The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 06 July 2014 20:17.

The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2

2,281 words

As I understand it, the model of “civilization” that James uses follows a linear logic - which is a modernist logic: this force causes that effect, almost like the forces and impacts of physics. It is to a view of events as occurring within the realm of what Aristotle called “Theoria” - clear, unassailable logical distinctions and connections.

Whereas a Post Modern logic would try to take what Aristotle called “Praxis” (the socially engaged world) and “Phronesis” (the necessity of practical judgment therein) into account a bit more in dealing with any issue, but especially when dealing with social issues. That is to say, particularly when examining social phenomenon (Praxis), it would take into consideration that what is being examined is occurring between biological, agentive creatures (especially in the case of humans, of course), who can alter their responses; and therefore making sense is not so simple but is necessarily engaged and partial in its understanding, requiring practical judgement (Phronesis); a necessity that is ongoing, moreover, as it is subject to reflexive effects on that which is observed, such that the subject matter can be transformed. 

I would characterize the model of “civilization” that James is using in this way:

A linear, Modernist, logic of civilization emanating from the primeval campfire to spawn divisions of labor which, if taken to logical extremes, can create precarious over specialization - if not transforming our individuality into something like units in a collective eusocial organism; whether through vulnerability in insufficient defense; or a last ditch, overcompensating, collectivized war that has us commandeered into a headlong strategy and annihilating defeat of our distinct biology and characteristic European individualism; whatever. It is speculative, particularly for its simple linearity, when applied to social praxis and its hermeneutic capacity for complex remediation; but useful nevertheless as a conceptual tool to sensitize awareness of clear and present dangers, including to distinguish what might be factors degenerate of authentic European ways, if not leaving us fully susceptible to alien transformation.

However, “civilization” makes still more sense as a clear and present danger as it delineates a contractual arrangement of civilization that has resulted of its logic: Individual males are required to forgo the use of their abilities to initiate and take immediate action in defense of their co-evolution in exchange for collective border control units being in charge of keeping interlopers out.

Civilization’s enforcement of this part of the division of labor appears even more a clear and present danger, leaving us insensible, enculturated to transcend sense of our interests, in favor of universal maturity, rendering us over specialized, incapable of sufficient individual autonomy, ability, judgment and enjoining us from even saying anything in protest, let alone exercising our natively endowed European abilities to fight in defense of our co-evolution. That part of the contract as not only maintained, but enforced, resonates as clear and present danger, enforced to Orwellian proportions.

However, the other side of the contract, for collective border control, has been reneged upon - also in Orwellian proportions. Whether occurring through corruption, insensibility or incompetence, it is beyond clear, it is a present danger catastrophically realized among significant tracts of European habitation.

Prohibiting individual White/European males from defending their co-evolution according to their sensibilities and special abilities, resulting insensibility and susceptibility to commandeering of civilizations’ divisions of labor into collectivized wars of annihilation of people we should not be fighting or in annihilation of ourselves through headlong, collectivized and tactless aggression, is clear and present danger enough: for these aspects alone, we should not favor jettisoning the whole idea of “civilization’s” pejorative logic.

But even the loss of our distinct qualities for over specialization is clear enough and valid enough a concern, if not taken too far, to where it is paranoically invoked as a call to individualism beyond all – that would be to follow Modernity’s Cartesianism to an extreme and exemplify indeed, a weakness on our part to be beholden as such.

Moreover, Jewish interests, and naiive or disingenuous objectivists, certainly maintain, and would continue to promote, a view to the detriment of Whites that “you don’t want any of that collectivist defense stuff.” Thus, it would not only be an expression of our weakness, but play into the hands of our antagonists.

Fair though it is as a logic to maintain a view to calibrate and examine our status, the strictly pejorative view of civilization is susceptible to reaction into, and reconstruction of, the liberal waters in which we swim, and from which we need to extricate ourselves. As it paranoically reacts to anything “social” or “left” with calls for freedom, authentic northern European individualism, especially where taken to the Cartesian extreme, it participates in the reconstruction of the Modernist narrative denial of individualism’s social construction and it becomes counter productive to solving our gravest concerns; it obstructs the organized reconstruction of our evolutionary forms and ways and the marshaling of our defense - which can be benignly grounded in, and provided semiotic guidance through, narrative.

Ignoring the profundity of the social source of our individual evolution in favor of individualism to that extent might just as soon bring about negative evolutionary transformations, whether through inability to mount a collective defense through obliviousness to accountability for our social, historical indebtedness or the belated and overcompensating collective defense that leads us headlong into annihilating defeat.

This is only more likely to come about if, in hyper-vigilance, we insist upon maintaining liberal individualism for Nordic authenticity, praise to Odin, whatever, to the point where we block our collective defense and establishment of awareness of our need for accountability to our profound social indebtedness for whatever individuality we have.

This is a point where not only the Nordicst perspective, but the north western European perspective, especially in America, not warranted on the grounds of native interest as it is in Europe, could be instigated to the kind of stress and anxiety that would have one continue to seek solutions in transcendent, unassailably universal, i.e., Cartesian foundations –in The US, usually beginning with the Lockeatine US Constitution (empirical side of Cartesianism and more of that water in which we swim), arguing that its rights, freedom of association, liberal Cartesian though it is, and in the hands of Jewish courts and manipulation though it is, ought to apply to Whites as well. Indeed, arguing for that variant, viz., appeals to freedom from association for Whites too, is necessary in The US -necessary of itself in defense of EGI, but also a matter of tact (“freedom” being “their” sacrosanct rule that we have to call them on) and expression of one important feature of authentic Europeanness to maintain; not harmful if understood as grounded in the sociality of European evolution in broader context.

However, the wish for individual freedom, the pursuit of its connection to transcendent foundations in liberation from social connections is, of course, a point of desperation and semi-paranoia that can happen to any of us when immersed in non-White multi-cult along with its degenerate Whites; where the Jews and naiive/disingenuous objectivists have associated leftist responsibility with non-White interests, endless welfare and special programs for breeding non-Whites; introducing them in displacement of Whites; in a pervasive background of didactic associations of what is considered to be unrealistic but dangerous when attempted communist collectivism or Nazi collectivism; to where indeed, one would could scarcely want any talk of social relatedness and indebtedness – understandable, hell, it is understandable why some of our interlocutors are indeed, more like misanthropes than White advocates, because of the American perspective for one fine example. But they lack orientation on patterns and tracts of White populations which form worthy grounds for mounting and coordinating our successful struggle for European sovereignty.

With that grounding, we may develop a sufficiently subtle understanding of our need to reconstruct understanding of our profound social indebtedness, to use the hermeneutic turn to create narrative accountability to it for the source of what relative individuality that we might have; to mollify irresponsible divisions in favor of reconstructing the whole individual and the social systemic whole.

With that appreciation of social indebtedness we may also call attention to the depth of our evolution; and to the already over-abundant calls among pervasive liberalism for individualism to stand against collectivism; so that it need not be paranoically or disingenuously invoked by the YKW and others, who have taken advantage of that narrative – have made it the toxic waters in which we swim, leveraging it against bona fide aversion to communism’s and Nazims’ didactic collectivism. For it is not only communism but also Nazi objectivism which has made collective and ethnocentric defense as didactic as anything in opposition to doing what is necessary in the face of clear and present danger.

By contrast, we might have a sufficiently subtle social understanding, and with post modern hermeneutic management, so that the naiive/disingenuous objectivists who would leave matters to forces and impacts do not by consequence bring about something like eusociality or any number of strange and nasty evolutionary transformations. Rather, we may foster the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn to promote narratives reconstructing our forms and ways and identifying key points of our antagonists, to break the hold of their now pervasive, Modernist liberal narrative.

That there might be a clear and present danger in having our individualism displaced with us becoming something like eusocial units in a collective organism is speculative, of course; not impossible, but it is only more likely to come about - whether through the vulnerability of insufficient defense or a last ditch, overcompensating collectivized war strategy which has us defeated - if its possibility is exaggerated by deeming our evolution and culture so thin, and individualism to be so purely valued above all. It is only more likely to come about if we paranoically insist upon maintaining liberal individualism to the point where we block our collective defense and the establishment of awareness of our need for accountability to our profound social indebtedness for whatever individuality that we have. Otherwise, we would follow Modernity’s Cartesianism to an extreme and exemplify weakness of ours to be beholden thus.

That part of the definition which has it over-valuing individualism is something of a practical hindrance as it is individuality and its liberalism that are among our most significant problems to organizing our defense. Our evolution should not be viewed as quite so shallow; narratives of individualism are embedded enough as well, so that narrative and practical realization is not likely to be lost beyond reconstruction any time soon. Moreover, it is not only something that can be managed in the hermeneutic turn but particularly as we promote narratives which call upon the need for our defense as a people, individual, underground guerrillas will draw upon those narratives as backing them with popular support and with the orientative understanding of targeting true injustice and evil - by that orientation sighting the worst parts of civilization, sighting appropriate targets and taking ever more appropriate and effective action regarding the most culpable of our adversaries; as such, we will not lose popular support for being against all, taking all of civilization down, arbitrarily - and in that fight, individuality and its heroism will not be lost, but emphasized, its purpose recognized as meaningful.

Through promotion of these operationally verifiable and warrantably assertable accounts, narratives, our individual men and women might act into those narratives circulating pervasively in the background, informing them, providing orientation to act intelligently in defense of our interests. That would entail reconstructing the forms of our people, as sufficiently well rounded through concepts of rotation and negotiation,  socially responsible individuals taking part in control of our boundaries.

Nevertheless, while needing some post modern, hermeneutic mollification, James’ definition does underscore a clear and present danger, and thus provide utility as a conceptual tool, particularly noteworthy in civilization’s reneged-upon contract. On one end of civilization’s contract, White males are still expected, forced in fact, to keep their end of the bargain, to not fight for their co-evolutionary females with their senses and the particular abilities that European evolution has endowed them to their advantage, but are rather obligated to fall increasingly into the numbers of desexed ancillaries to the anti-native-European system. That is clear and present danger enough.

On the other end of the contract the insensible and collective division of labor assigned to guard the border from interlopers fail to keep their end of the bargain for their incompetence or corruption (either letting invaders in or engaging in uncalled for aggression). That is beyond a clear danger, it is present.

Thus, it is also clear not only why James would not want this concept of civilization’s pejorative side to be discarded altogether, but why we should not. On the other hand, might there not be, as in the case of Modernity, sides of civilization which are worth preserving and manageable along with its bad side, through the hermeneutic turn of Post Modernity as well? I would thinks so.

In summation, we may see why James has been a bit sore at me for having given short shrift to the negative effects on border control and quality of people within demonstrated in his definition of “civilization”, with me focusing instead on maintaining the importance of the conceptual view of the negative effects of Modernity on the same interests.

We can see why his perspective may have made for inclination to over-apply some aspects of civilization as pejorative, useful though it is. On the other hand, we can see how my perspective obstructed my fully appreciating the value in his conceptual tools and how his call for more clarity in definition can be justified and useful as well.

Now to Modernity and Civilization’s correspondence at the Roman intersection…



Comments:


1

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:49 | #

Ok, I have finally re-edited this part 2. One of the reasons why I was slow about it is because it is always daunting (for me) to critique Bowery’s work.

People criticizing my writing may not understand that engaging his work, by itself, can take me into some turgid and unfamiliar language (e.g. “eusociality”) but it also takes me into the necessity of unfamiliar language in response (e.g., “hermeneutics”). 

Another reason that it is a complicated task is that it is a tricky balance between being accessible enough versus being true to what MR’s audience is, ideally – those most serious and/or best equipped to solve problems and propose solutions of European sovereignty.

There are not only people such as Katana, who think MR should be more accessible for a popular audience, but people more familiar with MR’s history as one taking on the the most formidable intellectual challenges in concern of European peoples, therefore a willingness to use language in whatever form and extent necessary for comprehension of those challenges. MR is thus, for people who not only enjoy basic understanding, but value a bit more challenge in the reach of understanding.

Witness this criticism I received, which is quite the opposite of Katana’s

Posted by Mr. Nill on June 16, 2014, 11:15 PM | #
I used to visit mr for Bowery/Renner…...hard to believe it’s the same site.  DarnelS, your writing style is far too pithy. May Abraham bless you with prolixity.

The effort to be thorough in regard to MR’s pursuit beyond mere popular understanding can create the appearance of prolix in my writing - I would reject Katana’s contention that it is indeed prolix, an attempt to be showy and that it needs to be “dumbed down”. I believe rather that she is reading some typos and need for editorial revision as pomposity. I am sure of this because as I go in and re-edit, I find that I have not been far off, but having not seen that I accidentally, say, added or omitted a word, and it can give the appearance of being cavalier; in addition to making the writing less clear. I can justify my argument by being able to explain whatever might be unclear to someone.

I have found and corrected typos and errors in almost every paragraph. It is, or should be, much more clear now.

I have added the the following two paragraphs to the beginning which should also help clarify matters.

The third paragraph that I have added to this comment is an example of a paragraph the clarity of which was particularly helped by this editing.

Added introductory paragraphs:

“As I understand it, the model of “civilization” that James uses follows a linear logic - which is a modernist logic: this force causes that effect, almost like the forces and impacts of physics. It is to a view of events as occurring within the realm of what Aristotle called “Theoria” -  clear, unassailable logical distinctions and connections.

Whereas a Post Modern logic would try to take what Aristotle called “Praxis” (the socially engaged world) and “Phronesis” (the necessity of practical judgment therein) into account a bit more in dealing with any issue, but especially when dealing with social issues. That is to say, particularly when examining social phenomenon (Praxis), it would take into consideration that what is being examined is occurring between biological, agentive creatures (especially in the case of humans, of course), who can alter their responses; and therefore making sense is not so simple but is necessarily engaged and partial in its understanding, requiring practical judgement (Phronesis); a necessity that is ongoing, moreover, as it is subject to reflexive effects on that which is observed, such that the subject matter can be transformed.”

That is where a word like “topoi” or “heuristic” comes into play for all the jerks who would want to see value in Carolyn Yeager’s assessment of my “pomposity”.

Example of paragraph significantly improved:

This is a point where not only the Nordicst perspective, but the north western European perspective, especially in America, not warranted on the grounds of native interest as it is in Europe, could be instigated to the kind of stress and anxiety that would have one continue to seek solutions in transcendent, unassailably universal, i.e., Cartesian foundations –  in America, usually beginning with the Lockeatine U.S. Constitution (an empirical side of Cartesianism and more of that water in which we swim), arguing that its rights, freedom of association, liberal Cartesian though it is, and in the hands of Jewish courts and manipulation though it is, ought to apply to Whites as well. Indeed, arguing for that variant, viz., appeals to freedom from association for Whites too, is necessary in The U.S. - both a matter of tact (“freedom” being “their” sacrosanct rule that we have to call them on) and an expression of one important feature of authentic Europeanness to maintain; not harmful if it is understood as grounded in the sociality of European evolution in broader context.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3
Previous entry: The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:32. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:02. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

affection-tone