If you want to discuss something seriously, /dis/ is your place

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

File 140289122366.jpg - (97.89KB , 795x960 , Gramsci Foucault.jpg )
78005 No. 78005
let us consider a piece of music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm2ibnzM1YI

a frank, edifying struggle against a distinguished foe is an easily conceptualized, easily recognizable trope. its something people can get behind, a context where they can define and practice their virtue.

the thing is, there is no 'mighty struggle' with universalism, it is just depressing. it is also something thats hardly imaginable, there is a cultural blindspot when it comes to successful deleterious memes of this type (duh). a good 2 minutes hate against 'haters' is easily arranged, and its precisely because of this that philosophies of 'love' have done far more damage heretofore. there is no distinct body with which you agree to disagree with, with who you have no real quarrel besides a conflict of interest, and may the better thede win. rather, it is the progressive spread of seductive ideology formenting progressive dysfunction (and better yet, validates that dysfunction, subsidizes it even). the problem is that your own people become a problem.

'well who would argue against peace and plenty for all?', who indeed, in this day and age. those who argued otherwise were gifted war and privation by the universalists, who were the decisive victors. this seeming contradiction really is not unusual, nor is it coincidental how the rise of universalism in the west prefaced the rise of near constant global warfare and tension. a *liberal* political philosophy is only defined through negation, what it is not. without insufficiently universalist bogeymen to set itself against, the clade will set upon itself in phariseeism, a progressive ratchet where members find themselves in a theological arms race, in constant danger of being outflanked by one who is holier than thou. and in such an environment, solipsistic, nominalistic memes have the definite advantage.

'isint that what we do naturally anywhere', to a degree perhaps, but not all holies are created equal. categorical imperatives of either universal 'hate' or 'love' (or indifference) would of course be wrong (and of course no being actually believes in such terms) as near all categorical imperatives tend to be (near all, since just all would be a categorical imperative). but different things are different, and different starting points can have different effects, will encompass more or less of the form of the good. and it is the ideologies that have kernels of righteousness that can do the most damage, where they might otherwise be disregarded out of hand.
Unspoiler all text  • Expand all images  • Reveal spoilers
>> No. 78007
i am having a really hard time parsing out what the Protomen song has to do with your post. Looking up Universalistm, I see more references to the idea of universal salvation than the political struggle you seem to be talking about.

Define your terms, please.

Last edited at Mon, Jun 16th, 2014 10:01

>> No. 78008
File 140295968722.jpg - (23.35KB , 500x517 , foucault.jpg )

the music is simply to illustrate the theme i outline in the beginning viscerally, and how the sentiments evoked do not cohere with the problem in question. we have many examples of such tropes in media, but the problem cannot be faced in such a manner (would you engage people of your own thede as if they were the enemy? would that even solve the issue?).

in chief, it is a problem with no name, which is why it is a chief problem. naming the nameless is an act of black magic [nydwracu.wordpress.com]. an ideology with no name is the dominant ideology, but only certain kinds of ideology are capable of this, they do so because they take advantage of certain kinds of thinking, for good or ill.

the problem is better thought of as a dynamic, and it is not new in essence. ultimately it is itself an expression of certain kinds of thinking, and has expressed itself in various guises throughout history. eric voeglin called it gnosticism, pointing to a tendency towards ultimately futile revolts against reality through clinging too self-satisfying conceits, with late antiquity gnostics as prototype. julius evola deemed it modernity, pointing to the socio-historical developments of modernity being ideal for its own development; mass media, mass politics, with the jacobin revolt of 1789 as prototype. mencius moldbug calls it universalism, pointing to the dominant political orthodoxies cladistic descent from mainline protestantism, whos essential doctrines have remained functionally the same, changing only terminology and theological window-dressing, with new england puritans, from mayflower to harvard, as prototype.

the latter part is perhaps surprising, christianity is likely not the first thing the average man on the street thinks of when he hears 'left wing' or 'liberal' (the obfuscation of such history of course working in their favor). but as you will recall, this is a dynamic we are dealing with here, more specifically, certain qualities (or lack thereof) of beings. near any idea system faces the risk of such memetic compromising, and all face the pressure, to a greater or lesser degree. what else was protestantism after all, but a typical expression of solipsistic modes of thought; 'by faith alone you shall be saved', 'all have equal power to interpret the word'. the ideological development of modernity finds many roots in the nominalist theologians.

be mindful that fundamentalist christians were only one side of a schism. of course the descendants of that side has been as decisively routed as possible today, but the religious war continues regardless, eternal revolution keeps the party in place. and it is indeed an eternal revolution, when you can cast aspects of being itself as mere contingencies to be overcome, the party will live aslong as belief does.
>> No. 78010
Oh, now I understand why I'm having such difficulty following you; you're writing in dense 'dark enlightenment' jargon. If you worked through your premises rather than just publicly assuming them to be correct, I think we would both see this attempt to justify neo-tribalism for what it is; a thin veil of argument to make you more comfortable in dismissing the needs of other people, and the possible harm your actions may cause them.

Let's use the rock opera as a metaphor for this discussion. What should people do when they are being ruled by violence and fear?
>> No. 78068
Are we reading a lot of nietzsche these days OP?
>> No. 78069
He's a neo-reactionary. If you want to get a handle on what he's talking about, this is a good place to start. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/
>> No. 78115
It.. reminds me a bit of satire.
>> No. 78371

thats a bit of a red herring, since people are not being ruled by violence or fear (at least, overt violence), but by the threat of social consequences or ostracism, information filtering (less effective with the rise of internet and fall of mass media), and simple peer pressure (more effective than ever with social media, now every would-be inquisitor has a platform).

Delete post []
Report post