White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Santiago Odo
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:26 am
Location: It's official!

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:09 am

Pam wrote:Where your logic falls down here is that in reconstructing completely Idea at a more profound level is that you will not be able to avoid rebuilding that very sense of self that ties itself to a specific metaphysic or Construct. You're already giving evidence that you cannot avoid this Catch 22 dilemma, your words:
I see this issue and problem differently. Here is how I would describe it: When I spoke of those on another forum who seems to come at me with an elaborate 'construct', I meant that they specifically upheld an American identity and 'the tenets of the American civil religion'. I suggest that this identity is wrapped up in postward PR and propaganda efforts and also with social engineering projects. If you are interested in what I mean by social engineering' see E Michael Jones (The Slaughter of Cities).

I am not in any sense opposed to having identity, or defining identity, nor even searching for identity, nor recovering from fractured identity, or removing intrusions that have been thrust in to one's identity. My line of argument is that one has to make very deliberate efforts to get clear about what identity is and should be, what is good and proper in it, and how it is necessary to have it and develop it. But when 'identity' is weakened, or when it is swallowed into economic and multicultural projects, when it is fiddled with and manipulated, it is at that point that one must devote time to getting clear about one's own 'identifications'.

For you, apparently, all identity is a problem. You represent the Buddhist acid in relation to the question. And that is what brought you to GF I think. I do not have an issue with your value-preference per se. It is totally irrelevant to everything is all I would say. Even dissolving a specific identity proposes the contruction of another, fuller one.

I would also point out that you employ St John of the Cross not in a Christian or Catholic sense, but in a Buddhist sense or in a dissolution-of-self sense. I do not think that you actually accept the Christian/Catholic metaphysic nor the notion of the soul and the soul's salvation nor any part of that. Who knows what you are really up to?

But to understand St John of the Cross within his own context would mean speaking to that specific metaphysics. Your use of that reference is only to support your idea and your project of breaking apart any identity at all. Yours is a non-identity identity. Quite bizarre when you think about it!

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Pam Seeback » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:10 am

Alex: I see this issue and problem differently. Here is how I would describe it: When I spoke of those on another forum who seems to come at me with an elaborate 'construct', I meant that they specifically upheld an American identity and 'the tenets of the American civil religion'. I suggest that this identity is wrapped up in postward PR and propaganda efforts and also with social engineering projects. If you are interested in what I mean by social engineering' see E Michael Jones (The Slaughter of Cities).
I suggest that identity is first wrapped up in social conditioning leaving one vulnerable to social engineering projects.
I am not in any sense opposed to having identity, or defining identity, nor even searching for identity, nor recovering from fractured identity, or removing intrusions that have been thrust in to one's identity. My line of argument is that one has to make very deliberate efforts to get clear about what identity is and should be, what is good and proper in it, and how it is necessary to have it and develop it.
Just how do you propose determining clarity of what identity is if one is uncertain of the nature of existence upon which one's identity (or non-identity) depends?
But when 'identity' is weakened, or when it is swallowed into economic and multicultural projects, when it is fiddled with and manipulated, it is at that point that one must devote time to getting clear about one's own 'identifications'.
No argument here.
For you, apparently, all identity is a problem. You represent the Buddhist acid in relation to the question. And that is what brought you to GF I think. I do not have an issue with your value-preference per se. It is totally irrelevant to everything is all I would say. Even dissolving a specific identity proposes the construction of another, fuller one.
It is true that there is a process of rejecting one's socially-conditioned identity when one desires to discover the truth about the nature of existence and how 'they' fit into this discovery, and your use of the term 'acid' to describe how this rejection of identity 'feels' is an apt one. After all, does not acid remove rust?

You mentioned the Buddha who did indeed take the very same acid, but I place forward that it is also the same acid that was taken by Jesus (the 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness with the anti-Christ). To me, GF represents this same walk into the wilderness and taking of the acid that was taken by these two spiritual greats.
I would also point out that you employ St John of the Cross not in a Christian or Catholic sense, but in a Buddhist sense or in a dissolution-of-self sense. I do not think that you actually accept the Christian/Catholic metaphysic nor the notion of the soul and the soul's salvation nor any part of that. Who knows what you are really up to?

But to understand St John of the Cross within his own context would mean speaking to that specific metaphysics. Your use of that reference is only to support your idea and your project of breaking apart any identity at all. Yours is a non-identity identity. Quite bizarre when you think about it!
Well then, let's speak of that specific metaphysic. As I understand the dark night of the soul to be, it represents the first stage of the search for the truth of God, the first stage of withdrawal from attachment to the senses so that one's imagination of God is 'cut off at the knees' so to speak. Cue again Jesus in the wilderness overcoming his temptation to imagine God into existence (Satan, the god of effect-attachment).

And that this dark night of the soul that both Jesus and St. John experienced is the precursor to the next stage in the search for the truth of God's nature, the dark night of the spirit, the dividing of soul (imagination of God) from spirit (the living God). This metaphysical cut of spirit from soul is addressed in Hebrews 4:12, scripture that St. John would most surely been aware of: "For the word of God [truth of the nature of existence, parenthesis mine] is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit..." The cross then, in relation to the two dark nights, would be the symbol of the dividing of soul from spirit.

Does spirit divided from soul have an identity that can be developed as is your desire? Given that soul is the house of development, it is a logical conclusion that no, spirit divided from soul cannot be identity-developed. Does this mean spirit is void of definition? On the contrary, spirit IS definition (the living Word).

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

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:10 am

Pam wrote:Just how do you propose determining clarity of what identity is if one is uncertain of the nature of existence upon which one's identity (or non-identity) depends?
There you have asked the question that goes precisely to the heart of the major issue. And how you (or me or anyone) answers that question determines everything else. Most people do not ask the question nor answer it, yet they participate in an understanding of it. That is, this is their 'metaphysics'. They do not think about it. There is no need to. They 'receive' it and they 'agree' to it.

I suggest that on the 'philosophical right', for example the European New Right, you will discover many people who are working in these areas.

You, however, are working in a peculiar area and it is one that has no reach beyond yourself and a very limited and local conversation. Time and time again this is revealed in every conversation with you. I do not criticise you for this. I just do not have any relationship at all to that peculiar project.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:43 am

Pam wrote:
Just how do you propose determining clarity of what identity is if one is uncertain of the nature of existence upon which one's identity (or non-identity) depends?
Alex wrote: There you have asked the question that goes precisely to the heart of the major issue. And how you (or me or anyone) answers that question determines everything else. Most people do not ask the question nor answer it, yet they participate in an understanding of it. That is, this is their 'metaphysics'. They do not think about it. There is no need to. They 'receive' it and they 'agree' to it.
So far, we're on the same page.
I suggest that on the 'philosophical right', for example the European New Right, you will discover many people who are working in these areas.
Whatever areas the right or the left find with regards to thinking about their metaphysics, every scrap of these areas is received data, this is the collective-subjective history of humanity at work.

The deeper truth here is that the right cannot exist without the left and vice versa. Why this knowledge is so important is that both sides, the left and the right, believe that they can actualize an absolute society according to their agreed-upon identity, which of course is metaphysically impossible. I believe that the European Right's 'metapolitics' is a perfect example of this delusion of absoluteness of ideal.
Alex wrote: You, however, are working in a peculiar area and it is one that has no reach beyond yourself and a very limited and local conversation. Time and time again this is revealed in every conversation with you. I do not criticise you for this. I just do not have any relationship at all to that peculiar project.
It is no secret that politics and truth cannot meet. And yes, one can know this and participate in political discussions, however, truth is water, politics is oil, you can shake them up, but that's all you can do (discuss). Keeps the mind occupied and intellectually sharp, not suffering-causing, unless of course, attachment to any one view is caused.

A metaphysically wise person knows what is happening behind the scenes and if they choose to step into the scenes all kinds of messy things have the potential to be caused. This is my take on the recent "David's return" scenario, one that of course, extended far beyond David.

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

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:33 am

Pam wrote:It is no secret that politics and truth cannot meet. And yes, one can know this and participate in political discussions, however, truth is water, politics is oil, you can shake them up, but that's all you can do (discuss). Keeps the mind occupied and intellectually sharp, not suffering-causing, unless of course, attachment to any one view is caused.

A metaphysically wise person knows what is happening behind the scenes and if they choose to step into the scenes all kinds of messy things have the potential to be caused. This is my take on the recent "David's return" scenario, one that of course, extended far beyond David.
The GF project began, as I have said, as a reform project. I assert that it was in its essence a project that involved the revelation of a specific and pre-modern metaphysics and it is upon this metaphysics that it constructed itself. Largely, this can be seen as being a Buddhist metaphysics, which is to say Vedic or post-Vedic, but in essence it is an eastern metaphysic.

In our present we all seem to notice that things are topsy-turvy and absurdly mixed-up. My impression of the GF project as a reform movement was that it noticed this and it did what any concerned person would do and must do: it proposed a corrective. It couched its definitions in a number of areas: noting irrationalism and the abandonment of 'reason'; noticing culture and society giving itself over to the female and the feminine, et cetera.

I suggest that it is 'metaphysical wisdom' to recover a realtionship to metaphysics. I assert that one cannot, in fact, abandon metaphysical definitions even though they are often bound up with story, narrative, a worldpicture deeply enmeshed in the imagination. For this reason I define the GF platform as a metaphysical project and as a religious project essentially. It seems to me, and I say this without malice, that David Dan and Kevin seem now to have disconnected from the project itself. Or, each of them seems to be following disparate lines.

In my view, to define a metaphysics is to define a relationship, conceptually, mentally and spiritually, to an 'upperworld'. The conceptual world, the world of reason and idea, the angelic world, the world of God in the sense of Being or origin outside of manifestation. I regard the destruction of the 'conceptual pathway to a defined metaphysics' as being profoundly negative. I think that one has to ask what is it that destroys that metaphysical linkage. I have often said that this involves locating and describing the 'acid' that eats away at both the self and also the conceptual structure, or ladder, that leads to this 'upper world'.

Now, you say that politics and truth cannot meet and, sure, I grasp what you mean. But I do not agree. In fact I am duty-bound to disagree. We define a metaphysics and then we build in this world in relation to that. The world that we have was built in this way. To understand this requires a delicate, careful and nuanced way of thinking and seeing. It requires 'intellectual preparation' and cannot be done by someone outside of that preparation.

The work of reconstructing a relationship to metaphysics is a fraught affair to the degree that we are captured by the anti-metaphysics of the present. I refer to this as 'the swamp' and I have recently been attempting to break through the Kevlar-like intellectual walls diligently constructed by a local Spider who shall remain unnamed. I assert that the anti-metaphysics of the present is a form of encroaching nescience, and that nescience is, in the language of symbols, the demoniac. Put another way, the demoniac can be symbolically grasped, or intellectually grasped, as nescience.
  • Nescience: Latin nescientia, from Latin nesciēns, nescient-, present participle of nescīre, to be ignorant : ne-, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.
It revolves, I think, around the most essential definitions, which is to say knowledge-of, the very place where we find ourselves. If seems to me that we exist in 'collapsed metaphysics' insofar as the definitions that we have of who and what we are, where and why we are, all all in disarray. Therefor: it became necessary in the GF reform project to redefine a basic metaphysics. In my own case I have enough of a project given to me as a reult of this basic conception to last me a life-time. It is vast, it is rich, it is crucially important, it touches on all important definitions, circumscribes meaning and value in their most relevant senses, and touches my life and all lives acutely. It is the primary definition.

Now, I do not turn to Buddhist metaphysics though I do have some background in, and a tremendous respect for, Vedic metaphysical definitions. I really wish at times that Christian metaphysics had a similar grounding. It is true though that Vedic metaphysics can be described as Medieval metaphysics insofar as it traces back to a pre-modern worldpicture. And it is true as well that Aquinas, rooted in pre-modern metaphysics, interesects with Vedic world conceptions. And it is similarly true that Platonic or Aristotelian worldview is similarly grounded, quite definitely, in a former metaphysics, a metaphysics prior to Modernism and Positivism as we now understand it (as our minds and the function of mind is bound to these ideas).

My idea is that we have to (have to: imperative: must) recover a Western metaphysics, or an Occidental metaphysics. It is impossible to say, within that domain, that 'truth' and 'politics' do not have a relationship. (Yet I do grasp that you are speaking of Machiavellianism when you refer to politics).

The reason I choose to involve myself in a Western Identity Recovery Project is wrapped up in these definitions, these understandings. I said to Boy Spider at various times that I would 'rewrite Genius Forum'. That is, I would take out of its its essential predicates and rework them to be sufficient models for a person, adrift, severed from his or her matrix, seeking a way back to a sound metaphysics. To say that it is not political is simply absurd. It's everything and all things!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:13 pm

Pam Seeback wrote:A metaphysically wise person knows what is happening behind the scenes and if they choose to step into the scenes all kinds of messy things have the potential to be caused. This is my take on the recent "David's return" scenario, one that of course, extended far beyond David.
In my view you have missed the significance of it as you might still look too much at the appearance and the desire for certain things to look a certain way, compatible with your own, somewhat religious outlook. David's re-appearance was a classic "SJW" move. The only motive displayed and admitted to was to downgrade and challenge Kevin's politics, even without him being around -- not an unimportant detail, as if it never was meant to become an actual discussion. It became not just rant but a mild form of persecution. A ridiculing and debasing of someone without being able to name any specific reason what the "sin" actually was.

All of this means that the SJW 'politics" extents far beyond the political and arrived at Genius Forum in the shape and form of whatever project Dan and David have embarked on. In the end this is not about SJW or anti-SJW. Or white nationalism or black matters. This is about people getting into the grip of the overall anxiety (of life, of social existence, of looking back on their own past and identity) and finding a target to attack as the most simple outlet for that anxiety. Then some reason, some justifier is put in place to make it look a bit more sane and acceptable.

Therefore these "justifier" wars extent way further than some identity movements or any rise of activism in favor or against it. Those are only the justifiers where other sentiments are hiding behind. And one cannot hide from it as it's going to pervade everything. "Everything is politics" as Thomas Mann wrote. Or Baudrillard's view of the society of simulation where the realms of economics, politics, culture, sexuality and the social all implode into each other (e.g. the trans-sexual, multi-culture etc). This is the reason you see it merge with the philosophical discussion as well. It's not the philosopher's wish at all but it's more like the society's "destiny" to make it now about everything and as such the big "nothing" arises in its wake.
Santiago Odo wrote:I would 'rewrite Genius Forum'. That is, I would take out of its its essential predicates and rework them to be sufficient models for a person, adrift, severed from his or her matrix, seeking a way back to a sound metaphysics. To say that it is not political is simply absurd. It's everything and all things!
From a simple logical but also practical perspective, to say it's "Everything and all things" means that it ends up being a lot of words about nothing specific at all. It would be better to work more structurally and handle one aspect at the time and not, like some "Dirk Gently" trying to holistically make everything relevant all of the time. Trying to do so is simply a mental disease as it will de-organize the mind, destroy the conversation and prevent any tangible fruits. With that in mind, and looking at the evidence like the many dozens of instances where one witness the unorganized textual output, lack of conversations and zero outcome, one has to question the soundness of such approach. It seems a lot like building on shifting sands and pointing at imaginary castles.

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

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Santiago Odo » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:05 pm

As I muse over the recent events, and as it appears that at least 2 of the original Geniuses have fairly obviously hit a wall and will go no further, I find myself musing on my favorite Swamp Dweller. You resolve into Baudrillard. Diebert van Marécage! The Witness who describes, reporter-like, what happens in swampiness and revels in it, turns it over tenderly in his hand, elevates it to a shelf, takes it down from time to time to admire it. It is a vain and a worthless pursuit Diebert. There is really nothing to take away from it. It leads to no internal or external activity. I would suggest that it encapsulates how you, intellectually, waste your time.

My view of the David/Dan vs Kevin incident is that no one of them is actually prepared for the conversation --- the encounter of ideas --- that would be required to understand the magnitude of the issues which are coming up. So they do what most people do, and which you alluded to above: they rush into the fray and exclaim their emotions. Obviously, it deals in 'reproach' and obviously they merely enunciate a fixed set of emotionalized concerns. It seems to me that you have grasped pretty well this simple fact.

But the more interesting element here, from my perspective in any case, is to come to see with some clarity your relationship to the same problem. That 'problem' is, of course, the main topic yet in your case you can only approach the topic as Baudrillard's 'bitch' (to put it colorfully). You have ventured forth with M. Baudrillard and end up mucking around in a swamp from which you cannot exit. In this sense --- and if what I say is true --- I would respectfully suggest that your discourse becomes a never-ceasing wall of text about structural details but that cannot shape itself into anything decisive in the sense I use the word. For you it becomes a love-affair with the wallow.

This is why I return to the grand question of metaphysics. I accept that we are all in one way or another victims of and determined by swamp-like postmodernity. So far so good. We have to start from some level of realization about what happened, what happened to us, and why. This requires a good deal of analysis and analysis of this sort is work. I venture to propose that Dan and David though they might have begun the project of self-understanding and analysis of 'the acids of our age' to quote Lippmann, lost their way within this project as they made the conscious choice to become Gurus. The thing about Kevin is that next to nothing is revealed because he does not write in any length or depth and I have no idea where he stands and I don't think anyone does or can. But surely David and Dan have revealed --- against their own will and to their inevitable embarrassment I'd imagine --- how unrelated they are to the 'project' and how far they have deviated from (what I suggest are) its necessary concerns.

We must propose an image here and one that helpts to illustrate what is being talked about. I see the issue as that of men stuck in a relatively deep mud-pit. At some point some of them realize that it is a mud-puddle and that they are trapped in it. You had to have had awareness on some level to realize this, and that awareness is 'spiritual'. It is a form of Grace to have arrived at the awarness required to see one's condition I think. But the nature of a mud-pit is insidious. Rash attempt at escape leads to wasted expenditure of energy and, after some effort, one finds one's self back in the slimy thick. I suppose there is some attractiveness in 'setting oneself up as Guru of swamp-escape' and gathering Chelas. Or becoming a Buddhist YouTube star and crooning wisdom from out of the Void. (All this was going on of course and you said fuck-all about it). And then there is Spider Mother with her ample, spongy breasts distributing 'philosophy' from her nubs.

Now, you are a pretty sharp fellow all things considered and I am quite sure that you capture the image and what it means and portends. I suggest to you that your basic argument in relation to it and the only commentary you have is, essentially, that there is no escape. That is of course why you find yourself in the swamp and why, like the junkyard dog, you have become the swamp-spider: you understand it, you know every corner of it, your *web* spans it, you have burrows and tunnels that no one even dreams about which lead to the clever illusion that you are in 5 places at once, like Neem Karoli Baba. (I don't even want to think right now about the Spider Pit where you toss your enemies!) But you are just stuck in the swamp Diebert. And you have no idea how to get out of it.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6044
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: White men, European genetics, masculinity and genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:22 pm

Santiago Odo wrote: I would respectfully suggest that your discourse becomes a never-ceasing wall of text about structural details but that cannot shape itself into anything decisive in the sense I use the word. For you it becomes a love-affair with the wallow.
Just quoting this gem as I lost count the times this criticism was levelled against your posts. Which could mean many things: a) we are actually much alike, b) common projection, c) a sign of denied misunderstanding or d) an inevitable feature of language when it starts dwelling on the real and modernity ( and indeed Baudrillard would say so and at least admit it!). Some people invented the Zen koan or mystical poetry as counter-measure. It should be understood why they did that.
This is why I return to the grand question of metaphysics.
Many people have dealt with the question but in less grandiose terms. And in the end the most sound answer they came up with so far revolved around promoting rationality, courage, self-honesty, inquiry, reason, perhaps even "masculine values" when they embody those in terms of willingness to sacrifice and endurance.

The reason that answer shows up is because there's no "magical" attribute underlying any rise of civilization, thought, language and ultimately wisdom. It's based on the work of people who, individually, developed a relationship with what has been called the "infinite" and thus genius as function of consciousness and not of intellect or language. From that well, many things arise, some beauty, some horror, in terms of what people --often the ones picking up the crumbs under the table-- ended up doing. This forum did the sane thing: encouraging philosophical development of person-hood to a masculine level, reason and the willingness to struggle. Why is that drive not enough? What kind of "magic" do you suppose is missing here?
But surely David and Dan have revealed --- against their own will and to their inevitable embarrassment I'd imagine --- how unrelated they are to the 'project' and how far they have deviated from (what I suggest are) its necessary concerns.
It's not a problem for me as I see genius as impersonal. It can take "possession" of someone for a while and is not guaranteed to stay or "flourish". And who could claim that? In a world where reality itself often turns out contradicting and chaotic, one cannot just apply some "metaphysics" out of thin air, from the past or out of some metaphysical logic. For me wisdom works, yes, even exists for us in the "abstract" but as well functioning inside a context. To find it or "incarnate" this into concrete, detailed, messy situations, as some "object', would quickly become politics: the fundamental material concern; the circular discussion on facts and figures applied to real life. That in itself is an amazing project which might need to be reviewed entirely!

Post Reply