Return to body, substance & meaning

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:15 am

Every once in a while you write something somewhat interesting. This I admit. And you are surely not a stupid person for all you seem a youthful narcissist. Your *problem* is that you have an hallucinated sense of your connection to 'wisdom' but that your definition of wisdom is, it certainly appears so, solipsistic. This by definition. To interact with you and your *wisdom* is to choose to interact with your neurosis.

Again, whether you are *wise* or whether you are *deluded* has not a great deal of importance when, overall, you are irrelevant.

If you stop barking even for a short while, and learn to keep yourself muzzled --- I take the risk to suggest --- you might find a way to contribute to an interesting conversation.

A plump Hindu bloke with Occidental pretentious, living under the parental wing, and dallying with grandiose notions of his wisdom and importance, is frankly silly. Can you bring the charade to a stop? I hope you won't take offence...
Jupi wrote:For example, why you ask for a basic definition of wisdom *after* having begun a discussion about its implications, which presumes mutual agreement about the former.
That is a common form. It just means *the question is open*.

You'll have to re-mine within the 'blah blah blah' portions of what I write to get a sense that, yes, I do assume that 'wisdom' exists and is possible to gain. I allude to it. But more importantly I think that one can and should, at least, make statements about what it is not.
So why don't you explore it instead of telling me how much you disapprove of my "meddling" in "your" culture?
I approve very much of your interest in Occidental categories. I disprove of your resentment game, the pretentious rehearsals and find them suspect at best.

As to the rest we'll get there by and by ...

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:30 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Every once in a while you write something somewhat interesting. This I admit. And you are surely not a stupid person for all you seem a youthful narcissist. Your *problem* is that you have an hallucinated sense of your connection to 'wisdom' but that your definition of wisdom is, it certainly appears so, solipsistic. This by definition. To interact with you and your *wisdom* is to choose to interact with your neurosis.
Since I wholly accept the possibility or reality of others coming or having come to the same realisations and conclusions as myself, my definition of wisdom is not solipsistic. You may *disapprove* of that definition, but that doesn't change its validity or usefulness to anyone else except yourself.
For example, why you ask for a basic definition of wisdom *after* having begun a discussion about its implications, which presumes mutual agreement about the former.
That is a common form. It just means *the question is open*.
An open question, by definition, can't follow specific criticism about the thing which the open question is about. It can't be resolved until all sides have been tended to. On that note, why didn't you forward your own definition at the very beginning if it was an open question? I'll tell you - it's because the label "open question" is utter bullshit, just like all of your other labels. All that matters to you is drama - dramas about seeking some nebulous "meaning" or staying true to some elusive cultural bedrock. Questions like "what is wisdom" inserted in the middle of a post mostly comprised of passive-aggressive insults directed at me serve no other purpose than to make you feel as if this philosophical drama means something...if not as anything else then *at least* as philosophical drama!
I disprove of your resentment game, the pretentious rehearsals and find them suspect at best.
Well then you know how we feel about you! ;)

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:50 am

JohnJAu wrote:
Santiago Odo wrote: For me, this has been rather an amazing 'lesson' about the breakdown in communication. It is not that I do not understand it, and it is not that I condemn it, but I see it in a larger context of tremndous break-downs in mutually-agreed definitions.
I'm surprised you are still learning this lesson. In the modern day at least, and I can't speak for the past, any conversation which challenges, is more or less illegal. It is the single most taboo activity one can engage in, next to theft, murder, etc.
You're not realizing yet that this is not the problem at all. It's a nice cover story though with you acting as some kind of resistance hero, challenger, lone hunter for truth in a world where everybody has sworn allegiance to a lie and "they" all will plot together to criminalize or expel you.

Lets stop with that self-serving fiction! If I remember well you were banned once from the forum because you lost truly your mind at the time. Can happen to the best of us! But that's the only tremendous breakdown of communication in this context. Same goes for Alex, there it's more about his "forum mating cycle" (© 2017 Jup) which then ends up like that classic movie where the airlock has to open in the end to clean the freighter. It's at such stage more common sense vs the grotesque.

But never mind all that. The breakdown and disability of communication and definition is a way bigger movement in this world or more like a function of its movement. And we should then compare it to the (imaginary, forced) agreements of more homogenous and authoritarian societies where people united under one banner spoke the same language because there was no room for anything else really. Unity comes with a bloody price and a great prison system attached.

Lets kneel down and thank our pagan gods we got over that. And we'll pay the price but never could count the cost.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:08 am

Santiago Odo wrote:In fact I am speaking very much to something else. But I will admit that it is hard to talk about because it is a large issue and hard to get a handle on it.
That's the default boiler plate by now with your posts. We could just as well leave out all references to the size or immense relevance of all issues and the need to explore and question them. That would save writing, reading, pixel illumination, server processing -- the reduced CO2 footprint alone would save us a super-storm or two in the near future! :-)
I was labeled a 'Nazi'. Right from the start.
In my opinion, it was not wise to refer to Holocaust revisionism as being some intellectual mastery or even relevant issue. Even while I'm pretty much aligned with your views there. In the end: the art of all social interactions and dialog is learning what to bring to the table and what not. This is valid for all companies and interactions by the way. It's not just a modern thing either.

As for all the issues at Civil War Talk, Philosophy Now Forum, Lifeboat Forum, KIR, Genius forum, there could be a message here, one about the possibility it might not be about those others but you, really mostly you. It's not that interesting for me nowadays though as I have no problem philosophically with the pathological, the drunks, the maniacs, the schizoids or the narcissist unless it gets all too disruptive (e.g. non-philosophical). But I hope you can appreciate that I've never removed your work and that even I might not always like what you do or how you offload on others but still on some topics I've found a lot of agreement.
Santiago Odo wrote: What I actually meant is just what I have been saying: you dress up your 'philosophy' in such a way to conceal that you are, in many senses, in a dead-end.
Sure thing. Especially when I've described in many hundreds of posts the nature of this concealment and dressing up. Understanding what I've been trying to convey, especially to you, is the only relevant life here. Imagine that: a philosophy dressing up by teaching the hidden realities of dressing up. Here you see the postmodern essence by the way (which is not there, naturally).

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:23 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: You're not realizing yet that this is not the problem at all. It's a nice cover story though with you acting as some kind of resistance hero, challenger, lone hunter for truth in a world where everybody has sworn allegiance to a lie and "they" all will plot together to criminalize or expel you.
What I said was beyond any doubt true, it has nothing to do with me, yet you make it sound like some conspiracy theory I've made up. Whether it is just a symptom of a larger problem is likely true but irrelevant to the fact.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Lets stop with that self-serving fiction!
Again, it's beyond any doubt true, not a fiction.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: If I remember well you were banned once from the forum
You wrongly assumed I was talking about here and banning. I didn't even imply it once, I had attempted to imply otherwise actually, and this is obviously not the place in which the complaint I made is present, this is a forum where the exact opposite goes down, and communication is encouraged and done incredibly well relative to the 'most people' I described.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: because you lost truly your mind at the time. Can happen to the best of us!
I didn't lose my mind, I used to have a girlfriend and used to smoke weed, actually I guess it's an accurate description but it's likely happened to all of us so it's a bit harsh unless we all admit we are reformed nut jobs in one way or another. Plus, while it is definitely wrong, it really isn't so far fetched a conclusion to temporarily believe there's a more personal God than the God we know here, hence why so many people have done so, but really, it was just a lot more like emotional reasoning.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The breakdown and disability of communication and definition is a way bigger movement in this world or more like a function of its movement. And we should then compare it to the (imaginary, forced) agreements of more homogenous and authoritarian societies where people united under one banner spoke the same language because there was no room for anything else really. Unity comes with a bloody price and a great prison system attached.
I was referring to communication of all sorts really, not just to do with differences in belief systems, etc. I'm not implying it was any better in the past, just describing how it is now, and how it is nothing to be surprised about. People exist in such a way that the most outlawed activity is challenging communication, there must always be hostility or one of the few common reactions I described (especially if it is public). This is true in nearly every case, even for those who are crying for free speech or telling the narrative that they are on the good side of things.
Santiago Odo wrote:An easy reference to naming what this 'acid' is, or at least to illustrate one manifestation and to notice how it works, is to refer for example to 'The Frankfurt School': an intellectual project hung upon a Marxian framework and Marxianism defined as a deliberate and willed cultural undermining to destroy those structures identified as 'oppressive'. The possibility of 'becoming an acid' (becoming a destroyer) has been offered to too many people and too many people have taken up those arms.
All true to some degree but it's not a new insight, this exact paragraph almost is repeated countless times on the internet, such as by YouTube personalities, or even young girls that somehow became famous, along with countless others. It is not to your credit to be taking that long to say what even "Shoe0nHead" or Milo Yiannopoulos can get across in a single joke. How many times I've heard this exact sentiment repeated is mind-numbing.
Santiago Odo wrote: The purpose becomes -- must become in my view --- to locate and to define the unifying fluid, the spiritual essence, that is capable of really functioning as 'reform': within a project of regeneration.
You describe this purpose so often yet I never see you engaging in it just repeating the justification for it. If that's really the case, post some ideas or progress perhaps.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:49 pm

John wrote:All true to some degree but it's not a new insight, this exact paragraph almost is repeated countless times on the internet, such as by YouTube personalities, or even young girls that somehow became famous, along with countless others. It is not to your credit to be taking that long to say what even "Shoe0nHead" or Milo Yiannopoulos can get across in a single joke. How many times I've heard this exact sentiment repeated is mind-numbing.
I used that example exactly because it is more commonly understood. The point is to make a point about 'acid' but the larger and more difficult question, it seems to me, is to go further and to understand how it has come about. Since it seems to have come about over the course of some centuries, reversing it --- if that could happen --- is a giant project. I am reminded that once in a private conversation with David he referred to his 'life project'. It was an impressive statement for a number of reasons. But it does occur to me that to really work with ideas necessitates a commitment not only of a life but of numerous generations. Therefor, it is imperative to build understandings and establish agreements.

It seems to me that Milo and many people like him, though they have worked out a rap which, in the YouTube environment, earns them good money, do not really understand what is going on and they do not understand what the counter-movement is and should be.

That is why I referred to the propositional offering of GF, as it originally came into focus, as an attempt at a 'reform movement': a renovation of self. You have taken out of that post one smallish part and make it sound that it is common knowledge why people's relationship with their own self and their own being, in a genuine and integrated way, is deteriorating. Can you really say that you understand this?
You describe this purpose so often yet I never see you engaging in it just repeating the justification for it. If that's really the case, post some ideas or progress perhaps.
Then I take it that you agree with my thesis? What I would say --- since you pose it as a challenge really --- is that it seems to me that to get out of the mess we are in is no easy feat by any means. That's one aspect. But the other aspect is actually arriving at the realization --- some level of understanding --- of the depth of it, and what really causes it.

And you have also disregarded significantly a good deal of what I wrote, and what I meant.

My views on regeneration and such touch on political considerations, on questions of national, ethnic and racial identity, and for Occidentals, in re-rooting ourselves in these things. That is one aspect. The other aspect, as I understand things, has to do with a revivification of essences within Christian forms and redefinitons of metaphysical forms (maps). I define 'progress' less in individualistic terms and more in forging agreements simply as a preliminary to greater understandings and activity now well out of reach. (This is why I do not at all agree with Jupi's solipsisms.)

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:32 pm

Santiago Odo wrote: I used that example exactly because it is more commonly understood. The point is to make a point about 'acid' but the larger and more difficult question, it seems to me, is to go further and to understand how it has come about. Since it seems to have come about over the course of some centuries, reversing it --- if that could happen --- is a giant project. I am reminded that once in a private conversation with David he referred to his 'life project'. It was an impressive statement for a number of reasons. But it does occur to me that to really work with ideas necessitates a commitment not only of a life but of numerous generations. Therefor, it is imperative to build understandings and establish agreements.

It seems to me that Milo and many people like him, though they have worked out a rap which, in the YouTube environment, earns them good money, do not really understand what is going on and they do not understand what the counter-movement is and should be.
It is indeed a giant project, and a solution would be complex, I simply disagree that the causes are difficult to understand for anyone with any real awareness. They are numerous and mostly obvious, probably countless of course, but not hidden.

If you're looking to establish agreements, why would you converse with Diebert for example, who self-admittedly works to turn over and challenge ideas so as to dissuade against delusions, and that's why you conversing with him is a dead-end. It also indicates you are not serious about your purpose.

Santiago Odo wrote: That is why I referred to the propositional offering of GF, as it originally came into focus, as an attempt at a 'reform movement': a renovation of self. You have taken out of that post one smallish part and make it sound that it is common knowledge why people's relationship with their own self and their own being, in a genuine and integrated way, is deteriorating. Can you really say that you understand this?
I never implied it was common knowledge as to the causes of that 'deterioration' (If it is that, I'm too young to know really, somehow I doubt people of the past were much more often sane than they are today but if I were to guess it has probably gotten a lot worse in the last decades), people usually think too narrowly to be able to understand larger contexts or broader causes, just specifically what you said here "Marxianism defined as a deliberate and willed cultural undermining to destroy those structures identified as 'oppressive'" has become the go-to line, I've heard it a thousand times.

Do I understand it? Maybe I understand it better than you, maybe much worse, who knows really. Obviously I've always thought of posters here like you and jupiviv as seemingly displaying a lot of egotism and delusion on the regular in different ways. Egotistical people usually don't understand themselves very well at all, and thus others, because they lack authenticity, reason emotionally, and so on. They also argue for the sake of argument and not for any purpose, hence my 'challenge'. (It's funny that you called it a challenge, it was just a question.)
Then I take it that you agree with my thesis?
Within the "Worldly matters" section of the forum, I agree that it would be a good thing to 'get out of the mess we are in', an important endeavor. On Genius forums, it would be a much lesser consideration and mostly based in delusion. Hence why I wouldn't talk about it there.

I regard philosophy as being primarily about benefiting oneself in whatever way is most wise. Firstly that would be increasing wisdom for oneself, I've outlined my views on that many times recently, and secondly, if that is achieved, then doing the same for others. In my view wisdom aligns with those things which are considered "good", such as helping others come to wisdom, virtue, ending the suffering of others, forgiveness, compassion, etc, and even good social relations and 'economic' prosperity, because causality is intricate and a solution which is not holistic - one which doesn't take into account the far reaching variables - is not a solution at all.
no easy feat by any means.
For us, it is no easy feat. If the powers at be, and I don't presume to really understand governments and world governments, were to become wise, I think it would be relatively easy. Massive education reform, for example, would be a great start.
My views on regeneration and such touch on political considerations, on questions of national, ethnic and racial identity, and for Occidentals, in re-rooting ourselves in these things. That is one aspect. The other aspect, as I understand things, has to do with a revivification of essences within Christian forms and redefinitons of metaphysical forms (maps). I define 'progress' less in individualistic terms and more in forging agreements simply as a preliminary to greater understandings and activity now well out of reach. (This is why I do not at all agree with Jupi's solipsisms.)
Somehow I doubt you plan on doing anything at all about your so-called purpose. If I'm wrong I apologize, but if I had to bet right now, you are not attempting to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. Posting on genius forums certainly is not making waves.

Yes of course, 'regeneration' and such would require a holistic solution which obviously includes politics, and I agree, a revivification of what are 'Christian values'.

I simply don't think you are much of a realist. How do you plan to forge agreements or make any progress by posting on GF, with Jupiviv who you've just said you believe is solipsistic, or Diebert who wants to constantly challenge and turn over ideas? Try for the next five decades and you'll end up repeating yourself here as you have for years.

Again, my opinion of most people is that they are so far removed from reality they end up being the equivalent of mad children, filled with all kinds of vice, ignorant, unaware, egotistical, arrogant, unable to control themselves, inauthentic, lacking introspection, and so on. It may be an even more difficult task than you recognize, as I notice even people here tend to niavely lend too much credit to people.

It's very rare to come across a single person that recognizes the value of solution based thinking. As opposed to the common case of somehow being unable to comprehend the most obvious realities, such as that complaining and trolling with such a narrow mindset isn't a solution to anything, like Milo does for example.

Even more rare is someone who recognizes that this 'mess' isn't solved by praying, isn't solved by complaining, isn't solved by protesting, isn't solved by trolling, isn't solved in the Facebook comment section, etc, but requires a focus first on improving one's own wisdom so that they are even capable of having an idea of what a good outcome would look like, and then on holistic solution based thinking, grand ideas and implementation.
Last edited by JohnJAu on Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:42 pm

JohnJAu wrote:What I said was beyond any doubt true
Only clinically insane have moved beyond doubt about anything less than the nature of existence. Have you lost your mind again?
You wrongly assumed I was talking about here and banning.
Well I didn't assume anything but introduced it to illustrate the notion that your conspiracy might not be what it seems.
People exist in such a way that the most outlawed activity is challenging communication, there must always be hostility or one of the few common reactions I described (especially if it is public). This is true in nearly every case, even for those who are crying for free speech or telling the narrative that they are on the good side of things.
Could you give some example about this "challenging communication"? For sure people online are behaving stressed or immature more than ever. Or in other words, less rationality, more emotionality, drama, boredom and parroting. But I don't see it happening only as response on some "wise" or "challenging" narrative. People just react nowadays non-constructive on basically everything. It's their little show, made possible by having all these little stages for all the little princes. It's a bit the nature of the beast perhaps, the massive scale needs to be take into account as well.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:58 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
JohnJAu wrote:What I said was beyond any doubt true
Only clinically insane have moved beyond doubt about anything less than the nature of existence. Have you lost your mind again?
"“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

While the quote is no proof, I disagree, it is beyond any doubt true that people are as I described them, or worse. It's also beyond any doubt true that all forms are impermanent, that there's the experience of what is referred to as consciousness, etc. There are a few things one can know for sure, but they definitely decrease when you move into conventional/worldly matters.
your conspiracy might not be what it seems.
People being deluded and unwise is not a conspiracy. I really don't get why you assume this is some self-serving narrative, it's just an obvious reality that I'm sure you actually agree with. Like I said, perhaps where you live in Dutchland is some magical place and you're not seeing it enough haha. I'm happy to give you the phone numbers of twenty or thirty people I've known if you need some evidence, friends, acquaintances, women, family, some uncles and aunties, I'm sure you'll have great time trying to convince them it's a conspiracy that they're incapable of even a conversation while they yell all sorts of nonsense from the get go, lol.

Could you give some example about this "challenging communication"? For sure people online are behaving stressed or immature more than ever. Or in other words, less rationality, more emotionality, drama, boredom and parroting. But I don't see it happening only as response on some "wise" or "challenging" narrative. People just react nowadays non-constructive on basically everything. It's their little show, made possible by having all these little stages for all the little princes. It's a bit the nature of the beast perhaps, the massive scale needs to be take into account as well.
I mentioned challenge because that's when you can be certain it will arise, I agree tho that they act non-constructive with basically everything. The only difference is that when they aren't challenged they will rarely at least agree on small issues and arrangements. Whereas if they are challenged in any way, such as on the nature of their religious beliefs, their choices, their flaws, some monetary disagreement, a dispute in a relationship, constructive criticism, etc, you can pretty much set an egg timer and give it five minutes before the certainty of them reacting in one of the few ways I mentioned: ignoring, ridicule, screaming, accusation, police, or violence.

And when somehow two people have managed to order themselves enough to have a 'respectful' discussion or debate, they will still almost never get past their own arrogance, delusion, egotism, distrust, anger, resent, etc. I'm just talking about the basic symptoms of 'immaturity' really, it's no revelation.

If I'm wrong in estimating the number, that's fine, but from my own experience, it seems to be over 95% of people at least that are worse off in these regards than the five or six GF users for example. As obviously it can take years of introspection, or having your ego attacked, for a person to make any lee way beyond these tendencies.
Last edited by JohnJAu on Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:11 pm

Santiago Odo wrote:The point is to make a point about 'acid' but the larger and more difficult question, it seems to me, is to go further and to understand how it has come about. Since it seems to have come about over the course of some centuries, reversing it --- if that could happen --- is a giant project. I am reminded that once in a private conversation with David he referred to his 'life project'.
But you are assuming there's a result possible here: a set of causes to determine with some certainty and derive some solution from that. It's something I'd call optimistic, charming even. Reminds me of the 1950's view on the future, mostly technocratic and clearly a shadow from the boldness of the 19th century. All fueled by scientific and industrial progress & process. This idea we can find causes, "internals" to understand the mechanics of something ("Techne") and then distill like chemistry the antidote, some anti-biotic, some penicillin. Very powerful but it should also be reviewed and understood first.

It's also possible to see this whole quest as one time piece. To see the problems and solutions as basically generating each others.

With this all I don't mean to say we shouldn't look or shouldn't talk. Just my writing on Trump alone proves already my interest, my desire for insight and overturning. And there you can find my own views on "system thinking", the "empire", the downfalls of the organizational itself in the face of realities. These are themes I'd like to connect back to the political. But I don't see it as a big problem that there are no takers at some old forum. The discussion is being had elsewhere including many others. And that's exactly what I think you should do: connect with people, not alienate them in some Don Quichotean quest. You need to connect to the political movements, the relevant discourse but it can only start with some form of compromise, some yielding, to select one thing and leave another thing be. But then you would not have the time to write at some low-fi BBS, feeling what?

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:14 pm

John: If the question is: 'Why debate with someone like Diebert?' (because it appears to be a waste of time or counter-productive to a genuine purpose), I think it is a good question. But you would have to extend it and ask Why bother to get involved with conversation, debate, argument, confrontation and conflict ever and with anyone? One could say one is obligated to do it if one takes the importance of interchange and communication at a Platonic level.

Yet your question is more pointed and in that aspect is not a bad one. But I must begin with a definition, a discernment about Diebert as a starting point. But before I can make that statement I have to back up from making such a statement and speak to a *general situation* in which we find ourselves. I have to more or less understand Diebert and his context. Put another way, if I do not understand Diebert and his context I will be in the dark and will not be able to make discernments except in a superficial way. But the object (if one takes knowledge seriously) is to understand things profoundly not superficially. So, this puts a good deal of pressure on understanding Diebert's context and what made Diebert Diebert. This is a quintessential and a very important European question. It will go to the heart of many important issues about Europe, about the evolution of ideas in Europe, but in a major sense it will become an investigation of certain religious questions, about certain forms of Protestantism, about movements of ideas related to fin-de-siecle, and then a Europe marked, scarred and dug-up by two devastating world wars which may, and I say this seriously, result on the undoing of Europe and European civilization.

If you were to respond and say: Yes, I understand what you are saying. I also recognize the importance of getting to and arriving at such profound understanding. And I also desire to come forward as one interested in such 'renovation' and 'reconstruction of self' that can lead, that might lead, to a reanimation of Europe as a valued entity, and in that sense toward reanimation of European civilization. If you were to say something like that I think it would indicate that you as a man are tending in the direction of health, of creative restructuring of self in relation to society and also life. Conversely, if you had nothing to say about it, if no inner note was struck and no resonance to occur, I might be inclined to say that you (and I mean a great plurality of persons and not really just you) had lost your bearings. And if you came out against such an opus and idealism, and if you showed yourself acidic to it, I would be inclined to attempt to understand why this has come about. And that would lead me back into the difficult project of understanding causation and the breakdown of healthy relationship to self.

But turning back to Diebert, and also turning back to 'The Forum' as an entity, as something encountered, as a statement made about reform and renovation (this is how I take it), I would answer and say: I have no choice but to *answer* Diebert and *answer* what is proposed by the Forum's founders simply because it was my destiny to come into contact with it. That is an aspect of Fate and of Providence. Fate can be seen as abstract and non-personal, providence however is a conscious force.

You seem to complain that I hold to the focus I do. That what I am saying now I have said before and may still be saying in the future. That is how it should be John. But allow me to illustrate my point with an example. When we speak of 'Marxist penetration' or 'Marxist undermining' you, for example, may see the idea as a boring one because you have heard it many times. Fair enough. Yet if one really takes an undermining project seriously, one has to confront it and one has to reverse it. If you do not take ideas seriously, and if you do not take contemporary events seriously, then you become in essence irrelevant. What I would say about this is that it is imperative to gain more knowledge about what has happened and what has brought it about. And one cannot do that if one is not engaged and willing to become engaged, in a concrete sense, in our concrete world. So, what I say is that *we* need to become very much more serious about ourselves, our culture, what we have and what we are, and we need to devote ourselves seriously to preservation of it.

I recontextualize this statement, this animating sense, into the recent events on this forum: David's freak-out over what would seem to be a mild turn toward the Identitarian Right (my interpretation, not Kevin's). I hope that it is clear why this has importance for me: as one who has taken issue with aspects of GF as 'an acid' that functions against healthy and meaningful regeneration of self and to concrete re-linking with European renovation projects this is the turn and the direction that I understand to have relevance. You might ask: What has taken you so long? Why years and years to get to this point of realization? I would answer by saying that The Present, our present, is like a mire and it tends to trap one. And this leads, in my case, to other questions and definitions --- statements --- about metaphysics essentially. In essence, one is going to speak in terms of Christian metaphysics and definitions, one will have to arrive at a metaphysical definition of 'the demoniac'. If we are going to speak of the individual in a metaphysical context ('the world') we are going to have to have, at least at one level or another, some operative definition of what mires us and what frees us.

Turning back to Diebert, I suggest that his platform is interesting to look at for many different reasons. But one that stands out for me is how his *philosophy* is an elaboration of neurotic mire. This is a sharp statement no doubt. And certainly it does not define all that Diebert is, does or says. But I am forced, I have been forced, to come to recognize this about Diebert's philosophical activity. It goes in endless circles. It defeats all pointedness, all decisiveness, and weakens and undermines it. And one of the sentiments (and it is a sentiment) that operates in it is a form of guilt and shame. This is quite fitting in the European context, especially in the aftermath of the 2 devastating European wars. Diebert in certain senses (I speak of him generally not altogether specifically) has become devastated; the acid of devastation has eaten away at his own link to his own self. He does what he does (defeats decisiveness) because he has no other choice. Or to put it another way he will remain indecisive until, somehow, he can overcome what it is that inhibits him. I call this a 'neurotic mire' in a more or less scientific sense. But in this sense, in this exact sense, we all share Diebert's problem, and very much those who founded this forum. Birds of a feather you see. It is our fate to have to confront all this and to deal with it.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:49 pm

John: When you say 'I am too young to know' I am reminded of previous conversations in which I defended quite adamantly our cultural and intellectual traditions and 'the library'. You stood at that time in favor of some sort of immediate realization and --- my impression --- could not be bothered by academic and intellectual understanding. When I speak about 'knowledge' I am speaking about European categories of knowledge and these are gotten by reading, by discussion and interchange in intellectual environments ('the University' taken in its best sense), and this touches very directly on Europe, European civilization, our own cultures, our own minds, our own endeavors and pursuits. It is these things which define us. It is these things that have 'made us us'.

I have the sense that in a real sense, though misguided, that many people do have a sense of what 'causes deterioration'. It is a popular notion, it is a notion that has been provided to them through a process of dissemination. It *operates* in them. If you ask them they will speak about it. Recently, on these pages, David went into considerable length expounding his defense of modern liberalism. Interwoven into this rather blurted-out set of opinions are many statements about what 'deterioration' is and what causes it.

But David should be speaking, in the most adamantine manner, about what is capable of reconstituting the soul of man or of a man, in time, here and now.

Your question: 'Do I understand it? Maybe I understand it better than you, maybe much worse, who knows really' causes me pause. Are you saying that it is not possible to know? Are you surrendering the field? On what basis would you know? On what basis would you be able to make a definitive statement?

If I may share an impression of you, as you have shared your impressions of me, I would say that I do not have a sense and do not gain it from what you write of what you are *genuinely connected with*. Are you just another atomized, disconnected casualty of our present? What do you link with? I mean, what idealism and ideas? What do you serve?

I certainly have an ego, thank Heavens, but I think that what you are getting at is or should be more a question: do we have a positively-linked ego, and if so what is it linked to? Or is our egotism negative and destructive. I do not mind that you see me as you do but I would ask you to consider the fact that I am making substantial sacrifices of time and energy in an effort, intercalated with my mundane life, to arrive at positive knowledge. In defense of myself I would say that were you and I to spend time together you would not see me as a egoist in the negative sense. In your case, and this is related to much that you have written before (a great deal of which I read BTW), you have peculiar and idiosyncratic definitions of 'delusion'. You fit in with the Forum generally in this sense.

Because I have mentioned Christian metaphysics, and the dualism between the demoniac and the angelic and the 'metaphysical situation' of 'the world', I hope that you will recognize that I certainly must think about what is 'delusional' and what is not. I try to speak about what I consider to be 'healthy' (opposed, that is, to delusion which is not), but I am not at all sure that your and mine definition of 'delusion' would correspond. Therefor, we might find ourselves on different planes of concern (and definition).

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:56 am

So to work toward your purpose you have to be able to solve such neurotic mire and other symptoms of deterioration which are widespread, thus this forum, and Diebert, are microcosms of the very contagion you are battling, you must be able to cure one patient before you can move on.

Before continuing I'd just like to say, I can see why they called you a Nazi, you said a few things which sounded like Hitler in his December 1941 speech. I'm not agreeing, just saying I noticed the resemblence.

It's not that I have no interest or am not bothered, just that it generally falls into the category "worldly matters", and usually has little to no relevance to the eastern philosophy of 'realization', 'mysticism', 'meditation', etc, all of which I heavily relate to. Worldly matters being of a secondary and lesser concern. The world being an illusion and all that jazz. But, it definitely ranks second, so I spend a great deal of time contemplating it and my own worldly 'purpose'.

""Your question: 'Do I understand it? Maybe I understand it better than you, maybe much worse, who knows really' causes me pause. Are you saying that it is not possible to know? Are you surrendering the field? On what basis would you know? On what basis would you be able to make a definitive statement?"

As Diebert pointed out earlier, it's rarely possible to know things for certain beyond the nature of existence.
I don't regard it as a field or battle of any sort. The basis upon which I know is my own reasoning, which in matters of uncertainty tends to reason via estimated probability, or accepts that I lack enough information to determine what is more likely.

Currently it seems to me you make the same mistakes that the founders make and many people make. In my estimation, the trump/hillary fiasco is nothing but a show, a distraction, I tend to think the worst of big government, and highly doubt military powers give the slightest shit how the common folk vote or would hand over any sort of decision making authority in any way from party to party, leader to leader.
It seems to me that which party is in power makes no difference, freedoms are still restricted more and more, family values are still deteroriating more and more, people are more and more divided, police are militarized more and more, education is shallow and narrow more and more, lasting relationships decline more and more, and absolute technological power over individuals is secured at an ever increasing rate toward what looks like a dystopian future out of 1984. To me, deluded people argue about the party in power while they sit in a fifty story building in their glorified storage container apartments all totally isolated from eachother, working to earn numbers on a screen, consumed totally by desire and vanity, conditioned totally by the media and their environments, living by the rules of a page which was written for them not by them and doing nothing to improve their situations. As far as I understand it people have been slaves, like cattle, woeking to serve a pyramidal economic hierarchy throughout most of history, perhaps dressed up as other things here and there.

I regard most people as children (of the state/environment) and nothing more. People are puppets of causality. "As mortals we are ruled by conditions", only the wise and aware are able to even gain the possibility of freedom. I don't agree with your sentiments about Europe because I don't believe it exists, it is just another fantasy carved out of a world of illusion and false identities. Deluded children that don't even know what they are, and thus cannot possibly work on any kind of holistic solution which would result in some ideal world for people, since they don't even know what's good for them.

"What do you link with? I mean, what idealism and ideas? What do you serve?"

In Buddhist terminology, to save myself, and then save countless other beings which are ensnared and suffer life after life.

My definition of delusion I'd say is attaching to and acting on any belief which does not align with what is in one's benefit based on the truths revealed via undistorted insight into the nature of reality.
I.E: To believe and act like this fleeting lifetime is the only lifetime, that the forms and appearances really exist, or to think that some heaven will be granted through prayer, belief or deeds.

Nevertheless, in terms of my purpose, the world so far as it is known by me is a mess and would greatly benefit from reform. My ideal world would simply involve any system which allows a lot of time for meditation, introspection, discussion, etc. Therefore political, economic and survival matters become relevant.

Neurotic mire sounds a lot like what I described earlier, people refusing to engage in any solution based conversations.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:39 am

John wrote:So to work toward your purpose you have to be able to solve such neurotic mire and other symptoms of deterioration which are widespread, thus this forum, and Diebert, are microcosms of the very contagion you are battling, you must be able to cure one patient before you can move on.
That's an odd way to put it. When I first came to GF I came under special circumstances which I remember quite well. I would not say that I have to solve this mire or any mire. But what I can say is that it appears to have been presented to me and, in all of that, I see the work of Providence. It is wrong to focus too much on 'Diebert' as something to be 'solved'. I would mention as an example any of the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School as a point of reference. By this I mean that though it may be so that Marxism transmuted itself, and some of its destructiveness, into a sort of cultural critique with a psychological Freudian/Marxist intentionality, it certainly does not mean that it all is *evil* or something. For example, I have read Fromm and others and have gained at a personal level. It is very very hard to ferret out of it what is genuinely *undermining* and thus 'Marxian' in the negative sense.

Similarly, it is simply not possible to condemn someone --- anyone --- in a blanket way. If I make a critique of 'Diebert' I must speak very carefully and fairly. The same is true of David and Dan and Kevin. Or you and anyone else. Or myself...
John wrote:Before continuing I'd just like to say, I can see why they called you a Nazi, you said a few things which sounded like Hitler in his December 1941 speech. I'm not agreeing, just saying I noticed the resemblance.
Now we come into a very difficult territory, as I see things. It is the territory of overt revisionism. And what is more it can become a direct oppositional stance to *the present* as a fabrication, as a concoction, and I might even suggest as a 'delusion'. Having read Houston Chamberlain, Julius Evola, Savitri Devi, Rene Guenon, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (just a few of the main ones) I think I can well understand what many people in intellectual circles, including people like Aldous Huxley, were thinking about in the Interwar period (1920-1938 roughly). It is a fact, and one that I have to own and take responsibility for: I have become a partisan of the belief that Europe must turn back into itself to define itself (again). This means a few things. One, that all sorts of 'acids' have come to act against it, that these acids re destructive and weakening and they need to be seen and understood and neutralised. What neutralises is similar to what empowers and reconstitutes, and I will definitely say that to have that conversation, to work to define its elements, will shock, challenge and even frighten many people.

Why mention this here? The reason is clear: The GF project began as a reform movement that asserted it had the Answer to the problem of dissolution of man qua man. That is the meaning of Weininger. That is what it means to confront 'feminisation' in the sense of the undermining of masculine assertiveness. Taken to its essential point, if one does take it seriously, one must confront what weakens man and renders him impotent. This is a very complex and a very challenging conversation.
John wrote:It's not that I have no interest or am not bothered, just that it generally falls into the category "worldly matters", and usually has little to no relevance to the eastern philosophy of 'realisation', 'mysticism', 'meditation', etc, all of which I heavily relate to. Worldly matters being of a secondary and lesser concern.
There is no division possible, and these questions and problems and any solution to them cannot be divided in the way you do. This (IMHO) is a fantastic error of the our dear Founders and one that must be corrected. This is why I would insist on redefinitions of Christian metaphysics, which is to say, if you will permit me to put it like this, the guiding metaphysics of the Occident. It is not a simple topic and it does not mean becoming some sort of brainless 'Christian' evangelical. It has to do with becoming a metaphysical activist within this plane of existence.
Currently it seems to me you make the same mistakes that the founders make and many people make.
Could be that I make mistakes. But I do not have the illusions about the US that you seem to think. I have been influences by E Michael Jones and many of his assessments. But that is another conversation. US politics seems in such a mega-mire that I do not see how there will be resolution without some level of disaster. I am not a patriot (and at times I regret that I do not have more positive sentiments).

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:06 am

JohnJAu wrote:I disagree, it is beyond any doubt true that people are as I described them, or worse.... People being deluded and unwise is not a conspiracy. I really don't get why you assume this is some self-serving narrative, it's just an obvious reality that I'm sure you actually agree with.
As your measuring stick is not absolute, any results won't be either. It's different with measuring causality and eternity, since there are simply no sticks to measure any vastness or smallness of it. The degree of wisdom in people or the amount of delusions or distortions in ones own view however will always remain a relative issue. And since we already established confusion can happen, caused by various factors, the contrast between ones own peak of wisdom and the valleys of confusion elsewhere is only fueled by ones own ideal, ones own striving. And even if indeed all or nearly all people would be deluded, most of the time, for so many long centuries, this whole category would quickly become meaningless. We'd be in fact just describing the defying nature of man.
you can pretty much set an egg timer and give it five minutes before the certainty of them reacting in one of the few ways I mentioned: ignoring, ridicule, screaming, accusation, police, or violence.
People are a delicate affair -- to exist, to feel existing, to self-affirm it, some illusions are in need of embrace and identification with. Locate these, some particular ones, touch upon them and indeed one starts to behave like there's only two options: fight or flight. Being passive or active. But in some way it's perfect nature, in the context of the microcosms of the human fabric.
As obviously it can take years of introspection, or having your ego attacked, for a person to make any lee way beyond these tendencies.
The less one starts to represent, the less there's to defend: it's about becoming "dead enders". Clear view unfolds and it suffices.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:32 am

Santiago Odo wrote:Diebert in certain senses (I speak of him generally not altogether specifically) has become devastated; the acid of devastation has eaten away at his own link to his own self. He does what he does (defeats decisiveness) because he has no other choice. Or to put it another way he will remain indecisive until, somehow, he can overcome what it is that inhibits him.
Or perhaps this idée fixe du jour becomes the filter with which you're transforming all you see and hear into something you prefer to digest? Is it Europe? All people in discussions who just don't listen? Or everything going on all the time everywhere these days?

You need to be more specific. But of course you can't and won't. And I can tell you why! This is my area of expertise after all.

Now I'm revealing to you the truth of non-decisiveness, of non-exactness, of the fundamental ambiguity of existence, of truth, of the object. And you think you cannot exist that way. That others cannot exist that way. That somehow it 'diminishes" you or them.

Anyway, it would be way more interesting to return to Trump instead of eroding this topic with endless cleverness-in-a-box and rehashing the past. What do you think for example of "Trump as id"? Or more in your terms: the bad bold body? Wikipedia offers a somewhat interestingly quote on this idea of id: "we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations. ...It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle" (Sigmund Freud).

How would you see the Trump phenomenon in terms of reservoir of collective libido, as some shadow raising its head: and will it be a drive to life or death? Bringing chaos and uncertainty in a world which used to be more fixed or is it the destruction of a system collapsing, not being able to contain the pressures within? Obviously it's reason, this delicate "fact drive" which might die first.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:17 pm

How about a comparison with the Western Roman Empire via recent economic history? Let's say Y2k equates to the 3rd century crisis/es and Clinton & Dubya equate to Diocletian/the Constantines and Valentinians respectively. That makes Obama the Theodosians, which in turn makes Trump either Petronius Maximus or Romulus Augustulus (the last western emperor hailed by the Senate), depending on your perspective.

Alternatively, Trump = Commodus. After all there is a view that the Roman empire *effectively* collapsed after the Nerva-Antonines, even though momentum kept a lot of customs or institutions alive in one form or another for 200 years in the west and 1000 years in the east, and arguably forever according to the Catholic church (Pope = pontifex maximus).

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Wed Jul 26, 2017 7:16 pm

Santiago Odo wrote: US politics seems in such a mega-mire that I do not see how there will be resolution without some level of disaster. I am not a patriot (and at times I regret that I do not have more positive sentiments).
Agreed but you didn't answer the question, do you actually plan on doing anything about your purpose in the future? It must be clear to you that forum posting won't make any kind of waves.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And even if indeed all or nearly all people would be deluded, most of the time, for so many long centuries, this whole category would quickly become meaningless. We'd be in fact just describing the defying nature of man.
It is very meaningful, if you act or believe otherwise you will quickly find yourself to be the deluded one and running into walls, since this truth is so relevant to nearly all aspects of life. Yes, people can change, but many display their delusions on the regular and carry them to the grave, many being undoubtedly obvious, the latest and clearest I have seen in person recently is a born again Christian referencing the dream of some pastor in an article post and how that dream is an end times prophecy signalling the rise of the anti-christ connected to the building of a third temple in Israel or something like that. Then attempting to spread it to non-christian family members as an attempt to wake them up, failing, and calling them dumb and blind. No measuring stick is needed.

This being only an obvious example, in reality it is indeed nearly everyone, and I don't think it's necessarily human nature just because it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture, etc, I think human nature could very well become 'wise' if circumstances allowed. Obviously it is my view that there is indeed absolute objective truth and wisdom.

The less one starts to represent, the less there's to defend: it's about becoming "dead enders". Clear view unfolds and it suffices.
Of course. I'm certain I sound like an endless dead end loop. All true wisdom should in a sense really, since battles are a game for the egotistical, and truth never really changes.

Back to the topic of Trump, if I were a believer that the choice between parties makes any difference, and had to choose, I'd heavily prefer the right over the left, along with pretty much all of the conservative values, except maybe for the support of military and police which seems to be more of a right-wing theme. The general Youtube thesis that left-wing themes like feminism, LGBTQI+, acceptance of Islamic refugees, etc, contributes to something like the degradation or destruction of society, definitely has some truth to it.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:51 pm

John wrote:Agreed but you didn't answer the question, do you actually plan on doing anything about your purpose in the future? It must be clear to you that forum posting won't make any kind of waves.
My answer to your question (your question is also a statement) is that I am directly engaged in my 'purpose' insofar as I am intellectually involved with the issues. My more immediate concerns, if this is what you mean, have only to do with the people under my immediate care. There I supervise their educations (and pay for it is well!) If you mean getting involved in some ground-level political movement, I am uncertain how to act, except to contribute funds to some people who I think are 'doing good work'.

I am not sure that I agree with you about 'forum writing'. I mentioned some days back a lively thread I'd begun (on the theme of the Alt-Right and the European Right) on a philosophy forum. It was an British forum and, I think, quite 'lefty' as it turned out, but the thread had very high readership compared to any other thread on the forum. My theory is that written communication is not at all inert. I expect that among those who were most opposed to the idea of the Nouvelle Droite, and resisted it most adamantly, that in the future they will turn again to examine all those questions and, insofar as *truth* was expressed, renovate their ideas. That is usually how things work!

There is of course an inner level to all of this in my own case. Over the last number of years I would say that my own relatioship to my own self and to my ideas is revisionist. I mean in the sense of going back over history, the history of my own family, the influences I had been exposed to, and all of this with an eye on revision in the sense that I talk about. The turn to the 'right' that you refer to is in my view better described in other terms since the political ones are locked into an unhealthy polarity. I can give one example. As I began to research the 'traditionalists' (Evola, Devi, Guenon) I also made an effort to investigate the Catholic traditionalists. For example 'The Destruction of the Christian Tradition' by Rama P. Coomaraswamy. This led me to read the 'Catechism of the Council of Trent' which is --- as it stands in relation to *our present* a radical document. It was shocking in many senses to come into direct contact with the 'true essence' of Christianity and Catholicism. And that led to studies in Greco-Christianity, Neo-Platonism, 'The Great Chain of Being', and the metaphysics which is just now passing out of comprehension and yet is still very much present as a shadow cast. Frankly it has all been a little much. I do not know quite how to organize it. I am not sure what it ultimately means.

But I have discovered a few things, and they are disturbing in some ways. One is that I see how it is possible to gain an understanding of *what motivates us in our present* which few have enough background to be able to understand. So when you talk to them you seem to them incomprehensible. The terms that you are thinking in, the material or the perspectives that you are dealing with are foreign to them and, if you will allow the analogy, it is like talking to someone in the Plato's Cave who is watching the flickering shadows. This is a disturbing realisation for a few reasons. For one who is enthralled by the 'shadow-play' there is no real freedom. But for those who understand the theatrics there is power. If you read me correctly you will gather that this does not bode well for how the 'mass' relates to ideas. For example it is true, as you say, that if one watches certain YouTube vids that the system itself will feed back to you all manner of other vids which algorithmically are selected for your view. It is a strange correlary to the notion of 'Maya'.

My further answer to you is to say that the only thing that I can think of as a 'concrete contribution' has to do with education. In this sense I support those people and groups who are nourishing themselves within the traditionalist idea-circles and I am largely contemptuous of those who have been caught-up in what I call the 'hyper-liberal' social movements, which I think resolves to the need to define a position in opposition to sexual license. To take a stand against homosexual and other *perversions* is possibly one of the greatest social sins in our day. The link between progressivism and sexual license is notable. As I am studying traditional forms, and certainly this is true in pan-European Catholicism, sexual purity is a big element. (I think it was E Michael Jones who said 'You cannot simultaneously masturbate and pray to God' which is a notable line).

In the scheme of Christian metaphysics and certainly in respect to 'the great chain of being' unfettered sexual appetite leads to spiritual blindness. E Michael Jones (Catholic and traditionalist) has done some very interesting work in this area with his book 'Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control'. His ideas stem out directly from Thomist thought and in this sense from the *former metaphysics*. This is just an allusion but in my own case, given the opportunity, my interest is now in better understanding Thomist philosophy and of course metaphysics. But it has taken me a number of years of study in other areas to establish enough of a base where such a study of Thomism (to use a general term) would be genuine in the sense of representing an inner shift, an inner turning.

Therefor, this is why I would say that if there is to be a shift in *the world*, and if for example it does become possible to reestablish 'European identity' and then of course 'White European Identity' it will only occur when and if there is a genuine turning-back to former metaphysical concepts. This is problematic because there is no 'turning back' in time, there is only arriving at definitions that can function as one moves forward in time. Because this is so, the educational project must begin, if you will permit me to think such a thought, at an elite level. And if it must begin there one must identify the people who are actually doing that work.

This brings me back --- as I often seem to come back! --- to our Beloved Founders and their renovation & renewal project. I am serious when I say that what they did is important. But it is not at all hard to see where they went wron. It must be corrected. This is why I find Kevin's 'heresy' and the heavy guilt-slinging opposition he received (for a very mild turn) to be so interesting, and revealing. Dan and David gave a completely clear feminine performance but largely missed the implications for their own 'work'. Amazing! I do not care if any of you get it or don't get it (and it is sometimes hard to be concerned about what *you* think or don't think since, as it happens, *you* are often as stubborn and dense and blind as the Founders themselves have been, for all that you are *absolutely certain*) but my aim is to extract every bit of understanding as I can from everything that has gone on here.

I am curious to know what you think of this. Is this spreading of delusion? Is it helpful? Meaningful?

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:06 pm

So nothing? If you like, I can reach a million people in the next year with a quote or a few of your choosing just using annotations on an old documentary on YouTube I uploaded a while back. This will of course have the most minor impact but what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how you can honestly believe that what you're doing (donating to a few people you like, educating a few children, making forum posts) is going to make any significant change. So do you plan on doing anything more in the future? If not I would come to the conclusion that you're not very serious about your purpose at all, and are a prime example of the general lack of ability people have to solve any of the larger societal issues they complain about, as they simultaneously act outraged and speak of their endless drive to do good or fight some ideological battle, yet rarely go beyond making some comments on the internet.

In this sense I support those people and groups who are nourishing themselves within the traditionalist idea-circles and I am largely contemptuous of those who have been caught-up in what I call the 'hyper-liberal' social movements, which I think resolves to the need to define a position in opposition to sexual license.
That's good, in a sense, I strongly agree with the sentiments.

Obviously, in a sense, I also agree with the sentiments expressed in the YouTube video, just from having listened to the first few minutes so far and reading the description.

Again, I simply think people who wish to make change underestimate the levels of (intentional or otherwise) social engineering that is taking place, as it now has gone far beyond the normal changing or spreading of certain trends, cultures, and beliefs, and instead is determined by mass media which seems to me to have certain obvious agendas (or unintentional consistent themes). Such people who wish to make change also usually overestimate the intelligence of the masses, and I disagree to a certain extent with your implication that the current condition of the conditioned masses is so heavily caused by events and ideas of generations past. In my view, people are as malleable as dough, they will collectively 'feel' or believe whatever is consistently displayed on their screens. The relevance of the long term effects of generation to generation tradition has either drastically lessened or disappeared entirely.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:58 pm

John wrote:So nothing? If you like, I can reach a million people in the next year with a quote or a few of your choosing just using annotations on an old documentary on YouTube I uploaded a while back. This will of course have the most minor impact but what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how you can honestly believe that what you're doing (donating to a few people you like, educating a few children, making forum posts) is going to make any significant change. So do you plan on doing anything more in the future? If not I would come to the conclusion that you're not very serious about your purpose at all, and are a prime example of the general lack of ability people have to solve any of the larger societal issues they complain about, as they simultaneously act outraged and speak of their endless drive to do good or fight some ideological battle, yet rarely go beyond making some comments on the internet.
You are free of course to come to any conclusions you wish to!

I appreciate your zealousness. I have noticed your enthusiasm over time and it is, I think, one of the features of your personality. You brought up the term 'honestly' (what I 'honestly' believe) and I make all efforts to be as honest as I can about what I think. I have to confess that it is not 'my lot' to think in grandiose terms.

If you are going to speak in terms of 'impact' and if you are asking questions about minor and major impact, well, we can continue the exchange of ideas. I think one has to arrive first of all at the *correct* platform first. That implies inner work.

You speak of 'seriousness of purpose' but I might suggest that I do not see how you, John, can realistically imagine yourself as having a defined program. I fully understand that you have had many realizations and these have been powerful and meaningful, but can you *honestly* say that you are qualified to guide another human being --- a child for example --- onto the right path? There is an opening in your attitude for dangerous hubris.

I am completely convinced that starting with the people closest to one, and also starting at an 'elite' level by supporting those who are capable of greater influence, is not a vain effort.

But I think that what you want to talk about is your ideas of what is needed. I think this is your domain of interest. You do write about that.

I am not at all certain how to change or even affect 'larger soietal issues' except by internalizing that change inside of myself as a primary endeavor. Second to that is helping people who are further along.

If I do take the 'activism' I am speaking of seriously, and if I do have faith in the projects I have written about, I think I have to be willing to understand that I am speaking of a movement and shift in ideation that will occur over a number of decades. Internet ephemera is is one thing, but substantially changing how a person orients themselves in the world (as 'metaphysical activist') is quite another.

What about Scruton? What do you think of his presentation?

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:35 am

Santiago Odo wrote: it is not 'my lot' to think in grandiose terms.
Then I mistook you or assumed too much, I was under the impression you were implying that your purpose was to try and bring reform to Europe.

When it comes to worldly matters I definitely think in grandiose terms.

Santiago Odo wrote: I think one has to arrive first of all at the *correct* platform first. That implies inner work.
I agree in a sense, I think one should do 'inner work' for decades at least before having any grand confidence that they have arrived at the correct platform. In another sense it is still possible to know and be able to improve on certain obvious things. A really easy example is including a philosophy class in the education system. One doesn't need to have a perfectly defined and holistic platform to begin making positive change.
Santiago Odo wrote: You speak of 'seriousness of purpose' but I might suggest that I do not see how you, John, can realistically imagine yourself as having a defined program. I fully understand that you have had many realizations and these have been powerful and meaningful, but can you *honestly* say that you are qualified to guide another human being --- a child for example --- onto the right path? There is an opening in your attitude for dangerous hubris.
Qualified? Is an 18 year old single mother that does drugs more or less qualified than me let's say? It's obviously a relative term depending on your beliefs and many other things.
The question of having children, when it is good, when it should be avoided, at what age it should begin, what they should be taught, etc, is a much larger one and would need to be part of a holistic platform that 'works'.

Also, I'm not sure if I remember correctly or if this is totally off, but are you helping to raise the children of a (previously) single mother?
Santiago Odo wrote: I am completely convinced that starting with the people closest to one, and also starting at an 'elite' level by supporting those who are capable of greater influence, is not a vain effort.
Ultimately all effort beyond a focus on 'spiritual/wisdom growth' is vain effort in my view, but we're sticking to worldly matters as opposed to ultimate ones here (and I do make a division) so I would say that I think you underestimate yourself like many do. You are more than capable of the greatest possible 'influence' (world-wide influence) if you put your mind to it, it's really just about whether you firstly reach a final confidence (or deluded confidence) in your own wisdom and message. As well as the levels of determination and innovation you have.

Santiago Odo wrote: I am not at all certain how to change or even affect 'larger soietal issues'
I think it would be relatively easy, but of course it is wise to delay/postpone any such endeavor to allow as much time as possible for personal growth before going and spreading what may be misinformation. Although like I mentioned earlier, positive change in some aspects is still possible.
Santiago Odo wrote: internalizing that change inside of myself as a primary endeavor.
Good thinking Gandhi.
Santiago Odo wrote: but substantially changing how a person orients themselves in the world (as 'metaphysical activist') is quite another.
You can substantially change how a person orients themselves in the world easily, since people, perhaps especially nowadays, are almost like programmable dough, their actions, beliefs, world views, metaphysics, and even perhaps their consciousness, can be molded extremely easily.
Santiago Odo wrote: What about Scruton? What do you think of his presentation?
Will watch it and respond in the morning. I've seen the first few minutes, seems like a great guy haha.... hashtag trigger warning hashtag ReKt hashtag REEEEEEEape: "The convention is to be hostile to conventions".

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:56 pm

JohnJAu wrote:
And even if indeed all or nearly all people would be deluded, most of the time, for so many long centuries, this whole category would quickly become meaningless. We'd be in fact just describing the defying nature of man.
It is very meaningful, if you act or believe otherwise you will quickly find yourself to be the deluded one and running into walls, since this truth is so relevant to nearly all aspects of life.
Allow for the possibility that believing it for longer than necessary will lead to delusion and running into walls, fighting wind mills and forgetting about the ultimate aim, which reaches so much beyond concerns about the fleeting states of self and others.
No measuring stick is needed.
The mind is that stick, obviously.
This being only an obvious example, in reality it is indeed nearly everyone, and I don't think it's necessarily human nature just because it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture, etc, I think human nature could very well become 'wise' if circumstances allowed. Obviously it is my view that there is indeed absolute objective truth and wisdom.
So you realize it's "indeed nearly everyone" and always "has been that way". And for those few not belonging to "everyone", do you really know them well enough?
The general Youtube thesis that left-wing themes like feminism, LGBTQI+, acceptance of Islamic refugees, etc, contributes to something like the degradation or destruction of society, definitely has some truth to it.
Could you explain a bit your reasoning underling this idea of LGBTQI+ and the Islam (two near opposing things) could degrade this society which, as you just stated, is and has always been filled to the brim with dangerously deluded people not capable of much wisdom, the very thing you value way above all else?

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:39 pm

And for those few not belonging to "everyone", do you really know them well enough?
People can be significantly more wise than others, enough to set them apart wholly from what is clearly a mass of egotistical and vain people even without taking into account the various obvious delusions.

Could you explain a bit your reasoning underling this idea of LGBTQI+ and the Islam (two near opposing things)
Well, as the story or theme goes as I've heard it, if I've been listening correctly and am to believe what I see on the internet, the majority of the left wing feminists are pro LGBTQI+ and pro Islamic immigration so in that way these two opposing things are related.
could degrade this society which, as you just stated, is and has always been filled to the brim with dangerously deluded people not capable of much wisdom, the very thing you value way above all else?
I was referring to western or even Christian traditions when I mentioned Islam, the reasons being obvious there.

And in regard to promoting and perpetuating pro LGBTQI+, that'll degrade or destroy any society just through promoting and perpetuating feminine tendencies (as well as other insane behaviors like transition surgery) and eroding the prevalence of the traditional relationship/marriage/family structure.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:21 am

JohnJAu wrote:Well, as the story or theme goes as I've heard it, if I've been listening correctly and am to believe what I see on the internet, the majority of the left wing feminists are pro LGBTQI+ and pro Islamic immigration so in that way these two opposing things are related.
Do you see problems with left wing feminist views or, in fact, with increasing LGBTQI+ or Islamic presence in your society?
could degrade this society which, as you just stated, is and has always been filled to the brim with dangerously deluded people not capable of much wisdom, the very thing you value way above all else?
I was referring to western or even Christian traditions when I mentioned Islam, the reasons being obvious there.

And in regard to promoting and perpetuating pro LGBTQI+, that'll degrade or destroy any society just through promoting and perpetuating feminine tendencies (as well as other insane behaviors like transition surgery) and eroding the prevalence of the traditional relationship/marriage/family structure.
The question is more how you'd argue for the dangers of degrading or destroying a place where:

- "any conversation which challenges, is more or less illegal".
- "the majority is so deluded, arrogant, egotistical, etc, that the only way which they can be described is as harshly as possible"
- "most people are so far removed from reality they end up being the equivalent of mad children"
- "people are incapable of even a conversation while they yell all sorts of nonsense"
- "people still almost never get past their own arrogance, delusion, egotism, distrust, anger, resent',

Also you said in reality it is indeed "nearly everyone" and "it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture".

So John, why do you have any position or concern about "dangers" to this society, considering all of the above? How is it possible something remotely worthy and valid was created by such problematic and idiotic people? Something benefiting you so much that you could develop into whatever you think your self to be?

This is in fact a variation on the question I asked David Quinn when he seemed defending a still "partly" rational, progressive society against the irrationality of the right and especially of Trump.

If in fact something needs defending, one must first very clearly state what is still being valued and why. And then compare this to what is being attacked and questioned. And I mean, it still needs to make sense unless other motives are at play.

Post Reply