So... what have we concluded here?

[Lacewing]

Are there any conclusions, agreed-upon by all (or even most), that have been reached as a result of these discussions and debates on this forum?

If so, what are they?

If not, what might that imply?

[promethean75]

The only thing we have concluded is that the world is the case.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If not, what might that imply?

To answer this interesting question I have to ascend up up into the didactic/pedantic clouds -- but dammit someone has tied a cable to my ankle!

[Hold on a sec (whips out wire cutters)...]

::: snip :::

OK, I am free now and ascending ....

Possibly it results from the so-described *collapse of meta-narratives* but we do not seem, any longer, to be operating from the same understanding of what life is, what Earth is, what the purpose is and what our purposes are. The collapse of agreed-on structures -- narrative structures perhaps -- has resulted in the empowerment of the Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations* and may well stand in complete opposition to the guiding and determining worldview of any others and indeed of all others.

Personally, I felt that as it pertains to America (obviously my larger area of concern and possibly of understanding) it is an American *way of being*, defined Constitutionally, that allows people to pursue their own roads to that *happiness* which is said to be an object. Americanism is a vast and powerful machinery that engineers outlooks. And these have spread to the entire world. I do not say this to celebrate it necessarily. But *American ideology* has to be seen and understood -- and frankly, for many, that would be like a fish coming to the need to define the water he swims in.

The ideal of Liberalism (following the ideas of Isaiah Berlin) were to provide a governing bureau under which people and groups of very different political and religious ideologies could *live together*. However, the ideal of that Liberalism, and the resistance of the tendentious factions that are making it increasingly impossible for either to accept the ideals and objects of the other, seems to indicate that the Liberal ideal is fracturing. And it seems to me obvious that here, on this forum, and in those discussions many have participated in, that we come face-to-face with those whose ideas we simply cannot and will not tolerate.

I think there is also another element, but to mention it is to dive straight into acrimonious controversy because it comes across like an *attack* on the very foundation of the modern individual. But the modern individual is entirely lacking in *intellectual preparation*. I will qualify this statement by saying that I got it chiefly from Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah -- not exactly a text that most here would refer to or trust. But one main thrust of it is the Sixties rebel's revolt against *structures of authority*. The attack on traditional hierarchies became a wide and general movement. But in the process of tearing down (this is my opinion of course) not only are traditional hierarchies of meaning & value toppled but intellect is attacked. In order to *go along* with the trends of our present, one has to sacrifice a strong, determined and resolute mind and what had formerly informed that mind. Let's say *Aristotelian categories* just to have something to refer to.

Since these categories were undermined, few are trained to think clearly, and so they think in accord with their own willful individualism. And -- at least within the popular culture taken as a whole -- this leads to a breakdown in the intellectual structure of individuals. They cannot any loger think rigorously and they begin to think emotively.

It is quite clear that on this forum there are a slew of individuals who cannot do else but emote their *ideas* which, again according to me, are semi-ideas and pseudo-ideas.

So, at least in part, the trend among Conservative thinkers to believe that their methods of thinking can recover that agreed-upon ground that make wide agreements possible, is definitely an idea that motivates them. But we have to be honest, I think, and to realize that *the avrerage individual* does not want to submit, and will not submit, to any authority that he deems illegitimate. Is his opposition merely felt? Or is it reasoned through? Naturally, most here will recognize that I will say it is felt and not very well structured.

[Impenitent]

Are there any conclusions, agreed-upon by all (or even most), that have been reached as a result of these discussions and debates on this forum?

If so, what are they?

If not, what might that imply?

it implies, conclusively, that improper form and false premises abound...

-Imp

[Lacewing]

Thank you for the responses.

When I think of how various civilizations and cultures have risen and fallen on this planet... rising to greatness and naturally perishing while holding many different ideas and beliefs and practices of how things are or should be... I wonder how we can continue to think that there is any specific course above all others?

The vast range of diversity throughout/across our world is stunning! To me, that alone suggests immense potential... then we can look even further, out to the stars. And yet we so often seek to narrow the playing field here on Earth down to one path, one view, one outcome, one truth, etc. How sensible is that, and what does it really serve?

How might our overall experience and capability change if we shift our tendency from 2D thinking to 3D thinking? Instead of looking at things independently, we might instead recognize collective connectivity and the potential of that. The signs of it are everywhere, aren't they?

[Age]

Are there any conclusions, agreed-upon by all (or even most), that have been reached as a result of these discussions and debates on this forum?

If so, what are they?

If not, what might that imply?

As far as I am aware, there has NOT been, and there NEVER WILL BE regarding 'debates' and 'debating'. By the very nature of 'debating' there NEVER could be AGREEMENT made.

Now, what this might and does imply here is 'you', people, WITH BELIEFS will NEVER COME TO AGREEMENT.

However, 'this' STILL NEVER TAKES AWAY FROM the Fact that 'it IS' what IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED WITH and BY EVERY one WHERE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' LAYS, and IS FOUND.

So, ONCE AGAIN, I suggest NEVER 'trying to' CONVINCE "others" TO AGREE WITH 'you', as this forum here is LIVING PROOF that 'that' WILL NEVER WORK, but INSTEAD just REMAIN OPEN, AND THEN what IS IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH and BY EVERY one WILL COME-TO-LIGHT, and BE SEEN to BE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

BUT PLEASE do NOT let 'this' STOP ANY or ALL of 'you' STILL 'trying to' CONVINCE "others" that what 'you' EACH currently BELIEVE IS TRUE IS the truth of 'things'.

[Age]

If not, what might that imply?

To answer this interesting question I have to ascend up up into the didactic/pedantic clouds -- but dammit someone has tied a cable to my ankle!

[Hold on a sec (whips out wire cutters)...]

::: snip :::

OK, I am free now and ascending ....

Possibly it results from the so-described *collapse of meta-narratives* but we do not seem, any longer, to be operating from the same understanding of what life is, what Earth is, what the purpose is and what our purposes are. The collapse of agreed-on structures -- narrative structures perhaps -- has resulted in the empowerment of the Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations* and may well stand in complete opposition to the guiding and determining worldview of any others and indeed of all others.

Personally, I felt that as it pertains to America (obviously my larger area of concern and possibly of understanding) it is an American *way of being*, defined Constitutionally, that allows people to pursue their own roads to that *happiness* which is said to be an object. Americanism is a vast and powerful machinery that engineers outlooks.

'Powerful' ONLY in regards to 'its' DEMISE, and TO the further DEMISE of the rest of the population.

AND, LOOKING AT and FROM the TINNIEST perspectives of one country ONLY, SHOWS and PROVES just HOW LITTLE and self CENTERED some human beings HAD BECOME. Back in the days when this WAS being written.

And these have spread to the entire world. I do not say this to celebrate it necessarily. But *American ideology* has to be seen and understood -- and frankly, for many, that would be like a fish coming to the need to define the water he swims in.

This here is the RESULT OF INDOCTRINATION AND PROPAGANDA.

The ideal of Liberalism (following the ideas of Isaiah Berlin) were to provide a governing bureau under which people and groups of very different political and religious ideologies could *live together*. However, the ideal of that Liberalism, and the resistance of the tendentious factions that are making it increasingly impossible for either to accept the ideals and objects of the other, seems to indicate that the Liberal ideal is fracturing. And it seems to me obvious that here, on this forum, and in those discussions many have participated in, that we come face-to-face with those whose ideas we simply cannot and will not tolerate.

I think there is also another element, but to mention it is to dive straight into acrimonious controversy because it comes across like an *attack* on the very foundation of the modern individual. But the modern individual is entirely lacking in *intellectual preparation*.

The so-called 'modern individual', in the days when this was being written, was as OLD 'in KNOWING' as the people who BELIEVED the earth was flat and who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth WERE, to 'them'.

I will qualify this statement by saying that I got it chiefly from Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah -- not exactly a text that most here would refer to or trust. But one main thrust of it is the Sixties rebel's revolt against *structures of authority*. The attack on traditional hierarchies became a wide and general movement. But in the process of tearing down (this is my opinion of course) not only are traditional hierarchies of meaning & value toppled but intellect is attacked. In order to *go along* with the trends of our present, one has to sacrifice a strong, determined and resolute mind and what had formerly informed that mind. Let's say *Aristotelian categories* just to have something to refer to.

Since these categories were undermined, few are trained to think clearly, and so they think in accord with their own willful individualism.

Here we have ANOTHER GREAT example of this VERY OLD WAY of 'thinking', that is; "others" have NOT been 'trained to think clearly', like I HAVE'.

The ABSURDITY, ENCLOSED, and 'self-CENTEREDNESS' of 'this view' SPEAKS, VOLUMES, for itself.

Or, do 'you', "alexis jacobi", 'think' that 'you' ALSO have NOT been 'trained to think clearly', YET?

And -- at least within the popular culture taken as a whole -- this leads to a breakdown in the intellectual structure of individuals. They cannot any loger think rigorously and they begin to think emotively.

It is quite clear that on this forum there are a slew of individuals who cannot do else but emote their *ideas* which, again according to me, are semi-ideas and pseudo-ideas.

OF COURSE 'you', "alexis jacobi", would HAVE and KNOW the FULL and TRUE ideas, while it is ALWAYS "the others" who HAVE the so-called 'semi and pseudo ideas', right?

LOL It was like 'these people' were NOT even READING and LISTENING their OWN WORDS and CLAIMS.

BUT, BECOMING DEAF and BLIND WAS the DIRECT RESULT OF ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING one KNEW the truth, ALREADY, WITHOUT the proof.

So, at least in part, the trend among Conservative thinkers to believe that their methods of thinking can recover that agreed-upon ground that make wide agreements possible, is definitely an idea that motivates them. But we have to be honest, I think, and to realize that *the avrerage individual* does not want to submit, and will not submit, to any authority that he deems illegitimate. Is his opposition merely felt? Or is it reasoned through? Naturally, most here will recognize that I will say it is felt and not very well structured.

Talk ABOUT one ASCENDING to the CLOUDS OF ABSURDITY SO MUCH that they END UP IN OBSCURITY.

Some of 'these people' here could NOT come across MORE ONE-SIDED, and BLIND, even if they WANTED TO.

[Age]

Thank you for the responses.

When I think of how various civilizations and cultures have risen and fallen on this planet... rising to greatness and naturally perishing while holding many different ideas and beliefs and practices of how things are or should be... I wonder how we can continue to think that there is any specific course above all others?

you 'wonder' 'this' BECAUSE you BELIEVE that there IS NO 'specific course above all others"?

And, you BELIEVE 'this' IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, which, COINCIDENTALLY, OPPOSES and CONTRADICTS your OTHER BELIEFS here, but which ALSO DRIVES you to focus ONLY on this one VERY TINY MINUSCULE PART OF 'Life', and living.

BUT, like a lot of the participants here, in this forum, the ONE PART OF 'Life', which they FOCUS on here, in this forum, IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct. But just like 'you', "lacewing", the ACTUAL True, Right, AND Correct MESSAGE gets LOST and MISINTERPRETED with your OWN MISGUIDED and MISINTERPRETED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Although what 'you' and 'they' ARE, so desperately, 'TRYING TO' convey a MESSAGE ABOUT and GET ACROSS here IS ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True 'you' and 'they' KEEP END UP CONTRADICTING "yourselves", and thus DESTROYING the ACTUAL True MESSAGE WITH and FROM 'your' OWN DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

The vast range of diversity throughout/across our world is stunning!

If you SAY SO.

But if ANY one was to even ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that there was NOT a, so-called here, 'vast range of' DIVERSITY, then, to me, that would be FAR MORE STUNNING.

BUT 'this' DIVERSITY will NEVER DETRACT FROM the ACTUAL Truth of 'things', which EVERY CAN and DOES AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.

To me, that alone suggests immense potential...

YES 'we' ALREADY KNOW YOUR BELIEFS and what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, which you like to COME here and SHARE, once in a while, and then GO AWAY, AGAIN.

Also, and by the way, ONE of THAT 'immense potential' IS the ABILITY TO UNCOVER, and FIND, what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS, and which CAN and DOES LEADS 'us' ALL to living IN Peace and IN Harmony WITH one "another", as One, FOREVER MORE.

OR, can 'this' NOT exist in YOUR 'immense potential' ABILITY?

then we can look even further, out to the stars.

IF 'you', people, have ONLY been LOOKING AT 'this, TINY MINISCULE, and INSIGNIFICANT world' ALONE, or ONLY AS FAR AFIELD AS 'this world', then there is now NO wonder WHY it IS taking 'you' SO LONG to FIND and SEE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

And yet we so often seek to narrow the playing field here on Earth down to one path, one view, one outcome, one truth, etc.

But WHY do 'you' DO 'this', "lacewing"?

How sensible is that, and what does it really serve?

How sensible ARE 'your' BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, and what do 'they' REALLY serve 'you'?

How might our overall experience and capability change if we shift our tendency from 2D thinking to 3D thinking?

But WHY do 'you' LIMITED "your" 'self' to ONLY 'this' "lancewing"?

WHY NOT LOOK AT and SEE 'Everything' FOR what 'It' REALLY IS, INSTEAD?

I FOUND doing 'this' to be MUCH SIMPLER and MUCH EASIER anyway.

Instead of looking at things independently, we might instead recognize collective connectivity and the potential of that.

BUT, 'collective connectivity' AND 'the potential' of 'that' can ONLY BE 'recognized' IF, and WHEN, 'it' HAPPENS.

And, OBVIOUSLY, IF, and WHEN, people BELIEVE that AGREEMENT, by ALL, can NOT be ACHIEVED, NOR REACHED, then 'collective connectivity' can ALSO NOT BE REACHED, NOR ACHIEVED.

Also, 'the potential' OF 'collective connectivity' OF ALL, FOR ALL, HAS ALREADY BEEN RECOGNIZED, as 'this' is HOW 'we' ARE LIVING RIGHT HERE, and NOW.

But, 'you', INDIVIDUAL people, WITH your INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, are STILL SOME WAY FROM SEEING and RECOGNIZING 'this'. However, in relative terms, 'you' REALLY DO have NOT THAT FAR TO GO.

The signs of it are everywhere, aren't they?

LOL HOW could ANY one SEE the SIGNS OF ACTUAL and True FULL 'collective connectivity' WHEN and WHILE they BELIEVE AGREEMENT, BY EVERY one, could NEVER BE REACHED?

[Lacewing]

Being aware of collective energy/potential does not require anyone to spend time or energy on every aspect of it -- just as I am not compelled to open and read any posts by Age (who remains on my Ignore list). If anyone else notices something insightful that he says, I would be interested to hear... otherwise I don't find value in wading through his mental marsh of distortion and noise, which appears to be the only channel he operates on.

Our artwork is (perhaps) the way we dance within the moving infinite.

[Lacewing]

we do not seem, any longer, to be operating from the same understanding of what life is, what Earth is, what the purpose is and what our purposes are. The collapse of agreed-on structures -- narrative structures perhaps -- has resulted in the empowerment of the Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations* and may well stand in complete opposition to the guiding and determining worldview of any others and indeed of all others.

How is humankind to evolve if understanding stands still?

You seem to say that an "Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations*" (as you say) is being foolish and disruptive. That sounds like a claim/defense of those who protect a platform upon which their identity/reality proudly stands -- against those who, throughout all of human history, 'step out of line'. But where do you suppose humankind would be if there were not those who looked beyond the structures of any time or circumstance?

Personally, I felt that as it pertains to America (obviously my larger area of concern and possibly of understanding) it is an American *way of being*, defined Constitutionally, that allows people to pursue their own roads to that *happiness* which is said to be an object. Americanism is a vast and powerful machinery that engineers outlooks. And these have spread to the entire world. I do not say this to celebrate it necessarily. But *American ideology* has to be seen and understood -- and frankly, for many, that would be like a fish coming to the need to define the water he swims in.

The ideal of Liberalism (following the ideas of Isaiah Berlin) were to provide a governing bureau under which people and groups of very different political and religious ideologies could *live together*. However, the ideal of that Liberalism, and the resistance of the tendentious factions that are making it increasingly impossible for either to accept the ideals and objects of the other, seems to indicate that the Liberal ideal is fracturing. And it seems to me obvious that here, on this forum, and in those discussions many have participated in, that we come face-to-face with those whose ideas we simply cannot and will not tolerate.

We are first, and foremost, human beings. Whatever country we find ourselves in is like a certain suit we wear during our lives. But that suit is not what we are underneath it all. Some people are very impressed with what they 'wear'.

I think there is also another element, but to mention it is to dive straight into acrimonious controversy because it comes across like an *attack* on the very foundation of the modern individual. But the modern individual is entirely lacking in *intellectual preparation*. I will qualify this statement by saying that I got it chiefly from Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah -- not exactly a text that most here would refer to or trust. But one main thrust of it is the Sixties rebel's revolt against *structures of authority*. The attack on traditional hierarchies became a wide and general movement. But in the process of tearing down (this is my opinion of course) not only are traditional hierarchies of meaning & value toppled but intellect is attacked.

I blame religious zealots. I think massive organized religion distorts thinking and turns people into fools and followers...all throughout human history.

Meanwhile... you blame the hippies of the 1960's. Did you have a bad psychedelic trip and you're seeking salvation from it by blaming the sixties for America's problems?

In order to *go along* with the trends of our present, one has to sacrifice a strong, determined and resolute mind and what had formerly informed that mind. Let's say *Aristotelian categories* just to have something to refer to.

Since these categories were undermined, few are trained to think clearly, and so they think in accord with their own willful individualism. And -- at least within the popular culture taken as a whole -- this leads to a breakdown in the intellectual structure of individuals. They cannot any loger think rigorously and they begin to think emotively.

Unconventional ideas are important to keep convention from becoming stagnant and rigid.

Stagnancy and rigidity are fertile ground for stupidity... which inspires oppression and control.

It is quite clear that on this forum there are a slew of individuals who cannot do else but emote their *ideas* which, again according to me, are semi-ideas and pseudo-ideas.

So, at least in part, the trend among Conservative thinkers to believe that their methods of thinking can recover that agreed-upon ground that make wide agreements possible, is definitely an idea that motivates them. But we have to be honest, I think, and to realize that *the avrerage individual* does not want to submit, and will not submit, to any authority that he deems illegitimate. Is his opposition merely felt? Or is it reasoned through? Naturally, most here will recognize that I will say it is felt and not very well structured.

If you really want to be honest, you would acknowledge/realize that the average individual is a 'follower'. Those are the people who are more inclined not to reason. They are tying their identities to a cart and following it wherever it goes... and who is DRIVING that cart? Who built that cart? For what purpose? Was it made in America by God? Those are the notions upon which so much of our 'legitimate authority' (as you say) is ultimately based. Challenging that is the most reasonable thing to do!

[Alexis Jacobi]

How is humankind to evolve if understanding stands still?

You seem to say that an "Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations*" (as you say) is being foolish and disruptive. That sounds like a claim/defense of those who protect a platform upon which their identity/reality proudly stands -- against those who, throughout all of human history, 'step out of line'. But where do you suppose humankind would be if there were not those who looked beyond the structures of any time or circumstance?

First, we have to recognize -- and I think a certain amount of what you write about indirectly takes this into consideration -- that genuine social and cultural orthodoxy was always what either of us would describe as *rigid*. Originally, the purpose of religious worship was to appease or proposition the gods. And the social order that was defined as necessary and as *good* would by us today be deemed thoroughly restrictive.

In Occidental culture though, and when the practice of religion took on the modern forms (in our case a modification of Hebrew ethical monotheism), the set of *structures* that defined the parameters of what was good and acceptable had expanded tremendously. You are aware, having read what I write for a long time, that I do not let the past go irresponsibly. What that means is that I am aware that in the past there were ideas and concepts -- the sense of what is right and good, needed and necessary -- with which our civilization was constructed. If we look at this in reverse, that is if we in our imaginations subtract what were the building blocks, we could visualize a world that would never have come to be. Nothing at all (similar) or something very different would have resulted. So this places (necessary) emphasis on the building blocks: the elements with which people construct their world.

I am one who does not devalue, put aside, fail to see, and also fail to understand the *values* that are part-and-parcel of what we in the Occident created. That creation is vast. So I make a statement that results from my understanding: Do away with the important value-sets, do away with the sense of *belief in* their real existence and their authentic value, and construction on that platform (of values) ceases or is tremendously inhibited.

I think we have to make a clear distinction about who, among those thinking their own thoughts and making their own determinations, we are actually talking about. When I focus on that man or that person I refer to *mass man* and that man who is a unique creation of our present culture. That man is largely disconnected from our own traditions, and here I mean of the liberal arts and philosophy. When once it was normal and necessary to have been schooled in the (classical) liberal arts today it is very hard indeed to find any sort of *core* or *essence* in what children are taught today. That is a whole conversation in and of itself of course. But my assertion is that Mass Man, raised up in a type of fallen commercial mindless entertainment focused culture, and certainly one lacking *authentic spiritual dimension*, is the sort of man that when he is granted power (to act, to determine, to influence) does not bring beauty and value into focus but stupidity, vain self-interest, ridiculousness in his choices and his life-focus. He is not a man who can carry forth what was once conceived of as *the work of civilization*.

I assume, but I am not certain, that you understand what I am getting at here.

In my own sense of things, and if we are to speak of cultural innovators, those who I recognize as innovators do not do away with the very stuff that comprise meaning & value, rather they refocus on meaning & value and give it life in new ways. They renovate. So I think that it is fair, and necessary, to recognize trends that are innovative and positive and to compare these to those that are decadent and result in breakdowns of even the possibility of the creation of things we would describe as *high*.

I would say that it is a very good thing when people do, and when a person can, define that "upon which their identity/reality proudly stands". But in order to be capable of doing that the person we refer to must have an intimate knowledge of *our own traditions*. So for example the best minds (that I am aware of) who were thoroughly grounded in our own traditions were the ones who were capable of responsibly examining, in real depth, the meaning & value of other, parallel traditions -- and here I might mention Alan Watts or Aldous Huxley. Alan Watts could build a conceptual bridge to traditions outside of our own, and in locating the value in them, and demonstrating to others how this could be done, he also illuminated and in this sense renovated an appreciation for our own traditions. This is not a decadent activity of one who is abandoning the field, but rather a means to revivify the field.

The focus of Aldous Huxley in Proper Studies has no comparison-point in our contemporary intellectual culture (which is turning Maoist and highly determined by ideological impositions).

If I were to speak negatively of those who *step out of line* (this was your way of putting it) I would not so much speak against productive though rebellious (or perhaps upstart is the right word) actions by those who feel constrained by limiting conventions, but rather those who, for a host of reasons which are difficult to label, work to destroy the conceptual pathways to seeing, valuing and protecting what in our own traditions really have value.

And when I mentioned Robert Bork and his book, which did influence how I see modern trends, it is to this destructive tendency that I refer. What is of value in a great deal of what was expressed in the Sixties (in my limited understanding and mostly based on the music I have listened to and the anecdotes of my paren't generation) has value because it is renovative. I could post the lyrics of a dozen songs which express a lofty spirit that in my view cannot be denied. But there was another side as well.

Consider a few examples of his thought:

“Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails. “By destroying traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified … Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is its own negation: the artificial, mechanised or brutalised control which is a desperate remedy for its chaos.”

“Radical egalitarianism necessarily presses us towards collectivism because a powerful state is required to suppress the differences that freedom produces. That raises the sinister and seemingly paradoxical possibility that radical individualism is the handmaiden of collectivist tyranny.

This individualism, it is quite apparent in our time, attacks the authority of family, church, and private association. The family is said to be oppressive, the fount of our miseries. It is denied that the church may legitimately insist upon what it regards as moral behavior in its members. Private association are routinely denied the autonomy to define their membership for themselves.

The upshot is that these institutions, which stand between the state and the individual, are progressively weakened and their functions increasingly dictated or taken over by the state. The individual becomes less of a member of powerful private institutions and more a member of an unstructured mass that is vulnerable to the collectivist coercion of the state. Thus does radical individualism prepare the way for its opposite.”

“The fact is that anti-hierarchical, egalitarian sentiments were on the rise in political movements, whose tendencies were, therefore, towards collectivism and centralization, with a concomitant decline in the freedoms of business organizations, private associations, families, and individuals."

Lacewing wrote: But where do you suppose humankind would be if there were not those who looked beyond the structures of any time or circumstance?

To say *structures* is one thing, since structures can certainly become repressive and require renovation. But my argument, on the whole, involves far more what we will choose to hold to as having value, being valuable -- and for that reason I am not inclined to go along with Mass Man as he recklessly tears down what he cannot understand and indeed has set his will against understanding. In my view their are *destructive moods* that get hold of people and animate them negatively.

[Age]

Being aware of collective energy/potential does not require anyone to spend time or energy on every aspect of it

Has ANY one even THOUGHT 'this', let alone SAID 'it' ANYWHERE here?

-- just as I am not compelled to open and read any posts by Age (who remains on my Ignore list).

Did ANY one even EXPECT you to?

If anyone else notices something insightful that he says, I would be interested to hear... otherwise I don't find value in wading through his mental marsh of distortion and noise, which appears to be the only channel he operates on.

Being AWARE, of ANY 'thing', does NOT require ANY one to spend time NOR energy on ANY aspect of "age".

Our artwork is (perhaps) the way we dance within the moving infinite.

But what about ALL of the OTHER ways?

[Age]

we do not seem, any longer, to be operating from the same understanding of what life is, what Earth is, what the purpose is and what our purposes are. The collapse of agreed-on structures -- narrative structures perhaps -- has resulted in the empowerment of the Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations* and may well stand in complete opposition to the guiding and determining worldview of any others and indeed of all others.

How is humankind to evolve if understanding stands still?

You seem to say that an "Individual who *thinks his own thoughts* *makes his own determinations*" (as you say) is being foolish and disruptive. That sounds like a claim/defense of those who protect a platform upon which their identity/reality proudly stands -- against those who, throughout all of human history, 'step out of line'. But where do you suppose humankind would be if there were not those who looked beyond the structures of any time or circumstance?

Personally, I felt that as it pertains to America (obviously my larger area of concern and possibly of understanding) it is an American *way of being*, defined Constitutionally, that allows people to pursue their own roads to that *happiness* which is said to be an object. Americanism is a vast and powerful machinery that engineers outlooks. And these have spread to the entire world. I do not say this to celebrate it necessarily. But *American ideology* has to be seen and understood -- and frankly, for many, that would be like a fish coming to the need to define the water he swims in.

The ideal of Liberalism (following the ideas of Isaiah Berlin) were to provide a governing bureau under which people and groups of very different political and religious ideologies could *live together*. However, the ideal of that Liberalism, and the resistance of the tendentious factions that are making it increasingly impossible for either to accept the ideals and objects of the other, seems to indicate that the Liberal ideal is fracturing. And it seems to me obvious that here, on this forum, and in those discussions many have participated in, that we come face-to-face with those whose ideas we simply cannot and will not tolerate.

We are first, and foremost, human beings. Whatever country we find ourselves in is like a certain suit we wear during our lives. But that suit is not what we are underneath it all. Some people are very impressed with what they 'wear'.

I think there is also another element, but to mention it is to dive straight into acrimonious controversy because it comes across like an *attack* on the very foundation of the modern individual. But the modern individual is entirely lacking in *intellectual preparation*. I will qualify this statement by saying that I got it chiefly from Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah -- not exactly a text that most here would refer to or trust. But one main thrust of it is the Sixties rebel's revolt against *structures of authority*. The attack on traditional hierarchies became a wide and general movement. But in the process of tearing down (this is my opinion of course) not only are traditional hierarchies of meaning & value toppled but intellect is attacked.

I blame religious zealots. I think massive organized religion distorts thinking and turns people into fools and followers...all throughout human history.

Meanwhile... you blame the hippies of the 1960's. Did you have a bad psychedelic trip and you're seeking salvation from it by blaming the sixties for America's problems?

one could ASK 'you' the EXACT SAME here "lacewing". Did you have a bad religious experience and you are seeking salvation from it by blaming massive organized religion for distorted thinking and turning people into fools and followers?

In order to *go along* with the trends of our present, one has to sacrifice a strong, determined and resolute mind and what had formerly informed that mind. Let's say *Aristotelian categories* just to have something to refer to.

Since these categories were undermined, few are trained to think clearly, and so they think in accord with their own willful individualism. And -- at least within the popular culture taken as a whole -- this leads to a breakdown in the intellectual structure of individuals. They cannot any loger think rigorously and they begin to think emotively.

Unconventional ideas are important to keep convention from becoming stagnant and rigid.

Stagnancy and rigidity are fertile ground for stupidity... which inspires oppression and control.

It is quite clear that on this forum there are a slew of individuals who cannot do else but emote their *ideas* which, again according to me, are semi-ideas and pseudo-ideas.

So, at least in part, the trend among Conservative thinkers to believe that their methods of thinking can recover that agreed-upon ground that make wide agreements possible, is definitely an idea that motivates them. But we have to be honest, I think, and to realize that *the avrerage individual* does not want to submit, and will not submit, to any authority that he deems illegitimate. Is his opposition merely felt? Or is it reasoned through? Naturally, most here will recognize that I will say it is felt and not very well structured.

If you really want to be honest, you would acknowledge/realize that the average individual is a 'follower'.

Like 'those' who FOLLOW the BELIEF that there is NO one truth.

Those are the people who are more inclined not to reason.

As exampled MANY TIMES by the one here known as "lacewing".

They are tying their identities to a cart and following it wherever it goes... and who is DRIVING that cart?

What is DRIVING 'that cart' ARE BELIEFS. Who is DRIVING 'that cart' IS the 'EGO'. And, OBVIOUSLY the one known here as "lacewing" had TIED 'its' 'identity' absolutely FIRMLY to the BELIEF that there IS NO one truth, which IS DRIVING "lacewing" ALL THE WAY along here

Who built that cart?

The 'EGO', WITH 'BELIEF'.

For what purpose?

BECAUSE 'you', "lacewing", would, literally, FALL by the wayside of THAT CART here, if 'you' ever LET GO of THAT BELIEF/that cart.

Was it made in America by God? Those are the notions upon which so much of our 'legitimate authority' (as you say) is ultimately based. Challenging that is the most reasonable thing to do!

BUT challenging "lacewing" is some 'thing', which IS NOT 'reasonable', and some 'thing', which "lacewing" would DEARLY LOVE would STOP.

Does it NOT seem VERY CONTRADICTORY, and HYPOCRITICAL, to ENCOURAGE 'challenging', but completely and utterly REFRAIN, HIDE, and IGNORE when the SAME IS being CHALLENGED 'itself'?

[Flannel Jesus]

The only thing we have concluded is that the world is the case.

You must not have been reading VAs threads.

[FlashDangerpants]

The only thing we have concluded is that the world is the case.

You must not have been reading VAs threads.

Strawman bastard! Any fule no that "the world is the case [as conditioned by the world{world-reality-FSR}-case<things-being-stuff-FSK>-FSK-FSR-FML]". The hierarchy of knowings is quite clear.