Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Solutions for the new article Oncology

Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 01, 2010, 05:01:08 AM
Quote
The task before you is to make a society based around a singular principle, which leads to a goal, values system and culture in common. Our society as it stands now is composed of the exact opposite principle: no goal, but we facilitate any idea except that which opposes our society's design. These two are opposite extremes and as time goes on, we see how our current civilization's design brings out viciously enduring problems, like a cancer.

Oncology

The singular principle is a term long forgotten by popular environmentalism and that is conservation. Conservation is both sustainability and survival over time in the relatively finite spaces we are stuck with: an ecosystem, a nation, our resources, or our planet. Sustainability is stability at all levels including minimizing social upheaval, the total recycling of non-renewables like metals, or curbing status mobility to keep collectives predictable for internal power balance. Survival means that because our space is finite, any acceleration of surplus living growth within our space will need to be accompanied by a greater trimming of this growth by various means such as attrition through wars or by temporarily raising standards for who is permitted to raise offspring in a given generation.

We presently have the luxury of being able to set aside this conservation idea and for public anger management, we rationalize our keeping this historically brief luxury, modernity, with our fantasy concepts freedom and progress. Resources are yet reasonably plentiful for the West, even if distribution remains, quite naturally, inequitable globally. If we don't wish to consume our plentiful local reserves, we are yet wealthy enough to send invading forces, or the threat thereof abroad in order to install a more favorable trading partner regime therein and use their resources instead of our own. But, how many more creative economic bubbles can we summon in order to bankroll these high stakes international games? When will internal exhaustion finally steal away Western-Atlanticist political and economic will to uncontested world power? Our militaries, finances, political and even moral credibility, are by many accounts showing signs of strain right now.

Modern progress itself has been less of a complete gain, which is the illusion, and more of a trade, which is the reality concealed by this illusion. What if the lights go out and the fuel stops getting delivered for months or years? Will almost everyone survive or will there be some dieoff and chaos? We've lost rustic survival and organizational skills but gained little indeed with our resource dependencies to power our many technological comforts. Has there been social progress as advertised? The minority races and fairer sex are still complaining as ever, even as a bit more of a share is periodically given over to them for free from the majority and male. Ah, but now another cross section of society rises up with a grievance. With the recent emergence of a Globalist Superclass, class income disparity is right at or still near its all time historic high. The poor are penniless as ever but our wealthy today make the kings of old appear as paupers.

While progress is what's advertised, the actual product is the permanent revolution activity carried over from the Lenin and Trotsky era, where a million hydra heads and a new one each day of unequal injustices that, as we are told, need to be corrected, keep our civilization in its state of ceaseless, if pointless internal conflict. In retrospect, after these several generations of having this permanent revolution, this facet of progress, spending away our internal fortitude, who has benefitted after all? It is all trading for nothing but no lasting gain as promised and that is because inequality is permanent, if perfectly natural, and thus it is something we must re-adapt to in order for us to gain as a civilization once again.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 01, 2010, 05:28:28 AM
Q- What is the differenece between a principle and a goal?

Principle: God exists and is both the source of reality and its manifestation.
Goal: attain the highest level of realty.
Sub Goal: create values that facilitate the attainment of the above goal

There exists a natural reciprocity between the two..

Have i understood the distinction?

Do principle's imply holism? perhaps a general or universal outlook such as the above?

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 01, 2010, 05:52:54 AM
Principle: God exists and is both the source of reality and its manifestation.

We'll have a winner if this could be restated in monist terms. Reality is God. Reality is a composite Great God. Its components, or facets, are the deities Life (Gaia), Time (Chronos), Death (Thanatos), Conflict (The Red God), The Fates.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 01, 2010, 11:23:27 AM
It is good to see this article appear on a site that has long denied the wisdom of traditional cosmology.
The question, "What is God?", is one that cannot really be answered in this framework. But we do not need to know that yet: it is enough to learn what He is not, and therefore to know what is not a solution. Conservation in the sense of "conserving a certain order of this or that time", is not a solution; conservation in the sense of "returning to the primordial order that is not in time" could be a solution, if it were not inevitable, according to traditional cosmology, that the world must degenerate before it will return to the primordial order. That, in essence, is the problem we face. Mankind is sick, including ourselves, the oncologists. As long as our minds are clouded by sickness, we cannot help anyone. Therefore, the imperative of tradition has always been to "heal" one's own soul first, which is impossible without some traditional affiliation:

If ye love me,
keep my commandments,
and I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another comforter,
that he may abide with you forever,
e'en the spirit of truth.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 01, 2010, 05:21:26 PM
It is good to see this article appear on a site that has long denied the wisdom of traditional cosmology.

What?

And why would you start your statement with such a triumphal negative?

- Abyss looking into you, nilla

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 02, 2010, 03:27:07 AM
I take it by principle, we mean a first cause, or a Neoplatonic The One which is obscured from us by a lesser order of Forms. By forsaking this path and taking the Judeo-Christian instead (a path that did not replace our paganism but rather has contaminated our ways), we ended up with our modernism. In my view, that was the pivotal turning point in Western history. Continuing along the Neoplatonic branch into whatever that would later evolve toward, I believe, would have produced better results for civilization.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 02, 2010, 04:13:35 AM
I take it by principle, we mean a first cause, or a Neoplatonic The One which is obscured from us by a lesser order of Forms. By forsaking this path and taking the Judeo-Christian instead (a path that did not replace our paganism but rather has contaminated our ways), we ended up with our modernism. In my view, that was the pivotal turning point in Western history. Continuing along the Neoplatonic branch into whatever that would later evolve toward, I believe, would have produced better results for civilization.

Christ saves man from the cyclical redundancy of paganism, which otherwise would be a parrot repeating himself with no chance of salvation. Without Christianity, Neoplatonism is a labyrinth. This was an argument, aside and above the usually taken economist argument of slave revolts as source of Christianity. Another history happened in the intellectual ambit of the age, and did really matter.

You have a bunch or romans having gods as fashion, and a bunch of Platonists meditating. But only the Christians had the balls to die for their faith. Suicidal idiocy? Then explain the vigor this spirit gave to Rome and the rise of a stronger West, who knows what would happened with pure Neoplatonism, the fact is that Christianity invigorated the West.

Modernity? Why did modernity started after the Middle Ages? I think is wrong to blame Christianity for modernism, because modernism was actually a rejection of Christian Revelation through a focus on human science and human morals.

Human morals coming from Christianity in a secular way? You can secularize every faith, so we have modern hinduism, modern islam, and modern paganism. Why not have secular neoplatonism, since we developed enough Science to deny the Intelligible world?

Modernity is a rejection of Christianity, I think it is wrong to confuse them just for a matter of succession in time. In such case, it would be as saying that paganism and neoplatonism, and their failure in West, are responsible of Christianity.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 02, 2010, 04:25:50 AM
You have a bunch or romans having gods as fashion, and a bunch of Platonists meditating. But only the Christians had the balls to die for their faith. Suicidal idiocy? Then explain the vigor this idea gave to Rome and the rise of a stronger West, who knows what would happened with pure Neoplatonism, the fact is that Christianity invigorated the West.

That all happened around the civilized Mediterranean areas.

Omitted factors: What about further north into the continental interior among the rustic heathens? Consider also later on, the possible alternate histories of the natives of the Pacific, Africa and the Americas. If anything, the world would have had a much different history in many ways.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 02, 2010, 08:56:48 AM
That all happened around the civilized Mediterranean areas.

Omitted factors: What about further north into the continental interior among the rustic heathens? Consider also later on, the possible alternate histories of the natives of the Pacific, Africa and the Americas. If anything, the world would have had a much different history in many ways.

Further north, f. ex. Iceland, was given more time (1000 years), but eventually their religion could be replaced when it degenerated. If you study the sources, you will see how easily most Icelanders accepted the Christian faith: they knew that in essence, it was not so different from their old religion. Every religion that works is infinitely better than one that doesn't. Christianity conquered many ancient hearts, like Islam did as well, against all odds.

Not Judaism, nor Hinduism, nor Taoism, nor Islam, nor Buddhism etc. could prevent modernism from spreading; making Christianity responsible for modernism is irrational. Further, Platonism and Christianity are compatible: "esoteric" Christianity (Meister Eckhart) approaches Platonism. The complete rejection of Platonism by Christians is, again, a modern phenomenon.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 02, 2010, 05:58:01 PM
Consider also later on, the possible alternate histories of the natives of the Pacific, Africa and the Americas. If anything, the world would have had a much different history in many ways.

I can't talk about the Pacific, but it is very plausible that the Aztecs were in their degeneracy before the conquest, surrounded by resentful tribes product of a carelessness tyranny, to say the less. Mayas dissipated perhaps for similar reasons.  The Olmecs, Teotihuacans, Toltecs the predecessors of Quetzalcoatl cult, and the Incas reached a classical peak and then sinked. The rest of the cultures were unable to build great architecture or anything of such value.

In Africa, it was the Islam the one which vanquished  the idol-worshiping, untheological and superstitious manaistic religions. I'm not the most qualified in this forum to talk about Islam, but I think that this is an accurate point over the possible history of Africa without "God". As far I know, monotheists in Africa live in better conditions too.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 03, 2010, 12:45:57 AM
A couple months back, there was a blog published at the Archdruid Report, as is often the case, about the economy and modern way of life. This blog dealt with the concept of abstractions. I don't know if it is The Problem, but certainly a problem with modernism is our use of abstractions. I believe understanding our use of abstractions is another helpful path, along with enumerating modernism's components.

Take the story of the Ten Commandments. Tribal leader Moses travels alone up the mountain to go meet with the Almighty as instructed. With the leader absent, the tribe breaks down into anarchy and debauchery, a sort of default state sliding into entropy and self-destruction; not-being to the Neoplatonic; evil to the Christian; living hell to the Hindu, etc. Moses returns later with the two tablets and some drama follows. The point here is the tablets themselves. They are an abstract layer of more accessible, better simplified instructions for how not to self-destruct as a group, which we may as well take to mean comprehending reality. Again, with tribal leader Moses away, the tribe had gone astray into their own fantasies, losing touch with reality.

Another way to look at this is binary electrical signals in personal computing as a true reality, with the colorful buttons and legible text on our visible light emitting monitors as our accessible, convenient abstract layer for interfacing with personal computing's true reality, which are those minute binary signals transceiving information.

Our bodies are far too big and slow to pull electrons one at a time manually and arrange in required order. It is a natural, physical limitation we are stuck with but have nonetheless managed to overcome with our clever use of interface layers. Similarly, by default, we very rarely if ever produce people of such leadership quality that they are consistently cognizant of reality-as-it-exists. Even if we did, how could one such rare person, other than an acknowledged, unquestioned god-king command such obedience that everyone is kept in line and away from drifting off into that default animal not-being state of ours? Hence, our moral layer applications, if only for efficiency. But this morality interface is itself corrupted in our time, isn't it?

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 03, 2010, 07:18:20 AM
They are an abstract layer of more accessible, better simplified instructions for how not to self-destruct as a group, which we may as well take to mean comprehending reality. Again, with tribal leader Moses away, the tribe had gone astray into their own fantasies, losing touch with reality.

This social point of view is problematic. Yes, social order follows from the commandments, but the commandments do not follow from a human wish for order in groups. The commandments did not "evolve", they were handed down by God. I know of no sound alternative to this.

Quote
But this morality interface is itself corrupted in our time, isn't it?

May I ask what about the commandments has been corrupted? Even if you take into account each religion's accentuation, the commandments are very similar in every religion. Their metaphysical transposition is certainly a possibility, but at least one can say that spiritual health is impossible without adherence to at least some of them.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 03, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Yes, social order follows from the commandments, but the commandments do not follow from a human wish for order in groups. The commandments did not "evolve", they were handed down by God. I know of no sound alternative to this.

...

Even if you take into account each religion's accentuation, the commandments are very similar in every religion.

I would argue that they did evolve. You also state that traditional religions share many of the same basic principles, that's because the societies that had these principles survived and those that did not have them passed away. Just like the animal species have certain characteristics because those characteristics help them survive.

Although as I write this I realize you could be speaking on very metaphorical terms - that the behaves necessary to function are inherent in the universe "passed down from God" and that humans didn't adopt them because they wished for order, but because the ones that adopted them persist while those who think like Anton LeVay don't.

(LeVay, paraphrased): "It occurred to me that there had never been a religion based around an individual's desires"

That's because civilizations that embrace such thinking tend to collapse.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 03, 2010, 10:13:50 PM
This social point of view is problematic. Yes, social order follows from the commandments, but the commandments do not follow from a human wish for order in groups. The commandments did not "evolve", they were handed down by God. I know of no sound alternative to this.

But, now we have additional layers atop those. There are constitutions, at least in our part of the world, and atop these are laws. Each of these layers had better interface perfectly with the one above it all the way to God, else error is introduced. Adding layers has not kept the prisons from overflowing from all the instances of criminality and stupidity taking place in our time.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 12:28:55 AM
Removing these interface layers is a return to Nature. By happy chance I surfed across something related to what i'm driving at. Others out there believe this to be the case as well:

Quote
EPATER LES BOURGEOIS
Moreover, this idea [no god, no purpose] is a poisonous one. It robs us of the will to take action. It leads us on a path to despair and apathy. It’s destructive and cheapens our life. It’s a dud. ("Andrew" @ OD)

I have a sense that this is a bourgeois difficulty.

Lower-class males have no problem forming gangs, arming themselves, and pursuing various aggressive activities that replicate the pre-historic behavior of mankind in small kinship groups.

Whatever superstitions arose/arise in these prehistoric minds were/are epiphenomenal, in that the motivation to exploit one’s environment was/is not dependent upon philosophical notions.

As it was then, so it is today - kill something to eat and fuck something so you can go to sleep. No need to worry about “the will to take action”.

Nietzsche had something constructive to say on the point:

[BGE] 257. EVERY elevation of the type “man,” has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be–a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance–that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type “man,” the continued “self-surmounting of man,” to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type “man”): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power–they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as “more complete beasts”).

[And Kasimir Petrenko seconds the notion:]

“I have a sense that this is a bourgeois problem.” - NN

It is. The ‘man of conscience’ has replaced the ‘man of instinct’ and our vitality is now far below what it once was. With that we find ourselves in the present predicament. Forced to search for some ‘moral justification’ for our own survival, where our distant ancestors knew what to do without asking any question.

http://master-morality.blogspot.com/2010/01/nous-epater-les-bourgeois.html