeming qualities after all. Go, be that holy fool but don't ever think like a priest, like a theologian, who has it all pegged out in his system, one which will beat the roulette certainly this time around!

Now the challenge is to make this all more logically accessible as a solid, truthful reasoning. Hey I might see a task for you!

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:18 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Again I am overall baffled that you articulate the position that you do (if I have read it correctly).
Individual freedoms.

Santiago Odo wrote:For example, you fall into the view --- potentially false! --- that Russia is some sort of demonic adversary. I am not at all convinced that this is the case.
Their treatment of dissidents.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:24 am

Dissidents, journalists, political opponents, diplomats who've outlived their use etc. Does anyone know how Putin and his faithful side-kick Medvedev became so filthy rich on a lousy bureaucrat's salary - the grand generosity of Russian oligarchs?

The possible answer (you'll need to turn on the subtitles) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwlk7_GF9g

That's one brave dude.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:36 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it because such a scenario doesn't fit within the neat confines of "promoting reason, identifying passions when they're blocking reason, provoking questioning and promoting doubt"?
But such instances have nothing to do with sagehood. Even the most feminine minded mother type will rush to save the child. Even animals would rush in. And that's exactly my point, this thread proves you're overruled by some odd emotion, some badly defined obsession with the spectacle of US politics which make you jump through all kinds of oddly shaped hoops to still justify your rather thoughtless looking input on this particular matter.
All people eat food.

Even mothers eat food.

Even animals eat food.

Therefore sages who eat food are oddly emotional.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:40 am

As to dissidents, oligarchs, etc.

All that may be true, it likely is. It does not make Russia the enemy. It does not warrant provoking a situation that leads to the threat of war and confrontation.

I would be far more worried about the US establishment and the proven dangers it represents when it creates and builds up an *enemy* and then attacks it. The human consequences, if that is one's measure, has been far more extreme.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:03 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:I would be far more worried about the US establishment and the proven dangers it represents when it creates and builds up an *enemy* and then attacks it. The human consequences, if that is one's measure, has been far more extreme.
Agreed. That's why I speak against the growing Trumpian war against both the liberal establishment and the Islamic religion.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:03 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:A man gotta do what a man gotta do. Certainly the examples given on the forum of sages and thinkers do not reveal that much outer freedom or well-being on display. Intensity, for sure. Dedication, passion and counter current. And the desire to boil it all down to essence, to strength, to powerful statements wherever possible?
Well, what I think is that if this is your definition of enlightenment, I venture to say that it is 100% personal, quite peculiar to your own self, and it also seems to have little connection with the term 'enlightenment' as it is used universally. Yet I do not have many issues with your definition. I venture to say --- please correct me anyone --- that your definition is quite different from that of John (Seeker), very different from that of Pam, and just as distinct from that of Dan and, good heavens, a radically different posture than that of David.

If yours is the definition of 'enlightenment', you have defined it out of existence.
It's just that the uncertainties, the randomness and the influence of ones habitual thought patterns will, at some point, start to outweigh all "raw" clarity (right view) any one could ever deploy. It doesn't mean not to try, not to take a stab a it. It's the foolish daring, the explorer spirit which has saving, redeeming qualities after all. Go, be that holy fool but don't ever think like a priest, like a theologian, who has it all pegged out in his system, one which will beat the roulette certainly this time around!

Now the challenge is to make this all more logically accessible as a solid, truthful reasoning. Hey I might see a task for you!
Myself, I do not have some innate faith in 'raw' clarity. I am not at all sure if I or anyone should place much faith in such a quality. I do not see how anyone could send up a definition of 'right view' as if it is some state of mind or the result of some inner shift that puts one in 'right view'.

Frankly I read your paragraph and it has a strong romantic current running through it.

While I can understand your point about theology and theologians --- that is if I am moved by your prose to do so --- I am not at all convinced that there is not a great deal to be gained from concretizing theologies. But what I mean by that term is a solid translation from the abstract to the practical; from revelation of value (or importance) to establishing the rules and regulations that people live by, and in fact which live and operate in us --- fairly rigidly --- as a shared sense of ethics.

The ethics that we have and which seem to dominate us did not come to us by way of 'holy fools'.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:20 pm

David wrote:Agreed. That's why I speak against the growing Trumpian war against both the liberal establishment and the Islamic religion.
Right, but that is why I do suggest separating out the man Donald Trump, the most inappropriate man ever to gain the presidential office --- and the Trump phenomenon. They are different things. I suggest that if one understands that difference, one gains an insight that is helpful.

The US has provoked and instigated conflicts in the Middle East. It seems that this is a modus operandi that has served its purposes.

I would again make the suggestion of looking into the philosophical positions of those who comprise the Nouvelle Droite (a term for the European New Right). What you would find is a srenuous opposition to US meddling. Pierre Krebs in anit-American in this sense and defines a coherant position that is eurocentric if also perhaps eurotraditionalist. Guillaume Faye describes America as an 'adversary' of Europe (he avoids the term 'enemy' quite carefully) for the reason you mention and numerous others.

Again the Nouvelle Droite is attempting to develop defensive postures for purposes of self-empowerment and self-defense.

It is not merely or solely Trump who has issues with the 'liberal establishment' David. There are entire schools of thought which have issues with it! And some of them are working in the direction of articulating a position that is constructed on a socially conservative, and not a specifically liberal, foundation. That is the essential difference.

What I find interesting is the revelation of what seem to be your 'true colors'. You are not really a conservative, or would you correct me in this? Yet the doctrine, the internal base, the valued philosophy, can in no sense of the word be described as 'liberal' nor as a result of European liberal traditions. In fact, yours is a sort of 'self-fascism': a radical taking oneself in hand. Or so I thought!

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:30 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:
David wrote:Agreed. That's why I speak against the growing Trumpian war against both the liberal establishment and the Islamic religion.
Right, but that is why I do suggest separating out the man Donald Trump, the most inappropriate man ever to gain the presidential office --- and the Trump phenomenon. They are different things. I suggest that if one understands that difference, one gains an insight that is helpful.
I realize that. That's why I used the term "Trumpian", referring to the movement which has built up around Trump.

Like his business practices over the past 10 or 15 years, Trump the PR man has merely stuck his brand name on a political movement that has been building up long before he came on the scene.

Santiago Odo wrote:What I find interesting is the revelation of what seem to be your 'true colors'. You are not really a conservative, or would you correct me in this? Yet the doctrine, the internal base, the valued philosophy, can in no sense of the word be described as 'liberal' nor as a result of European liberal traditions. In fact, yours is a sort of 'self-fascism': a radical taking oneself in hand. Or so I thought!
It depends on what is being conserved. If we are talking about the wise thoughts and values of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and company, then yes, I am a true-blue conservative.

But you're right in saying that this type of conservatism doesn't really align with either the liberal establishment or the right-wing conservative base. It is too forward-looking for both of them. It is slightly closer to the liberal establishment in as much as the liberal establishment tends to put more value on things like spirituality, knowledge, rationality, science, freedom of expression, individual rights, rejection of the herd, etc.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:38 pm

David Quinn wrote:If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it?
Diebert wrote:Even the most feminine minded mother type will rush to save the child.
David Quinn wrote:All people eat food. Even mothers eat food. Even animals eat food. Therefore sages who eat food are oddly emotional.
David, the point was that there's nothing particular wise or reasoned out about the intervention you were suggesting. Like there's nothing particular wise about this thread you have started. And now you have to stick with it I suppose.

It's all too mundane. Again back to my original criticism: your overall stand in this thread is boring, void of spirit, lacking in deeper perspectives, missing quality analysis, even Alex is providing more thought and your best parts so far are just copied from liberal media outlets. Yes Trump is very boorish, some of his policies and employees outright dangerous in a dangerous world, not unlike many former governments heading the empire, but the critique is still very feverish and gossipy, especially when it was so easily dismantled by Kevin. Yes, all oddly emotional for a supposed cool mind. Which would be interesting to identify a bit further.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:47 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:I venture to say --- please correct me anyone --- that your definition is quite different from that of John (Seeker), very different from that of Pam, and just as distinct from that of Dan and, good heavens, a radically different posture than that of David.
I didn't provide my definition but compared yours (eg Maharshi) to some of the listed sages for example in the forum introduction.
Frankly I read your paragraph and it has a strong romantic current running through it.
Again, I was mostly criticizing something, hardly advocating anything.
I am not at all convinced that there is not a great deal to be gained from concretizing theologies. But what I mean by that term is a solid translation from the abstract to the practical; from revelation of value (or importance) to establishing the rules and regulations that people live by, and in fact which live and operate in us --- fairly rigidly --- as a shared sense of ethics.
That's because your access to philosophy seems only possible through theology, ideology and divine orders. That's when it becomes meaningful to you. It's not criticism, or not meant as. It's my understanding of your project
The ethics that we have and which seem to dominate us did not come to us by way of 'holy fools'.
You don't know enough, have not shown enough, to make such claims about any origination.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:09 pm

Diebert, I have a query: how do you actually envisage a truly wise person engaging with the world? How do you imagine them functioning on a daily basis? Do you see them as an entirely detached observer? Can you imagine, for example, a wise person defending themselves physically against an attack?

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:17 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it?
David, the point was that there's nothing particular wise or reasoned out about the intervention you were suggesting.
There is nothing wise about taking a loaded gun from a toddler?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Again back to my original criticism: your overall stand in this thread is boring, void of spirit, lacking in deeper perspectives, missing quality analysis, even Alex is providing more thought and your best parts so far are just copied from liberal media outlets.
I didn't realize it was my job to entertain you, Diebert.

There is a disease called many-sidedness and its main symptom is that nothing excites anymore. The centre inside has been hollowed out. One has to reach further and further into the avant-garde in order to spark a bit of life. Once that avenue is gone, the urge to see everything come crashing down is all that remains.

I am happy with everything I have said on this thread. It has all come from the heart.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Yes Trump is very boorish, some of his policies and employees outright dangerous in a dangerous world, not unlike many former governments heading the empire, but the critique is still very feverish and gossipy, especially when it was so easily dismantled by Kevin.
Forgive me, but that is laughable.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 04, 2017 6:36 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it?
Diebert wrote:Even the most feminine minded mother type will rush to save the child.
David Quinn wrote:All people eat food. Even mothers eat food. Even animals eat food. Therefore sages who eat food are oddly emotional.
David, the point was that there's nothing particular wise or reasoned out about the intervention you were suggesting. Like there's nothing particular wise about this thread you have started. And now you have to stick with it I suppose.

It's all too mundane. Again back to my original criticism: your overall stand in this thread is boring, void of spirit, lacking in deeper perspectives, missing quality analysis, even Alex is providing more thought and your best parts so far are just copied from liberal media outlets. Yes Trump is very boorish, some of his policies and employees outright dangerous in a dangerous world, not unlike many former governments heading the empire, but the critique is still very feverish and gossipy, especially when it was so easily dismantled by Kevin. Yes, all oddly emotional for a supposed cool mind. Which would be interesting to identify a bit further.
And Kevin's now long engagement with Gamergate and crusade against SJWs whom he has described as 'literally' the worst thing attracts no observation from you, Diebert? Really, none?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:21 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:As to dissidents, oligarchs, etc.

All that may be true, it likely is. It does not make Russia the enemy. It does not warrant provoking a situation that leads to the threat of war and confrontation.

I would be far more worried about the US establishment and the proven dangers it represents when it creates and builds up an *enemy* and then attacks it. The human consequences, if that is one's measure, has been far more extreme.
No-one is talking about war and confrontation other than predicting it as a natural consequence of this regime. Of course such things are to avoided, but how do you respond to an overt attempt by one major world power to subvert the democratic process of another major power? Ignore it? And the truth is that dynamic isn't even the real issue. I would hope that I need not state what that real issue is.

I have to say that this continued effort to not merely normalise Trump and his regime but to draw bizarre equivalencies are quite disturbing to me. It's entirely fine if you don't see this as negatively as I do. That is quite reasonable. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is an outright denial of facts, and more than that, an effort to normalise and trivialise the unprecedented. That is not rational.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:25 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Diebert, I have a query: how do you actually envisage a truly wise person engaging with the world? How do you imagine them functioning on a daily basis? Do you see them as an entirely detached observer? Can you imagine, for example, a wise person defending themselves physically against an attack?
Hi Dan, I'd see that topic as something completely contextual. Although I'm not sure what an 'entirely detached observer' would look like. That sounds like a camera of some kind. But behaving like a person does not equal the expression of wisdom.

Whether or not a wise person defends himself against an attack, or even would take preemptive action to avoid a certain escalation, that would entirely depend. Still, it's uncertain if wisdom would be even part of the whole determination, during the suggested attack scenario. Instinct, common sense, training, all these elements are there. But how to assert any of those as particular wise or deluded in some general, universal sense? Are you implying you have done such thing?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:50 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:If a sage spies a toddler playing with a loaded gun, does he ignore it?
David, the point was that there's nothing particular wise or reasoned out about the intervention you were suggesting.
There is nothing wise about taking a loaded gun from a toddler?
Nothing particularly or inherently. But perhaps we're making too much out of this. Eating or distributing poison doesn't make sense but I'd not call someone who avoids poison and keeps himself or others alive that way a sage. The reason for this is to prevent arriving at some notion that the act of regular breathing would be pure genius! And completely deluded people (in philosophical sense) still protect toddlers and try to eat healthy, so no, I don't think there's enough relation to wisdom to mention these things in particular, in other words singling them out as example of something especially wise.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Again back to my original criticism: your overall stand in this thread is boring, void of spirit, lacking in deeper perspectives, missing quality analysis, even Alex is providing more thought and your best parts so far are just copied from liberal media outlets.
I didn't realize it was my job to entertain you, Diebert.
It's your "job" to have spirit and the function of this forum to cultivate it. What else would you have in mind?
There is a disease called many-sidedness and its main symptom is that nothing excites anymore. The centre inside has been hollowed out. One has to reach further and further into the avant-garde in order to spark a bit of life. Once that avenue is gone, the urge to see everything come crashing down is all that remains.
That''s not in the DSM V, right :-? But what you're saying has been actually quite in depth talked about by various post-modern and as well some traditionalist authors when analyzing the issues with modern culture. I'm familiar with the idea but I'm not sure if you realize in which ways that urge can manifest and its various forms inside certain liberal and globalist ideas.
I am happy with everything I have said on this thread. It has all come from the heart.
Heart and mind are no different things, not to the wise.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:59 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:And Kevin's now long engagement with Gamergate and crusade against SJWs whom he has described as 'literally' the worst thing attracts no observation from you, Diebert? Really, none?
Okay, fair question. But first of all, people have been asking for more detail on this at the start of the thread but there was a seeming unwillingness to provide it. For that reason I started to use the word "gossipy". Because that's how it all came across. It was not my intention to insult or challenge without cause. To make judgements one needs to have a full context!

That said, over the last years I'm slowly realizing the SJW development might be not just another symptom. And so I think I can understand Kevin's project. One could debate if it's worthy of a crusade or counter movement. But it's reasonable to have that debate. It might be indeed a human scale, interpersonal realm where "Genius" types of philosophy could really make a difference in creating sufficient contrast, exposing a false type of mind in action. While warning for Trump nuking reason itself, well, less so.

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:17 pm

David Quinn wrote:I realize that. That's why I used the term "Trumpian", referring to the movement which has built up around Trump.
Right, and here is nearly exactly where a definite mistake is made. Based in what you write, and what I see written here, you do not seem to have much understanding of the developing European Right. And it is this Right that is now giving impetous to certain factions within a developing American right. And it is true that this developing American Right has, with many qualifications, favorored Trump, it is just as true that in most cases they see him for what he is and distrust him.

The European New Right arose as a reaction to the French student protests of the 1960s and in this sense the philosophical underpinnings of it are similar to the conservative reaction (which includes aspects of fascism) of the 'interwar period'. The American Alt-Right, when one traces back its origins, derives from the European New Right and is in this sense anti-Marxist and, in numerous senses, anti-hyperliberal. To understand the term hyperliberal one would have to understand how Marxian ideas, and praxis, have become intermixed into modern postwar Liberlism such that Liberalism has morphed substantially.

Your spirited defense 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.

A radical conservatism, and you give evidence of having little foundational relationship to this, could not ever (in my opinion) say the silly things that you say and keep saying. Every single declaration that you have made based out of this strange and unexamined notion of 'personal freedom' takes you further and further away from any grounding that I would describe as necessary. General licence, sexual 'freedom', 'personal freedom' (the will to choose what does not result in freedom but rather the debasement of it), support of the rising homosexual sales pitch, and also support of 'individual freedom' as it pertains to feminist and femo-marxian ideas, are all outcomes which must be challenged, not condoned, and therefor this strange apologetics you have launched into, to my ears, clangs.

(This has been a bizarre couple of weeks. Second only to that painful week I learned that Jerry Lewis was a devotee of Da Free John!)

In fact, it is not a movement that has built up around Trump but rather that Trump appeared on an existing scene. What I find very strange about every element of every contribution of yours in this thread is how easily, and how fully, your view of things conforms to the established view. And that you seem to be aligning your understanding of enlightenment, and even your favorite sages of it, with this liberal and hyper-liberal deformation.

I do not think it is at all a good idea to present the Chinese sages, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the same run-on sentence. Really. If you see them somehow as equal, or even as necessarily having the same message, or even 'energy', I think you could be challenged. Yet this is often how you see things: in grand generalisms.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:33 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote: There is nothing wise about taking a loaded gun from a toddler?
Nothing particularly or inherently. But perhaps we're making too much out of this. Eating or distributing poison doesn't make sense but I'd not call someone who avoids poison and keeps himself or others alive that way a sage. The reason for this is to prevent arriving at some notion that the act of regular breathing would be pure genius! And completely deluded people (in philosophical sense) still protect toddlers and try to eat healthy, so no, I don't think there's enough relation to wisdom to mention these things in particular, in other words singling them out as example of something especially wise.
A wise action doesn't always have to be an astonishing act of genius. A Buddha isn't obliged to spiritually or intellectually dazzle others with his every move. He simply does what is called for in each situation - sometimes that might be a remarkable action, at other times it might be mundane.

In the case of a toddler playing with a loaded gun, the wisest action is to quickly remove the gun with the minimum of fuss. A less wise action would involve ego, which could add an extra layer of complication and potentially endanger the lives of those nearby.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:There is a disease called many-sidedness and its main symptom is that nothing excites anymore. The centre inside has been hollowed out. One has to reach further and further into the avant-garde in order to spark a bit of life. Once that avenue is gone, the urge to see everything come crashing down is all that remains.
That''s not in the DSM V, right :-? But what you're saying has been actually quite in depth talked about by various post-modern and as well some traditionalist authors when analyzing the issues with modern culture. I'm familiar with the idea but I'm not sure if you realize in which ways that urge can manifest and its various forms inside certain liberal and globalist ideas.
Ha! I must admit this gave me a bit of a laugh. :)

User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:48 pm

Diebert wrote:A man gotta do what a man gotta do. Certainly the examples given on the forum of sages and thinkers do not reveal that much outer freedom or well-being on display. Intensity, for sure. Dedication, passion and counter current. And the desire to boil it all down to essence, to strength, to powerful statements wherever possible?
Santiago wrote:Well, what I think is that if this is your definition of enlightenment, I venture to say that it is 100% personal, quite peculiar to your own self, and it also seems to have little connection with the term 'enlightenment' as it is used universally. Yet I do not have many issues with your definition. I venture to say --- please correct me anyone --- that your definition is quite different from that of John (Seeker), very different from that of Pam, and just as distinct from that of Dan and, good heavens, a radically different posture than that of David.

If yours is the definition of 'enlightenment', you have defined it out of existence.
I think you have, and very much, if perhaps inadvertently, revealed quite clearly where you place the axis and center of gravity. In essence, this is an encapsulation of your understanding of 'enlightenment'. It is, of course, the direct result and the product of your philosophical project and it largely explains why you are here, why the webs that have been spun here attract you, and how it has come about that you have made for yourself such a solid home for your philosophy-spinning self. Sorry to play on the arachnoid theme but it is oddly fitting I think. The philosophical mother, the unending web of philosophical spinning, but a spinning that at some point turns strictly on itself, though the woven web is extraordinary, dazzling, alluring.

Factually, there is no point in any of your writing where I can say that I recognize a man who has arrived at a solution for himself. But I notice, constantly, a man who goes on spinning & spinning. Now, this does not bother me per se. Except that you, Diebert, 'occur' within this particular GF web. You come forward, is it were, in a context and you also 'explain' that context to a significant degree. Or perhaps you don't? How can one assess this?

Yes, it is certainly true that, essentially, I am more interested in the overarching, the complete, the unified and the unifying religious vision which is created by man in man's imagination. But these terms, which imply 'unreality' (imagination is not understood to be 'real'), have to be plumbed. Just as I said a while back --- before the 'techincal difficulties' which resulted in my hiatus --- you are a product, a direct product, in facrt moreso than I am, or more directly so, of a specific religious heritage. I think that you share this with David. Yet, and it is obvious, *that which has informed you* is quite recognizably Protestant whereas David shows, at every turn, his formation within Catholicism. These things, I surmise, occur at foundational levels. But I do not mention this as a means to insult or demean you (or anyone) but only to point out that we all come out of a specific European tradition, and out of a Medieval worlldview, which is being dismantled, or has been dismantled, or has fallen down, or has partially fallen down, and is in any case going through endless permutations in its process of descent.

And out of this people attempt to recover, protect, restructure, rebuild, some 'personal edifice' around which they can enjoy some protection, and live, and thrive or at least carry on ... or hobble on as the case may be.

Thus, I find it interesting to make enquiries --- to probe --- the recesses of your web-spinning self. My question is Do you see this as fairgame? Or, do you see this as 'invasion of one's sacred and priivate space'?

Finally, and yes, I think that philosophy, as you speak about it, and as the monument that you have established for your self with it, is decidely not enough for a man. That is just my opinion. But I notice that you attempt to make more of a home (and hence the references, hurmous I hope, to webs and spinners and endless silvery labyrinths) within these volatile musings than the structure of them allows. And how could you argue differently? Mental constructs are just that.

So, the question --- and it seems to me the core question of GF --- is how does a man discover the bedrock that undergirds this Reality. David has an answer. John really does seem to have an answer-of-sorts (or his certainties will eventuate in some level of declaration). Russell seems to desire to find it, to establish is, to have it.

This is not a philosophy forum, Diebert, it is in its essence a religion forum. That has always been my take on it. And I do not think you could successfully prove it otherwise. Man seeks, and man requires, a complete and a 'religious' view. He needs it, I suppose, just as he needs and cannot do without the physical structure of his body. These correlate one with the other.

Post Reply