For months I’ve been telling all who can hear (including Congress) that the Russian civilization-state’s response to the digital catastrophe was signaled by its construction of a vast cathedral announcing a new and deeper relationship between the church and the armed forces. 🧵
The catastrophe in its geopolitical form is the obsolescence of any regime unable to establish sovereignty on digital ground. This has to do with the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces as the catastrophe in its anthropological form retrieves the theological character of reality.
That retrieval is due to digital making foundational and reopening once again the ultimate questions about who and why we are and why we should bother with any of it—our life, our humanity, our sanity, our suffering. Questions (post)modern word games and feelings fail to answer
Now Russia has a loooong tradition wrestling with these questions under the burden of its artificially and violently accelerated “transition” into modernity and all that comes after, including the desperate monomaniacal promises of technological deliverance from all human limits
Putin—universally accused in “western” media of “only understanding force,” a willfully bogus and ignorant claim applied to a man marked most by the immensity of his focus on rebuilding Russia’s theological culture and identity—knows the harsh costs of these promises well. But…
Russia and Putin are of course hardly anti-technological as such. So uncanny and scary now to the postmodernized modernized West is the spectacle looming out of Russia of an ineradicably ancient Christian civilization state natively refounded in the digital age on digital ground.
For not only does that “western” faction loathe Christianity, especially Russia’s, for the theological and anthropological limits it places on the faction’s ambitions, appetites, and corruption. The faction itself is racing to digitally refound the “west” via its own new theology
This theology is now plainly disclosed as a certain trans-to-posthuman one, a cyborg mutant of post-Anglican, post-Lutheran, and post-Anabaptist theologies processed through the communist idea that the only remaining or true politics is social mastery via fusing fantasy and tech
Aside from the manifest horrors and violations of this approach, much of which Russia has already suffered as an invading and despoiling force, it is to say the least not the only option we face for accepting the digital triumph over the world and our inner and outer lives
Indeed even Russia has a transhumanist tradition of sorts in Cosmism. There is no escaping the reality now that our humanity cannot be utterly purged or purified of intimate relations with digital technology. The horror today is one “western” faction insists its approach rule all
This faction holds sway—shaky, palsied, but sway nonetheless—over most “western” regimes now, against the will and wish of many of the peoples it rules. It hungers for a decisive confrontation with Russia because it sees Russia’s theological approach to digital as a primal threat
But in fact the digital triumph over the world shows clearly that no person or people no matter how expert or ethical or monomaniacal can rule the whole world, incarnate or digital. Civilization states past the post of digital refounding cannot be destroyed.
The “western” faction denying this core reality plays with a fire it refuses in fear and loathing to respect or understand. People grasp digital may yet strengthen us if we who wield it spiritually master being human rather than instrumentally master humanity. A theological task.
That’s all for now. Thanks for considering and contemplating. We can, in the end, do this
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“One technology created within the digital medium has arisen with a clear and already well-functioning capability to move us past the passive faith in algorithmic fiat that today characterizes the approaching singularity of weaponized information...”
“back into the position of human beings extending rather than eliminating our senses and faculties to conduct arms-length but trustably face-to-face collaborative work in culture creation and valuation. This is bitcoin...”
I think a lot about Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, and Nikephoras II Phokas, Eastern Roman Emperor.
While I can’t substantiate it, the story about Nikephoras is that he wanted to canonize fallen soldiers himself and the Patriarch said no. Henry, as is known, wanted to invest bishops with sacred authority himself and was also negged, ultimately renouncing claim to select popes.
The question of whether holy emperors could take secular control of religious appointments appears likely to have come to a general head around the turn of the millennium. In Christendom the outcome expressed for the answer a powerful no.
Anyone hoping to function in a digital age elite must grapple with issues like those raised here. Many pitfalls and ancient snares, devilish problems for people losing ancient wisdom. So, a few pointers:
The emergent ontology of social injustice responds to the problem of how to assign blame and take responsibility for the behavior of machines religiously, by spiritualizing transgression. People/machines “are” racist/sexist/whatever, but what’s more, the -ism is a -ness, spirit
The insight or instinct that only religion can be authoritative enough for digital cybernetics—for the re-establishment of control over both humans and machines—is crucial. But the execution immediately raises terrifying paradoxes...
A certain strain of intelligent tech criticism warns that passive acceptance of data determinism kills human creativity and leads to civilization necrosis. But...
this insight is unfortunately highly susceptible to being absorbed into the idea that only our divine-like powers of boundless imagination differentiate us from the bots and therefore are the only things that can save us...
the difficult reality is that our faculties of imagination are not magical or godlike in the sense of infinite or salvific power; in fact it is this reality above all that our bots ram home every instant with accumulating inescapable force...
Hasn’t been easy to grasp China—on one hand, a masculine, vein-popping national communist regime against American interest; on another, something softer, deeper, wiser than what’s sensed and portrayed in the West. But this seeming contradiction is key to understanding China...
What is native—original—to the Chinese civilization-state?
How does China see the logic of its imports and the trajectory of their harmonization with what is native to the civilization-state?