When a theist asks "where do you get your morality from?" to a liberal, they generally never concede that whatever ethic they subscribe to is cladistically derived from Western Christianity. They believe they derived it themselves, uninfluenced, except by "pure logic."
I point this out to Liberals all the time, at which point they generally admit that this is necessarily the case, but that they have "evolved" past Christianity (or, are "more Christian" than Christianity). This is when customized meme-Jesuses appear in discourse.
When they're upset by ppo calling America / The West a "Christian nation/civilization" they are upset because they don't say "MORE than a Christian nation." Christianity has been surpassed they say, God is dead, God is but the dream of good governance which we can now fulfill etc
The Enlightenment is merely a renegade form of Christian thinking- in which the Logos becomes, not a revelatory miracle, but a routine faculty of the mind. It corresponds to the era of Western Literary "realism" - in which "real life" ostensibly unmediated by the divine, is art.
This is of course nonsense, as every work of literary "realism" is shaped by the imagination (not by "pure reason") & is structured mythologically. Anna Karenina is a "realist" novel, but it is molded by Christian symbolism.
Reporting "just the facts" is never a complete possibility, as it assumes that we can enter a discourse immune from the "superstitious logic" of the human imagination- that this faculty can be silenced, letting "pure reason" sing in its absence. Nonsense.
Christians "sound dumb" to liberals, as they "talk like children" by deploying a symbolic discourse as opposed to one based on abstract "realist" philisophotheologies in which cosmogonies of "reason," "utility," "the public," etc- are deployed in a "realist" narrative/mythology.
Whenever they are caught in the web of their enlightenment kabbalah, they gesture toward the supremacy of the "complexity" of their rhetoric, as if their admission of being lost is synonymous with being found.
I remember what it was like to be on the opposite side, as an edgelord teenage atheist. I considered the realms of "mythology" & the realms of "real thinking" to be separate. When I no longer believed that to be the case, I began to realize how wrong I had been.
It actually genuinely amazes me how profound some of the "dumbest sounding" Christian points are in this light- their simplicity seems "too simple" until one recognizes how much there is to unpack hermenuticallly before the point can be properly understood.
William Blake went after the Deists as hard as he did (as Hamann & Jacobi did Spinozists, who are proto-deists really)- because they were encroaching on more fundamental grounds, on Imagination itself, by denying the conditions of metaphorical discourse in favor of "pure reason."
To say "Jesus is Man & God" is to speak in poetic, metaphorical/analogical terms- just as the "3=1" of the Trinity is beyond rational accounting (shoo thomists). Deism & Unitarian "rational monotheism" are the real roots of liberal theology.
Their short sightedness is based on the very grounds of their discussion- language, which is nothing BUT layers of analogy. This is why Wittgenstein & the linguistic turn marks the exhaustion of enlightenment thinking (he read his hamann...)
Even the psychological turn of Western thinking is a return to mythology & symbolism, informed by studies like Frazer's Golden Bough. Freudianism, Jungianism, Lacannianism et al- are based upon intepretations of mythology, not from "pure reason."
I think we are actually in a potentially good position looking forward when it comes to this issue. The problem is the lack of education in these fields (though people hunger for it! So many pop-culture mythological hermeneutical essays are youtube hits).
The Human Imagination is not an endlessly complex unknowable phenomenon which must be considered always as "subconscious" or "hiding." There is such a thing as Revelation. We knew this once & we'll know it again.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Healthy nasal breathing started at birth. Mothers in all these tribes followed the same practices, carefully closing the baby’s lips with their fingers after each feeding. At night, they’d stand over sleeping infants and gently pinch mouths shut if they opened.”
“children were often swaddled in cloth, laid on a cushion of soft plant material, and then lashed securely. This binding often prevented the movement of arms and legs, which imitated the feeling of being held. Children spent the majority of their first two years of life in a cradleboard, only removed for short periods of time. Cradleboards served the roles of both bed and carriage. With the child safely secured, mothers and family members were free to complete daily chores, either with the cradle strapped to their backs, or leaning upright against a stable object. This allowed the child to socialize with the group, and be easily accessible, should it need feeding or changing.”
“Let us begin with the beginning. From time before memory, Indian babies have been taught not to cry within days of their birth. If there was a hunt in progress, if there were hostile neighbors to avoid, or if the Seventh Cavalry was stalking, the cry of a baby could place the survival of the group in jeopardy. Whether training babies not to cry was universal among Indian groups, or to what extent it is still practiced is unclear, but the method is simple enough: when the newborn begins to cry, place the hand over the nose. The mouth now must be used for breathing, not vocalizing. Take the hand away. If the baby cries, repeat. The method teaches quickly. From now on, communication from the baby will be a small whimper, not the piercing wail we often hear today.”
The idea that going back “thousands of years” children were inculcated with a sense of absolute priority— that “if they cry, they get attention immediately” is false & actually more found in northwest european cultures than in hunter gatherer societies etc. They used to teach the baby to be quiet, breathe through its nose, strap them to a cradleboard, & hang them in a tree.
What did Junger mean by this? Venator, the Anarch, is executed as a servant of the Condor— he did not take his role seriously, but that did not save him. It turns out that individualist anarchism is nothing but a cope— world historical forces transcend the ego.
This is the most self-critical work of Junger’s outside his journals. He is describing the failure of Stirnerian Individualist Anarchism— the Anarch burns himself with a candle in the mirror and feels nothing— the telos of egoism is self-transcendence, ego death. Ironic!
"I knew I was doing something wrong [publishing Min Kamp against the wishes of his family] and then I got all the rewards you could dream of... & that is kind of the plot in this book [The School of Night]" -Karl
People always criticize me for interpreting art in this manner-- that it's alway about the absolute particularity of the particular artist making it-- but it's always just the most basic thing to understand about it in order to make sense of it in any serious manner.
Oh themes & techniques & blah blah blah-- it's about the particular person at the particular time, no different than any other thing anyone has ever done ever. The best art is simply the most forthcoming about itself in this concrete manner. With the barest screen of allegory.
As Kojeve noted, a post-historical animalized man is no longer subject of right or human in the historical sense-- a post-historical snob takes responsibility for the maintenance of the historical form of human dignity-- but an animalized man can only be "sick" or "healthy"
Legally, to be "sick" enough is to become a ward of the state-- that is, no longer a human subject endowed with rights, but rather the domesticated animal in the charge & husbandry of another, be it guardian or institution.
The demand for an inhuman world is a demand for a reanimalized post-historical society-- animal men domesticated by intelligent machines-- absolute "furry" liberty. It is only the Communist answer to this Liberal End of History which maintains historical human dignity.
It's been sad seeing in real time people who could see through the immediate fictions of the 2010s become completely blind to the immediate fictions of the 2020s-- they simply keep pointing back to the 2010s & avoiding recognizing that all of that is immaterial now.
Someone who was respectable 10, 5 years ago even, for taking a stand against the excesses of the 2010s, ends up becoming the victim of 2020s psyops which take this "you were right in the 2010s & that makes you special" belief as its basic ground.
At this point now, people are fully saying: "Yeah well in my head I am simulating this person & they were wrong about 2010s woke culture war stuff, so they are subhuman & should have no rights." & what they're talking about is "two weeks to slow the spread" lol which was under Trump 1...
You know what pisses me off about Dugin? He thinks that America is “materialistic” as if it needs more theosophical woo-woo bullshit. As if not enough Americans are into “spiritualism”— he is talking about his own complaints with Russia, he doesn’t know America at all.
American Empire has always cloaked itself with the utmost mystical theosophical messianic “perennialist” language— his whole schtick is presenting America as *identical* to the late USSR, but this metaphor only carries so far, he doesn’t grasp this
Freemasonry & all these manner of esoteric secret societies are more fundamental to American life than to Russian life. I think if someone explained college fraternities to Dugin he’d have a schizophrenic break.