I wonder if you are familiar with TIKHistory on You Tube? He has been investigating the underpinning meta-narrative of Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxism.
He is getting close to concluding "Immenentizing the Easchaton" is at the core of all three of these descendants of the Young Hegelians.
As James Lindsay came to realise six months ago, the "old" religion of Gnosticism is a rich vein passing through all of these Utopian religions.
I find echoes of Don Hoffman in the concept of a "God's eye view".
Hoffman claims to have somehow demonstrated through reasoned statistical insight that we don't actually experience reality as it is.
His view is that our comprehension is the way in which Natural Selection best equipped us to survive.
What we perceive as the nature of reality is merely a read out produced by stimuli and not actually what reality is comprised of.
This for me fits with the Jungian idea of Universal Consciousness and the archetype. As a human entity we share a common experience built from a common framework.
Science's claim to objectivity could
be seen to be just an approximation that we are able to share.
On top of objective reality we also experience emergent properties in our experiences and repetitive patterns. While subjective, these properties and patterns nonetheless orientate us in the world to clue us into how best to deal with situations.
Religion and art convey meta narratives that resonate with our immutable human structure.
Thank you for another long essay. Really appreciate that your work is still freely available.
I have one suggestion for improvement, though. There are quite a lot of spelling mistakes throughout all of your essays, some even in the quotations. My issue with this is less about formalities but more about understanding the points you make. As a non-native speaker who tries to understand what the American export of this worldview does to my home country, it’s important to really get what you mean. This gets pretty difficult sometimes because quite often I need to guess what you meant to write.
It would be great if you could get someone to proofread your work before publishing it.
I've always found the Postmodernists to be the most dishonest of all philosophical schools, malevolent sophists all, perhaps because they combine the deep Parisian need to be anti-bourgeois (Marxism was an edgy accessory every cool French kid had to have, akin to a leather jacket), the Parisian belief that wisdom has to be packaged in obscure jargon, and the moral certitude that all Leftists feel about their beautiful and romantic fantasy "Revolution"—that any and all words or deeds are justified if they're in service to the holy cause.
Postmodernists like to hide behind the fig leaf/sales pitch that they eschew all "meganarratives" (which may just be its own meganarrative), but I've never met or read one who doesn't quickly and inevitably end up denouncing Western culture and liberal democracy in the most florid terms, as if it our history were just a single uninterrupted hate crime and our ancestors simply brainwashed puppets.
And their great sage Foucault liked to pretend he was a second Nietzsche, spreading his Mephistophelean nihilism around in equal measures, but when he wanted to slip into the role of revolutionary, he sounded exactly like any another Maoist commissar: "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this."
"I don't see any objection one could make" to bloodshed and massacres akin to the October Revolution etc: this is why Foucault is the patron saint of Left academia. Forget his sub-Nietzschean patter, his deceptive word clouds, he and his ilk (however branded) just wanted to throw Molotov cocktails in every direction and escape with tenure, book deals and magazine features while the rest of us live in chaos and destruction.
Post-Marxist, Neo-Marxist, postmodernism etc, these are all just different labels on the same phenomenon: post-60s intellectuals are the spoiled infants of History, who want to destroy what they could never build, and their dream of "socialist liberation" is just dispossesion sold in a bright, shiny package labeled Utopia.
That my friend is a very useful essay, thank you.
I wonder if you are familiar with TIKHistory on You Tube? He has been investigating the underpinning meta-narrative of Fascism, National Socialism, and Marxism.
He is getting close to concluding "Immenentizing the Easchaton" is at the core of all three of these descendants of the Young Hegelians.
As James Lindsay came to realise six months ago, the "old" religion of Gnosticism is a rich vein passing through all of these Utopian religions.
I find echoes of Don Hoffman in the concept of a "God's eye view".
Hoffman claims to have somehow demonstrated through reasoned statistical insight that we don't actually experience reality as it is.
His view is that our comprehension is the way in which Natural Selection best equipped us to survive.
What we perceive as the nature of reality is merely a read out produced by stimuli and not actually what reality is comprised of.
This for me fits with the Jungian idea of Universal Consciousness and the archetype. As a human entity we share a common experience built from a common framework.
Science's claim to objectivity could
be seen to be just an approximation that we are able to share.
On top of objective reality we also experience emergent properties in our experiences and repetitive patterns. While subjective, these properties and patterns nonetheless orientate us in the world to clue us into how best to deal with situations.
Religion and art convey meta narratives that resonate with our immutable human structure.
Thank you for another long essay. Really appreciate that your work is still freely available.
I have one suggestion for improvement, though. There are quite a lot of spelling mistakes throughout all of your essays, some even in the quotations. My issue with this is less about formalities but more about understanding the points you make. As a non-native speaker who tries to understand what the American export of this worldview does to my home country, it’s important to really get what you mean. This gets pretty difficult sometimes because quite often I need to guess what you meant to write.
It would be great if you could get someone to proofread your work before publishing it.
Again, thank you for the work you do.
I've always found the Postmodernists to be the most dishonest of all philosophical schools, malevolent sophists all, perhaps because they combine the deep Parisian need to be anti-bourgeois (Marxism was an edgy accessory every cool French kid had to have, akin to a leather jacket), the Parisian belief that wisdom has to be packaged in obscure jargon, and the moral certitude that all Leftists feel about their beautiful and romantic fantasy "Revolution"—that any and all words or deeds are justified if they're in service to the holy cause.
Postmodernists like to hide behind the fig leaf/sales pitch that they eschew all "meganarratives" (which may just be its own meganarrative), but I've never met or read one who doesn't quickly and inevitably end up denouncing Western culture and liberal democracy in the most florid terms, as if it our history were just a single uninterrupted hate crime and our ancestors simply brainwashed puppets.
And their great sage Foucault liked to pretend he was a second Nietzsche, spreading his Mephistophelean nihilism around in equal measures, but when he wanted to slip into the role of revolutionary, he sounded exactly like any another Maoist commissar: "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this."
"I don't see any objection one could make" to bloodshed and massacres akin to the October Revolution etc: this is why Foucault is the patron saint of Left academia. Forget his sub-Nietzschean patter, his deceptive word clouds, he and his ilk (however branded) just wanted to throw Molotov cocktails in every direction and escape with tenure, book deals and magazine features while the rest of us live in chaos and destruction.
Post-Marxist, Neo-Marxist, postmodernism etc, these are all just different labels on the same phenomenon: post-60s intellectuals are the spoiled infants of History, who want to destroy what they could never build, and their dream of "socialist liberation" is just dispossesion sold in a bright, shiny package labeled Utopia.
"He is getting close to concluding "Immenentizing the Easchaton" is at the core of all three of these descendants of the Young Hegelians.
As James Lindsay came to realise six months ago, the "old" religion of Gnosticism is a rich vein passing through all of these Utopian religions."
Eric Vögelin is the source of this thoughts i think - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin