R.Сам 🦋🐏 Profile picture
Nov 30, 2018 16 tweets 3 min read Read on X
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
 

Keep Current with R.Сам 🦋🐏

R.Сам 🦋🐏 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Logo_Daedalus

Mar 2
From the dawn of civilization, going back to hunter gatherers, men have always been participants in raising children. It is only with the advent of the Industrial Revolution & the extraction of increasing surplus labor from men that they disappear from the household.
It is only with the development of matriarchal order that men are exiled from child rearing. In this sense, men are enclosed from their role in the family & become the private property of lords & chieftains-- they are made to serve interests outside of their home, because "the women are taking care of it" -- you are now free to labor for another man rather than for your own kids. That's what you think of as "patriarchy" ironically.Image
Yeah it's so much more manly to go to work & make money for your boss than to be the King of your Castle all day lol.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 25
One thing Millennials have that Zoomers don’t have is that we saw “technological progress” actually happen in a manner that improved life— that ended in the 2010s & tech became something that made life worse. But I remember fantasizing as a kid in 2004 “someday you’ll have wifi but everywhere & you could use the internet in a car” & this was because I wanted to play Nintendo DS online but only had dial up internet still. The little consumer miracles like Tivo (“wow, TV but with no ads!”) alongside the mp3 player (“wow, all of my music in one place!”) etc. But once these reached saturation & ubiquity, there was no “progress” to have except “progressively raising rents to pay back the speculative credit that enabled the first innovation on the premise that it would reach saturation & increase rents.” Now the ads are unskippable & you are locked into an infinite lifetime subscription to keep your music library. Everything is now *worse* than the status quo that was considered “backwards” with the onset of this iteration of consumer tech. Video games & TV & so on— it all follows this same trajectory. The 2010s only sorted people who saw this happening (“actually, things are not getting better, but worse”) from the last true believers in “progress” on this naive media ecological level. In 2026, absolutely nobody is suggesting anything is “getting better” in the West— not even the leaders of nations, all are speaking of decline & ruin. Consumerism no longer holds things together. The “culture war” was only a desperate attempt to produce a consumer culture that could uphold this vapid empire— & it has failed on “both sides.” Thus, the “culture war” framing no longer has any meaning. “Wokeness in video games” isn’t why video games suck now— video games suck because of financialization, market saturation, & rents being produced by means of artificial scarcity. In truth, “wokeness couldn’t save video games.” & neither can “anti wokeness.” All the “consumer affluence” of the 00s is being paid for now, by us in the future. Your rents are subsidizing, retroactively, the quality of life then that is mourned now. This is how debt functions in venture capital world. We gave boomers paradise for their peak moment of affluence & it has been enclosed. For the rest of our lives we will be paying for all the luxuries of boomer consumers in the 90s & 00s.
Millennials in this way are not like Boomers.

Boomers are spoiled children.

Millennials are spoiled grandchildren.
The spoiled child boomer generation got to say “I want scifi consumer technology from my scifi comic books & I want it now” & they indebted the future to getting these things & they got them all. Millennials had more of a “wow, grandparents can buy you a playstation thank you grandparents” feeling until they aged into “why can’t I own a house but I can own a playstation” age.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 17
Kojeve has a good reason for why beastiality is wrong without some pose of "animal rights" (fake). Beastiality is wrong because it's disgusting & human beings have decided that we have the right to not share a civilization with perverts who fuck animals-- that such people should be deprived of their rights, detained, removed from society etc.
It is not out of concern for the animal-- it is out of concern for the fact that someone who would fuck an animal is being allowed into society. The victim of the crime is us, the broader human community, who would prefer to create a society that excludes animal fuckers.
"Animal Rights" are only ever truly the "rights of human beings with regard to animals" -- if you made meat illegal, it would not because the animals petitioned, but because vegans did, & imposed their moral sentimentality upon us by legislative fiat.
Read 7 tweets
Jan 27
“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.”Image
Image
“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.
Read 8 tweets
Jan 22
What happens to him in the end? People don’t really mention that part. What happens to the Anarch? Who publishes this journal he wrote?
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. Image
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!
Read 7 tweets
Jan 22
"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.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(