|
|
|
DanielS and Thamster have a mini-debate regarding post modern pragmatics of a new White religion. Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness. Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order. 
While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin. The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.
You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.
In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.
Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions. But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).
Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality. I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration. The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”
...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to….. But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.
Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.
Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable.. And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms, the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2020 00:28 | # Regarding it’s facility to protect inherited forms against resources being continually put at risk to critique, skepticism and experiment, qua the modernist project, particularly as weaponized by adversaries: While modernity is characterized by this oblivious, linear notion of necessity in faith that causalities are a necessary hazard toward progress to universal foundation, White Post Modernity is characterized by a return to interactive circularity and social accountability; viz., in regard to the difference that makes a difference in the notion of necessity applicable to our biological nature’s requirement for optimal vs maximal need satisfaction, mammalian concern for relations, human capacity to learn and recognize systemic patterns - a willing suspension of disbelief thereof in the validity of our species (it’s non universal difference) survival - particularly when threatened by breach and systemic runaway. 3
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2020 01:50 | # ...on a distinctly human level, systemics corresponds to a respect for the routine and the sacral; and on a brute level, the meanderings of organic requirements are also granted a level of respect by White Post Modernity where Modernist performance requirements might be oblivious. Post a comment:
Next entry: Violent Crime Will Spike As Police Stop Policing—Heather Mac Donald Talks BLM and “Defund Police”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Thamster / DanielS exchange continued on Mon, 27 Jul 2020 19:14 | #
@Thamster WitNat resonds:
DanielS had said: “While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin. The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.”
Thamster: This isn’t really true.
DanielS: I disagree.
Thamster: The origins of religions are more complex and too great to be encapsulated by authentic = a concern to hold to an account of a group’s systemic relations and whether or not is imposed (early Christianity, for example, is far more a rupture than an imposition of law).
DanielS: It’s both a rupture and an imposition.
Thamster: Not that I fault you for this though - the question of religion is an evasive one since trying to break down the characteristics easily slides and contaminates into other questions of sociality and the word religion stops applying universally.
DanielS: At this point, the concerns of re-establishing a moral order that is conducive to the interests of our biological species are so basic that subtleties and elaboration can wait until that basic premise and a few basic rules to go along with it are established (agreed upon).
Thamster: “It is really something we can’t talk about so generally, which I am sure you would agree.”
DanielS: I agree that this is not the place to talk about it.
DanielS: “But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).,”
Thamster: Yes, necessary but a harder problem than it appears.
DanielS: You are probably right about that.
Thamster: Because myth is formed after the fact of deed, religion (again generally) is sincerely believed.
DanielS: I suspect the generation of religious narrative (I prefer that to myth, as that has the unnecessary connotation of fiction) occurs in joint social creation, even if post hoc assessment of how an act should come to count; e.g., an act of salvation.
Thamster: The way the dissident right approaches it is too larpy and consumerist - constructing from the bottom up and then hoping it catches on. It won’t. Religion and Myth has never worked that way.
DanielS: You’re probably right about that.
DanielS: “Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable.. ”
Thamster: This is where I think you are misinterpreting my comments in the stream. And understandably so. This is Interventions, not EBL, so on here I talk more generally and to a wider audience unlike EBL where I am more theoretically precise.
DanielS: OK.
Thamster: Here, I am talking about the Postmodern CONDITION (as it is called by Lyotard) and not Postmodern PHILOSOPHY.
DanielS: OK
Thamster: I don’t think postmodern philosophy is reducible to what I said here and it is misrepresented.
DanielS: OK
Thamster: Of course, you watch EBL so you see me defend postmodern philosophers all the time lol. I am making a rhetorical point about the DR adopting some aspects of what they call postmodernism in regards to picking and choosing aspects of their identity. Its a symptom of rootlessness. I see this as a continuation of modernism and not so much postmodernism
DanielS: OK, good.
Thamster: but again, I am aiming at how the DR broadly understands itself.
DanielS: Alright.
Thamster: When I say I see postmodern philosophy as a continuation of modernity, that is another question. I do defend that opinion but not universally among what is grouped as postmodern philosophers.
DanielS: What I rather vulgarly call White Post Modern philosophy, in order to distinguish it from kosher misrepresentation, does retain capacity for modernitst performance requirements and their extension, but there is an important hermeneutic turn from Cartesian estrangement and back into a centralizsation of Praxis, that begins with Vico and proceeds through Heidegger.
Thamster: Heidegger I would not put in that category (although he is more the postmoderns cranky uncle) or Gadamer or Husserl. The question of foundationalism is where I see the repeat of modernity but that is outside the scope of what I was talking about on stream.
DanielS: I would call Heidegger and Gadamer post modern, as they are engaging the same framework that Vico used, the Aristotlian framework corrective of modernist Cartesian estrangement and systemic runaway.
Foundationalism, however, is a modernist concern.
And as I’ve indicated, (White) Post Modernity does offer a positive side as well:
..to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication; but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms, the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.