Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pm
David Quinn wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:57 pmTrump's latest two "national emergencies" stand out in that they are major policies implemented without any external input from the likes of Congress. He is using it as a thin end of a wedge, getting the American people accustomed to the idea of his ruling by edict.
Not sure why you count the Huawei action as another example of ruling by edict. While I have no strong opinion on any US border policies and there are more than one documented views possible on in how far it would constitute a crises or threat, it was one of the main themes ran by Trump during his election campaign, with the added claim that Congress was not able or willing to act sufficiently on that particular issue since a long time. It remains difficult to see this as a good example of something
anti-democratic as such. A case could be made this is even closer to
direct democracy although I'd never try to make that case because it assumes a majority of the people (or even Congress) would know exactly what is the best option in many complex, very technical situations. This makes the border issue act more like a principle than anything factual.
It is not just the Huawei decision. Trump is in full dictator mode now. He doesn’t even have to use the “national emergency" pretense anymore. That has become obsolete. Trump now swans around ruling by edict by the sheer force of his will. Bypassing Congress to sell arms to his Saudi buddies. Suddenly announcing tariffs on Mexico. Suddenly making war noises with Iran. He doesn’t consult with anyone anymore, outside of his circle of sycophants, and as a result the country as a whole is continually being blindsided by his impulsive rulings. The guy is clearly out of control.
And yet, incredibly, even now America continues to sleep, oblivious to what is going on.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pm Being connected to reality, utilizing the cerebral cortex and putting forward intelligent policies that benefit the wider populace would be a start. As opposed to simply unleashing the reptilian brain to create fear and chaos so as to pillage anything and everything that Trump and his cronies can lay their hands on.
The greatest delusions and devastation known to human kind have been caused by the use of the cerebral cortex and attempts to create insane policies with the use of intellect. Always with the claim that it would benefit us all, peace, the future, our safety and so on. Only in hindsight we can see how the subversion worked and what sounded at first as justification, enlightened and confident, was often born out of destructive impulses, creating chaos it its wake.
Why are you talking about insane policies? What does that have to so with anything?
Using the cerebral cortex can indeed lead to insane policy-making, but it can just as easily lead to the opposite. It depends on the level of clarity and pure-heartedness involved, as well as a good dose of luck. As with anything in the empirical realm, it’s always a bit of a gamble. But one thing is certain: *not* using the cerebral cortex is guaranteed to lead to insane policies and social disaster.
You speak against the cerebral cortex, but what is the alternative? One's feelings? Social media hysteria? Trumps’s gut?
An example of using the cerebral cortex to create sane policy-making: vaccinating all children on the planet against measles, polio and small pox.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pmIt would then be good to have a bit more realistic view on the world and stop dividing it into cerebral, ordering forces and barbaric, chaotic agents.
Well yes, this would be a realistic view if it was your intention to obliterate the distinction between reason and unreason. That is to say, if it was your intention to obliterate reason itself.
What you are promoting here is not realism, but nihilism, pure and simple. It is your alt-rightness coming to the fore, in which you reinforce the narrative that rationality and knowledge is liberal, elitist, politically correct, ineffectual, atheistic, degenerate, unEuropean, unAmerican, etc, in nature.
Do you still make the distinction between the path to Buddhahood and normal human irrationality? Or has your alt-rightness swamped that one as well?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pmWhile my position can be described as more cynical and dark, I'd call on the more humble realization that so much of our thoughts on society, economic, politics and morality are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all on their equally complex political situations of their time.
We could just as easily use that same line of thinking to argue against the value of spiritual teaching. “People’s thoughts on philosophy and wsidom are simply caused by a combination of upbringing, social class, genes, intellectual exposure and life experiences shaping our reactions. It's for that reason I suspect characters like Jesus and Buddha, Chuang Tzu,Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna would not spend much time at all engaged in trying to educate them."
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pmHow could they attain any firm or final position on the ten thousand always shifting things with countless of perspectives available to them?
What does a “final position” have to do with anything? People engage in politics in order to promote their values. You don’t need a PhD thesis to do this. You only need to stress what is most important to you. For me personally, I want people to place more value on reason.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pm It would contradict their own teachings. In the end all politics are a manifestation of the urge to organize the vast complexity of the market of things and feelings, their endless exchange and dangerous instability of the false constructs. Some intelligent comments are possible but generally of the conservative kind ("distrust', "
don't panic").
Or alternatively, you can encourage people to have faith in reason and persuade them that rational policies are the best way forward. Your so-called conservative values are underwhelming, to say the least.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: ↑Fri May 31, 2019 10:35 pmAnd yet it is difficult not to be dragged into politics at the moment, given that we live in such dangerous and consequential times. This makes it doubly important, I think, to reach even more inwards and become as nirvanic as possible.
From my perspective, call it lighter or darker, times have always been dangerous and consequential. The current scale and global connectivity between events might be something unique and still might have to be understood fully with all the ups and downs. But I'm beyond worrying after the Cold War, nuclear MAD policies, urgent prediction on peak growth, peak oil and all the doomsday clocks for decades on 5 to 12. From my perspective the human position has always been that of blind fool walking to the edge of a cliff, mentally, physically, economically and so on.
Perhaps some sense of danger and urgency is required to get to the best of our potential? Again, show me decent, worthwhile philosophy not arising out of intense struggle, danger and the edge of abysses. Perhaps bloody, dangerous thoughts need bloody, dangerous times to grow?
The Dark Ages in Europe would suggest this is an illusion. How long did it go for? Eight or nine centuries? Yet as far as we know, not a single sage ever emerged from it, nor even a decent philosopher of any note.
But lo and behold, as soon as we started to leave the Dark Ages behind and began organizing society along rational lines, the flood gates opened - Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc. Even in our soft, overly-organized society of today, Genius Forum and its associated sites (which has arguably managed to express wisdom in the simplest, clearest manner in all of human history) was able to emerge.
Or let’s look at war-torn countries. Plenty of danger abounds in a war-torn country, but has a single solitary sage ever emerged from such a situation? Not to my knowledge.
This is no surprise, when you think about it. Whenever great danger is present, people automatically become more emotional and defensive. All they can think about is their physical safety. All thought of higher achievement evaporates. Moreover, when the danger becomes entrenched and is prolonged over many years, children become deeply traumatized, which results in a generation of damaged adults whose minds are too swamped by turmoil to even begin thinking about becoming enlightened and wise. Whole generations are lost by such dangerous times.
By contrast, have a look at the upbringing of the likes of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, Solway, Rowden, and myself. We have all come from stable, well-organized backgrounds. A stable background leads to a stable mind, which is the ideal platform from which to launch a high-risk enterprise into the Infinite.
Your theory is very flawed, Diebert. Indeed, it just sounds like a romantic fantasy. I can’t help thinking that your desire for chaos and destruction is a cry for help, an expression of frustration at being trapped in an ordered society and not having the inner strength to break free of it. Hence your deep urge to cheer on a wrecking ball like Trump. It is an expression of your own impotence.