Metal as Transcendental Art

john_constable_the_hay_wain

I. Music for the sake of…

In Book I of Plato’s The Republic, Socrates is engaged in an exchange of ideas with Thrasymachus regarding the nature of justice. In this debate, Thrasymachus is noticeably anxious to drive a point that justifies his views rather than finding out the truth. In between the sarcastic remarks and false humility that characterize Socrates, the older philosopher puts forward questions and comparisons that shed light on the topic in interesting angles.

One of the most interesting arguments came after Socrates’ opponent declared that justice could be defined as “the interest of the stronger”. Socrates’ response came to a point where he postulated that all art (which he uses as an equivalent to “talent” or “occupation”) acts rather in the interest of the receiver of his work. So the true art of the physician is neither in the receiving of money nor in a perfection of medicine in itself, but in the curing of maladies and keeping the body healthy.

Socrates then extrapolated this to illustrate how justice was what a ruler imparted in the interest of the people. A ruler is given power to lead and impart justice to the best interest of the people they govern. That rulers may often become corrupt is a different matter.

This got me thinking, what about music? What is the purpose of music? What is music for? From history, we know music has served different roles, from religious expression, conducive to a form of indoctrination, to aristocratic caprice, to romantic ideology, nationalist propaganda and every other conceivable use of music as ambiance or a vehicle for anything else.

We should make it clear that not only were these approaches different, but not all were equally close to the truth about music. Most do not understand that it can only evoke sentiments, even if detailed and vivid, but not particular scenes. It can speak to the human subconscious through the filter of the conscious (which is why you cannot “get” a music that is completely new in style to you — for example, the “learning process” one goes through when getting into death and black metal). More importantly, it cannot speak of individual ideas without the aid of words because it belongs to the instinctive understanding of humans as a species. Human nature and education mold these perceptions.

The most empty of all the interpretations was that art should be done for its own sake. A laughable oxymoron, if ever there was one. As Socrates correctly argued, art is done for the sake of the less powerful that receives it, the object of its mercy. For music, that is the human spirit, the subconscious and the conscious as a whole, your state of mind, whatever you wish to call it.

II. The options that metal has at its disposal

In his Fifth Heretical Essay, “Is Technological Civilization Decadent, and Why?”, Jan Patočka briefly goes over the topic of pre-history (which he clarifies does not mean non-history), its transition into history and humanity’s ascending from an animalistic lifestyle to one where one’s considerations extend beyond personal immediate necessities.

Pre-history for humans was characterized by having survival itself as a main preoccupation. Life for life’s sake. Setting the conditions for historical life, humans moved into settlements and gradually were able to afford independence from the every-day fight for one’s life. The price of this was work. This work became a responsibility in exchange for safety and space to indulge in pleasurable activities. Patočka refers to the second one of these as the the orgiastic, a release and exchange from the toil of responsibility that provides an escape from a life of pure survival.

This sort of life could still be considered as life for its own sake. The clever reader may observe that in the previous description a full circle is described. Each activity on the stack is concerned with an individual trying to escape the previous state in order to keep going, to ensure survival.

It is then that the transcendental, the sacred, the divine, the ulterior, makes an entrance into human awareness. This is not to be confused with religion, which is only a systematic arranging of rituals and beliefs which may or may not be a way to the divine. Independently of the system chosen or the disavowal of all systems, keeping something larger than ourselves in perspective can make us redefine the way we see our individual lives. Our lives are no longer lived in redundancy, just in order to keep living, but are charged with energy and will power to build or attain something without the intention of receiving personal reward. (Remark: It is common for people to have kids in order escape their mundane lives, but their intentions are equally mundane and selfish, mostly bringing children they cannot properly raise to an overpopulated world in order to satisfy their empty lives. The transcendent  ideal goes beyond such gimmicks of self-deception .)

Thus we can descry three possible avenues for music:

  1. For mere function in context (responsibility)
  2. For pleasure itself (the orgiastic)
  3. As a medium to perceive and keep in sight something larger than our individual human lives (the transcendental)

The nature and goals of different music, perhaps to different degrees rather than in straight-up black-and-white distinctions, can be classified using these three elements. Music that is deemed superficial is that which lacks in transcendence. Mainstream (a term that only makes any sense from the 20th century on) music, specially, can be said to work in the primitive paradigm of responsibility on the side of the artist and pure orgiastic pleasure on the side of the listener. In most music, this activity is usually a combination of both on the side of the musician, responsibility to norms in order to get his pay and an attention to how much pleasure the music provides him. A reflection of life for life’s sake in an empty music devoid of any transcendent meaning.

Transcendental music and art in general would imply musicians being invested in the music for something larger than their own personal profit (monetary or otherwise) and an audience similarly invested and discerning of music that gives them that sense of going-beyond their individual lives. All the songs about common love, friendship and equality notwithstanding as they only serve to comfort weak individuals in their self-pity, not propel them forward to greater heights were the self is at least partially dissolved.

An example of a middle-of-the-road agreement would be Johan Sebastian Bach, who, like any man living off of music has to fill certain requirements. At the same time, he is renowned to have constantly searched for an ideal in music that would reflect the divine through proportions and relations, guided as well through a crystallization of rules in smoothness and logic that results from a fastidious attention to natural human perception of intervals (artists two hundred years later did the opposite…). In practice, he often got into trouble and wasn’t the best “worker” in the sense that what he produced was seldom exactly what was expected of someone in his post. But he survived, was honored by the clergy and royalty alike and his music outlasted him because the society in which he lived (Germany in the late 17th and early 18th centuries) valued the transcendent, the divine, above anything else. Cynics can stop laughing, of course Germans at the time also fought wars and had to take care of business, and so did Bach. Following a transcendental path does not mean you are exempt from the toil and eventualities of life.

That metal’s nature is that of a transcendental art can be proven by pointing out the way in which it developed. As we have previously described before, each metal stylistic development had to do with a shedding of aesthetics in which it lurched forward away from the mainstream and into more distinct characteristics that would set it apart from rock music and in a rebellious statement of intention that stated its anti-establishment position. But in contrast to punk and other protest music, metal was not anti-authoritarian out of a social revolutionary sentiment, but from a nihilist-realist point of view. It was a reducing of humans to ants in an uncaring universe by using Satanic, pagan or occult imagery to depict concepts that stay true from antiquity to this day. This is the same reason why metal is so prone to using fantasy fiction themes. Metal is not an escape, it is reducing of this pseudo-reality to what it actually is: one of many possible constructs.

Individually, this or that artist may believe or use the imagery and language they adopt, but as a whole, metal is none but that transcendent essence that refuses to bow to the arbitrariness of present human status quo. In its place it does not propose anarchy or freedom, but calls for an awareness of reality as existing outside human expectation, want, need or hope. It is a confronting of reality instead of a twisting of truths for the shielding of and maintaining of mundane activities for the sake of staying alive peacefully and pleasurably. More importantly, this confronting of reality does not imply a fatalism, but a way to emerge triumphantly, seeing through individual situations and times, recognizing our place in nature and our dependence on it.

III. Implications in Practice

How does this translate into music? Is art more than just its intention or its random interpretation by an audience?

In his discussion, Patočka made three important distinctions in order to better attack the problem of the decadent. The separation between meaningsignificance and purpose was stated functionally different. Meaning is the most difficult of these to grasp. It is not a value, nor is it the same as purpose although they could fill a same role in certain circumstances. Meaning is said to make something open to reading, to a sense, to understanding of something that is as it is. Purpose itself is the reason or intention why something is carried out or why it is brought into being. Significance is concerned with its relative role or function in relation to a particular context.

Purpose and significance are subject to times and context. Meaning is not. The meaning of something can be interpreted to have different significance in different places, or it can be used for different purposesBut what it is does not change, and so its meaning does not. The distinction between purpose and significance is of the utmost importance when it comes to understanding and judging music. The purpose of musical devices is often confused by individualists and relativists to be one of the other two. The purpose of music matters little to the music critic who is charged with judging its quality and not its good intentions. The music critic cares only about significance.

But I propose a slightly different mapping in which the human mind, not the rest of the universe, is the world of action for music. After all, music is artificial, it is made by us, for us and it is its effect over us that matters. Therefore, meaning can be redefined in the context of universally perceivable effects in patterns, textures and intervals. Universally as in across the human species. It is to be expected that there is a variance in the effect, but that does not detract from the existence and relevance of a mean.

The definition of purpose need not change, it still lies in the reason why a certain music would be made. Now, significance would shift to being the acquired role of structures and relations in different music paradigms, different genres, different traditions. That means that just as different spoken languages, music can have its own rules arising from conventions between human perception and arbitrary organization. But the more arbitrary it is and the less it conforms to natural human perception, the less capable of transcendence a music is. This does not mean that education cannot be involved. But education can reinforce and deepen what comes naturally and follows the path of human potential (Common Practice Period), or it can be capricious arbitrariness arising from the fallacy of the human mindas a blank slate (see Serialism).

Two things need to happen for a transcendental music tradition to be sustainable. The first is artists that are devoted to the transcendental aspects of music. The second is a discerning audience. Part of this discernment is a certain trust in musicians, their own vision and values as well as their abilities. This is the same sort of trust we have for leaders of any kind, be them rulers or scientists.

The reason why we do not have this trust in musicians in modern times is because as a result of historical processes, they have come to disgrace themselves. The sort of respect for artistry and trust in their distinction above ours survives today only in very dark corners of human action like specific classical music niches and extremely underground metal and ambient circles. In metal, these are the sort of circles that remain willingly untouched by labels in order to keep their art at away from vulgar and unworthy reception.  These remain the last bastion of metal against the taint of the mainstream.

It is in understanding there is something more to human nature and human experience that is both innate to us and that we share with other human beings, that we can also come to respect the power of transcendental music: music that taps into these aspects. Music that has the power of directing human conscience in a particular direction, as well. Today, underground metal is one of the few musics that go beyond the merely functional or the pleasurable. This is music that has the power of cultivation, of expanding the mind, of looking beyond your own fear of the unknown, of inevitable death and into the future of humans as a species and not just you as an individual, but as an individual channeling the species into a more aware future.

IV. The Transcendental: Art for the Sake of Human Evolution

It is no surprise that we can trace a very clear line from the 18th century to the 21st at the beginning of which art is universally sponsored by the ruling classes and institutions of power that through gradual changes becomes increasingly independent (19th century) and later on less connected to human nature (20th century). This culminates in a complete stagnation in the 21st century, our times…

The question of true transcendental art being underground or not depends on the current values of society. In the case of our modern society, its purely materialist and ultra-democratic outlook that dictates that personal caprices matter more than reality is the antithesis of the environment where a transcendental — one that reflects enduring meaning — art can be fostered.

By definition, a materialist civilization that attributes no meaning to anything except the massing of perceived riches or power, cannot produce such an art. That is to say, such a civilization does not even believe there is such a thing as the trascendental. Furthermore, this materialist outlook is based on an absurd pushing of boundaries through a rational point of view taken to an extreme. But anything taken to any extreme loses contact with reality, which is itself an amalgam of degrees of many different qualities — compromises between opposites.

A rejection of reality in favor of an artificial extreme such as materialism is then enabled to brush aside and subvert anything that does not conform to itself. This includes human nature itself. In fact, the materialist position claims there is no such thing as human nature. This enables the power-hungry, the greedy and anyone else to try and clean their conscience through a pandering of the idea that we are only the result of the cultures into which we are born and values are only social constructs. The dogma then becomes: power is the only objective measure of success. A side effect of materialism is the idea that everything we perceive is subjective and therefore not subject to judgement or control.  All that matters is if I think this or I like that. The weakling’s alternative to the dogma becomes: happiness is the only subjective measure of success.

Both of these emphasize an enlarged “living in the moment” that favors egoism that, as proven by history, results in an almost complete disregard for others’ living in this same present and those yet to be born — unless an immediate reward/punishment is offered to the materialist individual. The transcendental provides precisely the opposite: a view into the characteristics that make you human, that dictate our nature, that both unite us and make us different. As Steven Pinker summarizes in his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, this flies in the face of research that has in turn been suppressed and vilified by an establishment eager to maintain the status quo in a similar gesture to a superficial Church censoring scientific discoveries centuries ago.

Also contrary to a short-sighted reading, this should not result in us embracing the understanding of one’s own nature as licence to indulge in it, but rather a precise knowledge of how to control it and channel it in order to become better.  A transcendental view of time and values applied to our species may pave the way for not only a widespread search for individual enlightenment but a species-wide one. One in which humanity works together for its own good, which at this point would translate into a caring for the planet it is destroying in the vulgar self-interest dictated by materialism.

The importance of metal as this transcendental art is its power to maintain this knowledge and to promote universal values and even more importantly, their understanding. The reaction of materialism and the religion of scientism against the notions of transcendental value are emotional to their very core but also based on observations of how values defined arbitrarily in the past lead to social disasters. This, combined with their own superficial and strictly functional misunderstanding of the values prevented them from fully becoming aware of the underlying human need and impulse to reach for something beyond the material and the every-day.

This is why those who understand such transcendentalism treat the mainstream with opprobrium and an extreme disgust. As with anything else, the attitude of those who understand can be confused with those who follow and do not understand, those who adopt attitudes — even pseudo transcendental ones — with the ulterior motivation of immediate reward to themselves. And thus elitism and the upholding of all that is truly excellent is marred and disgraced by a civilization of insecure and selfish individuals who cannot see past their own self-interest, a selfishness that is then projected onto those who they judge because they cannot conceive of anyone actually believing and acting for the sake of something larger than themselves.

Nietzsche is reviled by the religious (who, in general, have never read him, let alone understand him) and by the materialists (or at least those have read him, those who haven’t or do not understand seem to think him some sort of atheist hero). The main reason why materialists despise him is because he is a realist. Realism flies in the face of extreme and delusional reality-deforming conceptions of life such as materialism. As a realist, Nietzsche recognizes the inherent human need to believe in something outside himself. For those who have been paying attention, it is obvious this does not necessarily imply some sort of superstition or dogma.

Nietzsche’s Übermensch (the “superman”, the “overman”, the superior human) as described in Thus Spake Zarathustra, is one that sees and goes beyond his own times. One that is not trapped by the paradigm of his contemporary society and that furthermore excels himself above his peers in a work. This sort of talking can be taken metaphorically, but it is not meant to be. Going beyond one’s own times has to do with recognizing history as a set of changing variables within a timeline on an unchanging or slowly-changing human nature where a set of set meanings remain constant for us but are, perhaps,   difficult to see.

It is in the of going over and overcoming of common man who is little more than a tamed beast, that we humankind can continue on their learning and growing path as a species. This is the nature of the transcendental. The individual transcends in his perception of his people and time and contributes to a flow of which he is only a part. Only then can the species attain a transcendental vision in which it is not only looking at its immediate problems but at its long-term development ten or twenty generations in the future. Would that we could see such a civilization arise, it would be a beautiful sight to behold.

V. The Transcendental in Action through Metal

Arising from the context of popular rock music in the late 1960s with a different musical method and a realist mentality, metal veiled its message behind mystic frontispieces that became whole with the dark romantic aura behind its motif-driven music. The classical romantic tradition that so influences it has as one of its focal points the return to an intelligibility and “naturalness” that was most readily searched for in taking hints from folk music melodies and rhythms from different rural landscapes around the world (primarily from Europe, unsurprisingly). This did not mean a ridiculous simplification of music to banal catchy lines, but a simplicity of which Plato’s Socrates spoke.

Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity,–I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only an euphemism for folly.

— The Republic, Book III

Musically, what is transcendental must necessarily be atemporal, it must have the capacity to communicate with human beings from any historical (or pre-historical, for that matter) period, age or walk of life. This does not mean that the connection has to be instant or that the listener does not need to go through a “learning process”. In fact, in the particular case of metal as a veiled teaching, it is only through maturity in understanding it in a holistic manner that one comes to understand the truths that several great musicians with piercing views about what it is to be human reflected through it.

Despite the influence, there is a very sharp contrast between classical romantic music and metal. The difference is a consequence of the historical context, particular social class and sentiment out of which they each arose. Romantic art came from both the need of the individual to find a place and expression of his own, not in the modern selfishness of the individualist, but a place in nature and in reverence to it. A connection to what it is to be human. As classical music, its prestige and the station of those making it allowed it to pursue such things in broad daylight. To this, we should add the nontrivial matter of the nonexistence of recorded music or other conveniences that flood and distract listeners. The expression of the romantic artist could be full and undisclosed.

Metal, on the other hand, comes in a time where popular culture reigns in saturation of kitsch: superficiality and banality for the immediate pleasure of the distracted and manipulated masses. Less important but worth mentioning is that it originated in strong and independent-thinking middle-class individuals who saw through the deception of their times. Several choices in its underground character come from this. As an art form that subverts the ruling falsehood, it is not allowed to be displayed directly. The fact that being an intellectual resistance also means that not all can understand it and that its concerns go beyond the present manifestation of human society and its dogmas require that it is not fully out in the open. It must assume a mask that reflects an outer and simple intent that keeps most at bay to guard what it contains. Its identity must be more distinct and defined than its predecessor and so, willingly, metal takes on a much more limited range of expression than classical romantic music from the 19th century.

Of the harmonies I know nothing, but I want to have one warlike, to sound the note or accent which a brave man utters in the hour of danger and stern resolve, or when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by some other evil, and at every such crisis meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure; and another to be used by him in times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or on the other hand, when he is expressing his willingness to yield to persuasion or entreaty or admonition, and which represents him when by prudent conduct he has attained his end, not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely under the circumstances, and acquiescing in the event. These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave.

– The Republic, Book III

It is also important to understand the outer and the inner manifestations of the spirit of music. There is a learning process to each kind of music, because outside is manifested the tropes of a region, culture, group, perhaps a particular “language” or set of conventions. By basing itself on patterns and harmonies the human ear feels naturally drawn to, the music is aligning itself to what is permanent to human perception, at least in this point of our evolution. But all these are developed, “discussed” in a music that speaks a very particular mind. Just as Plato might have spoken in ancient Greek about similar things we would speak of today in modern English, so it is that transcendental music from music separated by centuries might be speaking the same message under different grammatical guises — tropes and conventions of times and style. The act of the  Dionysian manifesting itself through the Apollonian as the young Nietzsche described to us in The Birth of Tragedy.

Someone might ask if it isn’t better to disavow all conventions and try to speak in  “plainspoken transcendental”. The innocence of such a suggestion comes from the incorrect belief that what is felt, what is understood and experienced wholly as a human being can be put purely, clearly and unambiguously into words. Necessity dictates that emotion and experience be transmitted to the innermost core of the individual– a penetrating of various layers of prejudice and consciousness in order to move the primal and ripple back through to the higher, if possible. Neither mere words in their plain meaning nor musical structures on their own, in the beauty of orderly symmetry and mathematical correctness can achieve this. These only speak to the higher intellect, which may or may not translate this to the deeper self.

Reaching the innermost sanctum of metal, though, requires much more than being touched by it. For that to happen, metal cannot just be a passing entertainment or the object of devoted fanhood alone. It needs to be taken seriously and read correctly in its contradictions and flagrant imagery that bespeak a connection to the transcendental beyond mere unambiguous pattern codification. It is not a science in the modern sense and is more akin to occultism and its voluntary hiding-away. Following from that, we may infer that it is far more esoteric than exoteric, this latter being ridiculous or incomprehensible when taken at face value. Only treading the serpentine and treacherous paths through cycles of internalization and externalization does the metal fan become the metal initiate.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

39 thoughts on “Metal as Transcendental Art”

  1. Power Metal dude says:

    Great article. Would you consider that styles that are not even subgenres like say, power metal for instance can achieve any kind of transcendental merit ? If not, is it because it’s still musically too close to rock ?
    Speaking of power metal, Symphony X just released their lates album and they feature a few Vader riffs in a few of their songs.

    download here:
    https://mega.co.nz/#!Et8TUK5Y!kpuq329D_nhq0BOrGFHsVUNqwqziDeIE0jgX2FKut9c

    1. their latest album is closest to pantera going on guns n ross than on anything of worth released by Vader, IMO

  2. Phil says:

    “Would that we could see such a civilization arise, it would be a beautiful sight to behold.”

    I distrust any society that claims to be bigger than the enjoyment of the individual because they always end up with something resembling national socialism or communism.

    Then again, I’m rather too empirical for many tastes round here. Why is it that every writer for the DLA has to engage in this idealistic fantastical pap? Be happy with your god damn peace, wealth, diversity and freedom.

    And great music’s purpose is not to prop up your totalitarian fantasies, even if it does somehow personally help you in that endeavor. I don’t see how it could help at all, actually.

    “Wow, Emperor really had a point when they wrote ‘I am the Black Wizards!’ We need more black wizards in society!”

    1. “e. Why is it that every writer for the DLA has to engage in this idealistic fantastical pap”

      Perhaps because it isn’t just “idealistic fantastical pap”.
      The thing is that societies NEVER have claimed to be bigger than the enjoyment of the individual, but their leaders have tried to force it on them, which is different.
      The only meaningful change that can lead to a large-scale and permanent change is willing change in a large portion of individuals so that it affects culture from within.

      “And great music’s purpose is not to prop up your totalitarian fantasies, even if it does somehow personally help you in that endeavor. I don’t see how it could help at all, actually.”

      There is no totalitarian fantasy here. A totalitarian regime is the last and worst case scenario that should be considered in cases of extreme emergency.
      I think you should read more into what is being said and infer less from your fears.

      1. Phil says:

        Given the context of this website I am sure you can understand the source of my fears.

        I will say that yes, we would all want to be constantly re-rationalising philosopher heroes, regardless of exactly how and to what extent music influences life. However that is probably even less realistic than forcing behavioural patterns on people.

        1. So basically, we should just give up and keep eating pizza until we die and not do anything because we are doomed?

        2. I also think that rather than stepping away from the proposed solutions or “dreams” of this or that ANUS writer, you might consider a platform from whence to launch your own thinking. Challenging the problems and thinking HOW,really things could be changed for real. The U.S. shows us what a deception democracy is. They’re still one of the most destructive countries in the world, and they are , in theory, the most free and democractic one. The other extreme obviously does not work. It is a handful of European countries with a more mid-ground approach that are making more progress in certain direction. But nobody is perfect, and not even they are rid of problems. The change of a society to become worried about the human species would be welcome.

          I also must clarify that a preoccupation for the species INCLUDES an attention to the quality of individual lives, Otherwise, we are, again, just ensuring survival, and not being human beings. But the thing is that, quality life does not necessarily entail the abuse of resources and the destruction of the ecosystem which is what is pandered nowadays. Your right to fucking destroy the planet is curtailing my right to have a healthy planet!

          1. They’re still one of the most destructive countries in the world, and they are , in theory, the most free and democractic one.

            Even more: the choices of individuals tend to be selfish. We see that in the USA every day.

            I also must clarify that a preoccupation for the species INCLUDES an attention to the quality of individual lives

            You mean, to measure by results instead of feelings? Good idea.

            No sane society interferes with non-destructive behavior.

            My feeling is that Phil, like so many on the internet, is here to destroy and in order to do so, must ignore much in his own country. We call that “projection,” normally.

            1. Anihilatorr says:

              Brett S:

              Why don’t you like Running Wild?

              1. Why don’t you like Running Wild?

                Great example of why subjectivism is entirely nonsense.

                Objectively, I can see a lot of good in Running Wild.

                Aesthetically, it is no longer where I need to be.

                1. Sexy Tranno says:

                  Brett, may I please provide you with fellatio?

        3. Given the context of this website I am sure you can understand the source of my fears.

          Fear corrupts thinking. Try factual and logical analysis.

          However that is probably even less realistic than forcing behavioural patterns on people.

          Most countries excel at this and, if we are honest, we realize it is inevitable given the chaotic nature of most people.

      2. A totalitarian regime is the last and worst case scenario that should be considered in cases of extreme emergency.

        Not to mention one of history’s lessons: totalitarian regimes are the result of empires dedicated to individualism.

        The thing is that societies NEVER have claimed to be bigger than the enjoyment of the individual, but their leaders have tried to force it on them, which is different.

        Or: they have claimed it, because it makes people happy who take a surface reading, but underneath there is an agenda.

        The only meaningful change that can lead to a large-scale and permanent change is willing change in a large portion of individuals so that it affects culture from within.

        Seems to be where New Right and Deep Ecology ended up.

        1. Daniel says:

          The Roman Empire was simply the acknowledgement that one man had acquired the necessary authority to solely rule their oligarchic republic. Imperium was acknowledged as Augustus’s moral right. The Marian reforms and patron-client morality made this almost inevitable.

          1. The Roman Empire was simply the acknowledgement that one man had acquired the necessary authority to solely rule their oligarchic republic.

            I agree that it was a practical rather than ideological decision.

    2. What I like about this post is that it serves as a great starter for an important conversation.

      I distrust any society that claims to be bigger than the enjoyment of the individual because they always end up with something resembling national socialism or communism.

      Both historically untrue, and misses the fact that the individualistic societies have been the most destructive.

      I’m rather too empirical for many tastes round here.

      STEMlord libertarian warning!

      Be happy with your god damn peace, wealth, diversity and freedom.

      Many illusions succeed for some time but at greater cost than the ills they purport to remove.

      Sounds a lot like the idealism you described above.

      Have you read Christopher Lasch’s Narcissism?

      1. Phil says:

        I don’t know what “STEM” but I see enough references to it know that the people opposed to it are smarmy as hell.

        Taking the empirical approach isn’t even a libertarian characteristic – it’s a conservative one. I don’t know how you could have messed that up, but then from reading your work, you’ve almost completely ignored the English intellectual tradition and prefer any Euro-philosopher who gives you a thought-prism that justifies any act that you can shine through it.

        Also David, I didn’t disagree entirely with your article in the end – art influences our thought by encapsulating and magnifying the profundity of existence. I’m just wary at difficult social attempts to fashion it purposefully that could end up diminishing it. Have you ever had school ruin a book that you would otherwise love? Do you have an automatic aversion for the music your parents listened to?

        1. I don’t know how you could have messed that up, but then from reading your work, you’ve almost completely ignored the English intellectual tradition and prefer any Euro-philosopher who gives you a thought-prism that justifies any act that you can shine through it.

          It sounds like you have a few things to work out before we have this conversation.

        2. ¨Have you ever had school ruin a book that you would otherwise love?
          Do you have an automatic aversion for the music your parents listened to?¨

          No, and no.
          I´ve always been rather good at separating feelings, distinguishing objects…
          I´ve never ¨hated¨ my parents or school despite being angry with one or looking down on the other.

      2. This one?

        http://thezeitgeistmovement.se/files/Lasch_Christopher_The_Culture_of_Narcissism.pdf

        You mentioned it to me and I wrote its name down months ago. Still on the list.
        This new mention moves it up the list because now I´ve found the file. :D

        Thanks

        1. That’s the one. Good find.

  3. Dickspill OfBeta says:

    The reaction of materialism and the religion of scientism against the notions of transcendental value are emotional to their very core but also based on observations of how values were defined arbitrarily in the past lead to social disasters.

    This is an important point. Transcendent values in their pure form can be caught in the mind’s eye but often only in fleeting glimpses, which unfortunately leads to oversimplification or misinterpretation when attempting to codify them into rules for everyday life. This however, does not, as it does in the Atheist’s mind, nullify their importance or universality.

  4. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

    Can the unkempt individualist masses be blamed for not seeing Transcendental Values if those promoting such things cannot be bothered to define what those values are and how we come to know them. Stating that such things exist, as universal constants no less, is done matter of factly. You should show your work; otherwise, the observant and discerning reader has no reason to believe that the Transcendental Values being discuss are simply the opinions of the author.

    1. Ah, but the point is that they be discussed.
      Actually, they are pointed out and discussed in other circles.
      It has been done since Plato´s day. And in fact, the average person believes in them too. They just don´t like having to discuss and compromise on a standard with others since most people just want to have their ¨freedom¨.

      No, transcendental values and their existence are not my opinion only. I refrain from pointing out precise ones for two reasons. The first being that it is no simple matter and the article is not about it, and the second that being that I do not WANT to speak about it a little without research which would be tantamount to giving my opinion.

      There is research in psychology based on biology that points to common values and tendencies in human nature. These are what we can link to transcendental value. You can keep denying them against all proof which is now beyond empirical.

      1. The first being that it is no simple matter and the article is not about it, and the second that being that I do not WANT to speak about it a little without research which would be tantamount to giving my opinion.

        Someone people are under the impression that, without full detail, they have zero way to assess an idea. This is just another internet delaying tactic.

        1. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

          No. The internet exists as entertainment and distraction. Because of this, it is generally no more than a tool for individuals to say whatever it is they think while expecting little in the way of real criticism. An aversion to clarifying one’s own vagaries smells a lot like defensive measures to protect soapbox philosophy that assumes its own premise.

          1. The internet exists as entertainment and distraction.

            Depends on who is using it.

            An aversion to clarifying one’s own vagaries smells a lot like defensive measures to protect soapbox philosophy that assumes its own premise.

            Feel free to clarify anything you need, but you’ve just contradicted yourself: if the internet is distraction, no one will bother arguing a strong point on it but will reserve that for traditional methods like magazines, books and papers.

            As it turns out, that is what has happened in most cases.

            1. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

              “reserve that for traditional methods like magazines, books and papers”

              This is true.

      2. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

        Again……without stating clearly what those values are, this is simply more empty rhetoric. If you’re sourcing Plato, source Plato. If you’re referencing your own work, directly reference it. Most people get Nietzsche wrong, how do I know that you correctly understand Plato’s thinking re: values if you don’t incorporate that knowledge into your own work?

        1. If you’re sourcing Plato, source Plato. If you’re referencing your own work, directly reference it. Most people get Nietzsche wrong, how do I know that you correctly understand Plato’s thinking re: values if you don’t incorporate that knowledge into your own work?

          Asking for details of commonly known ideas is another internet delaying tactic. There are many things which pass for OK behavior on the internet that are not accepted everywhere. If you have a contradictory argument, feel free to make it, but indignantly demanding “Source?” as a means of spreading doubt and delay is standard internet behavior that erodes forums. Please do not do that here.

          1. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

            I asked first for clarity. If someone wishes to discuss universal meaning and transcendental values, it’s to the benefit of the reader that the author puts those in clear terms. Is that unreasonable?

            1. The terms were clear enough, pointers were given. You can take them and learn, or complain because you are not willing to do the studying on your own.

          2. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

            More to the point. It’s impossible to pose a contrary argument if the subject matter is unclear, hence the demand for clarity.

      3. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

        I’m a nice guy, David, so I’ll help you out.

        Aquinas wrote of goodness as a transcendental value which he defined as “that, at which all things aim.” Put otherwise as: all things seek to actualize their potential. If we observe the natural world and this process of actualization; we view, among many other things, struggle manifesting as: war, disease and death. If art is a process by which human beings model their world through non literary means; then metal music, which chronicles these facts of life, is a reflection of the transcendental value of Good.

        See how easy that is David?

        1. See how easy that is David?

          Can you not do that? It takes conversation to a nasty, sneering and personal level. Thanks!

        2. Saying what you just did apparently is easy. My aim was to say something completely different, although, perhaps, related.

        3. witchlancerultraslayerdeathmagicwarrior says:

          Yes. I apologize for being harsh on your protégé.

          1. haha… it’s alright. just don’t be angry when you feel something is not clear. Calmly ask for clarification. I still do not understand what it is you did not understand. It does seem like you think the article was about defining transcendental values. It wasn’t. Directions were given. You may look them up if you like or continue being angry that the article did not explain absolutely everything you do not know or understand.

  5. OliveFox says:

    I didn’t realize how important Transgendered Dentists are to philosophy and music…much less dentistry!

Comments are closed.