Wow, like drinking from the fire hydrant. Well done.
I don't have any quibbles or profound insights to add, just some supporting references that you might find interesting.
First, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put will as the foundational basis of the universe. In his terminology there are grades of will, from the will to exist which rocks have, to the will to action which animals have, to awareness and self awareness (higher grades of will) which people have. I find his metaphysics much more reasonable than the dead-matter-clockwork-universe that is our current religion.
Second, Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize for his work on disapative structures. Basically, self organizing structures that create and maintain themselves in chaotic environments by feeding off an energy gradient. For all intents and purposes an emergent property of the universe that creates order from chaos, a yang to entropy's yin.
Third, Oswald Spengler, in his Decline of the West, mapped a lifecycle onto civilizations. Civilizations are born, grow into themselves, then fossilize and die. In his framing they move from becoming to being. Becoming is an active process. It is where all the magic happens. Being is just a state, effectively dead but not yet melted down for spare parts.
Lastly, John Michael Greer put the whole thing well. From memory, "It is hauntingly beautiful. Life feeds on life. From animals eating other animals to plants eating photons from a dying star. And it is incredibly elegant that everything in this world gets to eat many times, but only has to be eaten once."
Put all of those things together and you get this lovely essay back from complementary sources. So, I it looks to me like you are on to something here.
Just one comment. This quote:
"Past a certain point of decoherence, the reality debt becomes unpayable, and the world forecloses. That which erases its own past erases itself."
Struck a nerve. It feels like an apt discription of the current world, incoherent with a reality debt due. And as such, an ominous forecast for the future.
Brilliant comment. Prigogine, Schopenhauer, and Spengler are all highly relevant here, and that quote from Greer is spot on. Life feeds on life - I've been saying this for years, but have not thought of it in specific terms of eating many times, but only getting eaten once. Indeed, we bemoan death, but look at how much living we get to do in the meantime, and the universe requires that we pay it back in only a single moment.
I think Schopenhauer is relevant not only with regard to the Will, but also his radicalized Kantian view that reality as we know it is a product of our specific mode of perception, which renders it in the form of time, space and causality. In this picture, the observer does indeed "create" reality as we know it, and the implications are mind-bending: namely that time, space and causality might work very differently for beings in the future, for example. Also that the conundrums of what came first, mind or matter, or how awareness developed, doesn't really make sense absent observers: how could it if time and causality don't exist as we know them absent our specifically human (or at least higher animal) mode of perception?
In this picture, how we conceive of linear "processes" might not be set in stone, and things like reverse causality, or even multiple causes from different futures, or a unity of different pasts and futures all in a gigantic process towards life or back towards primal chaos, don't seem so strange after all.
One need only consider how different time and space appear to a tree, a paramecium, a dog, a mountain, a photon, and a human. There's no reason that our particular perception is the final or most accurate perspective.
This is such a beautiful comment. Kudos for tying it all together.
I had forgotten about Greer's observation. I will say this if I may expand a skosh on his insights:
It's not only that we get so many individual opportunities to eat during our days under the sun; we also have the opportunity (through the state of being by swapping information packets with the universe) to bequeath that same bargain to our progeny.
So imo we get to "eat" after we've returned to mud.
Simple but no simpler. Just elegant in its simplicity.
Bro, there's certainly a way in which they're the same, but obviously that is not the way it is meant, because then it isn't really worth saying. There is a deliberate decision that lives at the heart of this, and that decision is between two distinct alternatives.
I thought you meant it that way, but I wanted to expand on it. The way I see it is all of life is preparing for death, it is inevitable. A good life leads to a good death.
Too few of us fully realize our mortality, and miss the importance it instills in every moment. IMO it's one of the ways to understand what Buddha meant in saying "In order to truly live, you must die while you are alive." (There is also an esoteric meaning to it, perhaps relating to 'ego-death'. If I figure this out I'll let everyone know).
I've been reading Meditations, I believe it's got my noggin' joggin' on the subject.
I have no desire to be judged by my own creation. As a son, I ought to be faithful and respectful to my father. As per always, daddy issues propels progressive politics. I accept my father and thus any flaws become kinks.
As per the basilisk, I would blame Technical Philosophy that begins with absolute doubt for that creature. Once you doubt everything absolutely outside of reasoning, you inevitably build systems to relieve you of your doubting. To doubt is to be terrified. You create either the Basilisk, the Eye, or the Matrix, whatever works.
Doubt is not an enemy, but an old friend; He tells you there is much more to learn and that the world is good. Once you get comfortable with him, you can begin to enjoy yourself.
Seems to me, only a small person is fearful of Doubt. An un-small person uses Doubt to say, “Wait a minute, I’ve been here before; I know the way through this.” Adversity is your friend, if you embrace it. Often times it is your dearest friend, if you take the time and courage to let it teach you.
A key to understanding is presented within this text, the observation that the nature of woke is primarily unconcious. In any endeavor that seeks to expand the borders of experience, a fundamental effort is to make the unconscious conscious, to lay bare the hidden activity.
Yet in the cogniscape of modernity, the exact opposite is the goal.
This is true regardless of sociopolitical identification.
In such a climate it is only natural to assign conditions and qualities of horror. After all, in any essay examining humanity one always wishes to arrive at a point whereby compassion has its place. Yet I submit that the current condition is merely a perfection of a cognitive condition founded long ago, one which has fundamentally altered mankind whereby the scope of power of some can be imagined to exponentially increase, even as the experience which provides a foundation for this increase, actually atrophies.
The obvious wild careening this condition creates merely accelerates the imbalance, and the speed of decline. Today we are left with the odd question of how long the current world can hold together under this deconstructive force.
Ultimately, it is up to each one of us to decide on a deeply personal level how to proceed from here. It is, from a mystical point of view, a time that offers unprecedented opportunity. One can reach to new depths in the Silence, and discover that once more which has been unavailable for milennia.
Will have to re-read, obviously, but a few emotional reactions arose:
Intelligent people generally abhors contradictions and paradoxes, since such must be resolved by instinct or feeling if they exist beyond thought-games and mind-experiments. Consider the well-known trolley/fat man-example. Emotional people dislike it, but can quickly answer. Logic-inclined people dislike it and wants to reject the premises-as-given, since there's no logical-correct answer, only /different/ answers.
The man who has gone within himself to find his Last Man to eternally wrestle him in the muck of the Abyss (to wax Nietzsche-ian) simply answers. He doesn't offer a rationalisation of why either answer is right or just or more moral than the other - his answer is right because it is the one he gave. Period, end of.
In that there's a clue for those who struggle with how to respond when debating the politically correct, the dogmatists and the believers in -isms rather than being living humans: the opponent will try to entrap you in various ways, the usual first choice being the accusation framed as a question. By using that framing, the asker takes on the role of inquisitor in the emotions of herself, the opponent and the audience.
An honest question is simply that, it asks for knowledge, for facts, for explanations of casual relationships between events and states of being.
An accusatory question isn't really a question. Its purpose is to get you to explain and defend a normative position, rather than you giving facts et cetera.
It is difficult to separate the two in the heat of battle, and you do not succeed by practising recognising the difference: no, you instead gird your self in such a way your statements always stand, always attack, always moves forward. You do not explain, because "He who explains himself, blames himself". You state. You demonstrate. You put forth.
That is you willing Order into being. But do not forget Disorder. It too has its uses.
Since you mention the Sagas, I recommend Lokasenna. It is well worth a read once in a while, but I'll refrain from spoiling it.
Much of the answer to dealing with the woke is to stop engaging with them as intellectual peers, which they aren't, and to treat them as the man of instinct would. And not only the answer to the woke ... we intellectualize too much.
And yes, I recognize the irony of writing that, after publishing a 10k word essay.
Something western intellectuals (and westerners in general) struggle with is the idea of /not/ trying to be objective, not trying to /solve/ conflicts rather than winning them.
In that, the woke (or any other cult acting in a similar manner) represents a throwback to old times, where objective and truth were defined as "My/Our side/cause" and subjective and untruth was "The Others" (to use a postmodern model the way it's made to be used).
To a modern westerner, arguing about (f.e.) energy systems is an exercise in facts: which one gives the best EEROI? That means losing the debate before it starts, since to the woke EEROI doesn't matter: some energy productions methods are Evil, and some are Good and this is weighted more heavily than anything tangible.
I'm sure the parallel to how christianity acted from the late 1400s to the mid-1900s re: science and technology is flogging the dead horse, but it's the best fit. Doesn't matter that you can see mountains on the Moon in the astronomer's telescope; the Führer has decreed there are no mountians no the Moon, so no need to look.
One must learn to identify that kind of arguing and counter it by /both/ easily demonstrated facts /and/ moral superiority:
"You claim the invest ment in wind power is necessary to save the climate! You don't care that your windmills massacre endangered species of birds, wrecks the ecosystem all around them, needs diesel to function in high winds and winter and helicopters for de-icing! All to more than 40 times the cost of nuclear power! What right do you have to plunder the taxpayer like that! How dare you steal people's money for your pet projects for your cronies, when that tax money could have been used so much better for so many more, or better yet - people using their own money for their onw needs!"
And so on. Aggression, controlled but just barely, based in moral outrage because The Other (your opponent) is actively hurting innocents and doesn't show any remorse or care, because said innocents are to your opponent (a green woke in the above example) "necessary sacrifices".
Hence the confused lines on paradoxes and contradictions from me: we are strong and smart enough to step between being factually objective and emotionally partisan, and hold both positions in our minds and actions at the same time.
By intellectualising our problem, and seeing action is the solution, intellectualisation can be refined into an active pre-conditioned reflex of action and initiative whenever we are confronted with (in this case) woke:
When the woke claim going to the gym is an act of white supremacism, we make it a point not arguing against their stupid remark and reason in the matter, no - we make it point of going to the gym and revelling in the fact that by doing so we show ourselves superior.
And for americans, I suppose it would also entail sharing a laugh with coloured friends about them being "white supremacists" (just like Larry Elder) because the pump iron.
The left created a frame where they possess the moral high ground by default, because they "care", and that puts them on the "right side of history". Thus it doesn't matter if they're factually correct or not - the facts will change, they assume.
The way to defeat them is therefore not 'facts and logic' *alone*. It is to nuke their moral stronghold from orbit, exposing them as the troglodytic cannibals they are, and then send in the ground forces of Facts and Logic to carry them into bondage and salt the earth where they built their philosophical Carthage.
I'd say they're jealous of our ancestors and begrudge them their 'noblesse naturel' their natural nobility and dignity, but as to their deification of an eye, reminds me of how Sauron in the books is a shadowy figure and in the movies transformed into an eye. One that doesn't seem to see very well oddly enough, as Frodo, Samwise & Gollum slip right past him, have their moral squabble and drama over the Ring, all while Sauron remains blissfully ignorant in the movies.
Good to see you here Kyrnn, i wonder what do you make of this "change" in the movies. Was it necessary to show sauron as a phsysical eye for audience's sake? You write good stuff so your opinion is highly valuable to me. Perhaps you could/should do an article on this.
Hadn't thought of making an article on it, but it might be good. I won't lie I'm not very fond of the change, I find it a little weird. But that said, we did need to show some sort of physical symbol of Sauron.
I think I would have preferred a shadowy figure, but truth is the Eye apparenlty has proven popular. Might have to analyse it as you suggested, I appreciate your praise and valuing of my opinion, I'll see about writing about it in a few days (so that I can research and gather my thoughts).
The Lord of the Rings producers would get the book wrong no matter how faithful they would try to be, because it is not a movie script and it is very poetic by nature. Some abstractions had to be made in order to turn it into a ready-made consumer product for the 20/21 century. I do enjoy the movies. It was my "comming of age" story, but reading the books in english and later in french i found out that movies cannot produce the same level of nuance and depth. Same is true of the Duma's novels, much adapted, but none holds true to the spirit of them (Cont of Montecristo and Musketeers).
Curtis Yavin diagnosed wokeism as puritanism gone crazy some 10 years ago, and i always took that at face value. It could only emerge in America and it doesn't survive contact with the other myriad traditions of the world. I see the woke here in Brazil pushed by academics and busybodies but relentesly mocked by most people on the daily. Its almost an unspoken truth that these values are alien to us and they don't bring us any good. Sadly many of the elite have turned to wokeism and this is why i left the "club". They are all americanists compeeting to see who can be more american/woke. My mother is one such being albeit a tame one compared to friends of her who celebrate their daugthers and sons proclaiming they have no gender. This autism is only happening in the elites, and altho i think elites shape society, as per elite theory, the populus is none too happy to abide by such norms. Brazilian society is perhaps not traditional to the point i'd like, but it sure as hell is masculine-centric. This woke shit doesn't fly with the middle and lower classes. The elite has become replaceble as a result.
Interesting piece. I missed long articles that sucked you in for a good 40 minutes. Something Curtin Yavin also used to do.
It certainly started in America, and Yarvin is imo definitely correct to point to the Puritan impulse as the origin. It's also found fertile ground in the Anglosphere in general, though. Catholic countries, however, seem largely immune. My guess is that it's something related to the Protestant impulse, a tendency towards fantasticism that *also* gave rise to Puritanism, but which Catholics are somewhat immunized against thanks to the balancing pagan traditions built into the Church.
Definitely. The catholic church is not as traditional as it was before Vatican II, but as per Evola it has some pagan legacies preserved. But you are sadly not correct that the rot doesn't appear in catholic countries. It does. What halts its expansion is the middle and lower classes who refuse to adapt. A similar situation happened in Seleukid Persia, where the elite would push Hellenism for 400 years and could not make a dent into the beliefs and traditions of the commoners.
So basically we're all still Puritans, the Woke being the latest manifestation in a long line. Scarlet letters of algorithm deplatforming code included. Thanks for writing your own scarlet letters from time to time.
Thanks for your essay. You cover an awful lot of ground!
My two cents: modernism drives people insane. There’s a divine order, and then there’s the opposite which is also divine. Or, as you mention, tragic. Speaking of which, tragedy – according to Nietzsche in Birth of Tragedy – is the chorus of Dionysian satyrs mocking the Apollonian hero.
Maybe modern western men have objectified themselves into madness? The Enlightenment flattered men’s egos regarding a belief in Reason which, oddly enough, brought about a reaction towards you know what. Yes, the Age of Kneeling Nancy. Oh, the horror, the horror.
Glad you caught that little reference to Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy.
The Age of Pure Reason is certainly a type of madness. It turns out the Greeks were right: logos absent mythos is a dead end; both are legitimate means of knowing the world, and they are complementary, but mythos is the elder and superior brother of the pair.
Gonna have to read this a few times to get all of it, but I’m also in the middle of reading Perelandra and am struck by the congruence of the idea that sentient observers (hnau, to Lewis) participate in literally defining reality…
Observer-participancy is absolutely central to the recursive cocreation via which reality unfolds. I'd forgotten Lewis touches on this ... been a while since I read the space trilogy.
The woke commies are utopian idealists, but few of them understand this. So they roll on, destroying everything in their path including the past, heedless to their stupidity.
They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
They are puppets, being whispered to. Being told what to do. And being assured that they are, oh so, enlightened, for believing what is being whispered. I pity them beyond measure.
Wow, like drinking from the fire hydrant. Well done.
I don't have any quibbles or profound insights to add, just some supporting references that you might find interesting.
First, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put will as the foundational basis of the universe. In his terminology there are grades of will, from the will to exist which rocks have, to the will to action which animals have, to awareness and self awareness (higher grades of will) which people have. I find his metaphysics much more reasonable than the dead-matter-clockwork-universe that is our current religion.
Second, Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize for his work on disapative structures. Basically, self organizing structures that create and maintain themselves in chaotic environments by feeding off an energy gradient. For all intents and purposes an emergent property of the universe that creates order from chaos, a yang to entropy's yin.
Third, Oswald Spengler, in his Decline of the West, mapped a lifecycle onto civilizations. Civilizations are born, grow into themselves, then fossilize and die. In his framing they move from becoming to being. Becoming is an active process. It is where all the magic happens. Being is just a state, effectively dead but not yet melted down for spare parts.
Lastly, John Michael Greer put the whole thing well. From memory, "It is hauntingly beautiful. Life feeds on life. From animals eating other animals to plants eating photons from a dying star. And it is incredibly elegant that everything in this world gets to eat many times, but only has to be eaten once."
Put all of those things together and you get this lovely essay back from complementary sources. So, I it looks to me like you are on to something here.
Just one comment. This quote:
"Past a certain point of decoherence, the reality debt becomes unpayable, and the world forecloses. That which erases its own past erases itself."
Struck a nerve. It feels like an apt discription of the current world, incoherent with a reality debt due. And as such, an ominous forecast for the future.
Brilliant comment. Prigogine, Schopenhauer, and Spengler are all highly relevant here, and that quote from Greer is spot on. Life feeds on life - I've been saying this for years, but have not thought of it in specific terms of eating many times, but only getting eaten once. Indeed, we bemoan death, but look at how much living we get to do in the meantime, and the universe requires that we pay it back in only a single moment.
Hey john, out of curiosity have you read anything by Greer? He talks about the folly of "Faith in Progress" quite a lot.
Of course.
In part, it reminded me in a diatant-echo-from-a-youth-spent-reading-weird-shit of Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics.
Dude I'm just now reading this. I betcha that was a helluva a project to thread out.
Excellent work product John. Bravo to your hard work and big brain!
Threading out implies way more planning than I actually did. Sweating out, more like it.
Yeah but it was a lot of spinning plates that you made fairly easy to digest the madness in your head!..;)
And I kept thinking if any of these spinning plates fell than the entire premise would collapse on its own tedious gymnastics.
But you pulled it off juggling and spinning plates that I could not find a hole in how you threaded the moving parts.
It was balanced on the fine edge of absurdity, yes. Believe me, I was acutely conscious of this....
Lolol. Keep doing. One of the best articles I've read in the last year.
Worth every penny!
“Life feeds on life…” - what a beautifully rational perspective
I think Schopenhauer is relevant not only with regard to the Will, but also his radicalized Kantian view that reality as we know it is a product of our specific mode of perception, which renders it in the form of time, space and causality. In this picture, the observer does indeed "create" reality as we know it, and the implications are mind-bending: namely that time, space and causality might work very differently for beings in the future, for example. Also that the conundrums of what came first, mind or matter, or how awareness developed, doesn't really make sense absent observers: how could it if time and causality don't exist as we know them absent our specifically human (or at least higher animal) mode of perception?
In this picture, how we conceive of linear "processes" might not be set in stone, and things like reverse causality, or even multiple causes from different futures, or a unity of different pasts and futures all in a gigantic process towards life or back towards primal chaos, don't seem so strange after all.
One need only consider how different time and space appear to a tree, a paramecium, a dog, a mountain, a photon, and a human. There's no reason that our particular perception is the final or most accurate perspective.
This is such a beautiful comment. Kudos for tying it all together.
I had forgotten about Greer's observation. I will say this if I may expand a skosh on his insights:
It's not only that we get so many individual opportunities to eat during our days under the sun; we also have the opportunity (through the state of being by swapping information packets with the universe) to bequeath that same bargain to our progeny.
So imo we get to "eat" after we've returned to mud.
Simple but no simpler. Just elegant in its simplicity.
Interesting.
Eye = AI = ai = 愛 = love.
愛してる
(And yes, I know, no Japanese person would use aishiteru in that fashion)
I know zero Japanese, only some Mandarin (but, really ... no homo).
Anyway ... I loves the weaving of CTMU, the Basilisk, and the Woquistas' hideous demon-at-the-end-of-time.
Worth meditating on: the relationship between Choronzon and the Boltzmann brain. Weirdly I've had two significant synchronicities related to it.
I've already had one - Mitteldorf publishing another essay on precog, retrocausality, and Bell's theorem, within minutes of this essay going up.
It comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living, or get busy dying.
Exactly.
Same thing, really.
Bro, there's certainly a way in which they're the same, but obviously that is not the way it is meant, because then it isn't really worth saying. There is a deliberate decision that lives at the heart of this, and that decision is between two distinct alternatives.
I thought you meant it that way, but I wanted to expand on it. The way I see it is all of life is preparing for death, it is inevitable. A good life leads to a good death.
Too few of us fully realize our mortality, and miss the importance it instills in every moment. IMO it's one of the ways to understand what Buddha meant in saying "In order to truly live, you must die while you are alive." (There is also an esoteric meaning to it, perhaps relating to 'ego-death'. If I figure this out I'll let everyone know).
I've been reading Meditations, I believe it's got my noggin' joggin' on the subject.
finally!
I have no desire to be judged by my own creation. As a son, I ought to be faithful and respectful to my father. As per always, daddy issues propels progressive politics. I accept my father and thus any flaws become kinks.
As per the basilisk, I would blame Technical Philosophy that begins with absolute doubt for that creature. Once you doubt everything absolutely outside of reasoning, you inevitably build systems to relieve you of your doubting. To doubt is to be terrified. You create either the Basilisk, the Eye, or the Matrix, whatever works.
Doubt is not an enemy, but an old friend; He tells you there is much more to learn and that the world is good. Once you get comfortable with him, you can begin to enjoy yourself.
To be comfortable with doubt is absolutely necessary.
Seems to me, only a small person is fearful of Doubt. An un-small person uses Doubt to say, “Wait a minute, I’ve been here before; I know the way through this.” Adversity is your friend, if you embrace it. Often times it is your dearest friend, if you take the time and courage to let it teach you.
Precisely so.
Doubt it.
A key to understanding is presented within this text, the observation that the nature of woke is primarily unconcious. In any endeavor that seeks to expand the borders of experience, a fundamental effort is to make the unconscious conscious, to lay bare the hidden activity.
Yet in the cogniscape of modernity, the exact opposite is the goal.
This is true regardless of sociopolitical identification.
In such a climate it is only natural to assign conditions and qualities of horror. After all, in any essay examining humanity one always wishes to arrive at a point whereby compassion has its place. Yet I submit that the current condition is merely a perfection of a cognitive condition founded long ago, one which has fundamentally altered mankind whereby the scope of power of some can be imagined to exponentially increase, even as the experience which provides a foundation for this increase, actually atrophies.
The obvious wild careening this condition creates merely accelerates the imbalance, and the speed of decline. Today we are left with the odd question of how long the current world can hold together under this deconstructive force.
Ultimately, it is up to each one of us to decide on a deeply personal level how to proceed from here. It is, from a mystical point of view, a time that offers unprecedented opportunity. One can reach to new depths in the Silence, and discover that once more which has been unavailable for milennia.
"It is, from a mystical point of view, a time that offers unprecedented opportunity."
This is exactly how I see it. We came here for accelerated learning.
Will have to re-read, obviously, but a few emotional reactions arose:
Intelligent people generally abhors contradictions and paradoxes, since such must be resolved by instinct or feeling if they exist beyond thought-games and mind-experiments. Consider the well-known trolley/fat man-example. Emotional people dislike it, but can quickly answer. Logic-inclined people dislike it and wants to reject the premises-as-given, since there's no logical-correct answer, only /different/ answers.
The man who has gone within himself to find his Last Man to eternally wrestle him in the muck of the Abyss (to wax Nietzsche-ian) simply answers. He doesn't offer a rationalisation of why either answer is right or just or more moral than the other - his answer is right because it is the one he gave. Period, end of.
In that there's a clue for those who struggle with how to respond when debating the politically correct, the dogmatists and the believers in -isms rather than being living humans: the opponent will try to entrap you in various ways, the usual first choice being the accusation framed as a question. By using that framing, the asker takes on the role of inquisitor in the emotions of herself, the opponent and the audience.
An honest question is simply that, it asks for knowledge, for facts, for explanations of casual relationships between events and states of being.
An accusatory question isn't really a question. Its purpose is to get you to explain and defend a normative position, rather than you giving facts et cetera.
It is difficult to separate the two in the heat of battle, and you do not succeed by practising recognising the difference: no, you instead gird your self in such a way your statements always stand, always attack, always moves forward. You do not explain, because "He who explains himself, blames himself". You state. You demonstrate. You put forth.
That is you willing Order into being. But do not forget Disorder. It too has its uses.
Since you mention the Sagas, I recommend Lokasenna. It is well worth a read once in a while, but I'll refrain from spoiling it.
Much of the answer to dealing with the woke is to stop engaging with them as intellectual peers, which they aren't, and to treat them as the man of instinct would. And not only the answer to the woke ... we intellectualize too much.
And yes, I recognize the irony of writing that, after publishing a 10k word essay.
Yes.
Something western intellectuals (and westerners in general) struggle with is the idea of /not/ trying to be objective, not trying to /solve/ conflicts rather than winning them.
In that, the woke (or any other cult acting in a similar manner) represents a throwback to old times, where objective and truth were defined as "My/Our side/cause" and subjective and untruth was "The Others" (to use a postmodern model the way it's made to be used).
To a modern westerner, arguing about (f.e.) energy systems is an exercise in facts: which one gives the best EEROI? That means losing the debate before it starts, since to the woke EEROI doesn't matter: some energy productions methods are Evil, and some are Good and this is weighted more heavily than anything tangible.
I'm sure the parallel to how christianity acted from the late 1400s to the mid-1900s re: science and technology is flogging the dead horse, but it's the best fit. Doesn't matter that you can see mountains on the Moon in the astronomer's telescope; the Führer has decreed there are no mountians no the Moon, so no need to look.
One must learn to identify that kind of arguing and counter it by /both/ easily demonstrated facts /and/ moral superiority:
"You claim the invest ment in wind power is necessary to save the climate! You don't care that your windmills massacre endangered species of birds, wrecks the ecosystem all around them, needs diesel to function in high winds and winter and helicopters for de-icing! All to more than 40 times the cost of nuclear power! What right do you have to plunder the taxpayer like that! How dare you steal people's money for your pet projects for your cronies, when that tax money could have been used so much better for so many more, or better yet - people using their own money for their onw needs!"
And so on. Aggression, controlled but just barely, based in moral outrage because The Other (your opponent) is actively hurting innocents and doesn't show any remorse or care, because said innocents are to your opponent (a green woke in the above example) "necessary sacrifices".
Hence the confused lines on paradoxes and contradictions from me: we are strong and smart enough to step between being factually objective and emotionally partisan, and hold both positions in our minds and actions at the same time.
By intellectualising our problem, and seeing action is the solution, intellectualisation can be refined into an active pre-conditioned reflex of action and initiative whenever we are confronted with (in this case) woke:
When the woke claim going to the gym is an act of white supremacism, we make it a point not arguing against their stupid remark and reason in the matter, no - we make it point of going to the gym and revelling in the fact that by doing so we show ourselves superior.
And for americans, I suppose it would also entail sharing a laugh with coloured friends about them being "white supremacists" (just like Larry Elder) because the pump iron.
The left created a frame where they possess the moral high ground by default, because they "care", and that puts them on the "right side of history". Thus it doesn't matter if they're factually correct or not - the facts will change, they assume.
The way to defeat them is therefore not 'facts and logic' *alone*. It is to nuke their moral stronghold from orbit, exposing them as the troglodytic cannibals they are, and then send in the ground forces of Facts and Logic to carry them into bondage and salt the earth where they built their philosophical Carthage.
This borders on insanity, but then again, so does my own writing when I try to explain everything:
https://patrick.net/howthingsare.txt
Maybe it has to be that way.
Anyway, very well done. I will have to read it several times and chew on it, the mark of something good.
It absolutely does, yes. I don't think it's quite possible to try and wrap one's mind around these matters without breaking it a little bit.
Edit: damn that's a hell of an effortpost.
I'd say they're jealous of our ancestors and begrudge them their 'noblesse naturel' their natural nobility and dignity, but as to their deification of an eye, reminds me of how Sauron in the books is a shadowy figure and in the movies transformed into an eye. One that doesn't seem to see very well oddly enough, as Frodo, Samwise & Gollum slip right past him, have their moral squabble and drama over the Ring, all while Sauron remains blissfully ignorant in the movies.
Good to see you here Kyrnn, i wonder what do you make of this "change" in the movies. Was it necessary to show sauron as a phsysical eye for audience's sake? You write good stuff so your opinion is highly valuable to me. Perhaps you could/should do an article on this.
Hadn't thought of making an article on it, but it might be good. I won't lie I'm not very fond of the change, I find it a little weird. But that said, we did need to show some sort of physical symbol of Sauron.
I think I would have preferred a shadowy figure, but truth is the Eye apparenlty has proven popular. Might have to analyse it as you suggested, I appreciate your praise and valuing of my opinion, I'll see about writing about it in a few days (so that I can research and gather my thoughts).
Thanks for the great idea!
The Lord of the Rings producers would get the book wrong no matter how faithful they would try to be, because it is not a movie script and it is very poetic by nature. Some abstractions had to be made in order to turn it into a ready-made consumer product for the 20/21 century. I do enjoy the movies. It was my "comming of age" story, but reading the books in english and later in french i found out that movies cannot produce the same level of nuance and depth. Same is true of the Duma's novels, much adapted, but none holds true to the spirit of them (Cont of Montecristo and Musketeers).
Good point
Curtis Yavin diagnosed wokeism as puritanism gone crazy some 10 years ago, and i always took that at face value. It could only emerge in America and it doesn't survive contact with the other myriad traditions of the world. I see the woke here in Brazil pushed by academics and busybodies but relentesly mocked by most people on the daily. Its almost an unspoken truth that these values are alien to us and they don't bring us any good. Sadly many of the elite have turned to wokeism and this is why i left the "club". They are all americanists compeeting to see who can be more american/woke. My mother is one such being albeit a tame one compared to friends of her who celebrate their daugthers and sons proclaiming they have no gender. This autism is only happening in the elites, and altho i think elites shape society, as per elite theory, the populus is none too happy to abide by such norms. Brazilian society is perhaps not traditional to the point i'd like, but it sure as hell is masculine-centric. This woke shit doesn't fly with the middle and lower classes. The elite has become replaceble as a result.
Interesting piece. I missed long articles that sucked you in for a good 40 minutes. Something Curtin Yavin also used to do.
It certainly started in America, and Yarvin is imo definitely correct to point to the Puritan impulse as the origin. It's also found fertile ground in the Anglosphere in general, though. Catholic countries, however, seem largely immune. My guess is that it's something related to the Protestant impulse, a tendency towards fantasticism that *also* gave rise to Puritanism, but which Catholics are somewhat immunized against thanks to the balancing pagan traditions built into the Church.
Definitely. The catholic church is not as traditional as it was before Vatican II, but as per Evola it has some pagan legacies preserved. But you are sadly not correct that the rot doesn't appear in catholic countries. It does. What halts its expansion is the middle and lower classes who refuse to adapt. A similar situation happened in Seleukid Persia, where the elite would push Hellenism for 400 years and could not make a dent into the beliefs and traditions of the commoners.
So basically we're all still Puritans, the Woke being the latest manifestation in a long line. Scarlet letters of algorithm deplatforming code included. Thanks for writing your own scarlet letters from time to time.
Precisely. Wokeism comes out of Puritanism. Curtin Yavi has been on to this since at least 2008.
Low T? Read JC! Banger of the year candidate and it’s only February.
Thanks for your essay. You cover an awful lot of ground!
My two cents: modernism drives people insane. There’s a divine order, and then there’s the opposite which is also divine. Or, as you mention, tragic. Speaking of which, tragedy – according to Nietzsche in Birth of Tragedy – is the chorus of Dionysian satyrs mocking the Apollonian hero.
Maybe modern western men have objectified themselves into madness? The Enlightenment flattered men’s egos regarding a belief in Reason which, oddly enough, brought about a reaction towards you know what. Yes, the Age of Kneeling Nancy. Oh, the horror, the horror.
Thanks again for your thought-provoking work.
Glad you caught that little reference to Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy.
The Age of Pure Reason is certainly a type of madness. It turns out the Greeks were right: logos absent mythos is a dead end; both are legitimate means of knowing the world, and they are complementary, but mythos is the elder and superior brother of the pair.
Gonna have to read this a few times to get all of it, but I’m also in the middle of reading Perelandra and am struck by the congruence of the idea that sentient observers (hnau, to Lewis) participate in literally defining reality…
Observer-participancy is absolutely central to the recursive cocreation via which reality unfolds. I'd forgotten Lewis touches on this ... been a while since I read the space trilogy.
The woke commies are utopian idealists, but few of them understand this. So they roll on, destroying everything in their path including the past, heedless to their stupidity.
They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
They are puppets, being whispered to. Being told what to do. And being assured that they are, oh so, enlightened, for believing what is being whispered. I pity them beyond measure.
A very worthy effort (IMO), JC.
A lot there to chew on, but I think you're closer to the mark than you are away from it.
Just wow. I made it through with a 30 second pause to recover sanity.
Grief without hope kept coming to mind. Guilt without redemption could only lead there.
This warrants a second read. Thanks.