Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:12 pm
I am bike touring so won’t be able to process much till later this evening.

We just call that, "going for a bike ride", where I come from.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:45 pm Yes, but "you yourself" are a part of the universe and you always function within the context of the universe.

OK, sure.

I also use the word 'universe' to indicate an objective element to the feedback. It's not purely subjective as might be suggested by "you giving yourself feedback", although there are definitely subjective aspects.

Subjective and objective merge. If you are trying to suffer less and something leads to you experiencing it as...you suffer less, well that's subjective and objective. In the end we have our experiences. But yes, objective is important (also).

Some might go as as far as to say that it's all "in your head". I don't agree with that.

Me neither.

One can intellectually justify sitting and waiting for proof as "gathering more information" . And for many, it requires less energy and effort than going out and trying something, anything.

Sure. And that's a choice. Saving energy and effort. I'm not saying that is wrong, but it could be wrong, just as any choice could be wrong. There's no outside the universe looking in, not committed to anywhere.

Waiting for the proof that should convince everyone...I think that's confused on a number of levels.

That's a particular view of philosophy ... that there ought to be one optimal answer. And that one ought to wait for that answer to arrive on the screen.

And what else important does one learn like that?

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:30 pm We just call that, "going for a bike ride", where I come from.

LOL

[Our routes over the next days are similar …]

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:04 pm I still don't really have a sense of what you, personally want or think is necessary. So, I am working with Catholicism, which includes priests, The Pope, The Vatican, the specific mythology and also metaphysics beyond the portion you emphasize. You have expressed some disinterest in making it about your specific position. Fine. So, here I am reaction to the general idea of Catholicism becoming the source of metaphysics in the West and also bringing up what I think leads to people resisting that - that is the topic you thought was interesting.

It is hard for me to write much (on my phone). I appreciate your various posts and understand much better your perspective.

I’ll have more to say but it will take a day or two.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:04 pm The reason I pointed out the irony may not fit your position, but we had not just Europe but MIddle Eastern members on the council of Nicea. So, we have a multicultural, global organization, that ended up influencing sometimes being the power in Europe - not that council but what came after. That organization is spreading a religion that originated in small semitic group outside Europe and it more or less outlawed the previous European religious traditions when it could.

In my view — I am open to being corrected — that Roman Catholic governing system represented civilization substantially. Meaning, an overarching Idea about life, society, and all that we now live with. I admire some of what I have been able to understand of pagan views (the northern European tribes) but I do not see them as having the material for the construction of civilization.

I do not deny however that the Christian metaphysics regards pagan religions as demonic (to put it in real terms) and worked to suppress them with force on all levels. That is a characteristic of the Yahweh inheritance: intolerance. And it still exists in traditional Catholicism and Christianity. The ecumenical spirit tries to ameliorate this and does so with strange results.

The issue has to be discussed in more detail. I only refer generally to it.

Are you seeing anything differently? Haven't you come in with a perspective in this thread and has it changed in any core way?

Frankly, my own paganism and California Radicalism had primed me for all forms of alternatives to any established religious concepts. Jung, American Indian spirituality, East Indian religion, yoga, pranayama, Vaishnavism, Shaivitism, shamanic vioyages, radical female god worship and mantra, Agni Hotra, Buddhism, the use of plant psychedelics — the list goes on and on.

I am reminded of the plethora of possible experience, and my own option is to have seriously examined the foundations of our own traditions and civilization. My choice and my emphasis — the reasons — can be fleshed out. And much of my writing has been expressing why.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:10 pm In my view — I am open to being corrected — that Roman Catholic governing system represented civilization substantially. Meaning, an overarching Idea about life, society, and all that we now live with.

Which at that time was quite globalist. I mean by this not just European, which wasn't really a concept, but including areas not considered part of Europe - with Turkey just getting in recently to the EU, only by contract.

I admire some of what I have been able to understand of pagan views (the northern European tribes) but I do not see them as having the material for the construction of civilization.

Perhaps we rushed civilization, with some bad side effects. But in general I am not saying that any particular pagan religion should be the center of things. I don't really think any religious group or organization should. For individuals, the choice is wide and when I first responded I was unclear what the context was for the 'Christianity or nothing'. I still consider that an improperly binary view, but in a slightly different way. While wishing that more would have similar metaphysical views to mine, I am not saying that even the largest Pagan group is in a position to lead for renewal. Though I hope over time that views that get classed as pagan continue to slide into the mainstream.

Are you seeing anything differently? Haven't you come in with a perspective in this thread and has it changed in any core way?

Frankly, my own paganism and California Radicalism had primed me for all forms of alternatives to any established religious concepts. Jung, American Indian spirituality, East Indian religion, yoga, pranayama, Vaishnavism, Shaivitism, shamanic vioyages, radical female god worship and mantra, Agni Hotra, Buddhism, the use of plant psychedelics — the list goes on and on.

I am reminded of the plethora of possible experience, and my own option is to have seriously examined the foundations of our own traditions and civilization. My choice and my emphasis — the reasons — can be fleshed out. And much of my writing has been expressing why.

That was interesting. That's not quite what I meant. It seemed like in previous posts you were judging me as to negative, perhaps not taking a more nuanced view of Catholicism. I was reacting to...

I am in doubt as to whether your •interpretive method• will provide you with more than what you have intended from the start, if that makes sense.

Taking this as something like 'Well, you have a lot of negative opinions that you started with and everything is just going through that lens and you're not going to change or learn anything. Other parts of my response put that in context for me, why my focus was what it was and then also that I was in fact learning and changing, if not deciding I want the CC to be the center of the West. So, I then turned it around and in my words asked if your interpretive method will provide you with more than you intended from the start.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:29 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:00 amPeople can be only what they are at any point in time. Gentleness, and ordinary human kindness persuade and lead where dogmatic persuaders can't go.

I disagree, there's a time for gentle caring (childhood) and there's a time for the rod (adulthood). Philosophy is not for children; it's for adults. Most adults need the rod, to 'lead' them, and respect nothing else. It's about Authority.

Because many males cannot suppress their sexual perversions, of their own volition, State or Church must (and do) intervene (everyday).

Kindness won't keep the pedophiles away; it only invites them into society.

Rulers must rule by the authority of the law. But individual persons in their encounters with each other do best to try to help each other , if they can, to grow their moral development and this what modern moral educators do.

Policemen, obviously , must exert their authority to maintain the rule of law. Some people identify with policemen but others identify with teachers. It would be queer if parents and teachers acted like policemen.

Some people are slow learners and remain stuck in a stage of moral development associated with immature children, and society must be protected against those adults who cannot act as morally mature adults.

Morally mature adults don't need to be threatened with retribution .

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 6:36 pmMorally mature adults don't need to be threatened with retribution .

Up to a degree, they don't. But when push comes to shove, they do.

Why is the US Presidency symbolic? Because it is the final authority, when it comes to Military action (Violence), on behalf of Western Civilization.

That is the "final say" so-to-speak.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 3:33 pm Taking this as something like 'Well, you have a lot of negative opinions that you started with and everything is just going through that lens and you're not going to change or learn anything. Other parts of my response put that in context for me, why my focus was what it was and then also that I was in fact learning and changing, if not deciding I want the CC to be the center of the West. So, I then turned it around and in my words asked if your interpretive method will provide you with more than you intended from the start.

First, Dawson refers to Christianity in a somewhat different sense than you take it. My impression has been that he sees Christianity as carrying the true or perhaps the truer essences of life-giving •water• in that special, spiritual sense. I think he is making reference to those essences that have enabled all those attainments you mention (art, architecture, etc.), yet you leave something out: the very construction of the self, or the attainment of it. Just for one example the idea and ideal we have of •love• as the transforming and nourishing force. And that in combination with Charity and Grace. It is hard certainly for we moderns, atheistic in basic orientation, to understand God and Divinity as spiritually real, and so we see Christianity like Iambiguous and others see it: an invented construct with a god-supposition at the core of it.

But if somehow, or when, that •living water• becomes for one a reality with bearing on one’s own self-construction, community construction, and all the rest, the picture changes.

The opinions you have about Christianity and Catholicism are more or less precisely those of many or most people. I understand all of them because, naturally, I’ve thought the same thoughts — until I researched the matter in more depth. And then, in my case, everything changed.

But it isn’t that I do not see the warts and blemishes.

So, I then turned it around and in my words asked if your interpretive method will provide you with more than you intended from the start.

My interpretive method? It is that we are •focalizing lenses• and •interpretative instruments• in the face of those •metaphysical realities• which are only realized on an internal level. It turns on that phrase by Richard Weaver: our metaphysical dream of the world. But let’s substitute •dream• for something like determining ideas or a lived mythology like Campbell would have taken it.

But then notice that the way I propose it be seen is really from a modernist’s outside position. I cannot help but see the element of it all that implies •construct•. I am a bad believer, a marginal believer.

My •interpretive method• both help and inhibits. And in the sense that the best descriptions I can offer are greco-rationalist (like Logos as something realized in the soul) but rather impersonalist.

If you (if one) is interested in the elemental spiritual, intellectual and theological conflict between traditionalism and modernism then an understanding of Pascendi Dominici Gregis is part of the picture that has been described by numerous as essential to a restorative project.

My references are to the inner metaphysics of Catholic doctrine, the ideas of Richard Weaver, and more out-there philosophers like René Guénon.

I was listening to Nick Fuentes who offers a strange picture of Mid-East events which tie-in, bizarrely, to Jewish and Christian prophetic beliefs.

This sort of analysis — explaining the recent Hamas attack because of the Israeli machinations with the red heifer (not a false story by the way and super-Orthodox nationalists have always had the temple reconstruction plan, which legitimates Jewish history in their view) is worth understanding because, weirdly, it intersects with all of our lives.

Strangely, we are living in a period where psychology, prophecy, the strange reality of Jewish attempts to come out on top of millennia of set-backs, and modern geo-politics all intersect.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 1:43 pm First, Dawson refers to Christianity in a somewhat different sense than you take it. My impression has been that he sees Christianity as carrying the true or perhaps the truer essences of life-giving •water• in that special, spiritual sense. I think he is making reference to those essences that have enabled all those attainments you mention (art, architecture, etc.), yet you leave something out: the very construction of the self, or the attainment of it. Just for one example the idea and ideal we have of •love• as the transforming and nourishing force. And that in combination with Charity and Grace. It is hard certainly for we moderns, atheistic in basic orientation, to understand God and Divinity as spiritually real, and so we see Christianity like Iambiguous and others see it: an invented construct with a god-supposition at the core of it.

As long as the 'we' doesn't include me, peachy.

But if somehow, or when, that •living water• becomes for one a reality with bearing on one’s own self-construction, community construction, and all the rest, the picture changes.

The opinions you have about Christianity and Catholicism are more or less precisely those of many or most people.

Well, right off the bat most people are part of one of the world's major religions, so it is very, very unlikely that my opinions of Christianity are like their's. Then, despite that difference, I am not an atheist, so that makes my reactions unlike those of the moderns you keep referring to. Third, even those who are critical of Christianity do not, I think, understand all of the types of self-hatred, guilt and shame packaged in Christianity as love. Why do I think this? Because even secular moderns confuse guilt with love, often in precisely the same ways that Christians do. Which should not be surprising, givne that Christianity has formed one of the foundations of morality. They leave out God, but secular versions, including those of morality, live on. Some good, some not so good.

I understand that you assume you can place people in boxes very quickly and you may even be quite good at that. But when I read this post so far, I find that you are making a lot of assumptions about me that are not correct, despite things I've said already on the subject. And here's the thing: you really don't have to mention what you think will be my reactions or what is hard for me to believe, etc. You can just tell me about Dawson or your own thoughts. You may be using this as a kind of rhetorical gesture, perhaps even meant as kind or at least to let me know you understand that what you say next may be hard to believe. But whatever the fine intentions, you continue to say things about what is the case with me that isn't the case. It's not useful.

I understand all of them because, naturally, I’ve thought the same thoughts

Right, I think it is a form of projection. Your experiences in California are not the ones I've had . Your views then are not my views now nor are they the same as ones I've had before. It sounds like we have had overlapping experiences and might recognize some things the other has participated and so on, but you are assuming too much. What you left behind is neither what I left behind or have kept or have now.

— until I researched the matter in more depth. And then, in my case, everything changed.

But it isn’t that I do not see the warts and blemishes.

Great.

So, I then turned it around and in my words asked if your interpretive method will provide you with more than you intended from the start.

My interpretive method? It is that we are •focalizing lenses• and •interpretative instruments• in the face of those •metaphysical realities• which are only realized on an internal level. It turns on that phrase by Richard Weaver: our metaphysical dream of the world. But let’s substitute •dream• for something like determining ideas or a lived mythology like Campbell would have taken it.

But then notice that the way I propose it be seen is really from a modernist’s outside position. I cannot help but see the element of it all that implies •construct•. I am a bad believer, a marginal believer.

Yes, I think in a sense you are talking as if you were talking to yourself. I understand that's not intended to be mean, or perhaps even judgmental, but it's missing the mark and widely.

My •interpretive method• both help and inhibits. And in the sense that the best descriptions I can offer are greco-rationalist (like Logos as something realized in the soul) but rather impersonalist.

If you (if one) is interested in the elemental spiritual, intellectual and theological conflict between traditionalism and modernism then an understanding of Pascendi Dominici Gregis is part of the picture that has been described by numerous as essential to a restorative project.

I'll give it a peek. But again, I am neither modernist nor traditional in the sense you mean it here.

Further I think that there are things that have never been worked out yet. There is and has to be something exploratory. So, it not like my position is No, to Christianity, yes the Celtic paganism or Cherokee shamanism, to pick two alternatives pretty much at random. There are problems that have not been solved, yet, by anyone, as far as I can tell.

My references are to the inner metaphysics of Catholic doctrine, the ideas of Richard Weaver, and more out-there philosophers like René Guénon.

who was a Hindu then a Muslim, if an unorthodox version of the latter. At least he seems to be. I see echoes in Weaver of your concerns about hierarchy being lost and the need for universal values, rather than individuals all doing their own thing, so to speak. I can see how Weaver connects to core Catholic metaphysics, but Guenon, not so much. I do see he saw common features in many religions, but he seems to have specfically chosen to go to religions other than Christianity.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 3:30 pm As long as the 'we' doesn't include me, peachy.

The way I’d respond to this is to let you know that I think of an •audience• of readership that I write to and that readership is • modern• in the sense defined in Pascendi. It is not hard for me to imagine that that text and the discussion of it in the video I submitted wouldn’t interest you enough to listen to it but that doesn’t make a great deal of difference to me. And if you would like me to apologize for the tack I do take — I can, and sincerely.

You will have to define in what you are included and excluded. I write to the •man• I am familiar in all my interactions with people. And I find •our condition• to be similar.

Well, right off the bat most people are part of one of the world's major religions, so it is very, very unlikely that my opinions of Christianity are like their's. Then, despite that difference, I am not an atheist, so that makes my reactions unlike those of the moderns you keep referring to. Third, even those who are critical of Christianity do not, I think, understand all of the types of self-hatred, guilt and shame packaged in Christianity as love. Why do I think this? Because even secular moderns confuse guilt with love, often in precisely the same ways that Christians do. Which should not be surprising, given that Christianity has formed one of the foundations of morality. They leave out God, but secular versions, including those of morality, live on. Some good, some not so good.

I don’t see a way to react one way or another to this paragraph. I have very little idea as to how you view Christianity or anything else until you write it out here. The forum environment will always foster misunderstandings because people are not facing each other when they talk.

If as you say you are not an atheist, it could be helpful to learn something direct from you about how you conceive of God. Have I missed something you’d written?

Third, even those who are critical of Christianity do not, I think, understand all of the types of self-hatred, guilt and shame packaged in Christianity as love.

This is not an atypical criticism of Christianity so I do not see it as special to you.

If you are referring to my reference to •love• then I am talking about something different.

I have mixed feelings about both guilt and shame. Yet no matter what they are necessary moods. Without them there is really no morality possible, it seems to me.

I understand that you assume you can place people in boxes very quickly and you may even be quite good at that.

The forum platform tends to augment that tendency or habit. And if it happens don’t take it personally. I have less classified you than you think but part of that is because you have not filled out your own beliefs or what your core preoccupations are.

But when I read this post so far, I find that you are making a lot of assumptions about me that are not correct, despite things I've said already on the subject.

I can see why you might think that, but what I write is what I am thinking about on a given day — such as this AM as I ate breakfast before peddling off …

I leave it to others to define those things they feel are important and despite any obstacles. That is my own primary objective: to get clear about where I stand. It is (as I have allowed) somewhat selfish.

[Guénon] …who was a Hindu then a Muslim

A French Christian who developed ideas about a •perennial metaphysics• transcending any specific capsule. I belief he became a Sufi
(?) but I am not sure (of his branch of Islam). He lived in Egypt and was highly respected in that community. I do not know much more. The Crisis of the Modern World is worth the price of admission in any case.

The way I’d respond to this is to let you know that I think of an •audience• of readership that I write to and that readership is • modern• in the sense defined in Pascendi.

Ah, so that's what "modern" means in your posts.

Good to know. Finally.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 7:41 pm The way I’d respond to this is to let you know that I think of an •audience• of readership that I write to and that readership is • modern• in the sense defined in Pascendi. It is not hard for me to imagine that that text and the discussion of it in the video I submitted wouldn’t interest you enough to listen to it but that doesn’t make a great deal of difference to me. And if you would like me to apologize for the tack I do take — I can, and sincerely.

The issue wasn't whether it interested me or not, it was how it seemed to classify me.

You will have to define in what you are included and excluded.

Actually, I don't think I do. I have made some broad stroke descriptions, but you can simply tell me about whatever it is without guessing at my reactions or including me in a group.

Well, right off the bat most people are part of one of the world's major religions, so it is very, very unlikely that my opinions of Christianity are like their's. Then, despite that difference, I am not an atheist, so that makes my reactions unlike those of the moderns you keep referring to. Third, even those who are critical of Christianity do not, I think, understand all of the types of self-hatred, guilt and shame packaged in Christianity as love. Why do I think this? Because even secular moderns confuse guilt with love, often in precisely the same ways that Christians do. Which should not be surprising, given that Christianity has formed one of the foundations of morality. They leave out God, but secular versions, including those of morality, live on. Some good, some not so good.

I don’t see a way to react one way or another to this paragraph. I have very little idea as to how you view Christianity or anything else until you write it out here.

I've been reacting to Christianity and Catholicism in post after post.

The forum environment will always foster misunderstandings because people are not facing each other when they talk.

Sure.

If as you say you are not an atheist, it could be helpful to learn something direct from you about how you conceive of God. Have I missed something you’d written?

I described myself as pagan animist.

Third, even those who are critical of Christianity do not, I think, understand all of the types of self-hatred, guilt and shame packaged in Christianity as love.

This is not an atypical criticism of Christianity so I do not see it as special to you.

In the broad sense no, but again moderns and secular non-theists in the West have very similar ideas about what is love and what is guilt to many Christians. Even down to the expression of emotions.

If you are referring to my reference to •love• then I am talking about something different.

I have mixed feelings about both guilt and shame. Yet no matter what they are necessary moods. Without them there is really no morality possible, it seems to me.

Exactly. That is the exact common feature of both Abrahamists and most secular Westerners.

The forum platform tends to augment that tendency or habit. And if it happens don’t take it personally. I have less classified you than you think but part of that is because you have not filled out your own beliefs or what your core preoccupations are.

But you don't need to know this to write about your thoughts or what Dawson or any of the others you mention are saying. You could say moderns, instead of we moderns. And you don't need to tell me that I will have trouble believing X. You can just tell me about X and let me have whatever reactions I have. I can bring them up if necessary.

You can just stop assuming you know what my reactions will be. These guesses add nothing to the discussion. I know my reactions and can describe them if they seem important to the dialogue. No need for you to guess.

But when I read this post so far, I find that you are making a lot of assumptions about me that are not correct, despite things I've said already on the subject.

I can see why you might think that, but what I write is what I am thinking about on a given day — such as this AM as I ate breakfast before peddling off …

I leave it to others to define those things they feel are important and despite any obstacles. That is my own primary objective: to get clear about where I stand. It is (as I have allowed) somewhat selfish.

Your guesses about what I as an individual might have trouble believing is not clarifying where you stand. It's just guesswork about me.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 8:59 pm

The way I’d respond to this is to let you know that I think of an •audience• of readership that I write to and that readership is • modern• in the sense defined in Pascendi.

Ah, so that's what "modern" means in your posts.

Good to know. Finally.

What a snarky statement.

This forum, the majority of those who have made it their home, and I also think •modern philosophy• if it can be referred to so generally, is ultra-modern in the sense of Pascendi (which is a super-traditionalist perspective) (and that term also has a surprisingly complex definition), but also modern in the (I assume) vaguer or conventional sense in which you have been taking it.

A fuller definition or description of a •modernist• outlook would be an interesting project to undertake. Frankly, and if ends are considered, it seems to me a tragic dead-end. It will result in people — masses — who cannot actually think and reason because their ideation does not rest on a proper foundation. Like an important piece is missing.

And that opens up the investigation to what •error• is (in that strict even scholastic sense of that term).