Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.

Re: Trumpism

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:44 am

Santiago Odo wrote:To my view, and even though I relate to the metaphor of 'burning up', it remains somewhat vague. I am interested in hearing about and exploring more exactly what is 'burning' but also why. If this is not defined the observation does not have much utility.

Overheating: the over-excited and the subsequently perverted. It will be tricky to speak of in more exact, powerful terms without having you protest the post-modern leaning analysis and language. In my opinion it's not hard to understand and "see" the reality of the metaphor. It's the desire of exactness and utility which could kill the fluency and "living" multilevel interpretativeness of reality. Obviously this is why language has formed in the first place, to respond to this in various intuitive ways. So it will remain "vague", I suppose in many cases. But it can re-appear in many forms and many contexts until some connection might be made.

But these comments remain unattached to specificites and I have to guess at what you mean.

But I did already write: "Perhaps briefly Ron Paul showed the combination of grass root and strong individual, invoking meaning and direction, with at least some governing, intellectual principle".

There's more to say of course about the reason I picked that as simple but weak example. But it's pretty specific, right?

And for these reasons it would be some part of my assertion that 'we' need to bring our definitions back to our own 'body' a

But this is your requirement of course. And you seem to demand from a conversation to go in that direction. In my case I see changes in definitions of "body" throughout the ages. A definition which slowly, deeply changes, same with identity. It cannot be wheeled "back" to something recognizable, something from the past, which is already rehashed, digested and regurgitated too many times. That's a fantasy, one I speak out against.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5921
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby Santiago Odo » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:32 pm

Diebert wrote:But the qualification "absolute" would defy, reasonably, even the notion of this being about perspective, let alone "specific". To be able to work as absolute it has be the most universal, common and context independent thing ever! But if such notion cannot be allowed to exist, even in theory or inside speculation -- or as deeper conversation -- there would be certainly no point to it. Certainly enlightenment cannot be meant as mere "perspective" without stopping to be any meaningful enlightenment. In any case: the forum has been to my knowing simply put forward as discussion forum and not to put forward one single perspective but instead encourages "bloodied and dangerous" ones. Yes, many of those might fail to have much blood or danger, upon inspection.

I have come to understand --- I suppose I must clarify that it is a speculation --- that a person will reveal in what they write exactly what is their relationship to Being, and to all the grand questions, when they provide their 'metaphysical definitions'. I think in what you have written here you have done that.

So, 'the absolute' and a relationship to it, would seem to have little relationship to you, your people, your family for example, that is 'specific'. You seem to hold to a notion of an 'absolute' as something ultimately that has no relationship to concrete 'perspective'. If the 'absolute' is 'universal, common and context-independent' as you assert that it is and must be, I think this nicely illustrates how your understanding of 'it' and your relationship to it will result in nothing decided. OTOH, if one defines an absolute in different terms, or if one discovers that having relationship to 'it' involves a tangible structuring of self or restructuring as the case may be, it shifts the entire meaning of the relationship.

When I speak of 'restructuring' I am, of course, referring to what I understood about the philosophy and desire of Kevin Dan and David: they came into relationship to all these questions and what they noticed about society-at-large as reformers, as messengers, as instigators. The purpose being to inspire people to relate to Being in a different way.

The essential question here, therefor, really does stem from the primary metaphysical definitions. I suggest that when one encapsulates one's primary metaphysical definition --- when you tell me what it is and what it will do in relation to me and what I must do in relation to it --- you will have revealed the very essence of your relationship to Being. By doing so, you will have revealed an entire platform, an entire program through which one 'answers' the relevant questions.

Now, what is interesting and what must be delved into and understood with greater clarity --- and not shunted aside as you seem to wish to do --- is to turn a closer focus on what has happened in these recent exchanges and extract from it essential meaning. You say 'Not much should be made of it?' but I think that everything should be made of it. Especially since, in David and Dan's case, it takes the lid off their 'basic metaphysics'.

I have little idea, ultimately, what Kevin's are, but I do have some iinsight into the politics of the New Right (Nouvelle Droite) which originated as an idea-movement to counter a radical French movement summed up by the date-term '1968'. The conversations, here in this thread and in other places, have turned on the political polarities that extend from that time. And these fellows, as is the case with all of us, 'arise out of a postwar context'. All that we do, think, say, desire, hope for, react against --- et cetera --- is relational to 'the body' of Europe and we can only indicate how we are related to it, even when we deviate from it, or even when we attempt, as you seem to, to annihilate a relationship to it (the European body) and the notion of the Abstract-Metaphysical and of course to God or the Transcendent. I suggest that *for you* this has no meaning. It is meaningless. I have a sense that this is likely so because you have no 'personal' means of relationship to this 'absolute' since this absolute is, by definition, 'context-independent'. In essence, I suggest (because I notice it), whatever is your definition, your metaphysical predicate, it does not seem to have a tangible and direct relationship to you. Well, if it did I think you would speak differently about its meaning, and the meaning you discover in relationship to it.

Therefor, and as you might have guessed --- and I think I thoroughly understand how expert you are at dismantling ciritical thrust directed toward you! --- I must repeat what I have often stated about the metaphysics one is introduced to here. You say it is different people opining differently in respect to an 'Absolute' and that, here, one witnesses and participates in a sort of college of different opinions. That is all fine-sounding (and David has also said as much), but I have determined that this is very weak overall. Since I have spoken of 'dissolution of self' and the breakdown of relationship to tangible self as part of the desire and activity of *these fellows*, I must continue in that line of criticism and assert that some valuable piece is missing, some understanding absent, which renders them not reformers of the disease of their age, and that in which we all struggle, but *victims* of it and ones who, because of unconsciousness, carry it forward.

I am reminded of my own efforts to speak of the nihilism inherent in Ernst Becker's critique of oriental relationship to rationalism and to the breakdown of solid and structured relationship to Self that is part of Occidental degeneracy. My assertion has been that something in culture, some 'destructive movement', attacks identity and acts like an 'acid' against proper and necessary identifications.

By putting forward a platform, by asserting a certain metaphysic, by making statements about society, by definining 'male' and 'female' and by privileging the one and identifying the nebulous and indecisive or sensual aspect of the other, by noticing the difference in a man who is strong in idea and henid-resistant, by employing definition-skills in articulating a relationship to Becoming, one engages in a worthy and 'masculine' project. So far so good. But by these assertions it is assertion which is brought to the fore. A man defines his world and defines his relationship to it.

But if on the other hand, and in the same breath as it were, he undefines a relationship to Being and to Self, and fails to take the defining project toward sharper definitions in the present, and then sort of gives himself back over to the 'feminine-liberal' as metaphysical acquiescence --- I ask What has happened here? That is why I am puzzled and intrigued by this *juncture*. And a side-project to analysis of the larger picture of them-and-society is my sense that your relationship to *these questions* is also to some extend hobbled by the force of your own, shall I say, erroneous predicates. You seem to become an unending wall-of-prose, an unending response-capability, a labyrinth for the inverted self. This is your condition because, metaphysically, you have run into a wall. Or to put it another way into a *mire* of sorts. Now, I must and we all must see ourselves as 'products of the time'. If you (or I of anyone) has hit a wall can it really be said to be 'our fault'? I don't think so. I think we are 'the abstract and brief chronicles of the time'. So, what I assert is that it is and it must be a man's project and undertaking to *get out from under* the determining forces that render him impotent. And that means that man is potent and full of determining energy, and it also means that when he connects to the determining metaphysics at a cosmic or abstract (or absolute) level that he must translate that potency into tangible relationship.

The great weakeness of *you fellows* is likely to be that you define no relationship to women (woman as is said here). There is an essence here to be explored. The choice that determines your aloofness indicates a sort of abdication of responsibility. I do of course mean that in our culture it has become possible, indeed desirable, and even determined, to relinquish relationship to family, which also means relationship to the social world. In the larger scale of things, and certainly in respect to larger trends in culture, this is evidence of a form of social sickness. It is entirely unnatural. But yet it was and has been a core tenet here: the perverse separation away from the female and the feminine. This in itself indicates a wide area that needs to be looked into. It is a dead-end my friends! The ramifications of this are large indeed.

So, we turn back 'to Europe' and we turn back to events that shifted meaning in that world. We turn back to ruptures, to catastrophes, to breakings-away from core and basic identity with Self in the sense of 'the body' in precisely the most tangible sense. It is absolutely critical, therefor, to 'turn back to the body' and to seek to construct and reconstruct the identity required in relationship. I do not only mean relationship to a woman. A man's relationship to a woman is part of a man's relationship to his society. It is one and the same.

But this is your requirement of course. And you seem to demand from a conversation to go in that direction. In my case I see changes in definitions of "body" throughout the ages. A definition which slowly, deeply changes, same with identity. It cannot be wheeled "back" to something recognizable, something from the past, which is already rehashed, digested and regurgitated too many times. That's a fantasy, one I speak out against.

Oh no, not *mine*. It stems out of metaphysical predicates. It has to do with an entire motion of descent into incarnation and it has to do with what it means to be a man who comes to exist within the mutable world but who yet holds to ideals which are Absolute and Eternal. When you indicate that you have lost that link, or have yourself become negligibly decisive and somehow amorphous, and when you defend that breakdown with elaborate apologetics verging in sophistry, I say that we can turn the lens of examination on you, singular and plural. We can inquire what happened and why, and we can assess it.
Santiago = Gustav = Alex
User avatar
Santiago Odo
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am

Re: Trumpism

Postby jupiviv » Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:23 am

While you guys are rambling on, has it even occurred to you that I deserve enormous praise and adulation - perhaps even quasi-deification - for being the only member here who was consistently right and accurate about the fate of the Trump presidency?

Alex wrote:So, 'the absolute' and a relationship to it, would seem to have little relationship to you, your people, your family for example, that is 'specific'.


Yes, but it would have a singular relationship to a pair of Klipsch RB-61s, which I recently bought from amazon and was playing not 4 hours ago at full volume. The music was a Big Bang in itself. Deconstructed, it yields a periodic table of its own. Just as much as "the love that moves the sun and other stars", Mozart animates and then glorifies his creations; even Bartolo and Antonio are brought to life from dust and loved beyond reckoning for their foibles. In itself, this is reassurance. A Divine Comedy is in play whose ends we cannot necessarily see and yet the narrative is undeniable.

On paper at least, perfection - and over two hours of it - should be caustic to mere flesh and blood; we're more attuned to the grease of concupiscence. How easy it is to luxuriate in this splendour and emerge on the other side as something more than the tattered old suitcase of the self. Who suspended the Law of Diminishing Returns? What underwrites this plenitude? Is it not an Encounter?

Nothing can be predicated of the One. Contrary to Lewis' proposition, inky staves and bar-lines will not imprison the Unmoved Mover. Nevertheless, in these Shadowlands of ours where trinkets and fakery are sovereign, that Figaro and its 1981 recording by Solti should exist and dwell among us is a cause for jubilation - in hoc signo. I'm no idealist. If a Jew and USD 500 can render me aglow with the Word come the finale of the fourth act, I'm all for it.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:09 am

jupiviv wrote:While you guys are rambling on, has it even occurred to you that I deserve enormous praise and adulation - perhaps even quasi-deification - for being the only member here who was consistently right and accurate about the fate of the Trump presidency?

Can you summarize what you wrote and how it relates to the current reality in terms making sense to others besides yourself?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5921
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby jupiviv » Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:04 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:While you guys are rambling on, has it even occurred to you that I deserve enormous praise and adulation - perhaps even quasi-deification - for being the only member here who was consistently right and accurate about the fate of the Trump presidency?

Can you summarize what you wrote and how it relates to the current reality in terms making sense to others besides yourself?


I was responding to Alex. Need I say more?
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:23 am

Santiago Odo wrote:I have come to understand --- I suppose I must clarify that it is a speculation --- that a person will reveal in what they write exactly what is their relationship to Being, and to all the grand questions, when they provide their 'metaphysical definitions'.

And I have come to understand that people tend to "hear" whatever they desire to believe in the first place. So your personal deductions and revelations are, while containing valid notions, more like a way to self-affirm whatever needs to be affirmed.

You seem to hold to a notion of an 'absolute' as something ultimately that has no relationship to concrete 'perspective'.

It's not my notion at all simply because "the Absolute" means in the context I'm applying it: not being another thing to have relationships with or defined by any relationship to it (and so unfamiliar to any "Woman" way of existing ). It only exists as much as we have "things" and "relationships" at all. Although it's still a term, like all others, like the word "God" I suppose, you can easily think of it as non-existent or extremely distant if so desired, or not think about it at all, but it won't change anything. The foundation of all notions cannot be just another notion, logically. And yet, there can be so much said about it still, relatively and confusingly.

... what they noticed about society-at-large as reformers, as messengers, as instigators. The purpose being to inspire people to relate to Being in a different way.

Yes to learn to understand the nature of the infinite and thus also the nature of "self". That being the purpose, there is nothing specific beyond it like developing any utopia, saving the world from anything else and so on. Which doesn't mean a person cannot, individually, develop his own additional insights into what "should". This is the function of the ideal, of projecting into the future. But also the function of will, to desire ones ideas to live on, to become "reality" in some way. And since we're always dealing with people, some individual elements start playing up. This is all fine but when someone dares to link one with the other, so the understanding of the nature of the infinite with ideas on how the world should or could function, I simply warn for the confusion which is bound to follow. The one relation I do see is that a wise man cannot help but inquiring into the nature of reality and generally he also will have inquiries on the nature of society, the human psyche, the future and so on.

Especially since, in David and Dan's case, it takes the lid off their 'basic metaphysics'.

At first glance there are even more at this forum who were revealed to be aligned with different ideas, politically and economically, while largely still in agreement with these 'basic metaphysics' as you call them. So your analysis is about these one or two persons. But please go ahead!

Again, I do think that you're making too much out of it. The differences, if anything, only prove you wrong about what you believed to be some cultist group think tank. Obviously that was not the case and never has been. David and Dan turn out to be, also, progressive and liberal leaning, probably socialist even, and that's what you are delving into now. But they are not the best examples of these leanings either.

You say it is different people opining differently in respect to an 'Absolute' and that, here, one witnesses and participates in a sort of college of different opinions. That is all fine-sounding (and David has also said as much), but I have determined that this is very weak overall.

Determined yes but you have not made any case at all! Perhaps it just sounds fine because it's truthful, sound and valid reasoning?

I must continue in that line of criticism and assert that some valuable piece is missing, some understanding absent, which renders them not reformers of the disease of their age, and that in which we all struggle, but *victims* of it and ones who, because of unconsciousness, carry it forward.

That statement only has meaning if there was someone who had knowledge of the valuable piece and is going to trot it out at any moment. Or in the context of someone in existence who can save the victims, someone who can diagnose the disease and start providing medication or prophetic warnings for it.

The moment all those things turn out to be, in fact, non-existing or out of reach, that line of criticism proves to be vocal but infertile.

My assertion has been that something in culture, some 'destructive movement', attacks identity and acts like an 'acid' against proper and necessary identifications.

And my assertion is that this might be a cyclic movement, intimately linked to how the human mind (ancient and modern alike) just works. All identification, like deification, can only work through the past. The Past, a certain view on it, a careful selection of it, in effect becoming "god" for all ends of purposes, supplier of faith, hope, trauma, law and "sacred" history.

But if on the other hand, and in the same breath as it were, he undefines a relationship to Being and to Self, and fails to take the defining project toward sharper definitions in the present, and then sort of gives himself back over to the 'feminine-liberal' as metaphysical acquiescence --- I ask What has happened here? That is why I am puzzled and intrigued by this *juncture*.

We could discuss how far Trump-bashing or NYT-valueing is then "undefining a relationship to Being and to Self". Or how liberalism or globalism are that in their broadest meaning. While I was a bit puzzled and intrigued as well, at first, it only affirmed what I already knew to be the case: we are beings defined by circumstances to a great farther degree than we're often able to believe. Even wisdom of the infinite will not suspend the laws of causality. To still believe in something, to hope or strive for something, despite these quite deterministic notions, is another interesting topic for discussion.

And that means that man is potent and full of determining energy, and it also means that when he connects to the determining metaphysics at a cosmic or abstract (or absolute) level that he must translate that potency into tangible relationship.

But progress seems to be coming about just as well through idiocy, addiction, destruction, randomness alienation and other too human things. It sounds to me that it's more you who refuses the ugliness and randomness of the world. And as such you need this rather imaginary, idealistic being with special energies and faith whose actions will gain meaning and power. Right? It's the Übermensch ideal of course and I am not arguing against it, just trying to get to a better description here.

relinquish relationship to family, which also means relationship to the social world. In the larger scale of things, and certainly in respect to larger trends in culture, this is evidence of a form of social sickness. It is entirely unnatural. But yet it was and has been a core tenet here: the perverse separation away from the female and the feminine. This in itself indicates a wide area that needs to be looked into. It is a dead-end my friends! The ramifications of this are large indeed.

Of course it can be discussed, preferably in its own thread although you prefer to mush everything together inside one conversation, forgetting that Real Men divide, categorize and set apart one thing from another for a specific purpose like quality, readability, focus and so on. Topics can always be recombined or referred to later again if the need arises.

My counter argument in such topic, should you choose to pursue it, would likely revolve around the historical nature of relationship, family and tribe over the ages. Clearly there are many significant differences in each era, each geographic location and within each culture. It seems to me that you are trying to glue this all together in what you perhaps desire to see -- or perhaps as some abstract, personal ideal. Probably because of a need to align yourself with some higher principle, to derive meaning and validation from that? Justify your own personal dedication to the family ideal?

So, we turn back 'to Europe' and we turn back to events that shifted meaning in that world. We turn back to ruptures, to catastrophes, to breakings-away from core and basic identity with Self in the sense of 'the body' in precisely the most tangible sense. It is absolutely critical, therefor, to 'turn back to the body' and to seek to construct and reconstruct the identity required in relationship. I do not only mean relationship to a woman. A man's relationship to a woman is part of a man's relationship to his society. It is one and the same.

But in my view you are here defining humanity by the only means you have at your disposal. Rather quite late, modern means: to define a man as a sum of his relations. Or like Marx: the sum of his socioeconomic relations who needs to re-own his "means of production", including the body.

What you're describing could certainly apply to modern "Self", which is largely a social-economical by-product. It's an outcropping of the mechanization, of industry, of reading, of knowledge, of sex, and so on. Man, as ideation of self, has become this part-time alienated surface dweller. Like Nietzsche's Last Men: a flea! It's for this man you go out there on fora and try to save him from himself? Big irony explosion!

In the end, I think I'm just looking for a bigger picture, a bigger concern, a larger sense of Human. Which is what philosophy should be all about and indeed is. While politics more and more is becoming about smaller pictures, little concerns and tiny conceptions of human nature. And that's of course also the triumph of Trumpism: small-hand-ism.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5921
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby jupiviv » Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:21 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In the end, I think I'm just looking for a bigger picture, a bigger concern, a larger sense of Human. Which is what philosophy should be all about and indeed is. While politics more and more is becoming about smaller pictures, little concerns and tiny conceptions of human nature. And that's of course also the triumph of Trumpism: small-hand-ism.


And of course everyone *pretends* that it all makes sense. But it isn't information overload per se that brought about Schism. "Left" and "Right" and whatever else have become politically, economically etc. intertwined to such a degree that no "rational" (precise) choice remains. Human nature dictates that in the absence of such in reality, forced simulation is in order.

The collapse of industrial civilisation - built on ever-increasing debt accumulation and servicing as proxy for resource extraction and wastage - is underway. Global financial default is certain, but market participants have put it out of mind and are aided in this venture by Trump et al. It's like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights - an interesting phenomenon that is unusual to the rabbit, and since it doesn't have a predefined reaction it just keeps watching.

It's not like Trump *isn't* inept and clueless. The MSM could have done truth to power but chose to make propaganda about Schrodinger's cat instead. The alt media did do truth to power to an extent, but then "power" decoupled from "truth" and now they are - surprise, surprise - following the MSM's lead. Trump's election happened because of real problems that affect Trumpists, cucks, SJWs and liberals alike, but nobody wants to hear that or, even worse, that there are no real solutions. So it's pizzagate for everyone!

The point at which political ideals and philosophy intersect, especially when the philosophy in question is based on the principles championed by DDK, while being *very* far above the actual reality of politics, is still *very* low on the scale of what we here call "genius". It is unwise to attempt to reconcile even that intersection with true wisdom. In fact, such an attempt indicates that the person doing so is unable or unwilling to reconcile *themselves* with the latter.
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby Santiago Odo » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:51 pm

I think I fundamentally disagree with you about the function and purpose of 'philosophy' as you have defined it. (Bigger picture, a larger sense of the Human). I would imagine that it is safe to say that it is this point that will divide our perspectives. I would suggest to you that if you define 'philosophy' in this way --- and it is thoroughly arbitrary and really rather Greek that you do so! --- it will certainly lead to you a fuzzy, indecisive universalism and also to a general disempowerment. What if the exact opposite were 'true' and necessary to inculcate? The purpose of 'philosophy' is to sharpen and accentuate a man's relationship to himself, his milieu, his specific activity within the specific span of his life, even taking into consideration his ephemeral position and the angst and insecurity of his realization of his larger, overarching powelessness?

If any part of this is true --- that is, that one should employ 'philosophy' as a tool to sharpen one's own relationship to tangibles and tangible relationship --- my general critique of GF as a sort of Spenglerian living entity does not lose its validity, rather the validity of that sort of statement sharpens. I will certainly grant you that the entire entity of GF has included many different persons and perspectives, yet I think it fair to say that it does represent a sort of space, a unique place in time with peculiarities, with a design which set it in motion and, yes, determines that motion. Like a particular school, like a particular tradition. I think it is fair to step back from that and examine it and I think it quite interesting the significant differences that have shown themselves just recently.

But in the end --- and we are witnessing a sort of end here, are we not? --- what interests me is something else. It is to notice how and why conversation comes to an end. And how the 'possibility of conversation' also, rather suddenly, evaporates. But this would be some part of my point: in order to converse, in order to share the intelligible and the meanignful, there must be some inner relationship, and the only field in which inner relationship can occur and will occur is when there are shared common interests. So, your philosophy of ever-expanding 'bigger pictures', seen from one perspective at least, will lead not to the discovery of commonality, but dillution into abstractions. And at the end of that conversation what occurs? Well, just look around you. Look to yourself. What shows itself, what becomes most visible, most evident, is the breakdown in the possibility of communicating commonalities. I would say that that is a philosophical tragedy (if I were to use a deliberately dramatic term).

I gather that you imagine yourself linked to some hyper-masculinity. I hope that when you employ these tropes that you simultaneously hold to some irony! But the time has come to really come to see how far away from 'genuine masculinity' it is possible to drift. One must remember, and one must hold to the understanding, that this particular definition was established at the very base of the GF Project. You seem one who has invested a great deal in it. I think it is still a very open question. A good question, yes. But I would suggest that it has gone half-answered 'here' (if you will permit the generalization).

That is one reason why I say that another part of the 'masculine project' is to bring realization down into the particular, down into the body, down to one's people, nation, group, et cetera.

I think it fair to say, though I will speculate here, that the contrast between David and Dan as wishy-washy liberals and SJWs in their own way ... runs up against a more sharp, focused and limited definition: the empowerment of a specific people. You are likely of course aware that my ideas have turned to these areas with my interest in Jonathan Bowden and the Nouvelle Droite, Julius Evola, Savitri Devi and this sort of radicalism. You also know, because I have said it here, that it surprises me very much that David and Dan do not extend their 'masculine project' further and --- how odd! --- resolve themselves into the 'flowey' femininity of mass-culture, mass emotional relationship to 'the world'. That was a heavy one to process for me!

I still look to Commander Solway and hope that in him the Heroic Music will trumpet forth in red-hued brassy tones...

You say that you do not think I have 'made a case' or enough of one. That does not make me feel bad or guilty. Because to find a way out of nihilism, to find a way to effectively confront the ideological dissoluteness of our age, and to recover self and self-empowerment and the capability of defining action and also of acting! These are not easy topics. But remember: these were, ultimately, the Grand Questions asked here at GF! If you really take it to the limit a man has to ask himself all these very difficult questions and become decisive in relation to them.
Santiago = Gustav = Alex
User avatar
Santiago Odo
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am

Re: Trumpism

Postby jupiviv » Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:22 am

Alex wrote:blah blah blah my general critique of GF as a sort of Spenglerian living entity does not lose its validity blah blah blah


I can at least agree with characterising GF as Spenglerian entity, although doing so would necessitate extending the same to all cultures (you know, like Spengler did). Besides that, this is just another invalid attempt to validate your ad hoc arguments against the philosophy of DDK, based on forum affairs/controversies between mindless adherents to said philosophy.

Anyone who views and treats this forum as some sort of community is pathetically missing the point of it. The search for wisdom must be solitary at its core from first to last in order to succeed. No discussion of it can involve what you call "stories" or "metaphysics", i.e, human emotions and kindred feelings. I understand that this is your main gripe with us and the root of your Megatherian efforts to that end, but there it is I'm afraid. Take it or leave it. In another year, everyone will just ignore you. Well, maybe not Diebert and me, but then not everyone is a fat mammy's boy who spends all their time flapping their fat cheeto-stained fingers on the keyboard writing posts like this.

And besides, if you actually believe everything you write, then we have self-destructed and you have won! You have slain the Jabberwock! Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
User avatar
jupiviv
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jul 22, 2017 6:57 am

Hi, welcome back Santiago!

As for leading anyone to fuzzy, indecisive universalism and general disempowerment, that's preaching to the choir, dear Priest. What is philosophy if not at least an attempt to establish doubt, to enter the emptiness, a willingness for pain and yes, accept disempowerment as the price? It's not exactly a secret. Truth cut in its own flesh.

To go around in this world looking for philosophical armor, some kind of mental arms race, some way to gain power (as Castaneda's men), to cross the threshold and cheat the supernatural enemy keeping us imprisoned, that would be the nature of the priest. Or the eternally religious man, the ultimate game player (with game being circular, ritualistic, seduction based round-a-bouts of power).The purpose of 'philosophy' would be more like increasing or just celebrating awareness itself. "To sharpen relationships" would be then heightening of awareness which only happens when there's first room made, some preparation, to be able to grow into that. A lot of things need to let go first. In a way, that's the nihilistic part of the journey. That dangerous, poisonous part, for "everyone and nobody".

But in the end --- and we are witnessing a sort of end here, are we not? --- what interests me is something else. It is to notice how and why conversation comes to an end. And how the 'possibility of conversation' also, rather suddenly, evaporates.

If you mean the interesting phenomenon of nearly every forum ending banning you at some point, this is partly caused by certain toxic elements in your own characters and some of the larger inconsistencies in your writing. You are not aware of them and probably never might be since you won't gain anything by it. For me that doesn't matter since you're capable to bring nevertheless many great themes and observations to the table. And you take it to the limit, your own limitation and such conservations then exhaust themselves, one way or another.

So, your philosophy of ever-expanding 'bigger pictures', seen from one perspective at least, will lead not to the discovery of commonality, but dillution into abstractions. And at the end of that conversation what occurs? Well, just look around you. Look to yourself. What shows itself, what becomes most visible, most evident, is the breakdown in the possibility of communicating commonalities. I would say that that is a philosophical tragedy (if I were to use a deliberately dramatic term).

When I look around past and present, I've seen myself communicating with many people at many places for prolonged spans of times. It seems like forever, from the dawn of time. And I gained in nearly every instance respect. And in nearly every instance I still can restart that conversation. Why you think it might be otherwise remains a mystery. Perhaps you hope or just assume it would be not so? However it's true, there's a sort of breakdown in my interest to converse (philosophically) but not because of lack of possibilities. It has to do with how conversations tend to function in others, how they only seem to end up encouraging their own firmly held beliefs instead of challenging those in the same way I'm continuously challenging and overturning my own. As for commonalities, I meet enough people with who I share culture, work and living environment with, so many, that I value every time and place I can pause all of that for a while. Social bonds are still bonds, they work both ways but mostly against a truly freely thinking person. That's why family is the biggest hurdle known to thinking men. The hardest, sweetest, most invisible, most tough chains to discover and break.

As for masculinity, it's unclear what you think I imagine that to be. From my experience you have very odd ideas about "hyper-masculinity" and would dare to suggest that you are actually suffering from some form of hyper-masculinity styles like those common in typical gay male culture, with the exaggerated aggressive undertones and over-compensation combined with overdoses of dressing up. It has been suggested at times by others as well.

to bring realization down into the particular, down into the body, down to one's people, nation, group, et cetera.

Or, more importantly to question all of this, what are they, how are they formed, are they still relevant and how. Or if the imagined boundaries are actually as clear as suggested. These are important questions for every thinking man and need to be addressed before wishing or to insert a little dick of realization into this mess.

it surprises me very much that David and Dan do not extend their 'masculine project' further and --- how odd! --- resolve themselves into the 'flowey' femininity of mass-culture, mass emotional relationship to 'the world'. That was a heavy one to process for me!

To prefer a better informed or more factual presidential candidate than Trump? How is that flowy femininity? Even looking at the Trump family briefly makes it all too clear that it's all about pretense; a thoroughly pussy whipped arrangement lost in girlish and simplistic materialist values. People who like to play a game of masculinity but never get around to actually embody it?

It's unfortunate though that David and Dan seemed to have involved themselves in what seemed to be quite an emotional manner, to assign this particular case such a great importance in the grander scheme of things. And they're not even Americans (although we all are, in hyper-real modern sense). In my view they have been swept up by a larger hysteria combined with a defensive posture related to their lifestyle only made possible by a couple of hardcore socialist arrangements, which are under pressure in most countries.

On top of that I've to say that indeed for the philosopher's aim, his ideal goal would be to remain detached in some important sense. He needs to be "hollow" for the world to be able to fill him up, to breath it all in what as been exhaled before. He can't be anything the moment he embodies his holiest perspective, his wisest perspectives.

Because to find a way out of nihilism, to find a way to effectively confront the ideological dissoluteness of our age, and to recover self and self-empowerment and the capability of defining action and also of acting! These are not easy topics. But remember: these were, ultimately, the Grand Questions asked here at GF! If you really take it to the limit a man has to ask himself all these very difficult questions and become decisive in relation to them.

Recovery in the face of eternal changes? It's the nature of man and doubly so Western man. Good luck, at worst the quest only makes you more human, more actor, more facade, more mask, more poet, more thief but, unfortunately, less of a philosopher.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5921
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Previous

Return to Worldly Matters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest