The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3

3,281 words

Lets come back to the beginning. There has been a misunderstanding, with James being sore at me for short shrifting the utility of his definition of civilization as pejorative.

Part of the misunderstanding had to do with Jewish interests having successfully obfuscated definitions of Modernity/Post Modernity. Thus, misunderstanding may be ameliorated with my being still more clear in what is meant by Modernity.

Jim contended that civilization set precedence before the onset of the epoch of Modernity. The pejorative aspects of civilizations’ chain of logic was superordinate because it was set in motion prior to the epoch of Modernity.

Aha! But Modernity as it is defined here, is not just a characteristic historical epoch, but a way of life having logics of meaning and action which were set in motion prior and having implications beyond. Thus, James was right in calling attention to the fact that we need clearer agreement on the definitions. It should yield evidence that the two concepts are not at odds but enhancing one another – both concerned as a problem to border/group systemic boundary control and reconstructing the quality of life within the border/group systemic boundary.

While I might normally explain Modernity’s logic of meaning and action as indeed, beginning in ancient Greece, with the aforementioned bias of my view, I would normally skip the Roman era as not altogether meaningful in its chain of logic, but rather move from Greece straight to its culmination as an epoch with Descartes; and proceed quickly from there to Locke’s attempt to anchor the Cartesian side within nature, to Kant’s failed attempt to rescue transcendence of the arbitrary in pure reason, and finally the beginning of its denouement with the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.

However, Jim also chided me to take into account ancient Roman “civilization’s” propensity for collective and mercenary military incursions to the north, along with its slavery, a cause of boundary destruction and race mixing.

Given that prompting, along with the opportunity to begin reconciliation of alliance of the Nordicist view with more native European nationalist views and of the view of Modernity as pejorative with “civilization” as pejorative, I see fit to begin tracing Modernity’s logic of meaning and action as it made its way from the headwaters in Greek telos and substance to inform vast and turbulent streams through Roman “civilization” as well, before becoming mainstream as an epoch, following Descartes.

Before taking a detour in order to deepen the understanding of Modernity by unfolding its course through Roman civilization, I must say that this is the perfect place to invite the commentariat to take the Post Modern turn with me; for it is precisely the Cartesian model that would have me proposing myself as the all-knower, having received truth from pure reason and transmitting it to a passive third person audience. Whereas the comments allow for joint participation for the correction and construction of knowledge, cultural resource, race - the White Class and selves.

Thus, rather than trying to solve this Gordian knot, by myself trace and fully detail all relevant connections of Modernity’s logic as it made its way through ancient Rome, and so on, I would be much more honest and better advised to make the more modest attempt to indicate important general discursive structures of the times and ask for help in elaboration where necessary – or in adding corrections and relevant discursive structures where I am not seeing the necessity.

To adumbrate some of Modenity’s course then, as it sprang from headwaters at least contemporaneous with ancient Greek civilization.

Though something of an oxymoron, Modernity’s onset has a traditional beginning in the Greek idea of telos and substance – a pursuit that held promise, yielding significant results; beginning with technology derived from observation that when one caps the top of a straw, dunks it in water and then lifts the straw out of the water, they draw water up with the straw. Though teleology and substance did not necessarily take the ideal ends as detached, its lineal view and formal lines began a process of separation of ideas from nature and furtive social sources in the pursuit of ideal foundations

The streams of this logic make their way until culminating at Descartes, after which it gained momentum to become a mainstream historical epoch -  the most determinedly evangelical movement that the world has ever known, particularly in its empirical side, where Locke’s notion of individual rights became an impervious technology in prejudice against social classifications, inclining to rupture (particularly as perverted by YKW and naiive or disingenuous objectivists) group, historical, systemic accountability – and though its challenge came immediately with Vico, it didn’t start to come under broader, popular challenge from Western thought until the non-Euclidean geometers, and finally with Gödel, Bohr and Heisenberg prompting the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn. Normally, I would follow a logic highlighting those points, adding Christianity as a significant Modernizing stream on the way, its universalizing and so on, but not going into that too heavily (as I do not consider it serious enough an effort to understand reality, but primarily a contributing factor, exacerbating of Modernity’s influence).

Now, there were ancient schools of thought that challenged the idealization of form and substance, emphasizing instead engaged processes such as rhetoric or power. Plato confronts a couple of those proponents in one of his dialogues – with the Sicilian Greek Sophist, Gorgias, and the might-makes-right advocate, Calliclese. Calliclese, in particular, has interesting relevance in a few ways, as he provided something of a model for Nietzsche, and thus his cynicism regarding authority conservative of forms; and perhaps contributing to the might-makes-right and master-slave disposition of Nazism. Greg Johnson says that the first part of Plato’s Republic does away with the might-makes-right argument. Lets take Greg’s word for that. But lets make a quick note to consider the promotion of that view through Nietzsche as potentially having a modernizing, corrosive effect on forms (boundaries); before moving toward another salient and relevant part of the dialogue with Calliclese in particular.

James seems to require an account for Roman slavery. Fair enough. I agree with those now saying that supremacism and unwillingness to do our own grunt work has invariably led to race mixing. I’m no advocate of slavery. Since GW wisely suggests that practices gain form and force with ideas, I look to where the Romans may have sought authority in legitimizing slavery. Roman civilization was based largely on Greek philosophies. They assuredly would have read Plato and his dialogues, including that one, The Gorgias.

While it would be absurd to suggest that this is the only or even the most important influence in their pseudo justification of slavery, this kind of dialogue between Plato and Calliclese could have contributed to the hubris of slavery:  “Just because your slave is stronger than you that does not mean that he should rule, does it?” The invitation to hubris, to normalize slavery and supremacism, to leave oneself and one’s people susceptible to retaliation in that hubris is evident in this argument – which being in a dialogue of Plato, would no doubt have been read by the learned from ancient Greece to the Antebellum American South – and in between, in ancient Rome.

One can see the pejorative side of modernity’s detached hubris contributing to civilization’s pernicious division of labor. 

The stream of Modernity’s logic is clear, as the common denominator in this narcissistic hubris is an aspiration for objectivism which, taken to its logical extreme, would like to see matters purely enough according to a thorough quantitative comparison of better and worse. What has tended to be a further consequence of taking that supremacist view and its relegation of slave labor? Of course, uprising and race mixing. A particular reason to get away from the right-wing, modernist, anti-social, supremacist reliance on other people to do the grunt work, with pseudo justifications in false, quantitative comparisons that generate exploitation and conflict. Here again, Jim’s concern for the whole and reasonably self sufficient person by contrast to civilization’s division of labor would jibe with the critique of modernity.

One can easily theorize from here that the offense of elitism in false comparison could tend to instigate a symmetrical response (the sterility of eusociality will be more symmetrical than asymmetrical) each party would become more rigid and repetitious of its position and more inclined to antagonism and destruction of the other. “Modern” in that there is no turning back, “civilized” in that they are more specialized, more rigid.

The hubris of modernity passed to a Roman civilization familiar with and founded in large part on the Greek literature from its onset. Its hubris and cataclysmic war machine were present from its onset. Its first wars were against the Sanniti (Samnites), who fought valiantly and sometimes won in their native Campania before they were confronted with the likes of Sulla, the Roman general whose name became synonymous with cataclysm - having wiped-out entire Sanniti settlements among his infamy.

My grandfather’s village, Calabritto, was originally settled by Samnite remnants hold-up in its mountain enclave between occasional pirate raids on the Roman camps. While Spartacus led the legions of his slave rebellion in the valley just below.

Before talking about Rome’s religions, from pre-Christian ones to Christianity, we should look at its popular philosophies - borrowed from the Greek wellspring as salient among conduits of Moderntiy’s logics of meaning and action; coursing away and informing Rome were Epicureanism and Stoicism

The most popular philosophy among the Romans’ was Stoicism.

Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire, to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray “nearly all the successors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics.” - wiki

Stoicism, the most popular philosophy in ancient Rome, can be conveniently looked upon as a Modernist trend contributing to the Cartesian world view in the following way: It treated the universe as a cosmic whole, all parts having value in contribution.

“The Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of logic, non-dualistic physics and naturalistic ethics -

It was for their maintaining that “Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature.”[6] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; “to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy,”[7] and to accept even slaves as “equals of other men, because all men alike are products of nature.”[8] –  ibid.

For those values, one can see the propensity to rupture of boundaries, erring in this case, on the empirical side of Cartesianism; differences between people insufficiently recognized, where even slaves were seen as one’s equals and apparently, the discomfort of losses to other peoples to be endured as a necessary part of the universe.

“The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is ‘like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes.’ [6] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, ‘sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,’[7] thus positing a ‘completely autonomous’ individual will, and at the same time a universe that is a rigidly deterministic single whole.

Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people.”  ibid.

I find myself referring very fondly to the quote from Kenneth Burke in this regard: “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstaniate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.”

White Leftism, in its non-Cartesian unionization, has affinity with conservatism to stem propensity for runaway by providing order for accountability to reconstruct human ecology of ones own, seeing important differences between peoples indeed.

Accountability could be operationalized by testing in various ways, but does not at all have to be lethal contest to disburse punishment or reward in proper ecological accord. These tests could take various forms depending on cultural preference, but regarding the Euro DNA Nation, would have to correspond to good genetic match - at minimum, not tip new introduction so as to be destructive to the systemic pattern.

Epicureanism

I would sketch Epicureanism’s place in Modernity’s course as a significant one. The Nordicists may be interested to know that Julius Ceaser leaned toward Epicureanism. For those concerned with more contemporary influences, the primary author of The United States Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, considered himself an Epicurean. That he imbued it with Locke’s notion of individual rights follows logically from Epicureanism to Empiricism and with that, Locke.

Epicureanism was a philosophy which sought to trace everything to physical causes and explanations. Toward that project, its progenitors coined the term “the atom”, as the smallest unit of physicality of which the universe was comprised (note quantitative comparison of non-interactive units). Part of its discipline as such was in aversion to speculation, superstition, mere custom, habit, tradition and religion. Its concern instead was the proper use of pleasure, which called for a prioritizing of pleasures, the highest being contemplation. How this could also forebear the Empirical end of Cartesianism is clear - detached sensation, individual hedonism being its guiding factor.

“Epicureanism incorporated a relatively full account of the social contract theory, following after a vague description of such a society in Plato’s Republic. The social contract theory established by Epicureanism is based on mutual agreement, not divine decree.

Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent of Stoicism.

Knowledge was sought only to rid oneself of religious fears and superstitions, the two primary fears to be eliminated being fear of the gods and of death.

The philosophy was characterized by an absence of divine principle.”-wiki

How this bore up upon Modernity’s prejudice against prejudice is clear – it could easily translate that one should not be superstitious and particularly fearful of outsiders.

“In the Modern Age, scientists adopted atomist theories, while materialist philosophers embraced Epicurus’ hedonist ethics and restated his objections to natural teleology.” ibid.

Epicurus’ differing with natural teleology could be significant in explaining a place where Cartesian detachment began to take place, as again, teleology was not fully detached in a Cartesian sense.

“Much like modern science, epicurean philosophy posits that empiricism can be used to sort truth from falsehood. Feelings are more related to ethics than Epicurean physical theory. Feelings merely tell the individual what brings about pleasure and what brings about pain. This is important for the Epicurean because these are the basis for the entire Epicurean ethical doctrine.” ibid.

The influence on Locke’s notion of individual perception as real and group classification as fiction, is evident.

“According to Epicurus, the basic means for our understanding of things are the ‘sensations’ (aestheses), ‘concepts’ (prolepsis), ‘emotions’ (pathe) and the ‘focusing of thought into an impression’ (phantastikes epiboles tes dianoias). Epicureans reject dialectic as confusing (parelkousa) -ibid.

In that they are rejecting the furtive, socially garnered developmental process as facilitated by narrative and as offered in integrative correction by hermeneutics.

..“because for the physical philosophers it is sufficient to use the correct words which refer to the concepts of the world. Epicurus then, in his work On the Canon, says that the criteria of truth are the senses, the preconceptions and the feelings. Epicureans add to these the focusing of thought into an impression The senses are the first criterion of truth, since they create the first impressions and testify the existence of the external world. Sensory input is neither subjective nor deceitful, but the misunderstanding comes when the mind adds to or subtracts something from these impressions through our preconceived notions. Therefore, our sensory input alone cannot lead us to inaccuracy, only the concepts and opinions that come from our interpretations of our sensory input can. Therefore our sensory data is the only truly accurate thing which we have to rely for our understanding of the world around us.” - ibid.

- very much like Locke’s way of conceiving, as he did, social classifications being fiction and individual perceptions being the only truth, but equally available to all, warranting commencement of the liberalizing of individual rights, more and more universalized (particularly with Jewish perversion) against social classificatory discrimination.

This freedom from superstition, religion, tradition, custom, habit and classificatory prejudice has been referred to by hermeneuticists as “the first liberation.” Not entirely bad, but not enough, and still Cartesian. [see the note below on “hermeneutics”]

“These concepts are directly related to memory and can be recalled at any time, only by the use of the respective word. (Compare the anthropological Sapir–Whorf hypothesis).” ibid.

Here Epicureanism is sounding like The Vienna School of Logical Positivism; under the spell of the early Wittgenstein it attempted to create a language free of metaphor (at that point Wittgenstein was attempting an “unassailable” foundational language game) and failed - yielding to the Post Modern, hermeneutic turn. 

Be its failure as it may, this same Vienna School of logical positivism, founded on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, spawned the Austrian School of Economics, via Hayek, von Mises et al (objectivist, Ayn Rand, as well). The Vienna School’s project of logical positivism was overturned by the cumulative ideas of non-Euclidean geometry, Gödel, Heisenberg and Heidegger - I cite these influences readily since, with their being German, I not only show my good will to their good work, where possible, but also as I believe that people may have confidence in them, listening to them, if not me as a little more impartial. Then again, it may be for that need to appeal to the Nordicist perspective that the perspective of Giambattista Vico, of Campania, may have been neglected as the first challenger to the Cartesian world view.

Because the hermeneutic turn of Post Modernity is an ongoing, non-Cartesian process, it is not a runaway logic, but a sensible project allowing for, in fact requiring, judgment of limits – limits not sufficiently recognized by Modernity, particularly regarding the boundaries between people. The same can be said of hermeneutics capacity to turn back from exceeding the borders of civilization, to look after accountability in that regard; along with turning back from unhealthy specialization, to where individuals are insufficiently individual, self sufficient, wild, flexible, strong, autonomous.

Yes, modernity is behind liberalism, very much, as you can see a common denominator, a common logic in all these philosophies with the essence of the modernist project to put forms and traditional resources at risk to experimentation, that is to stay true to liberalism in the faith that universal foundational truths are being pursued and that they will necessarily be arrived at if only that liberalism is pursued, intransigently if need be. Impervious to destruction of time immemorial forms, traditional resources, bounds and to coordination with other traditions along the way.

Hermeneutic tacking

I am not sure that it is well characterized as absolutely tacking back and forth from Is to Ought (though it can be, hermeneutics is flexible). Its most primary service, rather, is to establish contextual orientation and proposed reconstruction of the healthy patterns the bounds of which are not readily perceptible.

While epicureanism/empricism provided a first liberation - from superstition, custom, habit, religion, tradition - a second liberation was necessary. Clearly all person positions do not have the same perceptions - a child’s, for example, would be less mediated by the experiential narratives of an adult, social, group systemic responsibility; thus, in liberation from the quest of empirical purity taking us into the absurdly arbitrary, a second liberation was necessary - from mere facticity and into narrative coherence with the hermeneutic turn and its capacity for accountability and warranted assertability.

The Lockeatine notion of individual rights unaided by facilitation of narrative breadth can fail to take into account profound and protracted ecological patterns and social relations, leaving its notion of rights short sighted and myopic, rupturing those relational, historico/ecological patterns, hence the need for the Post Modern, narrative, hermeneutic turn.

There is capacity to reach and marshal temporal and historical breadth in hermeneutics; to turn back from over extension and runaway (as wont of Cartesianism), and rather into reconstruction; to use that processual turning and rotation to correct (linear coherence, as wont of Cartesianism and “civilization” viz., in) over specialization of individuals and roles in divisions of labor.