Before i give the wrong impression, James, i don’t intend to become a sort of spy in the house of love, as Anais Nin, would have it, but i need to reflect on our discussion earlier in another formu, where emphasis was placed on a lineage of discussion relating to the Spengler-Weber debates, and i argued for Weber’s position, and found considerable concurrence, within current followers, and one particular one i could dig up, closed with the statement, that the outcome is still a work in progress, and there is no telling which point of view ultimately will prove to be the correct one.
Another point in the same thread, was the impression brought into the discussion, that ideological thought is likely to reduce to Kant, and a synthetic approach may, in the long run will prove to be the tool, by which further reduction is prevented in analytical thought.
The rationalism of a Spinoza, whom Nietzsche took literally was not taken but figuratively by Goethe, and Wagner, therefor the rift, Nietzsche contra Wagner. Things came to a head in a production of Parcifal at Bayrouth, whrere Nietzche was disillusioned, the redemptive power of love, which originated with Goethe, was the final straw.
What is at stake here? Not only credibility, but the fact, that the ideological struggle is still on, and what is missing from current political processes, is that negotiations are breaking down, in the above examples given, namely, the one which stands out is the current struggle betweem executive and legislative parts of the US government.
World wide this struggle can be extended to the separation of church and state issue, and because power has been more or less outsourced , there must be some wrangling and jostling between the Vatican and the U.N.
Politicians in this country, the SCOTUS included are talking about meeting of minds on the both sides of the isle. But is this the real picture of what really is going on? t is business as usual of special interests bribing their representatives by porkbarrel means to get their special as usual business done. Nothing really changes, and nothing will, until another fiasco like the last one, will bring people to attention.
Philosophy can help, at least point out inconsistencies, and the forum dealing with machines taking over , has pointed out, that this is no longer a local or regional threat, but one of worldwide significance. The reason why we are beginning to see a limit, or end of history, is precisely because these regions,are expanding to include more associations based on corporate structure, and the time to make decisions whether diplomatic or economic are increasingly made in terms of one another. The effect of all this is seemingly a need to create a central agency for the coordination of these, in order to prevent mass confusion in the making of these geopolitical decisions. Kant's synthesis of de-mystifying the naturalistic fallacy, into the growing wants, as opposed to perceived needs of humanity, may be at a very early stage, but it looks like it offers the brightest hope for world unification.