I do not see the possibility of a world-culture being brought into existence or have a desire that a species wide system of values be instituted either organically or by some kind of directed intention. Besides, it is impossible to create the kind of globalist institutions that could combat things like climate change without diminishing the power of the masses, the public, the individuals. Globalism is by its very nature a concentration of political force in the hands of the few. Death is preferable. Power doesn’t come out of a void somewhere. In order for these elites to have more power, I have to give them some of mine; we have to give some more of our power, our rights, our individuality, our emancipatory potential, some more of our father’s and forefather’s blood, to them. Not only am I not interested in empowering these soul-less agencies on the flimsy misplaced hope that they’ll combat the threat of a warming planet on our behalf as opposed to just stuff their fat fucking pockets, I want them to be completely disbanded and virtually all political power returned to where it belongs, the hands of the people.
You, I, a lot of other people have surpassed culture and could orchestrate a fair global system on a philosophic rulership, yes. But the difference I think in our perspectives is that I recognize that this overcoming of culture and national boundaries will never occur on the level of the species: because of that, any global system will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a very small elite political class and take power and freedom away from individuals. When a person who has not overcome their culture through universal ethics and philosophy has their culture taken away by the impositions of an elite class, by politicians and immigrants, they simply become alienated and disaffected and it creates social chaos that can become civil unrest and real violence.
What you are free to do is meaningless. What you are free from is the only thing that matters. That we are free to numb ourselves with Netflix and iphones and whatever flavor of ice cream we want is irrelevant. We are free from- very little. As far as global institutions doing good in the world, for every “good” they have wrought, I could point to ten negatives. We could fight climate change- if you actually think it’s that big of a threat, if we allowed private industries to simply drive themselves with competition and invent better solar technologies.
I agree with Fixed about globalism’s failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable’s, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken.
If being branded a racist because you hang a flag in your yard or something is “Nietzschean playfulness,” then fuck it. Perhaps Capable is simply not aware of the extent to which modern Leftist deconstructionism has reached in its diffusion and destruction of culture or what exactly I mean when I use the term. A lot of what I have said in even these messages would immediately get me kicked out of most academia for “thought-crime and hate-facts.” I’d get kicked out even for mentioning the fact that South African had 2 million white slaves in the 15th century. But, as I said here:
No poetry is as eloquent as time, which numbers the dead in as indifferent a silence as the
wind numbers the fallen leaves, for, as Santyana says in his discourse on madness in the
Dialogues in Limbo, no truth is eloquent save for truth unspoken. And yet what
eloquence there is in those names of our fallen kingdoms- what poetry in the lofty
syllables of Elam, Babylon, or Nineveh, as are dutifully recorded by our histories, the
winsome compact of whose beautiful name will never again be as pretty as it was when
the truth of their era remained unspoken, for, with Valery in the Crisis of Mind, even the
kingdoms now know that they are mortal.
Perhaps we should not have spoken so much- for, to the poets, bestowing a name on something is the highest honor it can possibly be paid, and, in honoring our own history, with all the deeds of our fathers, perhaps we have finally been crushed under the weight of their sins, their misdeeds. Valery was writing about what has taken place; the diffusion of our cultural inheritance into the hands of larger and larger institutions and groups, which nullifies the emancipatory potential for transformation, for the liberation of the daemon to a new era. Such emancipation depends on the concentration of cultural wealth in the hands of the few. The few: the philosophers, those who understand philosophy as it was understood by Plato’s republic, as the capacity to utilize power, power being knowledge and culture.
[ This coming phenomenon, moreover, may be connected with another to be found in every nation: I mean the diffusion of culture, and its acquisition by ever larger categories of individuals.
An attempt to predict the consequences of such diffusion, or to find whether it will or not inevitably bring on decadence, would be a delightfully complicated problem in intellectual physics.
– Crisis of Mind, Valery. ]
Well we no longer have to predict the consequences, the decadence is abundantly clear. Not just the decadence of culture: the annihilation, the political suicide, of culture. But Valery makes another inquiry at the end of this essay:
[But can the European Mind – or at least its most precious content – be totally diffused? Must such phenomena as democracy, the exploitation of the globe, and the general spread of technology, all of which presage a deminutio capitis for Europe…must these be taken as absolute decisions of fate? Or have we some freedom against this threatening conspiracy of things?]
The ancients thought about time as I do, and with that, the ebb and flow of civilizations.
Knowledge is power. But philosophy is not knowledge. Philosophy is knowing what to do with knowledge… what to do with power. That’s the basis of Plato’s marvelous Republic. Agnosis- that is, knowledge, along with all our ideas and history- our cultures, amount simply to the karmic aeon, to the collective soul of a people. Each generation is born into a cycle of karma, that karma being an inherited accumulation of past history and ideas and debts and causes and effects in arrangements of power. Dharma is gnosis, as opposed to agnosis; it is the understanding of how to manipulate the karma in order to free yourself from its repetitive cycle; how to re-organize it in order to eventually generate a new aeon, a new karma. The circles of time I was talking about are this karma, and the goal of philosophy is to escape the karmic aeon of your generation, in daemonic ascent continually liberating power to power’s other side, namely love; this liberating capacity is virtu, the strength of love; to escape one cycle of karma into a new one, continually re-ifying life in higher and higher forms, higher karmic aeons. This is the building I am talking about. I am intent on dissolving and shattering the current karmic aeon, utilizing philosophy to rearrange the social power structure- (memetic warfare like the gnostics repurposing the Abrahamic god or like I am repurposing sanskrit philosophy right now or like how N. repurposed Zoroaster) and liberating power to the purpose of forging the next, higher cycle of karma, the next karmic aeon in which to entrap the next generation of souls upon the wheel of life and death, upon samsara, a Sanskrit meme Nietzsche took and re-branded as the recurrence of the same. This is why what I am speaking of is not just a game for the sake of power. This kharmic aeon has become too heavy, too saturated with past guilt, too polluted with past assemblages of power, too paralyzed by the weight of its history- the weight of this karma is too great for anyone to ascend into gnosis and become philosophers- save for the few, the bodhisattvas who saw through its illusion and could have absorbed our consciousness in the paradaiscal godhead but decided to stay behind in the corrupted world of matter and power in order to guide the next generation into a new cycle of time and karma, a higher and freer one. So like all the aeons before it, this current circle must be closed, so that the next kharmic aeon can begin, which will only happen when the latent power in this one is liberated, when its tension is reified, so that life can once again be reinscribed in a higher cycle.
Agnostic philosophy works within the kharmic aeon; gnostic philosophy simply closes it and siphons power from it to forge the next kharmic aeon. Mastering both as I have done is necessary; you must start in the current karma to work with its power structure and see through to the next karma.
The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one’s self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche’s ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.
There is no global state at the end of this, that is utopian and Marxist in nature, a product of the linear view of time and a kind of unconscious desire for an end of history. The nation-state will continue to exist, as well as true diversity, namely independent cultures in different nations, not multicultures. Every attempt to fulfill the Utopian vision has produced death, and so Trump is needed to discontinue these globalist policies. The linear view of time only appeared with the Abrahamic religion, every other culture and mythos and philosophy understood time as a circle not a line going in a specific direction. The fact that technology builds on itself and “progresses” is meaningless as Heidegger pointed out, because technology is only one form of human techne or knowledge, one that like the others freezes the image of Being in stasis. Heidegger tried to destruct those forms of techne- technology, metaphysics, and religion, but that is useless; Being is truly disclosed in the progressively heightening aeons, in which power is recycled and purified throughout time.
Rather or not the total decay of culture into the globalist multicultural utopia is an inevitability of fate- and culture is the formula of the great kharmic aeons, the wheels upon which the daemon makes its ascent into higher and higher dharma and forms of life; rather or not this destruction can at least be undone, that has not been answered yet. But it soon will, for the sins and deeds of the past aside, the left-right paradigm will no longer even exist soon, when the circle of this age is closed in about 50 days and a fate determined, either to continue this path, or to transition. The fascination with globalism, Utopianism, feminism, and Marxism, with the consequent deconstruction of historical forms, the reality of sexual differentiation, and the relativization of moral ideals; the demonization of our forbears as mindless racists and misogynists, all which was carried out at the end of the last generation, has left this generation divorced from its own karma, from its very ancestry, and without any power to forge a new age for themselves, which had been accomplished by every generation precedent to this one. The circle of time has been flattened out and undone, stretched into a line pointing toward the Messianic fulfillment of history which will never come- a lie easily fed to the masses under the guise of benefiting the emerging and beneficent global state, a new international solidarity, the metapolitics of free love.
The Greeks didn’t need to set down and discuss what being a Greek was. The Greek ethos emerged from their daemon, their oral traditions, taking on the granite of speech in the voice of Homer. Likewise, this is all beyond the sphere of debate. This is occurring, this determination, over which course to take.
With the transition beyond the left-right paradigm, so comes also a transition beyond the socialist-capitalist paradigm.
The model of capitalism is a direct mirror of Freudian psychology. In Freud, you have a natural drive, it gets repressed by the super-ego, and then sublimated by the ego to create a surplus-drive which cannot be contained by the strictures of the ID, so that we create art and civilization to utilize it, just as in capitalism surplus wealth gets reinvested to perpetuate itself. It explains things from the inward to the outward. Capital and surplus value is literally just the economic analogue of libidinal sublimation. The stages of capitalism I pointed out some time ago are relevant in this comparison.
Communism’s explanation begins in alienation as a consequence of material conditions, which limit man to certain patterns of life. It assumes each man contains the whole of the species-essence, ie. we can all magically be philosophers, mathematicians, farmers, etc. all at the same time due to the perfect equality of human nature, so that the structural limitations of social existence impose definite occupations on us that limit our phenomenal reality in an unnatural way. I don’t feel I need to remark on how this is stupid. The underlying equivalence of individual and species-essence is why you will see the word cultural Marxist applied to social justice warrior types.
National socialism is not inherently worse than the other two. It borrows some insight from communism and gives the government the ability to divert capital resources to what it sees fit, particular technological sectors or entire industries, but it takes insight from capitalism and allows the market and competition to coordinate that capital at the level of individual businesses. It has the foresight of a top down vision imposed by the few heads of government as well as some of the hindsight of nature, ie. forces of competition in the market. However, this makes national socialism incredibly statist, which is no good if you wish to separate culture and government like I do. The national socialist government has direct control over the culture because it can divert capital to industries it values and take it away from those it does not, and they easily foisted a hyper racial supremacist pseudo-mystical vision on their populace.
" Dialectical
materialism (communism and Marxism) cannot produce the episteme necessary for
effective revolutionary consciousness and the mobilization of knowledge in the form of
empowered political action, that is, the component of energeia or energizing tension,
while the negative-reflective consciousness of tragic subjectivity- the spirit of poetry, art,
and even religion itself in the view of Holderlin, Kierkegaard, and Schelling, (despite
their numerous theoretical differences) cannot produce the component of entellecheia,
identity, and affirmative content… "
The Nazis and Heidegger (and Russia) sought the later, [everyone is always surprised by Heid. endorsement of the Nazis] thinking they could salvage from the decaying dreams of Europe a new racial identity from behind the history of the Aryan people which was hijacked first by the Asiatics in Greece then corrupted and twisted even more by the Jews in the Roman era, and inaugurate a new political regime as a dispensation from Ousia itself to dasein, which would assume the form of a pure Aryan reborn, freed from the distorted history imposed on it by the other races of the earth. Obviously the communists and socialists and now our Leftists seek the former. Neither will win against the spiritually emaciated and philosophically brain dead spirit of liberal American-European secularism, which has no positive meaning, which has no future vision for humanity, nothing with which to establish a human identity in our postmodern techno-apocalypse. Its destruction will come from within, not from without. And as it falls so will the globalist paradigm, which has been the only thing holding us back from nuclear war, a shadow that still looms as much as it did during the cold war.
Capitalism succeeded out of these three for a reason. It is not the most effective- none of the three are very effective, as they all reflect inaccurate understandings of human psychology. The reason it succeeded is because it naturally aligns itself with the Leftist secular humanism, and allows a complex to form between corporate power, democratic processes, the media, science, and military (via globalism) whereas this is difficult if not impossible with the other two alternatives. This complex is very powerful, physically speaking, if spiritually emaciated and lacking any vision for humanity or affirmative content, lacking ethos. It was inevitable that capitalism would win by allowing this complex of social forces to form.
The left, with the star of its fate firmly poised on the lofty horizon of post-wiggerdom neo-hipster Marxist transgenderism, can destroy the idea of sex differences, the idea of the nation-state and culture, etc. and that’s not perceived as destructive- it’s fine and progressive, but destroying the globalist neo-con neo-liberal plutocracy along with the welfare state which it champions as its social mask and foists over the bemused gormless faces of the public with the assistance of the corporate media shills to convince people it’s good, along with all these federal and internationalist institutions with their over-extended spheres of power, etc.- destroying that is anarchic, chaotic, nihilistic. This system is diffusing culture as I said in the last message- while doing the opposite with power, concentrating it in a steadily narrowing group of elites in control of the whole institutionalized bureaucracy now blanketing the earth. Culture diffuses; power concentrates- is the result of these policies. The people are then both being robbed of their identities and cultural inheritances, and of their power. Being robbed of their power alone is something that the masses can recover from, it’s happened all throughout our history, culminating in the collapse and rebirth of nations. But with the diffusion of culture accomplished by the left, well, perhaps there will no longer be a rebirth. Whenever a people were subjugated too greedily under the foot of a tyrant, they could always turn back and draw on the wealth of their collective soul to discover the emancipatory potential of their kharmic aeon.
A sik þau trûðu
Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man’s furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.
It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:26 pm
Really quick to a central issue of the idea of globalism, before I take more time to process these posts and respond more completely: as far as I can see there are only two logical differences between a continental and a planetary government: 1) the fact that a continent has a zone outside of itself whereas a planet does not; or, a planet’s logical outside is just empty space, a moon, and eventually some other planets and moons but that’s a long ways off still in the future. And 2) the differences between the peoples, cultures, histories, values-forms that obtain within a continental scope are less severe than are the likewise types of differences obtaining within a planetary scope. In plain terms, there’s a lot more variety and difference of stuff if you make a group out of “everyone” than if you make a group out of “everyone on a given continent”.
These two points are the only real factors I can see that would guide a different outcome and logical construction when it comes to comparing a federalist-rational sustem of government at the continental vs. planetary level. If, for example, we imagine the US system loosely adapted to the entire planet and every current nation-state becomes a state within the larger Union, other than the practical problems of increasing the number of states from 50 to around 200 and obviously increasing the number of people in the states, there are those two primary logical problems of difference to contend with: (corresponding to the above), 1) the global government has nowhere outside itself to which one might escape (in contrast, if you live in the US you can always denounce your citizenship and move to another country if you want to), and 2) there would be a lot more different feelings and ideas competing for political shared space, most likely making it even harder to find compromises on practical issues such as fiscal policy and taxes, individual rights, punishment and retributive justice, allowable norms vs illegal prohibitions (such ax for easy example slaughtering animals and letting their blood wash out into the street, which is probably violating some kind of health law in most US states but obviously some people around the world wouldn’t want such a law), and all the rest kinds of issues that always come up.
I think these two logical problems are serious, but I don’t think they are fatal. I think it is possible to find work-arounds to where a planetary quasi-federalist representational system of governance could still work; most likely this will involve a divestment of most powers at the planetary level and the reservation of most powers to state levels (in this case, to the world’s nation-states). My idea of planetary government doesn’t involve the dissolution of nation-states anymore than the idea of American federal governance involves the dissolution of the now 50 states in the US. The higher most summative peak of governance should derive its structure and power from less summative categories, in every case descending down the ladder of scope toward greater real-world (“earthy”) complexity and vitality, as FC was saying. The highest level of planetary government would be tightly restricted on what it can and cannot do, just as in the US the people are still always most affected by the policies coming out of their state and local governments rather than those coming out of Washington DC.
So basically my idea doesn’t involve the forced homogenization of cultural differences, or even languages; my idea of planetary governance would accomplish two essential tasks: it would provide an only abstract higher plane of categorical sameness and possible reconciliations across all people everywhere, and it would allow a mechanism for addressing the most serious and life threatening, self-value threatening problems that affect humanity as a whole. Everything else would remain basically the same with only very limited marginal homogenizations occurring only within the most far-removed and most agreed-upon rational delimitations, with everything else (the bulk of human life and political-administrative issues) being such powers as are reserved to the states, as it says in the US constitution for example.
And quickly touching on the first of the two problems, I consider this one to be the most serious one, since the ability to leave one’s nation-state jurisdiction is an important check on abuses of nation-state power just as I think it is an important individual right. However, it should be possible to address this if we combine the fact of stark limitation of peak-global governing powers to only those most absolutely pressing and critical with the fact of some “outside zones” where it is still possible to escape global-state jurisdiction, such as perhaps space colonies or some manner of free zones that could be set up. Maybe a certain number of regions around the world could be designated as exempt from global government power, and people would be free to renounce citizenship and move to those places if they want. I don’t know, it’s definitely a serious problem. But we could also look at the aspect that perhaps this “outside zone” is either unnecessary or could be effectively maintained at the level of migrating from one nation-state to another just as how in the US we are free to migrate to other states within the US and thereby find those states with which we most agree on issues of practical governing policies (taxes, etc.) In short I don’t think that many people in the US are lining up to leave the US for another country, but definitely people often move from one state to another and this capacity could be replicated at the nation-state level within a larger planetary federalist system.
Ok now that I’ve laid out the only meaningful differences between a federal government system at the continental vs. global levels, and provided a very brief initial outline for how those differences as problems could be addressed, I’ll spend some time taking in the many other points raised over the last five or so posts before this one, and have more to say later. In the meantime I want to know if anyone here sees any other serious logical problematic differences between government at the continental level vs. at the planetary level, other than the two logical problematic differences I’ve just identified above. Such differences must be exhaustively identified before we can begin to make claims such as saying that government on the planetary level is impossible, requires the massive forfeiture of individual rights significantly more so than in the current US model of government, etc.
Note that if such logical differences (either the two Ive just mentioned, or any others you might find) prove to be insurmountable problems then I will reject the possibility of a sane, rational planetary government and turn to a new paradigm instead, one that doesn’t involve any kind of “globalism” at all; however, if the logical differences are not found to be fatally problematic then we must rationally accept that planetary government is acceptable to the exact same degree that continental government is acceptable.
“We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality.” -Parodites
“Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it… Jung’s answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking… it’s just that we aren’t good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled.” -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:14 pm
“I agree with Fixed about globalism’s failure, but I depart insofar as I lack any desire to create a metalogic with which to organize a global scale system on a philosophic rather than merely political basis. I do not desire either the present globalist system, a super-federalist system like Capable’s, or a globalist state founded on philosophic rulership. My intention is to restore for civilization the dynamic and destructive surplus-energetics that has been lost in the 20th and 21st century and to instantiate the wheel of the next kharmic aeon, maybe we can even crucify the political elites and use them as spokes for it. That a philosopher condescends to rule is already an aberration to me. Philosophers exist between the human world and the world of the Gods, we shepherd the daemon of man between the worlds, we maintain the balance of the creative and the destructive potential of each kharmic aeon. We witness to man, how it can be used, and broken.”
It is more because the logic, with VO, has become available, that I see no other possibility than that it will be implemented, by someone, eventually; the collapse of this age, might very well be allowed, in a Schellingian/Heideggerian way of emerging from a chaos of drives, by providing a code for the disintegration of the purely political, extortionist system of superstitious fear used as leverage.
I think that the aeon will die spasmodically, pure muscle reflexes clinging on, because the instinct for universalization of economy and politics is the depth of a few billion souls, all willing toward an impossible, but nonetheless forging some possibility of something else, - thinner, a rulership more like mountain air; a pure principle that guides, to which people across the world of some intellectual weight can all subscribe, because its rule is precisely not to infringe on the Earthly.
This is, I believe, the anarchist ideal, and it is also the only possible global legislative ethics. That means not to say global legislation. I do not believe in that, except for a non nuclear proliferation pact. I be,ieve that mankind can add a principle to his environment, to insert it into his world at the side of air and water, to allow him to breathe morally, politically, looking-into-the-future; this is what the New Aeon will require, for it to be born from the increasing chaos; perspective.
This open space, removal of the choking bag from the head of humanity, the introduction of philosophies of our spirit, is what becomes the philosophers home; freedom in the world begins with creating freedom for the philosopher.
Liberating Prometheus, Chirons death, symbolizing the philosophers departure from his dank cave into the exalted firmament.
Naturally the dank cave isnt actually given up. It’s just that the sky is also our birthright.
Or, essentially, the world best freedom begins with, is anchored, rooted in, the world being regarded as a playground for philosophers. That, at least, is the proper aesthetics to uphold in order to drive for the right changes.
I see all great politics as the explication of standards, ruling by example. What the Brits did in India, and how India responded, gives a good idea of what is possible for a rising culture aiming to imprint it on the fertile ground of a decaying old one.
And it is my increasingly solid belief that we, being with such a significant group of philosophers, a kind of grouping that hasn’t ever occurred except at the roots and in the crowns of empires, actually do represent the weight of an entire rising culture. The flimsiness of what is left of the old cultural structure actually will allow for us to - well.
Im not talking about taking over shit physically or organizationally, but intellectually. The west is ruled by think-tanks. These think tanks are occupied by proud men and women. That’s all we need to know, really, if we’d consider stepping forward and getting things rolling our way. I ve entirely surrendered to astrology for giving me the timing. Right now, we;'re in the 10 day window of the Jupiter-Sun conjunction that, last year, was the frame of the Pantad, and threads about politics, that lead to my voyage west.
Jupiter rules philosophy, not in a symbolic way, but in a physiological way. When he comes conjunct the Sun, philosophy becomes viable in the daylight.
The year of Jupiter has 13 months. We are in the end of the 13th month of the first year.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3862
Join date : 2011-11-09
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:28 pm
Im not asking anyone to believe in Jupiter, but I am asking all 4 of you to respect the calendar as a means, to a cycle; respect the cycle as the ultimate form of power and value. The Aeon of Jupiter. I am the Pontifex. Ive seen myself as a high priest of Jupiter - a holy Fool an Magus going for the World Entire on a whim of Olympian laughter - since in a vision I saw the world collapse in 1998; where I differ with Parodites is that I have seen the world as already leveled to the ground for a good time; I am perhaps even more cynical, and equally a romantic, thus my scheming is deeply ironic, and in accordance to how he describes magic, I both firmly believe it is real and fully know it isnt and needs first to be made real by ‘some dark magic’ - which is Will, or self-valuing pure; the cohering of the most self-valuable materials.
The world is in flames, flames turn to dragons, dragons turn to flames.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar
Posts : 3183
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan
PostSubject: Re: The Analytic Impossibility of Globalism Until Value Ontology Is Implemented as All-Law Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:03 pm
At this point I think the only thing we can do is make our own values statements, and leave it at that. It appears no real compromise is possible, our respective positions are simply too far apart. I think this is the danger of philosophy moving toward politics: the political is a dimension that forces philosophy to attempt to posit itself “in reality” and in the practical sense, which is often enough not only an invalidation of philosophy as such by returning the premises of such a philosophy to pre-philosophical status, but even more so is something for which philosophy is woefully unprepared. Just because we might have been philosophizing on the mountain tops for a decade or more doesn’t necessarily mean one bit of worth when it comes to trying to translate and apply that philosophy to “the real world”, at the sociopolitical level.
It would take another decades-long deep work to create a philosophical politics on par with our philosophies. By no means is a justified, truthful, sane or good politics ensured by any height of standard or achievement at the purely philosophical level. We should let this fact humble us; that is the first step at least in starting on that long path toward real progress in the philosophical-political, progress in something that really doesn’t even exist yet. To the extent that philosophy is a rarity, a philosophical-politics is far more rare; a philosophical-politics would only be possible after the successful development of a philosophy and after many more years of hard work attempting to translate philosophy to the political, ‘real world’ substances which, again, are almost always pre-philosophical in nature and so cannot help but seriously offend our true philosophical taste and noble pathos of distance.
. . .
World-culture is already coming into existence, under the mandate of US-driven (western) global capitalism. Whether or not we want a world-culture seems irrelevant at this point, as one has been developing for a while now and seems poised to keep developing. What are the old religions, ideologies, political powers compared to the youth of every country on earth watching and uploading videos to Youtube on a daily basis? As Sloterdijk said, there is a sphere of globalism in which some are included and outside of which most are excluded, yet those on the outside are always trying to get inside. Equally we have Reich noting that people desire their own repression, desire some form of “fascism” and I think Zizek perfected this insight by realizing that what we desire isn’t fascism so much as a kind of pleasant alienation from the mundane: we do not want to be heavily involved in administrative decisions and requirements of society, no one wants to go to community committee meetings every week to determine how best to regulate water usage in one’s area, etc.; philosophy itself is freedom from the mundane, and self-valuing subjectivity is always already philosophical at heart.
There is no reason that planetary government would demand absolute forfeiture of individual rights, in fact as Guattari and I am sure many others have noted it is only by granting individual rights that modern globalized political structures are able to maintain their power. Democracy isn’t about individual rights, democracy is about using the pretense of such rights to establish a sociopolitical structure that can endure over time. From the perspective of society (of every society that has existed so far) individual rights are just the price paid by that society for its long-term stability, just like how voting isn’t about political participation at all and is simply about 1) giving the people an excuse to delude themselves into believing they are politically viable, and 2) creating the false impression of legitimacy by consent of the governed. Now, I want to eventually reverse these trends within the sociopolitical, but we should be absolutely clear as to the real justifications so far of these systems. Likewise, we must be absolutely clear that there is no such thing as absolute individual rights, nor “natural rights”; rights are something human beings create and enforce within a social order, not something inherent to nature, given by some god or universal decree. Individual rights are a pact of compromise between individuals and the social structures in which individuals come up and develop/individualize. There is always this element of middle-ground compromise involved, there is never going to be absolute individual rights, the very idea of that is a contradiction in terms because it supposes the non-existence of the sociopolitical dimension, yet it is the sociopolitical dimension that grants the ontological possibility of individual rights in the first place. Otherwise we simply have mafia rule of gangs and the rich oligarchies using pure force of muscle and fear/violence to get what they want, which is a situation akin to internet trolling whereby the higher values are impossible to appear due to the ubiquitousness of unchallengeable lower values.
It has taken humanity thousands of years to get to this point it is at right now, and I am not about to embrace the idea of throwing all that away and burning it upon a pyre just because we see some problems with global capitalism, or just because the idea of rebellious anarchy feels good at the personal pathological level of one’s narcissism and feelings of disaffection. Nor am I going to capitulate to hyperbolic statements that continuously skew the reality of the situations, onto-psychological dynamics and real-world consequences and values that truly underlie issues of the sociopolitical in the world today, such as the constant hyperbole of Trump and those like him. The reason they speak like this is because they need to talk down to people in order to win their support, their statements resonate somewhere at the 4th grade level; and when you talk down to someone, you actually start to create that exact same low standard in them. This isn’t complicated nor is it rocket science. All politicians do this dumbing-down, but Trump really takes the cake on this.
Quote :
The cyclic view of time is correct due to the fact that at the highest abstraction dialectical synthesis ceases to function and no Hegelian absolute exists in which a linear time could unfold toward geist; the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification. The daemon of man oscillates, ascends and descends in it, until one masters its dharma with philosophy, (rather then devotes one’s self to it in amor fati like Nietzsche’s ubermensh) and reifies the cycle in a higher level cycle, freeing the daemon to explore a new aeon. These cycles are ultimately grounded on the larger cycle of the universe, samsara, which the perfect dharma provides an escape from. The cycles, these kharmic aeons, form a spiral; they get tighter and tighter as the daemon, as life, ascends into continually higher forms. In the last universe, perhaps we were still using vacuum tubes at this time.
I am going to need some examples from history to really get an idea of this. Are you talking about the Egyptians and their pyramids, or what? I am not sure. I already highly dislike this Eastern Buddhistic terminology, which makes it hard enough for me to go along with this analysis, but the idea of a purely cyclical history seems false to me. If we look at the last 2500 years of history we can see a definite gradual progression over time, granted it has its fits and starts and there are small cycles here and there where old forms are recouped more recently and altered somewhat to fit present circumstances, but the general trend is one of linear progress. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you talk about “the arrangement of power and wills cannot go anywhere, it can just re-organize into different kharmic aeons, each one forming a cycle in which a power structure repeats itself in accordance to its daemonic intensification”… in fact, the power structures we see today are quite different from those of the past, the forms and contents are different even if not absolutely so, and even as power ‘cycles’ back and forth there is definite, real world progress being made atop that cycling. We can now edit out own genes, land on the moon, map distant solar systems, communicate instantly from one corner of the globe to the other, and more importantly philosophical ideas have permeated the unconscious strata of human being, such as with the example of all this Nietzschean postmodernity deconstruction stuff, but also at the level of more directly informing a kind of innate, intimate artistic being-valuing of the individual human that is sometimes (mis)translated as apathy toward all that has a low quality. The average person today has a higher standard for themselves, even ideology while it continues to spread is losing its grip, hence the relative collapse of religious and traditionally political ideological power to the newer ideological power of the global capitalistic.
What we do with freedom is not meaningless. What we do with freedom is a sign of our values and self-valuing, and the positivity of freedom is equally a cornerstone of the subjectivity-consciousness as is the negativity of freedom. I wrote about this in my recent book, I can paraphrase somewhat here: the positivity of freedom is the feeling of free will that we all experience, yet the content of that feeling is a pure negativity. We cannot have one without the other, there is no negative pure content of freedom without the forms of positivity that instantiate and replicate it in real time and space, likewise there is no positivity of freedom without the receded content of the pure negative actual reality of this freedom. Every void-negative content actualizes in realtime and realspace to construct positivities, the world itself is such a field of positivities. It makes as little sense to embrace the world-positivity without the negativity content underlying it as it does to embrace the negativity-content without embracing the world-positivity in which the negative lives and by which it gains its negativity at all.
As for the karmic aeon and the anarchic collapse, I have no idea what this really means. Can you give an example of this happening in history? As for a collapse and return to anarchic relations, how do you think that will go in the modern age of drones, nuclear and biological weapons, and stealth bombers? How can anyone realistically think anything productive could come out of a total global collapse and return to anarchy relations? When ancient Greece collapsed it was absorbed into Rome, when Rome collapse it was absorbed into Medieval Europe, and when the great old kingdoms of Europe collapsed these were absorbed into modern democratic classically liberal civilizations… throughout this entire project we have a progressive climb of humanity up the scale of civilization, toward more truth, more subjectivity-consciousness, more developed knowledge in science and technology, more universalization and objectifying of human being out into the world. Yet Greece, Rome, European monarchies did not have nuclear weapons at their disposal; the situation today is fundamentally different, even if we were to see those historical collapses as some kind of resetting of the karmic aeon, because the stakes are so much higher now, they are truly global in nature. There is no longer a possibility of rebellion of the people against society as such, against the government, because society-government as simply too much power now. Look at the Arab Spring states, these rebellions only further deepened state power and further invalidated the authority of the people over their own societies.
This conservative, anarchic idea that the people will rise up in mass rebellion and “take back their country” is so fucking stupid it would make me laugh if it were not also so pathetically tragic. No amount of rednecks with guns is going to overthrow the modern military; the government has drones, surveillance, access to trillions of dollars of capital, not to mention nuclear and biological weapons and who knows how many psychological weapons and secret technologies we don’t even know about. If this reactive conservative anarchic strain really succeeds, through Trump or someone else, of pushing things to the brink all that will take place is that the government will crack down so hard that individual rights, freedom, and the people’s involvement in their own political process and futurity vanishes overnight. Trump is probably the secret wet dream of the global fascists, of those who want to instantiate a 1984 world, because no one can light that fuse and give that justification for total takeover of the people as someone like Trump can. Trump feeds the lies and bad thinking reactionism that leads otherwise intelligent people to somehow think they can gather their friends and march on Washington…… no, it doesn’t work like that anymore.
The ONLY way to change the future and affect sociopolitical realities now is to actually participate in the political process, through think tanks like FC noted, through writing books and speaking and making videos that are shared with thousands of people; we must engage the political structures and not sit around in our fantasy land that these structures will somehow collapse and instantiate a Pure Anarchy of Absolute Freedom and Individual Rights. Trumpism is utopian thinking in the extreme, whereas the Left-liberalism paradigm is at least somewhere in the middle-ground between reality and insane global capitalism trying to etch out a middle space where humanity can actually exert real control over its future. But for some reason the pathology is very strong that rejects any kind of compromise and seeks only the black and white extremes, a fallacy of excluded middle… whereby it is either “anarchy or death”. I cannot accept such thinking.
And again, all this postmodern deconstruction stuff is just the inheritance of Nietzsche’s effect on humanity. It isn’t a serious threat, it could never build anything lasting or significant nor could it ever have a true effect on human being itself; it’s like kids playing with their toys, only as Nietzsche showed us, we are our own “toys”, and most people lacking philosophy and a proper Mind will simply play toy games with themselves on the emotional, physical and social levels rather than at the intellectual and mental level as we all do here. But regardless of all that, none of that has any bearing upon actual truths or human being itself, it is just a side-effect of the world as now thoroughly Nietzschean. Postmodern deconstruction and global capitalism are thoroughly Nietzschean inheritances, ones befitting pre-philosophical humanity. In any case the philosophical, higher standards will always be the exception and never the rule; I too have no desire at all to “rule”, nor do I have any delusions that philosophers could somehow become Kings in Plato’s idea, nor that the masses of people will somehow someday become philosophical. The only thing that can happen is that the average person becomes unconsciously more aligned to a gradually higher standard of truth and power, of will to power, and that is precisely what we are seeing with all this postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, feminist studies, gender identity stuff today. If we allow ourselves a mental-emotional collapse into pure reactivity of looking at all this from the lens of “Decadence! Ah!” then we are simply cutting ourselves out of the processes whereby reality actually becomes aligned over time to truths, just like Trump and the nationalists are driven by their own reactive anxiety to cut themselves and their countries out of the power-games of influence that in reality actually shape the world and the future of humanity. Anarchy represents a deflation of one’s “will” to seriously engage the actual reality of the world, in favor of a kind of self-satisfying fantasy paradigm that in fact serves the purpose of preventing oneself from ever needing to seriously engage reality at all. I have no desire for such things, but neither do I have much desire to get highly involved in engaging the realities of the world either; so my position is one of a more or less neutral observer standing on the side and watching things, with an eye for the highest truths. I am not going to collapse myself into anarchic deflation and utopian fantasy just because, as I freely admit, I have little desire to actually engage myself and my energy and time seriously in the practical affairs of changing things in the real world; my ideas come from the place where, were I to actually have that will, that energy and time, I would hold already the most accurate, truthful and highest value ideas as possible. That way I can at least right now provide this higher standard and context for others who might feel driven to get down to earth and really do something in the world. But in any case, philosophy catalogues truths and truth’s effects on human being, before any kind of “real work” can begin.
. . .
Again to my points about planetary governance, I want a minimal standard here, not any kind of global fascist behemoth to which everyone must sacrifice everything. I don’t believe in stupid utopian fantasies, and my idea of planetary government is neither utopian nor fantastical…. it is simply a logical extension of the political constructs that have been developed already over so many hundreds of years, to their logical next-step of global context. But again this is a minimal kind of globalism, just as the design of the US political system gives a minimal kind of power to the federal level and reserves other powers for the states and the people. That model obviously cannot just be adapted to the entire planet, but some kind of global construct is going to form whether we like it or not, so we might as well roll up our sleeves and start getting our hands dirty a little bit with trying to work out the details and realistic scenarios of what is going to happen and how best we want to envision and steer that toward our own values and ideal ends.
The kind of stark, raw anarchic drive I see today, the deep cynicism and skepticism is, from my perspective, deeply utopian and impotent. My position is not utopian at all, it is just my best attempt to apply philosophy to the practical real-world of the human sociopolitical in light of a naturalistic analysis of what I see going on in that world and with little regard for “what I want to happen”. I have my own desires, as you can see in how I form the idea of a possible minimal planetary government as well as the kinds of values I want humanity to aspire to in the future (space exploration, clean energy, environmental cleanup, human rights, an end to mass mobilized warfare, an end to religion, etc.), but those values that I hold do not over-determine my theoretical approach to how I look at what is really happening in the world. Globalism is here and it isn’t going anywhere; if Trump or anyone else succeeds at collapsing the present global order they will likewise only succeed in doubling-down the sheer absolute control of, violence toward, and loss of true political power to shape its future, of humanity. There is no going back, no re-writing history; we must make do with what we have, and engage reality as it is and armed with our high philosophy. Anything less is infinitely beneath us.
Global capitalism is just a nascent stage of a planetary-wide sociopolitics. The United Nations is another nascent stage. In fact, global capitalism today is playing the role of content to the pure form that the UN represents; we should try to reconcile this form and content to each other, to naturalize them and thus understand what is going on at the truthful level, as Nietzsche’s brand of naturalistic philosophizing would have it (philosophy as non-pathological, non-“moral” and simply truthful and honest at all costs… non-teleological). Any standard less than this I have no interest in.
Edit: apologies for any offense that I have given. These are simply my most truthful views and ideas, not any attempt to offend anyone. But I refuse to not completely speak my mind simply for the sake of sparing someone from the impact of my statements, at least when it comes to fellow philosophers (as FC noted about the idea of philosophical friendship, we must be able to call each other out as much as possible and laugh at each other’s, and our own, weaknesses. True friendship is infinitely beyond the level of “hurt feelings” (not that I am assuming anyone’s feelings are being hurt in the process of these discussions, but again I felt inclined to point out the obvious here that no such offense is intended or should even be valued by us at all)). Let’s keep pushing these ideas absolutely and as far as we possibly can, with the only thing we care about being the discovery of truth. Truly Building Thought to Disclose the Future. And if in the process of this we come up against irreconcilable divides in our respective ideas, so be it; that is a small price to pay for being able to participate in this high level of conversation and friendship. We can even laugh at our differences, as we ought to be able to equally laugh at ourselves. In any case I am fully prepared to admit that any of my ideas here is wrong, provided that this is demonstrated. “Men seek agreement, the philosophers seek disagreement” as I wrote, or another that applies to the philosophers the most, “Disagreement is context.”