How to Arrange Our Brave New World?

[NikitAo]

So, we have a big, big society. Everyone in this society holds many, many views, and some of these views operate entirely within ideologies. There is no color or form that has not sparkled on a banner.

The task of any self-respecting person of the 18th–20th-century model of consciousness is to leave behind a book—not just one that changes the mind of an intellectual, but one that leaves behind an ideology. Every Plato writes his Republic, and every one of them denies the others, because, of course, he writes it in the most correct way—be it the most scientific, the most moral, or even the most transcendent, sitting on morphine.

As a result, there is a massive spawn of states that, naturally, declare war on one another. And within these states, different groups of people, who happened to read one book before the others, declare civil wars against each other. Now, wars are fought not just for resources or faith but for an idea. And isn’t that wonderful? Happiness is to wrap yourself in a beautiful flag, put on a stylish greatcoat, and become a romantic hero.

But surely, there must be some kind of correct ideology? Well, alright—maybe not a correct one, but what, is there no absolute truth? And how are we supposed to live without ideology? Well, that’s impossible. We need to unite somehow, and to unite, we need something to gather around...

Yes, I agree—people can’t just suddenly unite and live in a perfect world of perpetual noon. And I’m not even saying that ideologies are unnecessary—rather, the problem needs to be framed differently. But perhaps we can strive for this, not by leaving behind revolution after revolution in different variations, but by completely abandoning the idea that society must evolve through the overthrow of old truths or the imposition of our own truths on another state.

Instead, here’s what we should do: accept the world in all its dialectical nature. There is a great society, groups, and many individuals, each with their own world, their own vision of how to "...arrange" things. And each one gives birth to an antithesis to another’s thesis. And when this reaches a more complex level of organization, it leads to conflict, and only over time do we arrive at a synthesis of ideas and a new thesis. Then this thesis also becomes obsolete—but well, Hegel can explain that part better.

Rather than ascribing to poor Hegel the properties of some pseudo-scientific dialectical materialism, or instead of simply accepting the normality of wars and revolutions, we should take a different path and recognize their horror. After all, what could be more terrible than a murder committed in the name of an idea? What could be worse than violence? As children, we used to wonder: why do we even need wars?

And now, we try to justify war with anything and at any cost. Because what? That’s right:

"The end justifies the means—come on,
Kill, rape, slander, betray,
For the bright, bright, bright, bright future."
— Egor Letov

So, we have thesis-antithesis-synthesis. And yet, it seems to me that the solution to all our misfortunes lies in eliminating violence and war in those little gaps—the ones I have so gently marked as "-" between the words.

That’s all. Of course, we live in an era where ideologies have immense inertia. We have not yet fully emerged from the age of modernity, nor have we fully undergone its deconstruction through postmodernism, but we can already begin to build our new hope. This does not mean that if you are attacked and are forced to be a nation, you should lay down your arms and be a pacifist while a great empire tries to swallow you.

It simply means that after war, we must strive to prevent future wars. And how do we do that?

Well, let’s start with the deconstruction of ideologies. During war, the most important thing is to dismantle the enemy’s ideology. But at the same time, we must not fall into a total ideology ourselves. And most importantly, we must not think that by destroying a state and its ideology from a position of power, we will suddenly change the world. The ideas outlined above must enter society not through revolution, authority, or forced restructuring, but rather through evolution, art, freedom—through the softest ideologies (yet ones capable of defense).

I think something like "libertarianism, minarchism, liberalism (as long as it does not slide into fascism—neither to the left nor to the right) might help" (I phrase it this way because it’s hard to predict historical processes with certainty). We must change each person from within, transform their inner world, give them the most diverse and most contradictory knowledge, and teach them how to think.

And there is hope. In the 17th century, we realized that women have an inner world (what a shock, right?). In the 18th century, that peasants do. In the 19th, that children do. We abolished slavery and serfdom, emancipated women, and conquered many diseases. The list is long—only it doesn’t have to grow through suffering.

And I do not claim that beauty, morality, and knowledge will necessarily and immediately change the world. It’s just that art, education, and the ability to think are the best things we have—if they are to be opposed to violence.

And yes, the problem with these ideas is that they are not as contagious, not as concrete, not as militant, and not as direct. It is harder to form an aesthetic and rhetoric around them. It will be more difficult to come up with a flag onto which they can be pinned. And someone inattentive will say that this is just "We are for all things good and against all things bad," without seeing anything beyond that.

And that is precisely why art and freedom are so important.


---

Translated from Ukrainian by Nikita Shadura

[RickLewis]

Welcome to the forum!

[Age]

So, we have a big, big society. Everyone in this society holds many, many views, and some of these views operate entirely within ideologies.

There are, at least, as many views as there are human bodies who have views. But, in saying this, there are, also, some views, which every body holds.

There is no color or form that has not sparkled on a banner.

The task of any self-respecting person of the 18th–20th-century model of consciousness is to leave behind a book—not just one that changes the mind of an intellectual, but one that leaves behind an ideology.

Once again, human beings do not have 'minds'.

And, only a so-called 'intellectual' needs changing, anyway. As an 'intelligent' is not rigid nor fixed.

Every Plato writes his Republic, and every one of them denies the others, because, of course, he writes it in the most correct way—be it the most scientific, the most moral, or even the most transcendent, sitting on morphine.

As a result, there is a massive spawn of states that, naturally, declare war on one another.

But, 'war' is certainly not 'natural', in the concept of 'instinctual'. 'Peace', however, is very 'natural', and 'instinctive'. War is learned, whereas peace is natural.

And, human beings only 'declare war' on each other because of 'holding onto' 'current' views or beliefs.

When one is steadfast, fixed, or rigid in their views, assumptions, and/or beliefs, then only when in 'those states' any sort of 'war on', or 'warring with', another occurs.

An 'intellectual' only 'looks at' and 'sees' the world/things through their already own learned lens, or perspective. Whereas,

An 'intelligent' always 'looks from' and thus 'sees' from a Truly open perspective, always.

So, while 'intellect' speaks, or writes, as though it has already obtained the most correct way, and thus is, even unintentionally, creating 'war' with others, the 'intelligent' keeps looking and listening, instead, in order to just keep on learning more, and/or anew.

And within these states, different groups of people, who happened to read one book before the others, declare civil wars against each other.

Again, 'intellects' believe they 'already know', and/or what to be listened to, and heard, they want respect, and within these states causes wars against one another.

Whilst, the only 'state' an 'intelligent' is in, is in an 'open state'. Which allows 'the learning' of how to live peacefully, with every one

Now, wars are fought not just for resources or faith but for an idea.

But, only if and when one is 'holding onto' a non accepted and non agreed upon idea.

And isn’t that wonderful?

No.

Happiness is to wrap yourself in a beautiful flag, put on a stylish greatcoat, and become a romantic hero.

Sure 'some people' may well 'feel happy' doing the 'very thing' of what your analogy, here, is pointing at or to. But, why would you say the very exact opposite, here, of what is, what is actually True and Right?

Whatever causes or creates 'wars' never very produces 'happiness', itself.

But surely, there must be some kind of correct ideology?

There is, in fact.

Well, alright—maybe not a correct one, but what, is there no absolute truth?

No.

There is, actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, which no one could refute.

And how are we supposed to live without ideology?

The exact 'same way' that all living things live without ideology.

Well, that’s impossible.

Only if you are living thing that has ideas.

We need to unite somehow,

Why, and what for, exactly?

and to unite, we need something to gather around...

I suggest 'that thing' being 'the idea' that every human being wants and/or desires, equally. Which, by the way, is just the 'ideal world' that every human beings want to, and desires to, live with-in, that is, live with, and in.

you know 'the one'. It is the 'same one' absolutely every one has desired and wanted, well at least once in their life time.

By the way, once what 'that goal', or 'idea/l', even is, exactly, then 'it', or 'that thing' can be 'gathered around. Which can only 'come' from 'uniting', or, literally, 'gathering together', to discuss 'What even is it, exactly?' first.

Then when what is 'it' that 'we' all, really, want and desire, in Life, then 'we' can discuss, 'How can 'we' make 'that thing' happen, exactly?.

Then just through just two more only, and just as easy and simple 'steps', then 'the goal' that every human being wants and desires can, and will, come-to-fruition.

Yes, I agree—people can’t just suddenly unite and live in a perfect world of perpetual noon.

But, 'this' is not just possible, it is actually easier and simpler than you human beings have even yet imagined.

And I’m not even saying that ideologies are unnecessary—rather, the problem needs to be framed differently.

Can 'I' start 'framing differently' by noting that if absolutely any 'problem', in the whole world, wants to be actually addressed, fixed, and resolved, then what the 'actual problem' is, exactly, needs to be, literally, 'framed', and presented. See, to me anyway, when the word, 'problem', is used, then what the 'actual problem' is, exactly, needs to be understood, and expressed, fully, before what 'it' is, exactly, can be resolved, and fixed, forever more.

To me, saying some thing like, 'The drug problem needs fixing', is about as useful as trying to scoop up water with an open net. Nothing can be addressed, resolved, nor fixed, if the 'actual problem' is never ever actually presented. The word, 'problem', can literally mean, A question posed for a solution.

So, until the, actual, 'problem' is presented, there is, literally, nothing to address, nor to resolve, and fix. So, if there is some sort of so-called, 'drug problem', somewhere, then where is 'it', and/or what is 'it' that would like to be addressed, and resolved, exactly?

For example, instead of saying, 'There is a drug problem', only, and expecting some 'thing' to be fixed and resolved, just express what the actual 'problem' is, exactly, first. Now, if a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution, then, in regards to some so-called 'drug problem', then an 'actual problem' could be,

'How do we stop the youth using drugs?'

'How do we prevent youths from starting, or wanting, to take drugs?'

'How do we stop adults from wanting to make and/or sell drugs, to others?' Or,

Any of the other multitude of 'others questions', which could be posed for 'a solution', to any or all of the 'drug issues', within adult human being created societies'.

So, if you are, really, saying, 'the problem needs to be framed differently', then 'I' I have, literally, just 'framed' the actual 'problem' word, 'differently'.

I could 'now' go on for twice as long in regards to 'ideologies', if one would so like to 'read', and/or 'hear'.

But perhaps we can strive for this, not by leaving behind revolution after revolution in different variations, but by completely abandoning the idea that society must evolve through the overthrow of old truths or the imposition of our own truths on another state.

Great idea.

And, as I have been saying, throughout this forum, instead of making up assumptions about what 'could be', and then having to 'overthrow' 'those ideas', and 'we' just 'look at' 'what actually exist and/or is', only, and instead, then, and only then, can 'we' then 'move on' and 'progress', here.

As I, also, keep pointing out, here, in this forum, 'truths' are only what you human beings, individual or majority, think or believe is correct. Whereas, 'Truths', themselves, are what every one agrees with, and accepts, and thus are absolutely irrefutable, as there is, literally, no one who would, nor even could.

'truths', like 'realities', can and do change. 'Truths', and 'Reality', however can not change.

Instead, here’s what we should do: accept the world in all its dialectical nature.

1. you, one individual person or a group of people, telling 'others' what they 'should' do is never going 'to work'.

2. people are not going to 'accept' what they do not yet know, or not yet understand. So, when 'you' use words like, 'dialectical nature', what is 'it', exactly, that 'you' are meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

3. Even if others know, roughly, what you meant by your use of the 'nature' only word, here, the fact that you human beings have not yet 'come together' to 'agree upon' and 'accept' what even is 'nature', nor what even is 'natural', means that how could you all, in the 'current moment of now', accept 'the world' in all of its, so-called, 'dialectical nature', or even just all of 'the worlds' 'nature', itself, exactly?

4. Even the words, 'the world', are not yet understood, by how 'you' are using those words, here, exactly, nor how they are even used 'generally'. For example, the words, 'the world', can be referring to the earth, the way in which one person, groups of people, live, and/or the Universe, itself.

So, what are you referring to, exactly, when you say and write the words, 'accept the world in all of its dialectical nature'?

There is a great society, groups, and many individuals, each with their own world, their own vision of how to "...arrange" things. And each one gives birth to an antithesis to another’s thesis.

If the Truth be known, there is, actually, only One 'world', earth or Universe, however there are many, many different 'ways' that individual or groups of human beings choose to live.

And when this reaches a more complex level of organization, it leads to conflict, and only over time do we arrive at a synthesis of ideas and a new thesis.

'Conflict' only occurs because one chooses 'conflict' and/or when at least to 'hold onto', and want to 'express', their differing views, perspectives, assumptions, or beliefs as though 'they' are the true, right, accurate, and/or correct ones. Or, people just 'want more', and 'want to take more', from another.

Then this thesis also becomes obsolete—but well, Hegel can explain that part better.

Which is, exactly, why 'I' do not want to do pre/assumptions, beliefs, guesses, theories, nor debates.

Rather than ascribing to poor Hegel the properties of some pseudo-scientific dialectical materialism, or instead of simply accepting the normality of wars and revolutions, we should take a different path and recognize their horror.

Again, telling 'others', what they 'should' be doing, is not recognizing 'the horror' that 'this', itself, can create, and/or cause.

After all, what could be more terrible than a murder committed in the name of an idea?

A murder committed in greed. But, which may well not be 'more terrible' but could well be 'just as terrible'.

What could be worse than violence?

Emotional and/or mental abuse. But, if you, or others, want to put 'these' under the same label as 'violence', itself, then I will agree with and accept this, fully.

As children, we used to wonder: why do we even need wars?

Do adults, really, stop wondering this exact same question?

If yes, then this explains far more succinctly, and reasonably, why wars just keep happening and occurring.

And now, we try to justify war with anything and at any cost.

But, with each and every one of your adult human being's Wrong doings you all 'try to' 'justify' them.

Because what? That’s right:

"The end justifies the means—come on,
Kill, rape, slander, betray,
For the bright, bright, bright, bright future."
— Egor Letov

So, we have thesis-antithesis-synthesis. And yet, it seems to me that the solution to all our misfortunes lies in eliminating violence and war in those little gaps—the ones I have so gently marked as "-" between the words.

But, the 'solution' to all of the adult human being population created and caused, so-called, 'misfortunes' lies in eliminating at least 'two things' before 'violence' even begins. In fact eliminating these 'two things', first, will lead to the elimination of 'all violence', completely.

That’s all. Of course, we live in an era where ideologies have immense inertia.

What do you mean by this statement and claim, exactly?

What does the word, 'inertia', mean to you, here?

We have not yet fully emerged from the age of modernity, nor have we fully undergone its deconstruction through postmodernism, but we can already begin to build our new hope.

Would not every generation consider itself to be 'modern'?

And, why could not every generation just build their own so-called 'new hope'? Does not every generation have 'hope'? And, could not every generations 'hope' just be classed as 'new hope', anyway?

This does not mean that if you are attacked and are forced to be a nation, you should lay down your arms and be a pacifist while a great empire tries to swallow you.

But, if 'it' is, really, a 'great' empire, then why not just allow 'it' to 'take over'?

It simply means that after war, we must strive to prevent future wars. And how do we do that?

Well, let’s start with the deconstruction of ideologies.

Okay.

So, any and all 'ideologies' of how to live in peace with one another, as one, are best 'deconstructed', right?

Or, could we start with the 'deconstruction' of the ideology of 'deconstruction of ideologies', first?

After all telling 'others' what they can, and/or can not, think, has already proved to be a complete failure as well as being completely draconian.

Also, how does one stop another from just have thoughts, and ideas, and how could one possible enforce another to 'deconstruct' their thoughts, and/or ideas, anyway.

Just having 'ideas' is one thing, enforcing ones 'own ideas' onto other one, is another thing, and then forcing others to follow and abide by one's own 'idea' or 'ideology' is even something else.

During war, the most important thing is to dismantle the enemy’s ideology.

And how does this happen and occur, exactly?

Through guns, bombs, and missiles, or through something else?

If it is through something else, then what is 'that', exactly, which 'dismantles' another's thoughts, ideas, and ideologies?

But at the same time, we must not fall into a total ideology ourselves.

Is there really any thing wrong with a 'total ideology' of 'peace for every one', itself?

If yes, then what is 'wrong' with that 'total ideology'?

And, I would have thought 'falling into' a 'total ideology' of 'peace for every one' would be better than just 'falling into' a 'part ideology' of 'peace for a few or even for every one'.

And most importantly, we must not think that by destroying a state and its ideology from a position of power, we will suddenly change the world.

Okay.

But, why is 'this' 'most important'?

The ideas outlined above must enter society not through revolution, authority, or forced restructuring, but rather through evolution, art, freedom—through the softest ideologies (yet ones capable of defense).

Hang on, 'what ideas' are you referring to, exactly?

And, did 'you' not just get through telling 'us' that to prevent 'future wars' we start with the 'deconstructing' 'of ideologies'?

If yes, then are you saying and/or suggesting 'we' destruct 'other ideas, and ideologies', but 'we' keep your idea, and ideology, here?

How about 'we' just keep absolutely every thing, here, absolutely very simple and very easy, instead?

For example how about 'we' do not construct ideas, nor ideologies, that only 'some' will benefit and prosper by, but keep construct and keep all and every idea, and ideology, where absolutely every one/thing benefits and prospers by, equally?

Or, is 'this' another idea, or ideology, that is better 'deconstructed', as well?

I think something like "libertarianism, minarchism, liberalism (as long as it does not slide into fascism—neither to the left nor to the right) might help" (I phrase it this way because it’s hard to predict historical processes with certainty).

I have found that any 'idea', which has an 'ism' at the end, results in 'bad' consequences for some, and 'good' consequences for others. In fact, to me, all 'isms' are just one or another form of 'separatism', itself. And, it is 'separatism' in any form or state, which causes unrest, conflict, and/or wars.

Also, why would you introduce more 'ideologies', when you have just 'tried to' argue for 'deconstructing' 'ideologies'?

We must change each person from within,

Well considering that it is actually impossible to 'change' a 'person', from the 'outside', 'all change' happens 'within', anyway.

Also, 'you' are, again, telling 'us' what 'we' 'now' 'must do', which could even be seen as being worse than telling 'us' what 'we' 'should do'.

Also, people can not 'change' 'another' if 'the other' does not 'want to' 'change', anyway.

Furthermore, if 'we' 'must change' 'each person', from within, then will 'you' inform 'us' how 'we' 'must change' 'you', from within?

By the way all 'people' exist, only, 'within', anyway.

transform their inner world, give them the most diverse and most contradictory knowledge, and teach them how to think.

Okay. If 'this' is what 'we' 'must do' to 'you', then let 'us' begin.

Also, why do 'you' want to give 'others' 'contradictory knowledge' for, anyway?

And there is hope.

If there was absolutely 'no hope', at all, then all of you human beings would have committed suicide a long time before 'now'.

Otherwise, what is 'it', exactly, which you are all 'hanging around, here, for?

In the 17th century, we realized that women have an inner world (what a shock, right?). In the 18th century, that peasants do. In the 19th, that children do. We abolished slavery and serfdom, emancipated women, and conquered many diseases. The list is long—only it doesn’t have to grow through suffering.

And, in the so-called 21st century the majority of you adult human beings are, 'now', 'currently' voting in so-called "leaders" who believe that they have some sort of 'right' to 'take' from you 'looked up' 'pawns' and 'peasants'.

But, 'each to their own', as it is said. If 'you' want to keep voting in 'these types of people', who are, literally, living in 'their own little worlds', with an ever-increasing 'smaller and smaller circle' of monetary richer, so-called, 'friends', then, by all means, keep voting 'them' IN, those smaller and smaller circles.

And I do not claim that beauty, morality, and knowledge will necessarily and immediately change the world. It’s just that art, education, and the ability to think are the best things we have—if they are to be opposed to violence.

When the words, 'the world', are in relation to 'the way you human beings live', then 'the world' is always changing no matter what you human beings do. But, obviously, the greedier and more selfish you human beings are, and/or become, then the worse 'the world' is, or becomes, and conversely, the better or less greedy and less selfish you human beings are, then 'the world', obviously, changes and/or becomes better.

See, 'the world' never stops 'changing', itself. It is just 'the direction' 'the world' is going, or is heading towards, is what is important, and really matters, here.

And yes, the problem with these ideas is that they are not as contagious, not as concrete, not as militant, and not as direct.

Once more, there is no 'actual problem', which is being presented, which could actually be addressed, nor solved, and resolved for good.

It is harder to form an aesthetic and rhetoric around them. It will be more difficult to come up with a flag onto which they can be pinned. And someone inattentive will say that this is just "We are for all things good and against all things bad," without seeing anything beyond that.

Are you, "yourself", here for 'some things', only, and so not 'seeing' any thing beyond them, also?

And that is precisely why art and freedom are so important.


---

Translated from Ukrainian by Nikita Shadura

I think you did not actually explain why 'art' and 'freedom', themselves, are actually supposedly 'so important' above, here.