How do you guys do the quotes? hahaha. Can't figure it out. — Noble Dust

Highlight/select the text you want to quote. Once you highlight it, the quote button appears. Press it, and it will enter the text you highlighted in the write post feature at the bottom. If you then highlight another piece it will add it as well.

No, this is not about politics to me. Why do you insist to know what this is about for me? I have almost no political leanings. — Noble Dust

The point I'm making is that politics is inherent in the subjects that we are discussing. We cannot discuss them without our discussion having political repercussions. Sure, you and I may not be interested in the politics, but that doesn't mean that our discourse isn't saying anything about politics. Whether we like it or not, when we're discussing such subjects we are always also discussing politics, so we should be aware of that. That's the point Plato has been trying to make from the very beginning - philosophy, life and politics are intertwined, they are not divorced, and they have to be discussed together.

I'm not sure why you're making fun of liberals, it doesn't mean anything to me; I'm not one. — Noble Dust

I don't make fun of liberals in order to make fun of you - that would be petty indeed. Why would I spend my time putting someone else down? My point isn't to make you feel down. Instead I make fun of liberals as a way to counteract a problem that exists in modern society. The liberal pretty much has hegemony over culture, and that has to be countered, and I'm simply using this as an opportunity to do that.

I apologize for assuming you were part of some other tradition other than Eastern Orthodox. Apparently I misread some of your thoughts. — Noble Dust

Eastern Orthodoxy isn't focused on what you say or your outward discourse so much as it is focused on your practice and inner life. That's why you'll find Eastern Orthodox Christians holding many different positions in thought - it's not as regimented as Catholicism. Furthermore, it's not a Western religion - it's not like Catholicism, Protestantism and so forth. It's closer to the Indian religions than to the West in several ways.

Do you have any recommendations for reading materials on your faith? — Noble Dust

What kind of material about the Orthodox faith are you interested in? Philosophy? Theology? History? Novels? General information?

Walking On Water by Madeliene L'Engle — Noble Dust

I haven't read this.

I had in my mind from reading some stuff that the courtroom idea wasn't prevelant in Eastern Orthodoxy, so I must have been mistaken. — Noble Dust

Well you're not mistaken, it isn't prevalent. Eastern Orthodoxy isn't legalistic by and large. This doesn't mean though that there aren't moral rules of conduct that the believers strive to hold and affirm. Just that this doesn't become an obsession or the whole of the religion as it is for many other Christians. It seems to me that in the West people only have two positions: fully authoritarian, you have to follow all the rules or else to Hell you go - or fully liberal - doesn't matter what the rules are, just do your own thing. But this distorts the Eastern Orthodox position, because it doesn't fit. Yes, you have to respect the Commandments of the Lord - but if you respect them as a way to buy your way to Heaven (out of fear), then that's not real communion with God. If you respect them angrily (as in why would God ever ask me to do such a stupid thing), then again that's not real communion. You have to respect them due to the relationship and communion you have with God - because of your faith, love and understanding that they are good for you.

So your assertion that self-worth shouldn't be important sounds nice in theory, but not in practice for anyone actually struggling with those problems. — Noble Dust

No but I'm making an important point. To be worried about your self-worth is precisely not to have any, because someone who does have self-worth doesn't worry about it, isn't concerned about it, doesn't care if it exists or not. You will have self-worth the day you drop it and stop worrying about it, because then you will behave and act like someone who does have self-worth. You have an image of yourself with no self-worth in your mind, and you are fighting to get rid of it. But the very fighting is what keeps it there, because that's precisely what someone who doesn't have any self-worth does - they fight to get rid of their lack of self-worth and replace it with the authentic thing.

And Western society does cause this because they set a standard for you to meet. You have to do this and that, otherwise you're not sinful, but you're sick. What's your disease? Oh you have low self esteem! You are psychologically ill, there's something wrong with you. That's what they tell you. There are young girls in schools who are being bullied, because, for example, they don't engage in sexting, they don't wear makeup and so forth. They are told they are unworthy because of this. Unless they engage in that, there's something wrong with them, they have no self-esteem. The progressives have, using psychologists and psychiatrists, developed entire theories to justify why someone who doesn't behave a certain way is sick, and requires treatment. And so they literarily make people sick - they literarily make people suffer of low self-esteem, by telling them, insinuating the idea, that if you don't do X, Y, Z it's probably because you have low self-esteem.

Just imagine for example, a young man going to a psychologist/psychiatrist and saying that he wants to be celibate. There are some people here for example who live celibate lives. I swear that if these people went to the psychiatrist, they'd tell them they have a disease, there's something wrong with them, they're abnormal, and so forth. That's why I'm bashing the progressives - their hegemony has to be shaken up and taken down.

Besides, isn't self worth an aspect of love? — Noble Dust

Love your neighbour as yourself. This means you first have to love yourself in order to love your neighbour, because you love your neighbour only as much as you love yourself, that is the commandment. But the person who loves themselves doesn't hammer over their own head "You're unworthy, you have low self-esteem, etc." - that person accepts themselves for who they are, they are not concerned with changing themselves. You literarily have to become who you are, once you become who you are the whole issue dissolves itself - the inner conflict you are having is the problem. The fact that there is this "you" who is inferior and unworthy, and then there's this other "you" who is upset with this inferior "you", and wants to get rid of it, wants to change it, wants to overcome it and so forth.

Kierkegaard's book "Works of Love" speaks best about all this. It's also quite possibly the best book on love there is.

Maybe it's more a western neuroses, descended from Evangelicalism... — Noble Dust

I think it's more like a Western neurosis descended from consumerism, materialism and selfishness. You have to be focused on your own self in order to worry about your sense of self-esteem no? Someone who doesn't have such focus on the self, in their mind, such concerns wouldn't even arise. The West is decaying not because of its history, but because of life becoming too easy, which allows the evil in men's hearts to show itself. Before, because men were concerned about earning their daily bread, there wasn't much freedom for the evil to show itself. But now there is freedom - now evil is free to run amock - the evil which existed even before, only that before it never got the chance to show itself.

Are you familiar with David Bentley Hart? I've only read bits, but understand that he's an Eastern Orthodox and universalist. I'd be curious for your thoughts. — Noble Dust

I've read just one book, The Experience of God. I think he has many good points to make, and attempts to rescue modern religious postmodern philosophy, but I'm left a bit cold in him. There's no "wow" factor. He is indeed a practicing Eastern Orthodox and draws on Orthodox tradition, but I'm not impressed by him. I don't think theology needs the postmodern detour via Heidegger. I don't think that's helpful. Berdyaev for that matter is a much better writer and more interesting to read.

The atheistic world we live in in the West is not a direct result of evil, rebelious people. — Noble Dust

If people have no freedom, then evil cannot show itself, because evil and good presuppose freedom. As people's freedom has expanded in the West, the nature of their heart showed itself more and more. They became more and more selfish, as they needed each other less. There were no mechanisms to restrain them, and by freedom they started to understand giving in to their lusts and passions, and they started to identify anything that could restrain them as evil and oppressive, and thus deserving to be taken down. And therefore the outcome is what it is today - chaos and decadence, which will, sooner or later, bring the whole of the Western world down unless it is stopped.

Again, I'm attracted to your faith, the Eastern Orthodox church, but what role does that church play in this picture of the modern world being a result of the failings of other branches of christendom? — Noble Dust

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never played much of a role in the outward world - unlike for example Catholicism - because it is a religion of the inner life. What the West needs is that it needs to teach the virtues in school as they are - including patience, chastity, courage, and so forth. That's what the Catholics teach. Then it needs to combine the virtues with an inner life such as the one offered by the Eastern Orthodox Church. What is happening now is that the West has been emptied of God - of the inner life - and only the virtues are left. And now the virtues are gone too. Now there is no restraint left.

Man’s creative activity was then at its fullest in Catholicism, and the whole of the great European civilization, Latin above all, was grounded on the culture of Catholic Christianity, it had its roots in the Christian religion. This itself was already soaked in antiquity — to what an extent it had taken over the ancient culture is now recognized. That culture still lived in mediaeval Catholicism and by it was carried on into modern times. It was because of this that a renaissance in our history was possible. The Renaissance was not, as the Reformation was, against Catholicism. A tremendous human activity was afoot in the Church, it showed itself in the papal sovereignty, the domination of the world by the Church, the making of a vast mediaeval culture. In this, Catholicism is to be distinguished from Eastern Orthodoxy. Catholicism not only showed men the way to Heaven, it also fostered beauty and splendour upon earth. Therein is its great secret. By seeking first for Heaven and life everlasting there, it adds beauty and power to mortal life on earth. The asceticism of that Catholic world was an excellent training for work; it safeguarded and concentrated man’s creative powers. Mediaeval ascesis was a most effective school: it tempered the human spirit superbly, and throughout all modern history European man has lived on what he gained in that schooling. No other way os spirituality could have so tested and trained him. Europe is spending her strength extravagantly, she is exhausted; and she keeps some spiritual life only because of the Christian foundation of her soul. Christianity has gone on living in man in a secularized form, and it is she who has kept him from disintegrating completely

[...]

The subsistence of human personality is impossible without the life-making stream of religious asceticism, which differentiates, which separates out, which puts first things first. And yet modern history has been built upon the illusion that personality can spread its wings without the help of these ascetic influences. — Berdyaev

Is it really just for you to simply stand by and critique the debaucherous state of a secular world born from the failings of 2/3rd's of the church, parts of the church you aren't affiliated with? — Noble Dust

But the decadent secular world is born precisely out of the West's tremendous success. It's the fact that life is so easy, combined with the dissolution of social restraints - the virtues and the inner life.

The way you go about it doesn't exactly welcome folks like myself in with open arms. — Noble Dust

Yes you are right, that is my mistake. However do consider that my responses to you don't occur in a vacuum. They occur within the framework of a certain society, which imposes a certain worldview on its people. That's why the way I speak sounds legalistic - it's merely countering the lawlessness of the progressives. If we didn't live in a progressive world, probably I wouldn't bother to mention the virtues, morality, and so forth. When the pendulum has swung so far to one side, a stronger antitode is required. Legalism isn't where we should end, but given where we are, it's good if we aim for it, and land instead in a free, but virtuous society.

Again, I think of Berdyaev's concept of a nessisary godforsakeness. — Noble Dust

The little known Max Picard book "The Flight From God" - I think you may find that interesting given this position.

Also Noble Dust I want to ask you a question as well. How should we deal with decadence as a society? It seems to me that if we get rid of cruelty we fall into decadence (like now in the West), and if we get rid of decadence we fall into cruelty (like during the Inquisition for example)

The point I'm making is that politics is inherent in the subjects that we are discussing. — Agustino

I do agree, I just consider the spiritual elements of this discussion to be the inner, foundational, primary aspect. The political is just the outer, secondary aspect, the "fruit". I'm sure you'd agree, we're pretty much talking about the same thing.

What kind of material about the Orthodox faith are you interested in? Philosophy? Theology? History? Novels? General information? — Agustino

Pretty much all of it? My perennial problem with my interest in this stuff is that I like painting in broad strokes, so something general with a wide view would be nice, at least to start.

That's why you'll find Eastern Orthodox Christians holding many different positions in thought - it's not as regimented as Catholicism. — Agustino

This is part of what attracts me. Also part of what attracts me to the mystics.

Well you're not mistaken, it isn't prevalent. Eastern Orthodoxy isn't legalistic by and large. — Agustino

I'm confused why you were so critical of my original comments about legalism right out of the gate, then. It seems like now you're saying similar things to my original post, including:

. What is happening now is that the West has been emptied of God - of the inner life - and only the virtues are left. — Agustino

Compare with:

But the tragedy of the age is that there seems to be no inner spiritual foundation for the call to equality, and this poverty of the spirit leads to a perpetuation of Otherness — Noble Dust

And I'd be interested to hear some feedback on the concept of Otherness that I tried to outline in my original post. It was one of the main thrusts of my post, but it hasn't really been addressed in this thread.

Your comments on self-worth are helpful, and not completely foreign to me, but they're a good reminder.

As people's freedom has expanded in the West, the nature of their heart showed itself more and more. — Agustino

Also Noble Dust I want to ask you a question as well. How should we deal with decadence as a society? — Agustino

It's really difficult for me to express my thoughts on freedom, legalism, decadence...to start with I'm not a logical thinker in the first place, so I have a ton of different seemingly unrelated thoughts swimming around in my mind in relation to these concepts. I'm first and foremost an artist, I've been a songwriter/composer for most of my childhood and adult life, and a key ingredient in trying to understand these concepts for me is creativity. Let me try to connect the concepts. This is another reason I was attracted to Berdyaev. When I create music, I feel God, I feel Kairos entering Chronos, with me as the vessel. Something I've always felt intuitively is that the creative, artistic urge (the artistic urge seems like the purest form of the creative urge) is not trying to make a work of art, but actually a new form of being or consciousness. I couldn't consciously verbalize this until I read these words in Berdyaev. When I did, I didn't feel I was encountering a new concept, I felt that my own thoughts were given shape and form. The creative act issues from freedom, a primordial freedom that is not separate from divinity. The last 100 years have been some of the most creatively fruitful in the West, but the art of modernity is marked by that same poverty of the spirit we've both discussed. And yet the creative urge is always a divine expression. This is why I consider atheism a religion; the icons of the atheist religion are in the art museums, performed in the concert halls, sold in the bookstores. But the key to me is that God is not entirely absent; again, the concept of a necessary godforsakeness. The godless freedom that the west created for itself gave birth to a highly artistic and symbolical, religio-atheistic world, a humanistic world, a (falsely) progressive world. But again, the tragedy of that world is the poverty of the spirit, and yet western modern art contains a painful longing; Kairos is felt entering into Chronos, but the poverty of the spirit immediately calcifies the art not into meaningful religious symbols, not into new forms of being or consciousness, but into tragic, meaningless idols. And yet the meaninglessness of the idols contains a precious, significant meaning, a secret key to understanding the West's position. You can't understand the modern West without understanding it's art. Freedom is complex, tragic, and diffuse in the West. I can't stress each of those words enough. Decadence is a natural result of this complex, tragic and diffuse freedom. Decadence itself has a hint of the divine in it; giving in to decadent passions screams of the longing for the divine; the drunkard and the prostitute are indeed so much closer to God than the Protestant pastor who has no inner spiritual life. It's not possible to revoke the freedom that the West has created for itself; the West will most likely eventually cave in on itself. I don't see another outcome. The only other possible outcome is an adoption of Eastern concepts, which is beginning to happen with Buddhism becoming popular, but whether a real inner life can be built by the West from this adoption is dubious (not the fault of Buddhism, the fault of the West's inability to apprehend an inner life). But this freedom, while being far from healthy, is also not inherently evil. The depths of human suffering are being revealed through this freedom, and the tragic creative urge, born of this freedom, is an important element in revealing that suffering. The revealing of the depths of suffering through this tragic freedom is an important element in the human drama, and I think it has an eschatological significance.

I do agree, I just consider the spiritual elements of this discussion to be the inner, foundational, primary aspect. The political is just the outer, secondary aspect, the "fruit". I'm sure you'd agree, we're pretty much talking about the same thing. — Noble Dust

Perhaps. Although I think that both levels need to be managed in concordance and harmony with each other. In other words it would be possible to have a great inner life and a terrible politics.

Pretty much all of it? My perennial problem with my interest in this stuff is that I like painting in broad strokes, so something general with a wide view would be nice, at least to start. — Noble Dust

It's hard to recommend like this, because the field is so vast. I'd say read the following to get an idea:

1. The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware (this is basically the most detailed that's about everything and nothing :-O )
2. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky
3. The Gospel in Brief by Leo Tolstoy
4. Brothers Karamzov by Leo Tolstoy, with special attention paid to the beginning-middle of the book at the encounters and discussions with Father Zossima
5. Book yourself a visit to Mount Athos in the greatest country on Earth, Greece, and spend some time with the monks, which is ultimately the best

I would recommend some other sources but they're not translated in English, so that's all I have for the specifics (or rather general level) that you have requested.

I'm confused why you were so critical of my original comments about legalism right out of the gate, then. — Noble Dust

Because I was doing politics ;) .

Compare with: — Noble Dust

Well I still disagree with you about the equality. Have you read Philosophy of Inequality by Berdyaev?

Decadence itself has a hint of the divine in it; giving in to decadent passions screams of the longing for the divine; the drunkard and the prostitute are indeed so much closer to God than the Protestant pastor who has no inner spiritual life. — Noble Dust

And here I disagree as I mentioned before. The prostitute and the drunkard are closer to God in an age of legalism, not in an age of decadence. In an age of decadence the Protestant pastor is still closer. In this day and age it's not difficult to be a prostitute - talking now in the large sense of prostitute, where it doesn't mean just a woman having sex in exchange for money - but any loose sexual behaviour from both sexes. It's not difficult to be a drunk - everyone is a drunk, just go to any of the clubs. There is no "freedom" in drunkeness and sexual misbehaviour nowadays - nor is there any passion. There is just being a sheep. These folks no longer are the ones who think differently. Back in the day of Casanova, yes! Casanova was indeed closer to God than his priest. That is the great pettiness of this age, that in their immorality they aren't even one inch closer to God.

Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin. — Soren Kierkegaard

This age isn't an age of passion. The West has no passion left, it is dead. You are making a terrible mistake here. The modern day slut who fucks the cab driver, who vomits in the club's toilet and so forth - she's not committing a great sin... she's living like vermin. That may, as Kierkegaard says, be sinful - if you are a worm. She's following the dictates of her society. This is what her society is commanding her to do today, she's just as bad as the 50 year old virgin 200 years ago - in fact, even worse! She does this purely to fit in, she doesn't do this because of a spiritual longing, because of a great passion, because of anything of that sort. If when she was expected to be a virgin up until marriage, she did this, then you could say she had a great passion driving her. Then at least she would commend some degree of respect. But now, it's just so petty.

The depths of human suffering are being revealed through this freedom, and the tragic creative urge, born of this freedom, is an important element in revealing that suffering. — Noble Dust

Except that this isn't the suffering of a Casanova. This is the suffering of a worm, petty and insignificant. Today greatness is stopped in its tracks. Where are men like Alexander the Great, with sufficient passion to conquer the whole world? They sinned, at least they sinned properly. Where are men like Beethoven? They are nowhere in sight! The West is a desert - all passion and life has departed, and only death remains. There's a few small islands, a handful of people who are different, and who still have a sparkle of life, and of intelligence left in them. The rest has been drowned in the mass-amnesia, forgetfulness and sheepishness of mass consumerism.

The prostitute and the drunkard are closer to God in an age of legalism, not in an age of decadence. — Agustino

I think the problem here is you're painting in too broad of strokes. Again, freedom in the West is complex. In the US in particular, there is no one theme of culture. There is decadence, wide spread, but legalistic Christianity still holds sway over large swaths of the country. And so indeed, I've noticed that those in this society most given to decadent passions are often those coming from the legalistic Christian background and rebelling against it. So no, they are, in fact, the ones with a passionate decadence, as you're describing it. And the fact that legalism decays into decadence highlights what I keep saying about this process being necessary in history; humanity is going through a process that almost mirrors Christ's crucifixion; we're in an age that mirrors the three days he spent in the grave. The potential ramifications of that analogy speak to Berdyaev's call for a revelation from man to God. Japanese culture seems to understand the need for suffering from a few bits and pieces I've gathered. The chipped tea cup is more beautiful in the tea ceremony than the unblemished cup.

Except that this isn't the suffering of a Casanova. This is the suffering of a worm, petty and insignificant. Today greatness is stopped in its tracks. — Agustino

I disagree, I think any godforsaken culture is always in a state of suffering; how could God be who we believe him to be if it was otherwise? Suffering is not always fully conscious. The poverty of the spirit is a form of suffering; it's not always conscious. Describing this suffering as the suffering of a worm dehumanizes the subject. Perhaps you intend that. I'm always wary of a view that allows for the dehumanization of the subject, because it allows for the possibility of oppression, the continuation of the cycle of The Other. Isn't Christ's compassion precisely an interfacing with those who have been dehumanized, with the "worms" as you call them? Isn't the "worm" who grows up in a decadent society equally the recipient of Christ's compassion as the one who grows up in a legalistic society? It's not the "worm's" fault that he grew up in the environment he did. Indeed, he's a sheep, as you say, but this doesn't damn him in any way because he's not responsible for his circumstances, at least initially in his development. And Christ went to the prostitutes, the drunkards, the demon-possessed. And the culture at the time was one of decadence, and yet Phariseeical legalism at the same time. And to go even further, legalism is it's own form of decadence. Think of the money-changers in the temple, think of the aspects of the Catholic church you were just describing.

She does this purely to fit in, she doesn't do this because of a spiritual longing, — Agustino

The desire to fit in is a spiritual longing. Maybe a socially normalized one, but still spiritual; it's a vague echo of the desire for Christian community; for communion with God and others. This fact reinforces what I said above. Even if fitting in (and not thinking for oneself) is motivated by a fear of being cast out or whatever, the fear itself is still germinated by that deeper longing for communion. The inability to think for oneself isn't deserving of criticism from those of us who can, it deserves our sympathy. Thinking less of that person devolves into another form of oppression; the thinkers begin leading the sheep, eventually off the cliff. It seems to me like your critiques of decadence don't take into account the layers of depth in even the most superficial member of society, layers that person isn't even aware of because they are socially built in. And yet, we can't think of those social norms in a vacuum; they are existential, they exist in the subject, the person.

I think the problem here is you're painting in too broad of strokes — Noble Dust

I like painting in broad strokes — Noble Dust

Yeah me too!

And the fact that legalism decays into decadence highlights what I keep saying about this process being necessary in history — Noble Dust

To me, it shows merely the thirst for freedom of a few. It's not many who rebel against legalism within societies/places where legalism still holds sway.

I disagree, I think any godforsaken culture is always in a state of suffering; how could God be who we believe him to be if it was otherwise? Suffering is not always fully conscious. The poverty of the spirit is a form of suffering; it's not always conscious. — Noble Dust

Indeed, and those who suffer unconsciously suffer all the more, which is the state of the present Western world, by and large.

Describing this suffering as the suffering of a worm dehumanizes the subject. — Noble Dust

But the subject has already dehumanised itself. The issue with the Western world - the Western world's great suffering - is precisely its lack of passion, it's lack of vigor, of health. When I say they are worms - obviously their suffering, relative to the human level, is infinitely greater. To be born a human, and yet live like a worm must certainly be a great suffering no?

Also you're drawing an unwarranted conclusion. Just because they are worms, doesn't mean we should neglect them. They are worms but they really could be humans.

I'm always wary of a view that allows for the dehumanization of the subject, because it allows for the possibility of oppression, the continuation of the cycle of The Other. — Noble Dust

And you are right in that, we always have to watch that we don't become inhuman to those towards whom it is easy being inhuman.

sn't Christ's compassion precisely an interfacing with those who have been dehumanized, with the "worms" as you call them? — Noble Dust

No. Christ's compassion wasn't with the worms, it was with the outcasts, with the rebels, with those who did not fit in their society - with the oppressed. Christ took the whip out on the worms in the temple if you remember... He drove them out.

And Christ went to the prostitutes, the drunkards, the demon-possessed. And the culture at the time was one of decadence, and yet Phariseeical legalism at the same time. — Noble Dust

No, the culture was one of legalism - not decadence. The Pharisees ruled and controlled the culture of the day, and they oppressed the prostitutes for example. The prostitutes were on the outskirts of society, they were the hated and abused. And you are right legalism is a form of decadence, but it's a form of decadence in the opposite end - too much emphasis on outward virtue, whereas what I have called decadence until now has been too little emphasis on outward virtue.

Think of the money-changers in the temple, think of the aspects of the Catholic church you were just describing. — Noble Dust

Yes, the money-changers they, along with the Pharisees were the powerful and the oppressors. They were the ones who were complacent, who had no passion left, who were petty, who peddled their petty virtues, reciting this and that scripture, drinking from outwardly clean but inwardly dirty cups. They ruled the culture of that society, to be "cool" to be "accepted" meant to be like them. They too had reached a point of exhaustion, like Western culture today. That's why Jesus said take care that ye be not like the Pharisees. In today's world it's take care that ye be not like the decadent, who are the rulers of society.

The desire to fit in is a spiritual longing — Noble Dust

Maybe but it's also a betrayal of one's own self, of one's own uniqueness, of one's own person.

Thinking less of that person devolves into another form of oppression; the thinkers begin leading the sheep, eventually off the cliff. — Noble Dust

In a way I agree. There is an inherent danger in there - if you think of them like scum, you will treat them like scum. But at the same time, one has to recognise the truth of the situation - or the gravity of it.

The only other possible outcome is an adoption of Eastern concepts, which is beginning to happen with Buddhism becoming popular, but whether a real inner life can be built by the West from this adoption is dubious (not the fault of Buddhism, the fault of the West's inability to apprehend an inner life) — Noble Dust

A lot of people like myself found Buddhism as a result of the search for an alternative form of spirituality, which is why, in the West, it has been associated with the counter-culture. What attracted me was that my own nascent spirituality always took the form of belief in enlightenment, so I sought out the books that spoke in those terms, and they were generally either Buddhist or other popular Eastern spiritual books. It turns out there's some common ground between them, but I could only see that after a lot of study.

The issue with the Western world - the Western world's great suffering - is precisely its lack of passion, it's lack of vigor, of health. — Agustino

That's because their materialist beliefs are inherently de-humanising. Whereas the spiritual ethos is looking upwards towards the fullfilment of a glorious destiny, the best homo faber can hope for is leaving the planet and colonizing space.

Notice the ever-present threads on forums of people asking why they should believe that life is worth living. They're patient, articulate, well-argued and earnest - and nihilistic, just as Nietszche foresaw.

Agustino is most fond of oppression. What annoys him about modern culture is, above all, it's permissiveness. People get to act how they want without sanction or risk of sanction from others-- no outright protection from others expressing power over them.

For Agustino, the "great man" is the one who takes what, who expresses his authority over the world or in opposition to someone else-- The Conquer. In this respect, his opposition to modem culture is in someways more about the how than any particular immoral act itself. What irks him the most about modern culture is its rejection of the strongman and respect for his authority.

That's because their materialist beliefs are inherently de-humanising. Whereas the spiritual ethos is looking upwards towards the fullfilment of a glorious destiny, the best homo faber can hope for is leaving the planet and colonizing space. — Wayfarer

I'm not convinced by your position. I would want to be, but I'm not. This is a peculiar thing about you - you decry materialism, but yet are keenly interested in science. You think science is important to spirituality, you think science is related to spirituality, you think it can help. Your favorite book even goes along the same lines, showing the parallels between Western science and Eastern spirituality. I don't really buy that narrative as of yet though.

For one thing - I think that physics and religion have nothing to do with each other. The laws of physics and the scientific theories could be totally different, and yet the spiritual truths we know would be the same.

For another - I don't think that the root cause of today's decadence is materialism. Nope. The root cause is spiritual - materialism is merely the coverup, the justification, the sacrificial pawn put forward. Epicurus was a materialist. And yet his ethics was very much ascetic. Materialism didn't have any negative effect on him. So the root cause for decadence today lies in man's heart, materialism, consumerism, etc. are merely outward manifestations of it, that's becoming my conclusion at least, so if you think it's false and disagree I'd be curious to know why.

For example - the corrupt Wall-street speculator who does nothing productive but earns large sums of money, and then spends them on prostitutes, expensive cars, and so forth - he's not an atheist because he has read the arguments for materialism and he thinks materialism is true. No no no... he's an atheist and believer in materialism because he NEEDS materialism and atheism to be true to justify his way of life. Materialism and atheism are nothing worth ever arguing about for me. It's not worth showing materialism is false, or atheism is false. That's losing your time. That's the sacrificial pawn. Don't bite it. Let it go. Atheism and materialism is a waste of time - it's all politics. Atheism and materialism are merely the justifications for a certain type of politics. Oh I wanna make money doing nothing, spend them on millions of prostitutes, fast cars, expensive and exotic holidays and so forth - therefore I believe in atheism and materialism - it would be absurd and stupid for me to believe in God no? It would be a joke. And who would be my prostitute if I believed in God? No I have to tell her there's no God, that way she'll accept she's just an animal and follow along.

Notice the ever-present threads on forums of people asking why they should believe that life is worth living. They're patient, articulate, well-argued and earnest - and nihilistic. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting observation.

All lies my friend. Let's see.

Agustino is most fond of oppression. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So because I'm annoyed by the permissiveness of today's culture I'm fond of oppression - right.

What annoys him about modern culture is, above all, it's permissiveness. People get to act how they want without sanction or risk of sanction from others-- no outright protection from others expressing power over them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And according to you it is right that folks can behave in ways which are injurious to others without being sanctioned no?

For Agustino, the "great man" is the one who takes what, who expresses his authority over the world or in opposition to someone else-- The Conquer. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's only ONE of the great men. There are others - like The Saint, The Poet, The Musician, The Philosopher, etc.

What irks him the most about modern culture is it's rejection of the strongman and respect for his authority. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's modern society's rejection of passion and strength of spirit in favour of deadened uniformity and monotony.

Not quite, materialism and atheism are sometimes used as political challenges (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc al. ), as some politics, culture and law is tied to religious or spirtual beliefs in some circumstances (e.g. the legal and cultural opposition to homosexually) but that's a lazy analysis of what materialism and atheism say.

Materialism and atheism are about metaphysics. They deny is the power of the infinite over the finite. Our world is not formed and constrained by God, but rather expresses God. The critics who accused Spinoza's philosophy of amounting to atheism were right, only the extent may have sometimes have been misunderstood.

Spinoza philosophy doesn't just deny the presence of God, either in our world or another world, but identifies it is impossible. The infinte (Real) can never be finite states (the illusions of time) of the world, else we commit the mistake of disrespecting God, of proclaiming our finite world amounts to the infinte.

It's the understanding existence is given itself, rather than by logical forms or images. Rather than an ethical justification, it's a metaphysic which is utterly alien to the theist or spirtualitualust.One in which meaning is an expression of existence, as opposed to something that needs to be granted by an outside image.

Yeah me too! — Agustino

Broad vs. too broad. ;)

It's not many who rebel against legalism within societies/places where legalism still holds sway. — Agustino

True!

But the subject has already dehumanised itself. — Agustino

No, the dehumanized state is inherited, at least in the example of the "worm" that we're talking about.

Just because they are worms, doesn't mean we should neglect them. — Agustino

Where did I draw that conclusion?

Your critiques on the Pharisees are noted, I've been out of the church for about a year and am rusty on those topics.

But again, if the "worm" suffers all the more, are they not all the more deserving (not the right word) of Christ's compassion? Regardless of what scripture says.

Maybe but it's also a betrayal of one's own self, of one's own uniqueness, of one's own person. — Agustino

Is community a betrayal of the person? Is Sobornost? This is actually a fascinating topic to me, as I find myself to be rigorously individualistic (I'm guessing most of us here are), and yet craving connection and community at the same time, and trying to understand the balance, if it exists.

materialism, consumerism, etc. are merely outward manifestations of it — Agustino

As I'm saying repeatedly, they're manifestations of a spiritual poverty. That poverty is not deserving of punishment any more than economic poverty, nor is it deserving of disgusted disdain. It's never just to vilify the impoverished, in whatever state of poverty. As you said much earlier, if any of us had been born with a different set of difficulties than we have, things would not be better or worse, just a different set of dificiencies. So how are the marginalized any better or worse than the spiritually impoverished masses?

This is a peculiar thing about you - you decry materialism, but yet are keenly interested in science. — Agustino

That's because I don't see any conflict between spirituality and science! There are conflicts between religious fundamentalism and scientific materialism for sure, but I don't believe there can be an essential conflict between spirituality and scientific discovery. It's really important to understand that, otherwise the world will forever be divided into opposing camps, 'religious vs spiritual'. I'm with Einstein on that point, 'science without religion is blind, religion without science is lame'.

I think that physics and religion have nothing to do with each other. The laws of physics and the scientific theories could be totally different, and yet the spiritual truths we know would be the same. — Agustino

Don't agree at all. Have you read anything about the debates about mysticism amongst the early quantum physicists? There were some who are entirely materialist, but many who had a deep connection to various forms of idealist philosophy and spirituality. There's a good summary account here. Also see Bernard D'Espagnat What We Call Reality is Just a State of Mind, and Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe.

Materialism didn't have any negative effect on [Epicurus]. So the root cause for decadence today lies in man's heart, materialism, consumerism, etc. are merely outward manifestations of it, that's becoming my conclusion at least, so if you think it's false and disagree I'd be curious to know why. — Agustino

Epicurus, who I haven't studied in depth, still had a religious sensibility, compared to today's materialists, because he believed that happiness was only attainable through the regulation of one's conduct and maintaining equanimity. He was still part of the pre-modern sensibility, so was like a 'dissident renunciate' rather than a hedonist in the sense that any modern person would understand it.

Scientific materialism is descendant of a current of thought that has always existed in cultures both Eastern and Western. But the 'philosophy of materiallism', when applied to problems that are amenable to technological solution, is extremely important. The internet only exists as a by-product of the Cold War, and it does indeed serve as a medium for all kinds of absolute depravity and evil, but it's also the medium for this conversation. Materialism becomes a problem precisely at the point where it is treated as a replacement for religion - the 'religion of scientism'. That is the problem - neither religion, per se, or science, per se, but science that believes it is a religion. That is what the 'myth of Prometheus' was about (and it's no coincidence that the leading publishing house for scientism is called Prometheus Books.) It's a deep problem indeed, but it's not because of science as such.

You are fond of the strongman oppression because it's that which you miss in Western values-- the ability to assign a person's superiority over other people. When I say "The Conquer," I don't just mean it literally. I'm referring to your desire to say someone has the authority over everyone else-- be it in sainthood, philosophy, music or poetry. In Western culture, what you miss is the ability of the individual to proclaim they are better than anyone else.

Sure, the West might respect great poets, philosophers, musicians, saints or even literal conquers, but then they turn around and give the same or even greater adoration just about anyone-- the postmodern collapse of "low" and "high" art and culture, into something where more or less what the individual cares about matters. They don't have a standard to which everyone must aspire. Individual expressions of authority, which place one person higher than another (regardless of field), at the expense of the lower, are no longer allowed. You miss this ability to express power in culture. Internally, it is a society without a literal or metaphorical Conquer.

That's because I don't see any conflict between spirituality and science! — Wayfarer

No there aren't any conflicts, how could there be conflicts between two fields which have nothing to do with each other?

It's really important to understand that, otherwise the world will forever be divided into opposing camps, 'religious vs spiritual'. — Wayfarer

I don't think this divide exists. This divide was very short-lived, the science vs religion conflict. I don't think people are becoming irrelegious because they think there's a conflict between science and religion. I think rather that their spiritual poverty - to steal Noble Dust's metaphor - is causing them to affirm the existence of a conflict between science and religion merely as a justification for their actions.

Don't agree at all. Have you read anything about the debates about mysticism amongst the early quantum physicists? There are some physicists who are entirely materialist, but many have a deep connection to various forms of idealist philosophy. There's a good summary account here. Also see Bernard D'Espagnat What We Call Reality is Just a State of Mind, and Richard Conn Henry, The Mental Universe. — Wayfarer

I will have to read this before I can get back to you! Thanks for the links!

Epicurus, who I haven't studied in depth, still had a religious sensibility, compared to today's materialists, because he believed that happiness was only attainable through the regulation of one's conduct and maintaining equanimity. He was still part of the pre-modern sensibility, so was like a 'dissident renunciate' rather than a hedonist in the sense that any modern person would understand it. — Wayfarer

Yes but he believed it's all atoms and void. Nothing else. Atoms and void are all that exists, the rest is convention. Epicurus was a materialist - as materialist as anyone can be. The reason why he "had a religious sensibility" is because he was seeking after truth - he wasn't using materialism as a justification for a decadent lifestyle as people are doing today. He wasn't playing politics.

Scientific materialism is descendant of a current of thought that has always existed in cultures both Eastern and Western. But the 'philosophy of materiallism', when applied to problems that are amenable to technological solution, is extremely important. The internet only exists as a by-product of the Cold War, and it does indeed serve as a medium for all kinds of absolute depravity and evil, but it's also the medium for this conversation. Materialism becomes a problem precisely at the point where it is treated as a replacement for religion - the 'religion of scientism'. That is the problem - neither religion, per se, or science, per se, but that. — Wayfarer

Nowhere here though have you addressed my main point. My main point is precisely that people make a big deal out of materialism and believe in it not because they really think it's a religion - not because they really think it's true, or could replace the religions. They aren't depraved because they believe materialism is true and it's all atoms and void. Rather the causality is the other way - they believe materialism is true and it's all atoms and void BECAUSE they are depraved. Now what do you think about that? Do you really think materialism makes them be depraved, or is it rather because they are first of all depraved, and only secondarily use materialism as a justification for their depravity - contrary to the way Epicurus used materialism for example?

Where did I draw that conclusion? — Noble Dust

You didn't but you presumed I would be saying that - or at least that's the impression I got from your post, my apologies if I'm wrong.

But again, if the "worm" suffers all the more, are they not all the more deserving (not the right word) of Christ's compassion? Regardless of what scripture says. — Noble Dust

I agree.

As I'm saying repeatedly, they're manifestations of a spiritual poverty. That poverty is not deserving of punishment any more than economic poverty, nor is it deserving of disgusted disdain. It's never just to vilify the impoverished, in whatever state of poverty. As you said much earlier, if any of us had been born with a different set of difficulties than we have, things would not be better or worse, just a different set of dificiencies. So how are the marginalized any better or worse than the spiritually impoverished masses? — Noble Dust

Yes, again I can't really disagree with that on any grounds. I will only say that, together with seeking for a way to cure them of their poverty, it's important to protect them from spreading and imposing their poverty on everyone else as well.

Is community a betrayal of the person? Is Sobornost? This is actually a fascinating topic to me, as I find myself to be rigorously individualistic (I'm guessing most of us here are), and yet craving connection and community at the same time, and trying to understand the balance, if it exists. — Noble Dust

I think community is only worth it if the individual is respected and valued. I too crave for community, community that quite often I haven't been able to find, because it simply doesn't seem to exist. There are too few good people, and they are very far apart. So I think our desire for community is indeed, as you say, a spiritual desire. But - and here's my point - it's not worth seeking to satisfy this desire if it means betraying yourself. That price is too much to pay.

You are fond of the strongman oppression because it's that which you miss in Western values-- the ability to assign superiority over other people. When I say "The Conquer," I don't just mean it literally. I'm referring to your desire to say someone has the authority over everyone else-- be it in sainthood, philosophy, music or poetry. In Western culture, what you miss is the ability of the individual to proclaim they are better than anyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes you will see me riding on my horse Bucephalus in a sign of superiority over everyone else >:O

Ok let me stop with the jokes now. In all seriousness, what you're saying is comical. It seems you're under the impression that current society doesn't assign superiority over other people. Yes it does. The lesbian black female is superior to the heterosexual white male. The problem I have is that skin color, sexual orientation and gender aren't or shouldn't play a role in superiority. Yes - I do believe in a philosophy of Inequality. I hate and despise the levelling effects of equality. And I have shown an equal hatred for a world which would try to make everyone into little Alexander the Greats riding their own Bucephalus as for a world trying to make everyone equally low. But now what makes for superiority certainly aren't things like gender, sexual orientation and so forth. Postmodern society is trying to make these things play a role in superiority. I dislike this. I think superiority should be about other matters. Such as ability of writting great poetry, ability of composing beautiful music, ability of managing a great many people and building societies, ability of thinking/feeling, and so forth. These are the criteria that should be used to judge superiority. Not fucking sexual orientation. Fucking gender. And other such nonsense. These things are, and should be, irrelevant to how great someone is.

the postmodern collapse of "low" and "high" art and culture, into something where more or less what the individual cares about matters — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I dislike this, because it's seeking to make all of us equally low. You seem to like to be made equally low with everyone else. I don't share such a sensibility, and my soul is revolted at such a totalitarian tendency of bringing down the greatness in some men, cutting their wings, and forcing them to live in the dirt, only because, as Nietzsche said, you yourself can't fly.

You didn't but you presumed I would be saying that - or at least that's the impression I got from your post, my apologies if I'm wrong. — Agustino

I guess I'm reading a lot of frustration in your thoughts, which seem to also not be very sensitive to people's suffering, but it sounds like you do acknowledge it, and acknowledge that they deserve compassion. It seems like we're actually very much in agreement on a lot of these points, but we started out of the gate both from opposite spectrums somehow, like we're speaking different languages. An East/West divide maybe? Do you live in the East somewhere? Just curious. I agree with almost everything in your last post, except for

it's important to protect them from spreading and imposing their poverty on everyone else as well. — Agustino

Which sounds like a dangerous road that could lead to yet more oppression.

So, my original post was mainly about three interconnected things: Otherness, Forgiveness and the Cycle of Human Oppression (hey, that's the title!). We seem to agree on oppression, not on forgiveness...but no one in this thread so far has addressed the concept of Otherness. Any thoughts? Anyone?

Oh no, I'm well aware that it assigns superiority. That's like post-structuralism 101. That's why I specified strongman oppression-- the oppression of the Western culture you despise is not made on those terms.

The lesbian black female doesn't seek to subdue white men beneath her greatness. She only denies they are greater than her and acts as part of a social movement which prevents the white male from asserting he is greater than everyone else. Power isn't about individual superiority anymore. It's about how society relates to the individual.

You are wrong about race, gender and sexuality, etc. They've always been used to assign superiority. The modern equality movements are a reaction to this, to the superiority of men of women in culture, to heterosexuals over gay people, to the virgin over the person who's had multiple partners, white people over black people etc.,etc. In this respect, post-modernism seek to level these out, not bring in a new category of things which have never been relevant to superiority.

Yes I dislike this, because it's seeking to make all of us equally low. You seem to like to be made equally low with everyone else. I don't share such a sensibility, and my soul is revolted at such a totalitarian tendency of bringing down the greatness in some men. — Agustino

Which is my point. The oppression of inequality is what you desire most of all, to be the great man who gets more than anyone else, rather than a man who is content being great within themselves. To avoid strongman oppression, where you are valued above others for your greatness, is utterly revolting to you. For you to be great, you simply must crush others beneath your boot. Living with the greatness others is something you cannot stand. To you, it means no-one can be great.

Metaphysically, they are still thinking in theist, religious or spiritual terms. The question supposes meaning, worth and ethics have to be placed there by some presence or force.

For the atheist/materialist, the question simply doesn't make sense. Since God an expression of the world, meaning, ethics and worth are already of the world, by its very definition.

Nietzsche was wrong. Stuck within the terms of the theist, religious or spiritual which sought to overcome, he failed to realise the key atheistic/materialistic point: not only can we make it on our own, but it's all we ever do.

Would it be oppressive to stop a murderer from killing?

Who are you asking?

Anyone, including your nonexistent unborn child.

Rather the causality is the other way - they believe materialism is true and it's all atoms and void BECAUSE they are depraved. Now what do you think about that? — Agustino

That it sounds a bit close to religious fundamentalism for my liking! Actually the conflict between science and religion in post-Enlightenment Europe is very well documented. You will find a Wikipedia entry called 'the conflict thesis' that lays it out in detail.

Basically, I don't see the Enlightenment impulse towards science being the ultimate 'arbiter of reality' as being 'depraved', although it is true that as a consequence, many of the moral certitudes which held the social fabric together in earlier periods are dissolved by it. A perfect statement of that is Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which triumphantly declares that Darwinism has forever dissolved the conceit that there might be a moral order in the Universe, as if it were something to be liberated from.

But there are many scientists (for example, Peter Higgs) who think that neo-Darwinian materialists are verging on fundamentalism themselves. Such scientists, and I'm sure they're the large majority, are much more circumspect about what science does and doesn't say about 'questions of ultimate value'. So I don't regard materialism as being truly characteristic of science; it's parasitic on it.

We seem to agree on oppression, not on forgiveness...but no one in this thread so far has addressed the concept of Otherness. Any thoughts? Anyone? — Noble Dust

During the early years of my study of nonduailsm, I thought a lot about the existential plight inherent in the human condition. My interpretation is related once again to 'the fall', but read in a more symbolic way (and in a way which I think would be compatible with Barfield.) The symbolism of the 'apple' in the Old Testament is that it is taken from 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil'. So it represents the advent of self-consciousness: the beginning of the human awareness of self and other, things that are mine, and can therefore be lost; and the advent of language and the human sense of mortality. So that is a profound theme and not one to be glossed over.

Then, the symbolic meaning of the Incarnation is that through faith in Jesus' sacrifice one overcomes that sense of separateness from 'the other', through universal forgiveness and compassion for all mankind. The parable of the Good Samaritan epitomises that - the Samaritans being representative of an out-caste, the untouchables of that society.

Buddhism did something similar by refusing to recognise hereditary caste divisions and declaring right conduct as the only true mark of nobility; and later by the ethic of the Bodhisattva, whose entire religious career is dedicated to the enlightenment of all beings.

Of course in the 'global village', we are all nowadays being confronted with 'the other' in the form of displaced people, global immigration, and the other consequences of population pressure and political break-down. It's challenging, and it's not going to get any easier.

Anyone, including your nonexistent unborn child. — Heister Eggcart

Then let me answer it. NO! Now why are you asking rhetorical questions? >:O

Do you live in the East somewhere? — Noble Dust

Yes, I'm from Eastern Europe, but I lived in the West as well.

That it sounds a bit close to religious fundamentalism for my liking! — Wayfarer

>:O Okay, but why do you think it's not true? (by the way I appreciate the honest talk, I take no offence from it, I always appreciate honesty)

Actually the conflict between science and religion in post-Enlightenment Europe is very well documented. You will find a Wikipedia entry called 'the conflict thesis' that lays it out in detail. — Wayfarer

You mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis where I find this:

A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa — "Wikipedia

See this is what I mean Wayfarer. It seems to me that you are stuck in time, you are stuck in your young days when people were worried about a conflict between science and religion and that's why they were dissatisfied with the religion in which they were born (Christianity) and seeking after something different. But this isn't the world anymore. You're playing an old game, where no one is playing anymore, the stakes aren't there. And no one seems to be telling you this, but I for one find it disappointing that your knowledge and talents (both which could be of much greater help to people in the world) are being spent along such directions. Maybe today this game is still being played amongst some intellectuals. But the public at large doesn't care! They really don't care about the science-religion conflict, at least from my experience, and referring mainly to the younger folks now. (and the Wiki seems to support this too)

You are still there fighting against modernism and the Enlightenment reductionism, but the battle ain't there. Post-modernism is the game in town, Post-modernism has created and shaped this decadent society to be what it is, and you're not saying a word about it. You're fighting with modernism - which post-modernism has already discarded! You will defeat modernism, and then the Great Willow of Darkness will laugh in your face, because the stakes aren't there anymore. By the time you defeat modernism the shadow will have befallen upon the world. Nihilism, atheism and materialism aren't supported by scientific reductionism, except for a few intellectuals which are of no significance anymore.

Postmodernism doesn't believe in truth anymore - and that means any kind of truth, whether it's religious or scientific - doesn't matter. Postmodernism is pure politics, and metaphysics and the rest of philosophy become purely weapons to be wielded as a distraction from their goal - and their goal isn't a certain philosophy, but the reshaping of society as you and I know it. Their denial of truth is precisely this - it's them telling you I don't give a damn what the truth is (so proving them otherwise won't do any good), the world has to be this way, and that's that. Postmodernism represents quite possibly the most dangerous ideological virus that has infected the human mind. And the source of it isn't some success of science or anything of this sort - the source of it is an attitude which comes from within the human heart. The post-modernist sees that science has succeeded in changing some of our physical circumstances. Now that success has aroused and awakened the worm from his heart. And the worm wants to make all the decadence that was in the past impossible - because, for example, from fear of disease - he wants to make ALL of that possible. In the past people couldn't or wouldn't be sexually promiscuous for example, because of the dangers of pregnancy, disease, and so forth. The post-modernist wants to use science, wield it as a weapon, in order to reshape society such that pregnancy, disease, and so forth don't stand in the way of his desire. But the motivation for this is the desire itself, its the worm from his heart. In the past he couldn't do anything about it, but now science permits him to do. This technological power has awakened him the dragon that lay dormant in his heart. It has given him the idea that truth can be manipulated and used as a means of getting what you want. Science isn't a quest of truth for him - no no no - it's a club with which to reshape the world. Philosophy also - not a quest for truth, not a search for what is Truth, Beauty and so forth - no. It's a quest for power over the world.

That's why I'm in the opposite business from postmodernism. I am for shaping the world in accordance with Truth, Beauty, and so forth. This is to counteract their ambition to shape the world according to their pure and naked selfish desire. See Wayfarer, the battle isn't over what Truth is anymore. The Postmodernist has realised, that if they were going to fight for what the truth is, they would have lost, they would never have been able to get their world. But instead they have to sideline truth, they have to render it a social construct, unimportant and insignificant, and all truth has to be so sidestepped. When you are talking with them as if they were searching for truth, you are falling in a trap. They aren't like you. They don't give a damn about the truth. You care about Beauty, Truth and so forth, but don't assume they have the same noble passions driving them, because the truth is they unfortunately don't. But you should realise that the battle isn't over Truth anymore - it's over how to reshape the world - should we do it according to Truth, or according to our selfish and naked desire? Shall we orient ourselves towards the heights, or shall we make the low equal to the high as Willow slyly proposes?

In fact, look at the WillowOfDarkness. Notice that when you speak metaphysics with him, he's just playing around, he's enjoying it. But suddenly, what irks him the most, it's politics. Just see how he denounces you - look how he denounces me in this thread - when I attack based on politics. Why? Because when we discuss Truth, we forget that he's not after that. And when we forget that, we give him free reign over the world, and that's good for him, he's winning.

That's why I specified strongman oppression-- the oppression of the Western culture you despise is not made on those terms. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So you admit, freely and openly, that there is oppression in society that isn't the "strongman oppression".

The lesbian black female doesn't seek to subdue white men beneath her greatness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes she does, she wants to do precisely this. She's not interested in just living her life the way she is. She wants to impose her way of life over everyone else, and get lauded and applauded for it. She wants to get the job instead of the white heterosexual male, not because she's more capable, but because of her gender, skin color, and sexual orientation. That is oppression.

The modern equality movements are a reaction to this, to the superiority of men of women in culture, to heterosexuals over gay people, to the virgin over the person who's had multiple partners, white people over black people etc.,etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

They're largely a reaction to imagined problems. Men weren't superior to women by and large in most societies. They just had different roles to play. Difference isn't always of the comparable kind where you can name one as superior to another. It seems to me that you postmodernists remember that only when it's useful for you.

The oppression of inequality — TheWillowOfDarkness

Inequality isn't oppression. I'm not talking about moral inequality. Morally, there should be equality. Da Vinci shouldn't get to beat people up just because he's a genius and a great man. He shouldn't get to steal someone's wife, or to oppress others to be his slaves, because he's a genius. Morally there should be equality. But every other way, there should be inequality, which is the natural state of being.

To avoid strongman oppression, where you are valued above others for your greatness, is utterly revolting to you. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why is this about me? I believe people like Da Vinci for example should be valued and respected by society for their creative capabilities - moreso than others, yes. But they should be on the same moral standing with everyone else.

Living with the greatness others is something you cannot stand. To you, it means no-one can be great. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No living with greatness is something that YOU cannot do, that's why you want to cut everyone's wings, and make them your equals - equally low. You hate that some are naturally greater than others, you don't want to respect them, you want to keep them on the ground, under your control. How dare they be better than you?! That's outrageous! I'm not outraged that there's people better than me - people like Da Vinci for example. I'm happy that there are such people, I look to them with admiration and respect, and have always desired to be like them. If I meet one, I'd treat them with the utmost respect, because they deserve it. I'm for justice - for each receiving according to what they deserve.