The social justice wars

[jupiviv]

As I use the term, the Dark Ages refers to the lack of an entrenched and evolving rational culture in Europe, a lack that more or less began with the collapse of Rome, or arguably with the collapse of the golden era of ancient Greece. The Renaissance signaled the reawakening of such a culture. I don’t really care how other people, who have different values, choose to define the term.

The rationality in Renaissance culture wasn't remotely like wisdom. Only the number and variety of fields requiring narrow applications of rationality increased, in large part due to changing material conditions. Moreover, even those narrow applications didn't linearly evolve into the academic culture of today.

As for Renaissance philosophy, virtually all of it was written to pump up wealthy patrons' egos. It was filigreed exaltation of Christian Epicureanism, which is why none of it features in the "Genius canon". Machiavelli is the only Renaissance thinker comparable to a modern scientist or historian, and he was by his own admission a "teacher of evil" (i.e. how to keep the worthless peasants in line) to fat kinky aristocrats.

To me, it is an obvious truism that when a culture becomes more rational, it increases the chances of rational philosophers emerging.

Truisms have no place in serious thought (whether academic or independent), for obvious reasons. Kevin's entire case against the "authoritarian left" is constructed out of truisms, as is your support for "liberalism". Both of you seem incapable of distinguishing between the abstract truisms you regularly employ in your philosophical rhetoric and valid opinions about real world events. An example from my email exchange with Kevin:

Kevin: This planet doesn't do trade with other planets, and yet capitalism can work on this planet. The same can be said for individual countries.

Jupiter: Countries or people on earth are not comparable to the earth. The earth also doesn't go to war with other planets, but that doesn't mean individual countries are peaceful.

Kevin: Trading between countries can reduce the amount of war, but there doesn't need to be a lot of trade for that benefit to be realized. And anyway, countries shouldn't be forced to trade under threat of violence.

Jupiter: The point was that your analogy between countries and planets is wrong. The earth doesn't enter into unions with other planets, but countries do. The earth doesn't break up into smaller planets or declare independence from other planets, but countries do. Your argument is bullshit.

Here Kevin Solway argues: since Earth can exist without trading with Jupiter, the same applies to countries. This statement would be 100% true if "earth", "country", "capitalism" etc. were thought-squeezins emitted by Kevin's big, beautiful Brain. In reality, however, it is a laughably stupid thing to say, since the aforementioned entities exist physically and have specific properties.

Keeping that in mind, let us return to your own extremely stable Genius Brain:

If we lived in a society which truly valued rationality and wisdom and taught its children to think logically about basic truths such as cause and effect, then it would become much easier for people to launch themselves into the Infinite. To be sure, they would still have to put in the hard work and activate this launch with their own efforts, but at least they would be armed with greater reasoning powers and face fewer obstacles.

It is logically undeniable that rational societies will create rational people. In reality, however, this statement is extremely problematic because of how you're applying your definition of rationality, and by extension a rational society or culture, to actual historical events and processes. Just as Kevin's argumentum ad Planetary Protectionism is irrelevant to actual trade, your conception of liberal politics is irrelevant to the actual development of western capitalist societies.

A key feature of wisdom is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to different situations. A sage has no form.

The same is true for any number of things. Flexibility of thought isn't wisdom. Reactionary political thought is very flexible, for example. Reactionaries interpret historical phenomena in such a way that they appear to vindicate their emotional attachment to a "flexibly" defined yet inherently existing thing/category of things in the present - be it monarchy or heterosexual love. Romanticism, fascism, alt-rightism - same deal.

You are a reactionary too, but in relation to "the liberal establishment". A category broad enough to include everyone from Da Vinci to Murray Rothbard to your own enlightened self.

In fact, "Genius" philosophy is reactionary. Dear little Alex was/is right to be frightened of it, because he only looked at the semantics and style. The simple longing for honesty holding it all together was always out of his reach, and now it's dead.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Any sagacious man who doesn't find himself in complete opposition to whatever he once knew or believed simply never went that far from safety.

This is only true if the sage in question was previously 100% nuts and only knew or believed nonsensical things. Otherwise there is only the increasing clarity, scope and quantity of whatever little you possess to begin with, all driven by a great and patient love. You know, like that thing with the fishes.

You're suggesting you can grow up but stay inside the womb? We all start with believing mostly nonsensical things. It's how we were conceived.

For the same reason, it is also impossible to figure out what specific material conditions discourage sagehood, given that many different eras and cultures have produced no sages at all.

This argument only works if one counts only famous sages.

It works in general because the forgotten and unrecorded ones can't be counted.

There's no reason to assume that a simple count represents anything at all, that there's some meaning hiding in it if you already know there are some unknown forgotten and unrecorded ones. In other words, not knowing about some era does not provide knowledge about its sages or conditions to sagehood. What results are just proclamations. No facts of any kind. While my statements on this topic work well for all cultures and times. It can be verified internally as well. What more would you like?

Nevertheless there is consensus about what kind of thinking causes wisdom and to what degree various people manifest it.

Nah. Not really, right? Apart from some very vague factors open to a lot of wiggling and interpretation.

if someone without a cerebral cortex is sat in front of the big red button that launches all the nukes.

A being let in the control room and put in from of the console by whom? And it would need a couple of them I think, to synchronize actions.

Machiavelli is the only Renaissance thinker comparable to a modern scientist or historian,

It's interesting that David seems so incredible out of touch with how his work is so naturally in line with the new conservative movements and so little with any of the progressive ones. It's like how Nietzsche was so shocked his work was embraced by antisemitists and National-Socialists. Actually I would speculate that any attack on Kevin is in reality a protest against his own philosophy, a discomfort? And yes Alex was right to suggest Evola, Guénon, even Spengler as natural complements to GF cultural analysis. He was really puzzled why these authors were not explored in more detail when the discussion went in the direction of culture and modernity. In any case, I think we now know why.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As I use the term, the Dark Ages refers to the lack of an entrenched and evolving rational culture in Europe, a lack that more or less began with the collapse of Rome, or arguably with the collapse of the golden era of ancient Greece. The Renaissance signaled the reawakening of such a culture. I don’t really care how other people, who have different values, choose to define the term.

Fair enough although it has little base in how the vast majority of modern historians look at this. You are free to rebel against the academic establishment though. In fact I encourage it: don't trust the learned man, they don't share your values, they arrive with the same facts possibly at different conclusions, right? Of course I'm teasing here a bit.

To me, it is an obvious truism that when a culture becomes more rational, it increases the chances of rational philosophers emerging. If we lived in a society which truly valued rationality and wisdom and taught its children to think logically about basic truths such as cause and effect, then it would become much easier for people to launch themselves into the Infinite. To be sure, they would still have to put in the hard work and activate this launch with their own efforts, but at least they would be armed with greater reasoning powers and face fewer obstacles.

There's certainly a development in history towards many elements we find valuable: personal freedom and identity, accessible knowledge and science, mass technology and so on. It's like we arrived on a different planet compared to earlier centuries. However I don't believe there's reason to think this is some kind of major factor in genius or wisdom arriving or sprouting. Perhaps simply having six billion people has increased the chance somewhat? All speculation though. The sage emerges in relation to his context and there's no reason to assert one context would be more conductive than the other. The mind still works in all its majestic ways.

The idea that it doesn’t matter how oppressive, depraved and violent a society becomes, a genius will always find a way to break through is naive. Only the strongest and most extraordinary of geniuses would have a chance of breaking through in such a society and even then they would still need a lot of things to fall their way. They would still need a lot of luck.

Debatable. But if a society itself becomes overly oppressive, depraved and violent, it simply will not last that long. So there's that.

I am making the point that with the Renaissance, an "Carolingian Renaissanc emerged that believed with almost religious zeal that reason could plumb the greatest philosophic mysteries and solve them. Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Weininger all fed from this belief. It helped them to enhance their logical abilities and drove their genius to greater levels.

The Renaissance is defined by around three full centuries, not counting the predecessors of the 12th century and perhaps the "Carolingian Renaissance". But four from your five examples came two centuries after that initial rise of intellectual culture. We have the religious wars tearing apart Europe, then the Age of Absolutism. Then perhaps you mean the age of Enlightenment came, whose thinkers you mostly reject, then the insane Romantics, revolutions, Napoleon, World Wars and so on.

In the end we see cherry picking. If it was the darkest hour of humanity instead of Enlightenment era, the same history could be used to illustrate the idea. And that's my point, this all cannot be simplified as some teleological movement of history, as some Hegelian fantasy. It goes nowhere.

There are times when “complete opposition” to society is wise and warranted, and there are times when it is not. A key feature of wisdom is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to different situations. A sage has no form. He manifests differently in response to different circumstances. He doesn’t cling to a particular form or a particular way of behaving, no matter what.

In light of this, and given the current circumstances, I am currently pro-woman, pro-feminist, pro-science, pro-globalism, pro-socialism, pro-intelligent policy-making, pro-cooperation between people, pro-farsightedness. And this, it must be emphasized, is the exact same wisdom that I have always expressed for the past thirty years. My approach to life is exactly the same. Only the outer form is different, and that is because the outer circumstances in the world are now different.

A sage has no form but David Quinn ultimately has to take shape and that has been the same for thirty and more years. But all humans manifests differently in response to different circumstances, like their genes, upbringing, intellectual capacity and exposure to real world problems. Which was my point so far on this topic. What I do see is that in each and every time frame you end up opposing one section or element of society with a passion! That brought you in the position of wisdom but ironically it's what might bring you also out of it. Or in other words, you desire still that form above all. And I understand you need to do that. Even my opposition here now is something similar but without all the out-of-focus multi-interpretative 'pro'-isms.

They are oblivious to what is about to hit them.

Indeed. Not that we ever weren't.

[David Quinn]

As I use the term, the Dark Ages refers to the lack of an entrenched and evolving rational culture in Europe, a lack that more or less began with the collapse of Rome, or arguably with the collapse of the golden era of ancient Greece. The Renaissance signaled the reawakening of such a culture. I don’t really care how other people, who have different values, choose to define the term.

The rationality in Renaissance culture wasn't remotely like wisdom.

No, but it was the soil out of which the progressive rational culture in Europe emerged and flourished over the following centuries. Over time, this rational culture came to adopt the deep-seated belief that the Christian God could be fully understood by reason, which (a) ignited the rise of modern science and (b) gave birth to the type of atheistic thinking that leads to the path of wisdom.

It evolved so much that by the time Schopenhauer and Nietzsche came along, it was challenging the very basis of Christianity and thus repudiating the very soil out of which it emerged.

Unfortunately, after that, it began deteriorating into the kind of cynical postmodernist nihilism that we see today.

As for Renaissance philosophy, virtually all of it was written to pump up wealthy patrons' egos. It was filigreed exaltation of Christian Epicureanism, which is why none of it features in the "Genius canon".

That’s true, the beginnings of the rational movement were steeped in the delusions of the time. How could it be otherwise?

Machiavelli is the only Renaissance thinker comparable to a modern scientist or historian, and he was by his own admission a "teacher of evil" (i.e. how to keep the worthless peasants in line) to fat kinky aristocrats.

Well, from my point of view, Machiavelli's most significant achievement was criticizing the Christian religion of his time, thus helping to bring the emerging rational culture into being. He was part of the soil that gave rise to the "Enlightenment" movement. He was one of the past lives of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and co.

To me, it is an obvious truism that when a culture becomes more rational, it increases the chances of rational philosophers emerging.

Truisms have no place in serious thought (whether academic or independent), for obvious reasons.

If you confine “serious thought” to wholly abstract areas like mathematics or systems of academic logic, then sure. But outside of that, truisms are generalizations that have useful benefits when dealing with the empirical world - such as “Men have greater spacial reasoning skills than women”, or ”Growing wheat will produce nutritious food”. Most areas of science depend on the use of truisms.

Kevin's entire case against the "authoritarian left" is constructed out of truisms, as is your support for "liberalism". Both of you seem incapable of distinguishing between the abstract truisms you regularly employ in your philosophical rhetoric and valid opinions about real world events. An example from my email exchange with Kevin:

Kevin: This planet doesn't do trade with other planets, and yet capitalism can work on this planet. The same can be said for individual countries.

Jupiter: Countries or people on earth are not comparable to the earth. The earth also doesn't go to war with other planets, but that doesn't mean individual countries are peaceful.

Kevin: Trading between countries can reduce the amount of war, but there doesn't need to be a lot of trade for that benefit to be realized. And anyway, countries shouldn't be forced to trade under threat of violence.

Jupiter: The point was that your analogy between countries and planets is wrong. The earth doesn't enter into unions with other planets, but countries do. The earth doesn't break up into smaller planets or declare independence from other planets, but countries do. Your argument is bullshit.

Here Kevin Solway argues: since Earth can exist without trading with Jupiter, the same applies to countries. This statement would be 100% true if "earth", "country", "capitalism" etc. were thought-squeezins emitted by Kevin's big, beautiful Brain. In reality, however, it is a laughably stupid thing to say, since the aforementioned entities exist physically and have specific properties.

Wow, that is shockingly awful tripe from Kevin, on so many different levels. Apart from the reasons you gave here, there are several other practical reasons why it is irrational to equate an individual country with the entire planet, not least of which is that each individual country has a limited range of resources and thus has to turn to other countries to acquire other kinds of resources. That is how trade works. If he really thinks that a country like Australia can stop trading with others and get by on its own, then he is seriously off his rocker.

We could could just as easily apply Kevin's reasoning to villages or suburbs. "This planet doesn't do trade with other planets, and yet capitalism can work on this planet. The same can be said for individual suburbs."

His second set of statements are no better. They appear to be gibberish and not worth analyzing. I’ll only say that if he really believes that “countries shouldn't be forced to trade under threat of violence”, he might want to pass that bit of advice on to his good buddy, Trump.

I’m more interested in the underlying subtext of his remarks - namely, "it would be better if countries closed their borders and to hell with everyone else". This is narcissism talking. It is paranoia talking. It is the alt-right talking. It tells me that he is still obsessed with trying to rationalize his new-found opposition to “open borders” and “Marxist globalist plots" like the good Breitbart foot soldier that he has become.

At a time when the looming environmental crisis is barreling straight towards us and demands that we all put aside our differences and work together to deal with this existential threat, here is Kevin advocating that we should ignore all that and hunker down selfishly in our own gated communities instead. And for what? Just what exactly is this all about? I can certainly hazard a guess and it's not very inspiring.

Keeping that in mind, let us return to your own extremely stable Genius Brain:

If we lived in a society which truly valued rationality and wisdom and taught its children to think logically about basic truths such as cause and effect, then it would become much easier for people to launch themselves into the Infinite. To be sure, they would still have to put in the hard work and activate this launch with their own efforts, but at least they would be armed with greater reasoning powers and face fewer obstacles.

It is logically undeniable that rational societies will create rational people.

Well, strictly speaking, that is a truism. We don't know for sure that a rational society will create rational people. It likely will, but it is not guaranteed.

In reality, however, this statement is extremely problematic because of how you're applying your definition of rationality, and by extension a rational society or culture, to actual historical events and processes. Just as Kevin's argumentum ad Planetary Protectionism is irrelevant to actual trade, your conception of liberal politics is irrelevant to the actual development of western capitalist societies.

That’s not true. Past liberal policies, such as women’s right to vote, minimum wages, equality before the law, universal access to education, health and environmental regulations, etc, have greatly shaped the development of Western capitalist societies, and in particular helped curb the harmful excesses of the psychopathic rich, at least to some degree. The same goes for the practice of reason, which has also influenced Western culture to a certain extent via science, academia, the law, and of course, wise philosophers.

A key feature of wisdom is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to different situations. A sage has no form.

The same is true for any number of things. Flexibility of thought isn't wisdom.

True, flexibility of thought doesn't necessarily entail wisdom. but wisdom does necessarily entail flexibility of thought. It's one of the products of non-attachment.

In any case, I wasn’t talking about flexibility of thought, but rather flexibility of action. It is like how a true Zen Master doesn’t just keep sticking to one kind of teaching practice, such as repeatedly hitting people with a stick and shouting “Ha!”, but varies his methods to suit the student’s particular needs.

In fact, "Genius" philosophy is reactionary. Dear little Alex was/is right to be frightened of it, because he only looked at the semantics and style. The simple longing for honesty holding it all together was always out of his reach, and now it's dead.

Dear little Alex could never make up his mind what this forum is about. Sometimes he thought we were reactionary, sometimes mere conformists to our Christian culture, sometimes completely divorced from our Christian culture, sometimes too rationally reductive, sometimes too romantic and mystical. He was all over the place, which is no surprise given that he had no inward grounding or centre.

[jupiviv]

This is only true if the sage in question was previously 100% nuts and only knew or believed nonsensical things. Otherwise there is only the increasing clarity, scope and quantity of whatever little you possess to begin with, all driven by a great and patient love. You know, like that thing with the fishes.

You're suggesting you can grow up but stay inside the womb? We all start with believing mostly nonsensical things. It's how we were conceived.

Nonsensical things are just names for what we actually believe; actual beliefs can mature into wisdom under the right conditions.

Nevertheless there is consensus about what kind of thinking causes wisdom and to what degree various people manifest it.

Nah. Not really, right? Apart from some very vague factors open to a lot of wiggling and interpretation.

The disagreement in question is about praxis not axioms, which tells me that axioms and their interpretations are irrelevant beyond a certain point; for God all things are possible. David and Kevin both agree that they are as wise as they were before, but the extremely real & important Culture War has forced them to assume the avatars of Philosopher-Knights sworn to the cause of Fax'n'Lawjig. You may object that they are fighting on opposing sides, but like David said the sage has no form!

Let me break it down: each of the two sages are defending a combination of mutually exclusive Rationalities and irrationalities. After the final battle between the two combinations is over, the irrationalities will cancel each other out. Without the "Merged Void" of irrationalities tying them down, the two formerly inimical groups of different Rationalities can be together and live happily ever after! None of this is connected to feeeeelings, you understand; the unanimity of their totally objective and spontaneous bemusement at the very notion of introspection is deafening.

if someone without a cerebral cortex is sat in front of the big red button that launches all the nukes.

A being let in the control room and put in from of the console by whom?

Uhhhh whoever sliced off the cortices?

[jupiviv]

The rationality in Renaissance culture wasn't remotely like wisdom.

No, but it was the soil out of which the progressive rational culture in Europe emerged and flourished over the following centuries.

Galaxy Brained abstract argument that *feels* like it's also true for the real world. You are proposing a special characteristic ("soil") originating in the Renaissance that underpins "progressive rational culture" in all the successive ages.

That’s true, the beginnings of the rational movement were steeped in the delusions of the time. How could it be otherwise?

By challenging the delusions it was steeped in instead of only challenging the unpleasant or unfashionable ones. That is literally what wisdom is.

Well, from my point of view, Machiavelli's most significant achievement was criticizing the Christian religion of his time, thus helping to bring the emerging rational culture into being. He was part of the soil that gave rise to the "Enlightenment" movement. He was one of the past lives of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and co.

To be precise, Machiavelli challenged religion insofar as earnest belief in its contents prevented its efficient use as a tool of oppression (for fat kinky aristocrats). By contrast, Kierkegaard and C S Lewis challenged religion precisely because its contents weren't earnestly believed. Both ideas are rational to some extent, yet only of those three men was wise.

truisms are generalizations that have useful benefits when dealing with the empirical world - such as “Men have greater spacial reasoning skills than women”, or ”Growing wheat will produce nutritious food”. Most areas of science depend on the use of truisms.

I was falsely equating truisms with all abstract arguments. My point though is that one can't reason about complex empirical phenomena only by using abstract concepts and deductions (including truisms).

In reality, however, this statement is extremely problematic because of how you're applying your definition of rationality, and by extension a rational society or culture, to actual historical events and processes. Just as Kevin's argumentum ad Planetary Protectionism is irrelevant to actual trade, your conception of liberal politics is irrelevant to the actual development of western capitalist societies.

That’s not true. Past liberal policies, such as women’s right to vote, minimum wages, equality before the law, universal access to education, health and environmental regulations, etc, have greatly shaped the development of Western capitalist societies, and in particular helped curb the harmful excesses of the psychopathic rich, at least to some degree. The same goes for the practice of reason, which has also influenced Western culture to a certain extent via science, academia, the law, and of course, wise philosophers.

It's not about the policies themselves but your conception of their causes and the part played by rationality in the development and actual functioning of the modern liberalism.

Dear little Alex could never make up his mind what this forum is about. Sometimes he thought we were reactionary, sometimes mere conformists to our Christian culture, sometimes completely divorced from our Christian culture, sometimes too rationally reductive, sometimes too romantic and mystical. He was all over the place, which is no surprise given that he had no inward grounding or centre.

Reactionary thought consciously evades clarity and identification. It thrives on contradictory positions strung together with simple existential truths that *feel* like they reveal the essence of confusing world-things that make Brain hurt. Which is why it resembles wisdom to an extent, and wise teachings stripped of wisdom resemble it.

[David Quinn]

The rationality in Renaissance culture wasn't remotely like wisdom.

No, but it was the soil out of which the progressive rational culture in Europe emerged and flourished over the following centuries.

Galaxy Brained abstract argument that *feels* like it's also true for the real world. You are proposing a special characteristic ("soil") originating in the Renaissance that underpins "progressive rational culture" in all the successive ages.

The progressive rational culture didn’t simply pop into existence fully formed. Like everything else, it had antecedent causes. It emerged from something other than itself.

This is a logical truth. It has nothing to do with feelings.

That’s true, the beginnings of the rational movement were steeped in the delusions of the time. How could it be otherwise?

By challenging the delusions it was steeped in instead of only challenging the unpleasant or unfashionable ones. That is literally what wisdom is.

No one is saying that the Renaissance was a period of wisdom, just as no one is saying that Kierkegaard at five years old was wise.

Well, from my point of view, Machiavelli's most significant achievement was criticizing the Christian religion of his time, thus helping to bring the emerging rational culture into being. He was part of the soil that gave rise to the "Enlightenment" movement. He was one of the past lives of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and co.

To be precise, Machiavelli challenged religion insofar as earnest belief in its contents prevented its efficient use as a tool of oppression (for fat kinky aristocrats). By contrast, Kierkegaard and C S Lewis challenged religion precisely because its contents weren't earnestly believed. Both ideas are rational to some extent, yet only of those three men was wise.

No one is saying that Machiavelli was wise. He merely put into place some of the building blocks that led to an intellectual culture that helped propel some people in later generations to become wise.

In reality, however, this statement is extremely problematic because of how you're applying your definition of rationality, and by extension a rational society or culture, to actual historical events and processes. Just as Kevin's argumentum ad Planetary Protectionism is irrelevant to actual trade, your conception of liberal politics is irrelevant to the actual development of western capitalist societies.

That’s not true. Past liberal policies, such as women’s right to vote, minimum wages, equality before the law, universal access to education, health and environmental regulations, etc, have greatly shaped the development of Western capitalist societies, and in particular helped curb the harmful excesses of the psychopathic rich, at least to some degree. The same goes for the practice of reason, which has also influenced Western culture to a certain extent via science, academia, the law, and of course, wise philosophers.

It's not about the policies themselves but your conception of their causes and the part played by rationality in the development and actual functioning of the modern liberalism.

This is an assertion without any content.

Dear little Alex could never make up his mind what this forum is about. Sometimes he thought we were reactionary, sometimes mere conformists to our Christian culture, sometimes completely divorced from our Christian culture, sometimes too rationally reductive, sometimes too romantic and mystical. He was all over the place, which is no surprise given that he had no inward grounding or centre.

Reactionary thought consciously evades clarity and identification. It thrives on contradictory positions strung together with simple existential truths that *feel* like they reveal the essence of confusing world-things that make Brain hurt. Which is why it resembles wisdom to an extent, and wise teachings stripped of wisdom resemble it.

This is another assertion without any content.

[jupiviv]

The progressive rational culture didn’t simply pop into existence fully formed. Like everything else, it had antecedent causes. It emerged from something other than itself.

The causes of the progressive rational culture didn't pop into existence fully formed either.

By challenging the delusions it was steeped in instead of only challenging the unpleasant or unfashionable ones. That is literally what wisdom is.

No one is saying that the Renaissance was a period of wisdom, just as no one is saying that Kierkegaard at five years old was wise.

What you are saying though, is that the Renaissance was the beginning of a gradual progression *towards* a wise culture. The adoption of rationality within newly opened up areas of interest/activity doesn't seem to be caused or motivated by a desire to further rationality as a whole.

The development of 5 year olds is not analogous to the actual development of civilisations, much like intergalactic and international trade.

No one is saying that Machiavelli was wise. He merely put into place some of the building blocks that led to an intellectual culture that helped propel some people in later generations to become wise.

No one's saying Machiavelli didn't contribute anything to intellectual culture. It is the hypothetical relationship between said intellectual culture and wisdom and wise people that is being challenged.

Reactionary thought consciously evades clarity and identification. It thrives on contradictory positions strung together with simple existential truths that *feel* like they reveal the essence of confusing world-things that make Brain hurt. Which is why it resembles wisdom to an extent, and wise teachings stripped of wisdom resemble it.

This is another assertion without any content.

You're reducing centuries of changing material conditions, class conflict, territorial & economic expansion etc. to a step-by-step increase in cultural willingness to "do reasoning". Jordan Peterson also reduces complex phenomena to linearly progressing/regressing principles governing society aka order vs chaos.

In case it isn't clear, Order = Liberal Establishment and Chaos = the alt right and evil rich guys. I'm not saying your politics and Peterson's are the same. I don't any problem with your politics per se. It's the attempt to pass them off as expressions of wisdom that I find despicable. Likewise, Kevin's deranged SJW obsession posturing as his fight against excessive femininity, the greatest danger facing Western Civilisation/the Liberal Establishment/etc. This is praxis projected onto essentialist categories. The part of society you feel like supporting at the moment gradually progresses towards your lofty wisdom by virtue of whatever principle/quality it represents, while you occasionally descend to help or encourage it like some Homeric god.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[Renaissance culture] was the soil out of which the progressive rational culture in Europe emerged and flourished over the following centuries. Over time, this rational culture came to adopt the deep-seated belief that the Christian God could be fully understood by reason, which (a) ignited the rise of modern science and (b) gave birth to the type of atheistic thinking that leads to the path of wisdom.

The term "progressive rational culture" can be questioned. It seem to have little meaning beyond simple universal valuing of rationality, knowledge, exploration and justice. Hardly any culture would oppose it and lets face it, so far any modern "mass" culture values mostly other things entirely! They all increasingly live at the surface of things where the path of wisdom has little value outside sound bites and quotes.

And which rare type of atheistic thinking leads to the path of wisdom? There's no indication that in the more atheistic countries more wisdom than usual is sprouting. Religion is simply being replaced with other things, some ideology or consumerism. Perhaps nationalism or the various appeals to humanitarianism replace it.

With Kierkegaard we should perhaps worry more about the type of rational progressiveness causing some kind of "sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction" (see also Kierkegaard's Two Ages: A Literary Review).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Kevin: This planet doesn't do trade with other planets, and yet capitalism can work on this planet. The same can be said for individual countries.

Jupiter: The point was that your analogy between countries and planets is wrong. The earth doesn't enter into unions with other planets, but countries do. The earth doesn't break up into smaller planets or declare independence from other planets, but countries do.

The larger point Kevin seems to make here is that you could create some form of capitalism inside some established borders of a nation or limited union. Other countries across the world would be as of little concern as if they were other, barren or alien planets.

The weak point is not the overblown analogy but the reality that the drive for competition will push others to trade with nations around the globe amassing more wealth, cheaper pricing and faster growth. Within history we have seen people moving towards such places or desire to import and export. Which then would need to be blocked with force as not to destroy ones internal market.

This means, it all works if nobody decided to do something different. The reverse is true as well, in any globalist system, no major player can retreat as it would destabilize the system. Therefore governments will need to be controlled to serve the global interests and not their electorate.

[David Quinn]

The progressive rational culture didn’t simply pop into existence fully formed. Like everything else, it had antecedent causes. It emerged from something other than itself.

The causes of the progressive rational culture didn't pop into existence fully formed either.

True, it all stretches back into the infinite past. But we have to draw lines somewhere if we want to engage meaningfully with the world and make changes.

Chuang Tzu says, “He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge. “

By challenging the delusions it was steeped in instead of only challenging the unpleasant or unfashionable ones. That is literally what wisdom is.

No one is saying that the Renaissance was a period of wisdom, just as no one is saying that Kierkegaard at five years old was wise.

What you are saying though, is that the Renaissance was the beginning of a gradual progression *towards* a wise culture. The adoption of rationality within newly opened up areas of interest/activity doesn't seem to be caused or motivated by a desire to further rationality as a whole.

The Renaissance involved an expansion of consciousness in all sorts of different directions. One of these directions led to the development of an evolving, intellectual culture that was taken up with zest by academic philosophers (Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc) and spiritual philosophers.

When a 16 year-old child begins to question everything and expands his consciousness through reading, joining different groups, taking drugs, sexual experimentation, etc, he is not necessarily being motivated by reason. It is more the newness, the altered perspectives and the rebelling that excites him. But that could all change further down the track if he were to, say, fall in with an intellectual crowd or discover an inspired philosophic book or experience a powerful satori. In other words, even if an expansion of consciousness isn't motivated by reason to begin, there is always the potential that it could lead to a passion for reason over time.

No one is saying that Machiavelli was wise. He merely put into place some of the building blocks that led to an intellectual culture that helped propel some people in later generations to become wise.

No one's saying Machiavelli didn't contribute anything to intellectual culture. It is the hypothetical relationship between said intellectual culture and wisdom and wise people that is being challenged.

The Buddha was spurred along by the intellectual culture of Hinduism. Socrates by the intellectual culture of ancient Athens. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu by the “sages of old”. Huang Po by past Ch’an masters. Hakuin by the Zen tradition. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing. It wasn’t just confined to 18th and 19th century Europe.

Reactionary thought consciously evades clarity and identification. It thrives on contradictory positions strung together with simple existential truths that *feel* like they reveal the essence of confusing world-things that make Brain hurt. Which is why it resembles wisdom to an extent, and wise teachings stripped of wisdom resemble it.

This is another assertion without any content.

You're reducing centuries of changing material conditions, class conflict, territorial & economic expansion etc. to a step-by-step increase in cultural willingness to "do reasoning".

For sure, I could have talked about other factors (such as the expansion of global trade, the colonization and exploitation of other countries, the increasing sophistication of European society and its laws, the invention of the printing press, the gradual rise of the middle class, etc), but I didn’t really see a need, given the topic at hand - just as I didn't feel a need to talk about the formation of the solar system, or the proton-electron interactions inside Machiavelli, or the laws of thermodynamics governing the mechanisms of speech.

I'm not saying your politics and Peterson's are the same. I don't any problem with your politics per se. It's the attempt to pass them off as expressions of wisdom that I find despicable.

For me, these are all spiritual matters. Everything is a spiritual matter. I don’t believe in compartmentalizing my mind and placing politics in a sealed-off section that is divorced from my spiritual concerns.

These concerns include the survival of wisdom, the survival of the human race, valuing the truth, strengthening rational thought, etc. All of my "politics" flow from this.

[jupiviv]

The causes of the progressive rational culture didn't pop into existence fully formed either.

True, it all stretches back into the infinite past. But we have to draw lines somewhere if we want to engage meaningfully with the world and make changes.

Yes and the line you have drawn is inappropriate for reasons stated previously.

What you are saying though, is that the Renaissance was the beginning of a gradual progression *towards* a wise culture. The adoption of rationality within newly opened up areas of interest/activity doesn't seem to be caused or motivated by a desire to further rationality as a whole.

The Renaissance involved an expansion of consciousness in all sorts of different directions. One of these directions led to the development of an evolving, intellectual culture that was taken up with zest by academic philosophers (Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc) and spiritual philosophers.

Renaissance thought has indubitably influenced later ages, but only as one of other numerous causes, not progenitor. You're proposing a single cultural/social consciousness linking the Renaissance, modern liberal thought, your own politics and wisdom together, and that simply doesn't exist. As mentioned before, such an approach to world-history is the essence of anti-intellectualism and (by extension) reactionary/populist politics. How ironic!

even if an expansion of consciousness isn't motivated by reason to begin, there is always the potential that it could lead to a passion for reason over time.

That's fair enough. Wisdom can grow out of any form of consciousness. Still, the analogy between civilisations and individuals is wrong. Conscious activity in itself doesn't cause wisdom, i.e., conscious activity not limited by mere necessity or interest. The causes of an individual's radical embracing of all truth cannot apply to hypothetical civilisations which gradually embrace particular truths over several centuries, driven by a conscious desire to embrace all truth, as best as possible, at some future date.

No one's saying Machiavelli didn't contribute anything to intellectual culture. It is the hypothetical relationship between said intellectual culture and wisdom and wise people that is being challenged.

The Buddha was spurred along by the intellectual culture of Hinduism. Socrates by the intellectual culture of ancient Athens. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu by the “sages of old”. Huang Po by past Ch’an masters. Hakuin by the Zen tradition. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing. It wasn’t just confined to 18th and 19th century Europe.

Sages - like everything else - work with whatever is available, but that doesn't mean their cultures uniquely influence their wisdom or wisdom-lust.

If the absolute is to be introduced—and this age excels to the most dreadful degree in taking up everything characterlessly "to a certain degree"—prudence requires one not to do what commonly one would preferably desire to do, both for one's own sake and for the sake of others, before making the decisive attack, that is, to go to the rulers and say it to them, in order to see if possibly they might not yield a little. No, one cannot do this because—well, the misfortune is precisely this, that one cannot be sure, however strongly one might express oneself, that they would not take it up "to a certain degree," and so one would have bungled one's task of introducing the absolute. No, like the spring of the wild beast, or like the swift blow of the bird of prey, so it is the absolute must be introduced, especially in the face of this characterless "to a certain degree."

For sure, I could have talked about other factors (such as the expansion of global trade, the colonization and exploitation of other countries, the increasing sophistication of European society and its laws, the invention of the printing press, the gradual rise of the middle class, etc), but I didn’t really see a need, given the topic at hand - just as I didn't feel a need to talk about the formation of the solar system, or the proton-electron interactions inside Machiavelli, or the laws of thermodynamics governing the mechanisms of speech.

The manner in which Earth was created is irrelevant to your hypothesis about the Liberal Establishment. The role of changing material conditions and their impact on society as a whole is precisely what your hypothesis must ignore in order to make sense.

I'm not saying your politics and Peterson's are the same. I don't any problem with your politics per se. It's the attempt to pass them off as expressions of wisdom that I find despicable.

For me, these are all spiritual matters. Everything is a spiritual matter. I don’t believe in compartmentalizing my mind and placing politics in a sealed-off section that is divorced from my spiritual concerns.

These concerns include the survival of wisdom, the survival of the human race, valuing the truth, strengthening rational thought, etc. All of my "politics" flow from this.

Thinking that Trump and the alt-right is reversing the global progress towards rationality doesn't address any of those concerns. It doesn't even address any political concerns you might have, like increasing social unrest or losing your welfare cheques. These supposed "concerns" are shared by Kevin as well, and expressed in the same hollow QRS rhetoric. Only some of the values differ.

I consider myself wise - or close enough - yet my politics don't "flow from" wisdom. In other words, they do not assume that realistically probable political actions or changes will cause or hinder wisdom in any significant way. My policy/party preferences are *hygienic*, not ethical, in nature. One might attribute the prudence of such preferences to wisdom, but even that is highly debatable. Wanting comfort and safety is not inherently wiser than wanting the opposite, and vice versa. Similarly, accurate determinations of comfort and safety isn't inherently wiser than inaccurate ones.

PS - just remembered that you recently named Chris Hedges as your favourite journalist or something similar. His opinion of Trumpism and its relation to liberalism is quite similar to mine. And yet I'm alternately brainwashed, pessimistic and cynical. Have you thought any of this through?

[David Quinn]

The Renaissance involved an expansion of consciousness in all sorts of different directions. One of these directions led to the development of an evolving, intellectual culture that was taken up with zest by academic philosophers (Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc) and spiritual philosophers.

Renaissance thought has indubitably influenced later ages, but only as one of other numerous causes, not progenitor. You're proposing a single cultural/social consciousness linking the Renaissance, modern liberal thought, your own politics and wisdom together

No. You are merely projecting an infantile conception from your own mind.

As someone who is continuously aware of the infinite complexities of the causal web, I find your characterization here, and indeed of my views more generally, to be extremely lame.

even if an expansion of consciousness isn't motivated by reason to begin, there is always the potential that it could lead to a passion for reason over time.

That's fair enough. Wisdom can grow out of any form of consciousness.

Any form of consciousness?

If the absolute is to be introduced—and this age excels to the most dreadful degree in taking up everything characterlessly "to a certain degree"—prudence requires one not to do what commonly one would preferably desire to do, both for one's own sake and for the sake of others, before making the decisive attack, that is, to go to the rulers and say it to them, in order to see if possibly they might not yield a little. No, one cannot do this because—well, the misfortune is precisely this, that one cannot be sure, however strongly one might express oneself, that they would not take it up "to a certain degree," and so one would have bungled one's task of introducing the absolute. No, like the spring of the wild beast, or like the swift blow of the bird of prey, so it is the absolute must be introduced, especially in the face of this characterless "to a certain degree."

Kierkegaard is speaking about the individual promotion of wisdom here. It is a good quote, but it has no relevance to the issue of culture and its impact on the aspiring genius.

Indeed, Kierkegaard openly affirms the importance of culture, and the role it plays in the promotion of wisdom, by the very fact that he published books and tried to make his views known.

The role of changing material conditions and their impact on society as a whole is precisely what your hypothesis must ignore in order to make sense.

No one is ignoring these things. For example, I have been arguing that the far-right insurgency that is trying to take over the world, together with the looming environmental catastrophe heading toward us, presents a tremendous threat to both the species as a whole and to all future individuals who have potential for wisdom. So yes, changing material conditions do play a role.

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles, so it is probably best if we leave it there. Thanks for the conversation.

[jupiviv]

Renaissance thought has indubitably influenced later ages, but only as one of other numerous causes, not progenitor. You're proposing a single cultural/social consciousness linking the Renaissance, modern liberal thought, your own politics and wisdom together

No. You are merely projecting an infantile conception from your own mind.

I'm just stripping off the rhetoric. This is what you said earlier:

...(Renaissance culture) was the soil out of which the progressive rational culture in Europe emerged and flourished over the following centuries. Over time, this rational culture came to adopt the deep-seated belief that the Christian God could be fully understood by reason, which (a) ignited the rise of modern science and (b) gave birth to the type of atheistic thinking that leads to the path of wisdom.

It evolved so much that by the time Schopenhauer and Nietzsche came along, it was challenging the very basis of Christianity and thus repudiating the very soil out of which it emerged.

Unfortunately, after that, it began deteriorating into the kind of cynical postmodernist nihilism that we see today.

So you're claiming that a unique cultural awareness/valuation of reason started with the Renaissance and its latest stage of development is being threatened by Trump, cynicism, postmodernism and whatever else you happen to dislike. In my view, that is an infantile perspective of history. The vast majority of people reasoned for the same reasons as always, i.e., to fit in with other people and to achieve success in irrational and selfish ends. On a societal and cultural scale, reasoning arose not from a unique "rational culture" but rather from the same conditions that enabled such a culture to begin with.

And then there is the issue of what actually "reasoning" actually entails. In many cases people become tolerant and open-minded because it's what everybody else does and they never experience the need to do the opposite. That is why those concepts are so variable depending on historical period, culture, class etc. In absolute terms, an alt-rightist living in a modern western society is more tolerant and open-minded than Shakespeare or Dante. Some of the more intelligent ones may LARP as 17th century husbandmen on Twitter, but in terms of actual lifestyle and preconceptions there is no similarity.

Wisdom can grow out of any form of consciousness.

Any form of consciousness?

What forms of consciousness would you exclude from wisdom? Any experience can lead to other experiences.

Indeed, Kierkegaard openly affirms the importance of culture, and the role it plays in the promotion of wisdom, by the very fact that he published books and tried to make his views known.

All sages have to participate in their culture in order to promote wisdom. That doesn't mean the culture as a whole promotes wisdom. Kierkegaard explicitly states in the above quote that he cannot introduce wisdom in a way that is acceptable to his culture.

The role of changing material conditions and their impact on society as a whole is precisely what your hypothesis must ignore in order to make sense.

No one is ignoring these things. For example, I have been arguing that the far-right insurgency that is trying to take over the world, together with the looming environmental catastrophe heading toward us, presents a tremendous threat to both the species as a whole and to all future individuals who have potential for wisdom. So yes, changing material conditions do play a role.

You're being obtuse.

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles, so it is probably best if we leave it there. Thanks for the conversation.

Likewise.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When a 16 year-old child begins to question everything and expands his consciousness through reading, joining different groups, taking drugs, sexual experimentation, etc, he is not necessarily being motivated by reason.

The Buddha was spurred along by the intellectual culture of Hinduism. Socrates by the intellectual culture of ancient Athens. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu by the “sages of old”. Huang Po by past Ch’an masters. Hakuin by the Zen tradition. There are numerous examples of this kind of thing. It wasn’t just confined to 18th and 19th century Europe.

This is the recurring confusion in a nut shell! The notion of "progressive rational culture" would be something more akin to the result of a boiling kettle of experimentation and expansion from which good things may arise occasionally. But one has to keep asking: good for what exactly? Or good for how long? With every perceived advancement in the world, we can easily list danger and destruction as its shadow. Had it ever been that different?

In that context it's Interesting to refer to sages harking back to past wisdom and in that sense not that progressive, from a cultural or historical point of view. The better word seems reformist? Leading to a more consistent phrase: we need to promote reformist, experimental and mind expanding elements of any culture. This phrase has some problems but might be more in line with David, the Genius Forum and philosophers over the ages.

These concerns include the survival of wisdom, the survival of the human race, valuing the truth, strengthening rational thought, etc. All of my "politics" flow from this.

Surviving is struggle against opposite forces, overcoming, asserting: to remain fit. While the acts of valuing and strengthening are simply expressions of power. Even rational thought is a will to power, to overcome and subdue those forces opposing the rational construct, personal or shared. All of our politics flow from a desire for ones own continued power, ultimately. So lets use it wisely!

To go back to the topic where this discussion started, as to close the circle. Here's an interesting New York Times article The Making of a YouTube Radical and a rebuttal of some kind from the Shapiro hangout Dailywire, Everything About The NYT The Making of a YouTube Radical Is Dishonest . These articles seem to capture a lot about the social justice discussion on this forum so far.

The NYT article reads a lot like I've seen Davin Quinn posting on this topic, as he seems to struggle with this observation of "aimless men" -- yes even his old friend and guide Kevin Solway, using social media looking for direction or distraction and would be then "seduced by a community of far-right creators". When reading the Dailywire rebuttal and following the facts and logic offered, all very easy to verify, it's rather clear that we're all talking about imaginary things mostly. Mostly feeling and conjecture offered as serious threat in the NYT. As if a whole threat is conjured out of thin air and with that denying reality?

While I don't see myself as part of any political current attached to any conservative or liberal leaning media and have already described Shapiro earlier as rather unhinged and going for effect more than content in many instances, I must again really doubt the sanity of what used to be mainstream media. It's like journalism and politics both are rapidly losing meaning and become irrelevant in the process. As if they are not capable anymore to respond, to reflect on the events on the world. Which also holds increasingly true I think for us, the people, the commenters. It's like a fantasy world is crumbling and various "post-modern" forces are ripping it apart like a spring tide.

[jupiviv]

Surviving is struggle against opposite forces, overcoming, asserting: to remain fit. While the acts of valuing and strengthening are simply expressions of power. Even rational thought is a will to power, to overcome and subdue those forces opposing the rational construct, personal or shared. All of our politics flow from a desire for ones own continued power, ultimately. So lets use it wisely!

Survival is existence. If survival is also power then it makes no sense to assert any will to power, because everything is powerful/existent and the term "power" is meaningless. Thus, the assertion that the desire for rationality (or anything else) "flows from" a separate desire for power is fallacious.

To go back to the topic where this discussion started, as to close the circle. Here's an interesting New York Times article The Making of a YouTube Radical and a rebuttal of some kind from the Shapiro hangout Dailywire, Everything About The NYT The Making of a YouTube Radical Is Dishonest . These articles seem to capture a lot about the social justice discussion on this forum so far.

The NYT article reads a lot like I've seen Davin Quinn posting on this topic, as he seems to struggle with this observation of "aimless men" -- yes even his old friend and guide Kevin Solway, using social media looking for direction or distraction and would be then "seduced by a community of far-right creators". When reading the Dailywire rebuttal and following the facts and logic offered, all very easy to verify, it's rather clear that we're all talking about imaginary things mostly. Mostly feeling and conjecture offered as serious thread in the NYT. As if a whole threat is conjured out of thin air and with that denying reality?

After skimming through the NYT article, I didn't notice any dishonesty whatsoever. It seems to describe the sparsely studied phenomenon of online far right radicalisation quite reasonably. The Dailywire article, on the other hand, is totally dishonest, starting with the title itself. "Everything about the NYT article is dishonest." Every single argument I came across was a red herring, which is probably why you like it! I'll only address the first two:

“I fell down the alt-right rabbit hole,” laments Caleb Cain, the subject of the Times investigation. But just about all of the personalities the Times cites eschew the “alt-right,” a racial ideology that defines itself as an “alternative" to traditional conservative thought. In fact, the Anti-Defamation League identified Ben Shapiro as the primary journalistic recipient of anti-Semitic tweets from the “alt-right” in 2016.

Lol! This is a typical SJW argument except within an alt-right context. Being hated by *some* antisemitic alt-rightists doesn't mean Shapiro disagrees with alt-right opinions outside of anti-semitism, or isn't connected to alt-right people who don't hate 100% of Jews irregardless of all other factors except Jewishness.

The belief that men and women are different, the decision to date a Christian girl, and the audacity to disagree with one’s liberal friends suggest a radicalism so dangerous it merits a New York Times investigation.

All of those things are both compatible and highly correlated with reactionary beliefs, both at present and historically. It is irrelevant whether *some* versions of them are anodyne because those are not the subject of the NYT article. You're an SJW if you think otherwise.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Surviving is struggle against opposite forces, overcoming, asserting: to remain fit. While the acts of valuing and strengthening are simply expressions of power. Even rational thought is a will to power, to overcome and subdue those forces opposing the rational construct, personal or shared. All of our politics flow from a desire for ones own continued power, ultimately. So lets use it wisely!

Survival is existence. If survival is also power then it makes no sense to assert any will to power, because everything is powerful/existent and the term "power" is meaningless. Thus, the assertion that the desire for rationality (or anything else) "flows from" a separate desire for power is fallacious.

Did I say "survival is power"? Or that "everything is powerful"? No. And obviously "powerful" is relative to a lack of power. But the essence of my paragraph was to show how a political view and a rational thought have something in common and that it's wiser to be aware of what exactly is desired to continue, in either case. And even if I had defined existence as something essentially driven by desire of power (and I didn't) it would not become meaningless at all. Since it can be simply contrasted to the view that there's existence not driven by any desire. That contrast could be meaningful. You are mistaken to think that universal qualification or descriptions are necessarily meaningless. It would be anti-philosophy!

After skimming through the NYT article, I didn't notice any dishonesty whatsoever.

You sound really on some hormone high, looking for anything to disagree with or oppose. And perhaps you should!

Being hated by *some* antisemitic alt-rightists doesn't mean Shapiro disagrees with alt-right opinions outside of anti-semitism, or isn't connected to alt-right people who don't hate 100% of Jews irregardless of all other factors except Jewishness.

You're missing the point, the NYT refers to and quotes Cain as well about "the alt-right rabbit hole" as the description of the whole process. But at the same time doesn't manage to define what is meant with "alt-right".

Just a cursory glance is sufficient to see where the term commonly refers to, for the larger audience and would certainly would have to include Richard B. Spencer, a known Nazi and critic of Jews, a man who would have coined the term "alt-right" in the first place. Even when dismissing this, all main sources would still at least agree that "alt-right" is racist in nature. And while the larger point made here is that Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin have simply little to do with alt or extreme right although Rubin has given it arguably some platform, as would have this forum.

The belief that men and women are different, the decision to date a Christian girl, and the audacity to disagree with one’s liberal friends suggest a radicalism so dangerous it merits a New York Times investigation.

All of those things are both compatible and highly correlated with reactionary beliefs, both at present and historically. It is irrelevant whether *some* versions of them are anodyne because those are not the subject of the NYT article. You're an SJW if you think otherwise.

But this was not about conservatives or right-wingers. This looks like such a strange attempt to associate the extreme with all intellectual or populist flavors of the right or the intellectual "Dark Web", which is a way better article but with the same tonal error, grouping things that shouldn't be grouped in that context.

The NYT article was all about the alt-right rabbit hole as some "far-right universe filled to the brim with conspiracy theories, misogyny and racism". Thus not simply reactionary beliefs and as such you are making exactly the point of the rebuttal. Thanks for agreeing underneath your flawed attempt to counter! Even the Dailywire can be right at times but some would rather commit intellectual suicide than simply admit it.

[jupiviv]

Survival is existence. If survival is also power then it makes no sense to assert any will to power, because everything is powerful/existent and the term "power" is meaningless. Thus, the assertion that the desire for rationality (or anything else) "flows from" a separate desire for power is fallacious.

Did I say "survival is power"? Or that "everything is powerful"? No. And obviously "powerful" is relative to a lack of power. But the essence of my paragraph was to show how a political view and a rational thought have something in common and that it's wiser to be aware of what exactly is desired to continue, in either case.

Are you distinguishing survival and will to power - the latter as a subset of the former which is unique to consciousness? Even in that case, there is still the assumption of an innate power-lust causing desire for the continuation of 'x'.

the NYT refers to and quotes Cain as well about "the alt-right rabbit hole" as the description of the whole process. But at the same time doesn't manage to define what is meant with "alt-right".

The alt-right is the online presence of the far right, which is what the NYT article is about.

Just a cursory glance is sufficient to see where the term commonly refers to, for the larger audience and would certainly would have to include Richard B. Spencer, a known Nazi and critic of Jews, a man who would have coined the term "alt-right" in the first place. Even when dismissing this, all main sources would still at least agree that "alt-right" is racist in nature. And while the larger point made here is that Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin have simply little to do with alt or extreme right although Rubin has given it arguably some platform, as would have this forum.

I believe I've addressed this argument in the post you're responding to. An alt-rightist can be racist without being anti-semitic. They may agree with the alt-right worldview in general without approving the racist bits, or replace them with "culture" etc. If anything, you're the one doing SJW-esque fake news caricatures of alt-rightists as people who hate all non-WASP individuals a priori.

All of those things are both compatible and highly correlated with reactionary beliefs, both at present and historically. It is irrelevant whether *some* versions of them are anodyne because those are not the subject of the NYT article. You're an SJW if you think otherwise.

But this was not about conservatives or right-wingers. This looks like such a strange attempt to associate the extreme with all intellectual or populist flavors of the right or the intellectual "Dark Web" (a better article but with same tonal error, grouping things that shouldn't be grouped).

You're creating an ad hoc distinction between normal and far rightists comprised of fabricated attitudes on single issues existing in a vacuum, then claiming that no honest analysis is possible if that division is ignored. A red herring, if you will.

Putting aside the high variability of political definitions and politics themselves (especially at present), the argument should proceed from general worldview and stances on several key issues like the role of government, the legitimacy and righteousness of western capitalist/imperialist projects of the past 200 years, innate vs environmental determinism. By this metric people like Shapiro are, if not alt rightists, at least apologists for most aspects of alt right dogma but with a few strong reservations about the Jewish Question.

Not that it needs to be pointed out to anyone with 1/4th of a functional brain, but Shapiro opposes absolutis anti-semitism because he is Jewish and evidently doesn't really care very much for genuine intellectual/ideological consistency or indeed anything else beyond his own etiolated self.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Even in that case, there is still the assumption of an innate power-lust causing desire for the continuation of 'x'.

And in that case I wouldn't say "causing" but simply being the same thing: this "will to power" and any deeper craving for continuation of a thing, which can include expansion if the context would be the choice between growth or decline. Now I do understand your earlier remark, that "thing" in this context would become simply an instance of power, some power trip.

And yes, following such idea, a desire for power would then become some desire for desire, a continuation of continuation itself? That's all typical Nietzschean stuff and his will-to-willing. It might need some time to delve into the deeper implication of this self-referencing.

The alt-right is the online presence of the far right, which is what the NYT article is about.

You can define things as you like but I don't know of any reference that would define alt-right as simply the online presence of something else.

An alt-rightist can be racist without being anti-semitic. They may agree with the alt-right worldview in general without approving the racist bits, or replace them with "culture" etc.

Now you're changing the definition of "racist". The alt-right attributions always involve overt racism or white nationalism. And racism is a very specific term meaning specific things. It's not the same for example as discrimination, for example, discrimination based on religion, e.g. seeing Islam as ideology or some source of social problems. Some racists are Islamophobic but that doesn't mean it can all be conflated now.

You're creating an ad hoc distinction between normal and far rightists comprised of fabricated attitudes on single issues existing in a vacuum

They are distinct because they are different! And I was simply maintaining "alt-right" is a wholly distinct thing, that is, if it's anything at all.

the argument should proceed from general worldview and stances on several key issues like the role of government, the legitimacy and righteousness of western capitalist/imperialist projects of the past 200 years, innate vs environmental determinism.

You're trying to conflate now all kinds of different views, ideologies, inquiries and cultural criticism to somehow make it "alt-rightish". It's like they tried during the rise of communism, where anyone with some half baked socialist idea was demonized and suspect. A few decades later socialism is simply a relatively normal political ideology with many varieties. Only few Americans still hold socialist = communist as true.

Shapiro opposes absolutis anti-semitism because he is Jewish and evidently doesn't really care very much for genuine intellectual/ideological consistency or indeed anything else beyond his own etiolated self.

That might be true but that's no reason to link him to any alt-right hell hole or spiral. In the end the NYT article is not bad because it's wrong about something specific, it's because it took a non-issue, a collection of innuendo, vague associations and fears, then shook it into a cocktail of imagination and published it. Which is part on a broader ongoing delusion taking hold, as it might always try, this very tendency (actually Fox might have taken it mainstream originally but they're all Fox now, like all presidents will be Trump now?). It's really one big nothing burger being sold as insight. And I suspect the whole topic of "alt-right" is exactly like that as well, some loosely associated names do not justify one movement of ideology binding them all in darkness. Same with a term like "liberals" I suppose, which is really nondescript for the most part (as I would be quite the extreme liberal myself compared with 90% of US conservatives). Maybe a term like green-pink-commie liberal means something more? It's all rather hollow. People should not get involved with this circus. It causes brain decay just by mentally chewing on it.

[jupiviv]

Even in that case, there is still the assumption of an innate power-lust causing desire for the continuation of 'x'.

And in that case I wouldn't say "causing" but simply being the same thing: this "will to power" and any deeper craving for continuation of a thing, which can include expansion if the context would be the choice between growth or decline. Now I do understand your earlier remark, that "thing" in this context would become simply an instance of power, some power trip.

Or rather than being an instance of it, simply the nature and extent of "power" in a specific instance, distinct from other instances and yet not, because of the underpinning awareness of time. If power is time then will to power is the passing of time. How is that distinct from value then?

Perhaps "will to power" was Nietzsche reacting to both Hegelian and Romantic Time - spirit perfecting itself vs spirit unnaturally confined within imperfection. If power/time is finite, so is will to power, which is for that reason also a will to slavery, hence not much of a will to power. If infinite, why will it at all? The greatest, indeed only, will to power is a will to suicide - to acquire a body so that it may die; to will the infinite as the finite; to ripen and burst forth and rot away.

The alt-right is the online presence of the far right, which is what the NYT article is about.

You can define things as you like but I don't know of any reference that would define alt-right as simply the online presence of something else.

Why the fuck can't you concede the simple, obvious fact that the alt-right has developed around online platforms?

On a related note:

You sound really on some hormone high, looking for anything to disagree with or oppose. And perhaps you should!

It's more that all of the positions I'm opposing are extremely wrong and stupid in (outwardly) different ways. What is worse, they are adhered to with the sort of pedantic zeal that can only be conjured by people who created/are influenced by QRS rhetoric. It's possible in such a situation to pretend that one position is less extremely wrong and stupid than others but I don't wanna!

An alt-rightist can be racist without being anti-semitic. They may agree with the alt-right worldview in general without approving the racist bits, or replace them with "culture" etc.

Now you're changing the definition of "racist". The alt-right attributions always involve overt racism or white nationalism. And racism is a very specific term meaning specific things. It's not the same for example as discrimination, for example, discrimination based on religion, e.g. seeing Islam as ideology or some source of social problems. Some racists are Islamophobic but that doesn't mean it can all be conflated now.

Racism is not a "very specific term" at all Diebert! It's quite obviously a very *general* term covering many different instances and applications, all having in common discrimination based on racial constructs. While Islamophobia is not necessarily racist, it usually is in the context of western discourse about it. Conversely, Islamophobia in the context of my own country does not connote racism.

You're creating an ad hoc distinction between normal and far rightists comprised of fabricated attitudes on single issues existing in a vacuum

They are distinct because they are difference things. And I was simply maintaining "alt-right" is a distinct thing, that is, if it's anything at all.

Cthulhu lend me strength... You weren't just maintaining that they are different things, but also implying the difference is so absolute that any assumption of similarity is evidence of unfounded hysteria.

the argument should proceed from general worldview and stances on several key issues like the role of government, the legitimacy and righteousness of western capitalist/imperialist projects of the past 200 years, innate vs environmental determinism.

You're trying to conflate now all kinds of different views, ideologies, inquiries and cultural criticism to somehow make it "alt-rightish".

I'm simply pointing out that differences between mainstream and far rightist views can be judged by the form and degree wherewith the premisses of the overall rightist worldview are endorsed or applied. Making such judgments is more relevant to this topic than voicing feeeeelings of concern about individual points in an NYT article going a bit too far and hence amounting to transliberal/billiono-communist/neoculturalist crackdown on free dumb and speech.

In the end the NYT article is not bad because it's wrong about something specific, it's because it took a non-issue, a collection of innuendo, vague associations and fears, then shook it into a cocktail of imagination and published it.

NO U. The article is well-written and describes an interesting phenomenon that can provide insights about broader and more significant trends. Which is unsurprising in a newspaper still known for producing world-class journalism every once in a while.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Or rather than being an instance of it [power], simply the nature and extent of "power" in a specific instance, distinct from other instances and yet not, because of the underpinning awareness of time. If power is time then will to power is the passing of time. How is that distinct from value then?

Weininger described time, like a crime, as the setting as real of the not-real. And lets just go with that for a bit. With the criminal mind wanting to transform all eternity into present while a wiser man would rather will every present into eternity. In this case, value would be derived from the transformation: the ignorant or criminal value maximizes the eternity into the present, as some eternal now, much like the animal experience. The value for the wise would always lie in anything enabling dissolution of the present into eternity, causality, the past and the future. Or in other words: not being here at all or simple emptiness.

If power/time is finite, so is will to power, which is for that reason also a will to slavery, hence not much of a will to power.

The presence of limits or a boundary does not imply slavery. Then all being would be slavery by definition. This is really more about drives.

Why the fuck can't you concede the simple, obvious fact that the alt-right has developed around online platforms?

Nearly everything is developing "around", on or close related to online platforms in the last decade. You're not saying anything.

it's more that all of the positions I'm opposing are extremely wrong and stupid in (outwardly) different ways.

But isn't that another "sort of pedantic zeal" right there? Sometimes a position is simply not understood or the context in which it might be valid escapes the other. Or in some cases, there's no point at all and the positions serve only to hide another lack. The people inside such discussion will not progress since they both might believe they have only rational reasons for the position but it might be presumptuous. Typically the discussion does not move forward as it's not driven by arguments at the core. Point in case politics: most people are simply repeating points from sources with strong "branding" or perceived authority but somehow they all believe to have a reasonable, weighed view.

Racism is ... quite obviously a very *general* term covering many different instances and applications, all having in common discrimination based on racial constructs. While Islamophobia is not necessarily racist, it usually is in the context of western discourse about it. Conversely, Islamophobia in the context of my own country does not connote racism.

The point here is that any critique on social-cultural constructs or religions one can join or leave, with some trouble perhaps, would be more or less the opposite of the notion of race, color, descent, or national or ethnicity, since that's something "inherent", that is, born without "choice". This means that replacing "white" people with for example the Judaeo-Christian or Western civilization, or David's ""progressive rational culture" does not simply mean we have another instance of racism. It's of course besides the point if such analysis makes ultimately sense or not. The point of racist theory is that it's based on false science which implies genetic origins for some consistent negative behavior or lack of capacity. There's this interesting point of course with national identity: if one country is known to be have a repressive and idiotic society, one can make the case that people from there might behave in unacceptable ways. However this is still a social-cultural and statistical issue, not any absolute determination or incorrigible situation (as a note aside, many slave holders also believed they could civilize the negro into equality, over the generations, so even racism is not that fixed and immovable historically).

You weren't just maintaining that they are different things, but also implying the difference is so absolute that any assumption of similarity is evidence of unfounded hysteria.

Differences are never absolute, by definition really. And context I already gave: assuming it's a thing and following how most people defined it.

I'm simply pointing out that differences between mainstream and far rightist views can be judged by the form and degree wherewith the premisses of the overall rightist worldview are endorsed or applied.

A pointless exercise in my opinion. With the same logic extreme left, communist Marxists and mainstream Liberals are somehow connected at the roots because they share some "leftist" worldview on the larger role of state, taxes, legislature to protect us all.

The article is well-written and describes an interesting phenomenon that can provide insights about broader and more significant trends. Which is unsurprising in a newspaper still known for producing world-class journalism every once in a while.

While I agree on the good journalism still occurring, your blindness for this particular hysteria taking over even a notable establishment is noted.

[jupiviv]

In this case, value would be derived from the transformation: the ignorant or criminal value maximizes the eternity into the present, as some eternal now, much like the animal experience. The value for the wise would always lie in anything enabling dissolution of the present into eternity, causality, the past and the future. Or in other words: not being here at all or simple emptiness.

I'd say dualism and nondualism reflect the same reality, as Weininger himself maintained in the relevant section ("Sadism and Masochism") of On Last Things. The Weiningerian criminal has no original will at all. His wills himself into things outside himself i.e. nothingness.

If power/time is finite, so is will to power, which is for that reason also a will to slavery, hence not much of a will to power.

The presence of limits or a boundary does not imply slavery. Then all being would be slavery by definition. This is really more about drives.

All being is slavery if the will to power is what drives the conscious awareness/positing of anything whatsoever in time.

The people inside such discussion will not progress since they both might believe they have only rational reasons for the position but it might be presumptuous. Typically the discussion does not move forward as it's not driven by arguments at the core. Point in case politics: most people are simply repeating points from sources with strong "branding" or perceived authority but somehow they all believe to have a reasonable, weighed view.

Or, you know, it's possible to verify whether someone is lying, or ignorant, or arguing in self-imposed circles for fun.

Racism is ... quite obviously a very *general* term covering many different instances and applications, all having in common discrimination based on racial constructs. While Islamophobia is not necessarily racist, it usually is in the context of western discourse about it. Conversely, Islamophobia in the context of my own country does not connote racism.

The point here is that any critique on social-cultural constructs or religions one can join or leave, with some trouble perhaps, would be more or less the opposite of the notion of race, color, descent, or national or ethnicity, since that's something "inherent", that is, born without "choice".

Wherever social constructs are euphemisms for racism, they are defined such that they have to be inherent for the majority of people to whom they apply. Moreover, race *is* a social construct and hence something that changes/is changed under the influence of various factors. Race is not the same as skin colour and other such genetically determined physical/mental characteristics.

However this is still a social-cultural and statistical issue, not any absolute determination or incorrigible situation (as a note aside, many slave holders also believed they could civilize the negro into equality, over the generations, so even racism is not that fixed and immovable historically).

Please explain to me what contorted version of my argument you are responding to because you seem to be using my argument to refute that same argument! Yes, racism is not fixed, constantly changing, exists in different contexts etc., which is precisely why Ben Shapiro receiving antisemitic tweets does not absolve him from racism or being part of the alt-right.

You weren't just maintaining that they are different things, but also implying the difference is so absolute that any assumption of similarity is evidence of unfounded hysteria.

Differences are never absolute, by definition really. And context I already gave: assuming it's a thing and following how most people defined it.

So most people define rightist and far rightist positions such that their premisses have nothing in common? I would say most people don't have coherent political definitions to begin with. Anyway, why is this relevant when we can check for ourselves?

I'm simply pointing out that differences between mainstream and far rightist views can be judged by the form and degree wherewith the premisses of the overall rightist worldview are endorsed or applied.

A pointless exercise in my opinion. With the same logic extreme left, communist Marxists and mainstream Liberals are somehow connected at the roots because they share some "leftist" worldview on the larger role of state, taxes, legislature to protect us all.

I could be wrong, but I think that's, like, the whole point of categorising political philosophy into left-centre-right. One might argue about the validity or applicability of those categories but they are not empty fabrications either.

The article is well-written and describes an interesting phenomenon that can provide insights about broader and more significant trends. Which is unsurprising in a newspaper still known for producing world-class journalism every once in a while.

While I agree on the good journalism still occurring, your blindness for this particular hysteria taking over even a notable establishment is noted.

I've excoriated the NYT (on this thread, and others) for the exact same kind of hysteria you are falsely accusing it of in this case. What evidence for such have you provided besides another opinion piece defending Shapiro's nads via the existence of antisemitic tweets? The NYT article basically ended with the author advising that guy to get a life instead of wasting time on addictive political content of all flavours on the internet. Whatever that is, it isn't hysteria.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Weiningerian criminal has no original will at all. His wills himself into things outside himself i.e. nothingness.

This is about desire and belief in some origination, something of definite substance outside himself, which is then internalized as "her being". The only way to not commit this crime of crimes is simply not engaging in the effort. There's no opposite situation or "original willing" here at all.

All being is slavery if the will to power is what drives the conscious awareness/positing of anything whatsoever in time.

Exactly and with slavery comes all slave morality and such. And following that logic, there's no desirable power in any true liberation or mastery.

Moreover, race *is* a social construct and hence something that changes/is changed under the influence of various factors. Race is not the same as skin colour and other such genetically determined physical/mental characteristics.

But this wasn't the point. This was about the charge of racism on the one hand, a charge which doesn't apply to the average conservative rant or vlogger, while on the other hand being a social construct or not, this is still about the artificial or natural grouping of people who didn't have any volition to become member. Otherwise the term "liberal" would be a race as well and attacking liberals some form of racism. And adults can in theory still join and leave religions or various social groupings. Condemning or praising them for doing so remains an entirely different subject.

I could be wrong, but I think that's, like, the whole point of categorising political philosophy into left-centre-right. One might argue about the validity or applicability of those categories but they are not empty fabrications either.

But calling conservative leaning commentators out as "alt" or "racist" would be about the same idiotic level as calling classic liberals: communist, Maoist or Soviet spies. It's reserved for people with hardly a grip on factual, political realities, a growing group now because of the emotional being triggered in vast groups of people who might have sounded rational or composed before.

? The NYT article basically ended with the author advising that guy to get a life instead of wasting time on addictive political content of all flavours on the internet. Whatever that is, it isn't hysteria.

That's the message you took away from it and perhaps for a reason. But this was not the bad part of the article. You might not see it because of some of the reasons I outlined above. But perhaps it's more about some shared world view with some of the NYT authors based on false or stale arbitrary divisions which only cater to emotional needs of a digressive/progressive dwindling mass audience.

[jupiviv]

The Weiningerian criminal has no original will at all. His wills himself into things outside himself i.e. nothingness.

This is about desire and belief in some origination, something of definite substance outside himself, which is then internalized as "her being". The only way to not commit this crime of crimes is simply not engaging in the effort. There's no opposite situation or "original willing" here at all.

Yes, self and other are inseparable from the All, which is the true self. Hence we will ourselves to the extent we will anything.

This was about the charge of racism on the one hand, a charge which doesn't apply to the average conservative rant or vlogger

It's about whether Ben Shapiro holds racist views despite being the target of racist accusations. Shapiro being the target of racist insults/accusations does not erase or vindicate Shapiro's own demonstrable racist views.

The charge of racism may not apply to the average conservative globally but it does to a significant minority of them in the US, i.e. much of the Trumptopian base, which is also the mainstream Republican base. It applies overwhelmingly to internet-obsessed conservatives/rightists.

while on the other hand being a social construct or not, this is still about the artificial or natural grouping of people who didn't have any volition to become member. Otherwise the term "liberal" would be a race as well and attacking liberals some form of racism. And adults can in theory still join and leave religions or various social groupings. Condemning or praising them for doing so remains an entirely different subject.

This is irrelevant because I haven't said anything about conservatism being inherently racialist, only that some of its premisses overlap with those of racialism. For example, the premiss that an individual's personal/political status can be determined via the presence/absence of qualities that cannot be influenced by some/all environmental conditions. It is entirely possible for someone - say an atheist youtuber or Hindu fundamentalist - to hold a belief founded on such a premiss without being a racist. However, that is not the case for Ben Shapiro and much of his fandom.

? The NYT article basically ended with the author advising that guy to get a life instead of wasting time on addictive political content of all flavours on the internet. Whatever that is, it isn't hysteria.

That's the message you took away from it and perhaps for a reason. But this was not the bad part of the article. You might not see it because of some of the reasons I outlined above.

The evidence of hysteria according to you:
1> Article on an alt-rightist website falsely asserting that victims of antisemitic hate speech are ipso facto not racist against any race whatsoever.
2> The alt right is not even an online phenomenon because everyone has internet nowadays.

And the reason I'm not in the least persuaded by that is because I'm also hysteric, you say? My message to David in his most recent thread was along the same lines as that author's to the ex alt-rightist... yet more evidence of hysteria?

But perhaps it's more about some shared world view with some of the NYT authors based on false or stale arbitrary divisions which only cater to emotional needs of a digressive/progressive dwindling mass audience.

It's not really about a dwindling progressive audience. A majority of Americans probably align fairly well with the NYT's politics. Rather, for growing numbers of people politics can no longer convincingly attach itself to increases in prosperity/living conditions (because they aren't happening). Some of them fear losing what they have, some have actually lost something and most will remain with nothing in the future. They can't hate global capitalism/industrialism because its very big and complex. Instead they place whomever they already hate as willing/manipulated participants in an incoherent simulacrum of the aforesaid.

Centrist/centre-leftist politicians like Corbyn and Sanders suddenly find themselves heading resurgent left movements, so materialist critiques are becoming popular. As a result, they can identify at least some problems accurately, unlike the Trumptopians who just blame immigrants/deep state/China/whatever else is trending on youtube and Faux news.

Modernity has been defined by the need to separate worthy consumers and labour from unworthy and receive the former's mandate to adjust capitalist/industrialist economies in their favour. Reactionaries/fascists acknowledge and affirm that need within an ad hoc fantastical context. Socialists redefine it as a choice based on bourgeois material interests and are partially correct to do so. Everyone else either pretends it never existed or consigns it to a morbidly irrational stage of the 600 y.o. etc. 100 years ago it was control of oil sources (see Berlin-Baghdad railway). Now it's increased efficiency of asset inflation.

In Marx's and Engels' time rational workplace management or Taylorism alienated labour from the means of production, and was what they opposed. Totalitarianism is Taylorism extended beyond the factory.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Jup still there hanging on!

It's about whether Ben Shapiro holds racist views despite being the target of racist accusations. Shapiro being the target of racist insults/accusations does not erase or vindicate Shapiro's own demonstrable racist views.
The charge of racism may not apply to the average conservative globally but it does to a significant minority of them in the US, i.e. much of the Trumptopian base, which is also the mainstream Republican base. It applies overwhelmingly to internet-obsessed conservatives/rightists.

Yeah what's next, calling Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi racists as well or at least "enabling the racist system"....?

And so, yes, in any hysterical or deranged system, the next level can be predicted easily, since there's no well defined starting place, the process is driven by simple power dynamics and underneath that, like all power dynamics, the will to destroy as much as to create, control or dominate. In the current state of things, the racial charging is a destructive, nihilistic act, one which has infected political discourse for the simple reason the political discourse, and ideologies, have been rotting for decades.

It is entirely possible for someone - say an atheist youtuber or Hindu fundamentalist - to hold a belief founded on such a premiss without being a racist. However, that is not the case for Ben Shapiro and much of his fandom.

This was about the points made in the article, not just about Shapiro. Although it's still a mystery to me on what exactly the racist charges are based on. Let alone "alt-right". Perhaps I don't know enough about this guy beyond being Islamophobic (like many conservative Jews) and opinionated with regards the transgender issue, which are all other things, so I really wouldn't know what you're referring to here.

... for growing numbers of people politics can no longer convincingly attach itself to increases in prosperity/living conditions (because they aren't happening). Some of them fear losing what they have, some have actually lost something and most will remain with nothing in the future.

That's all we need to realize, really and apply it thoroughly on what is written and said these days by all too many in the public discourse. But insight in what "follows next" is key, as it's where the prophet and the power can be found, if so desired: to be on top of that.