Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:32 am
My impression is that you are concerned about and more interested in economic and structural issues pertaining to the transfer of wealth to elite groups (if I understood you previously).
That's certainly one issue related to power. I would say first power issues, which include economic issues, but also direct issues of centralization of power in governments and in the every increasingly powerful and centralize media, banks and corporations. Alongside this and related to it are the uses of technologies in surveillance, nanotech, AI and gene manipulation and products. All of this concerns me more than social issues, even if I have opinions and preferences in those areas.
I think that you will likely go on to ask clarifying question after clarifying question about “how will genuine change occur?” of the sort that seems truly relevant to you. But no answer I will give will satisfy you.
Well, regarding those issues, it would be off topic in this thread. But relevant to this thread, for example, I'm still not sure what the ideas of the people you've been citing lead to in what we experience. Concrete lived lives.
My suggestion? Take 10 minutes to read that informative article. It will explain how Weaver’s ideas influenced (American) conservatism. I reread it in about that time.
If I were to make statements about how his ideas changed me — how I live, the choices I make, where I retract energy and where I direct it, my answers would satisfy me but likely hold no meaning for you.
Perhaps you could tie the ideas to the topic of this thread. How do they relate? what practical changes would they lead to?
In a sense, why did you bring him up?
How about this: refrain from asking questions and muse on the ideas presented so far. Is there nothing that strikes you? What about Weaver’s critical position vis-a-vis The Great Stereopticon?
Sure, at that level of abstraction I see this happening more and more around a whole host of issues. They are getting better at it. You mentioned Chomsky earlier and in his now old Manufacturing Consent he talked about how we can be convinced merely via marginalizing ideas those in power don't like, rather the the censorship of, say, Soviet practices (in those days). Since that time there has been incredible concentration of media in a few large conglomerates, so his concern is only even more relevant. And the ability to manipulate, the science of manipulation has also advanced. In the abstract I notice these trends also.
What about the idea of regrounding in metaphysically defined principles?
We'd have to agree on them. People seem pretty grounded (in a neutral use of that word) in their principles, though few notice or struggle around the contradictions in their principles on any side of the current culture wars, I think.
My general view, regarding the larger picture (mass economic and global events) is that we are all carried along and not in “good” ways. In that condition we all •seek anchors•. Do you agree? In what way do you seek anchors? Does the reference mean anything to you?
I'm not sure what the phrase means.
I'm on the lazy side when I do reading directly for specific topics here or get links from others.
You will be able to understand that writing in depth will take an hour, even more, and may not help you to understand my own value-choices which, likely, do not make sense to you anyway.
So please read up on your own and I think your questions will be answered.
I'd prefer to interact with people here rather than texts. I have a lot of texts I have to read at work, and then my own interests lead to texts. When people here, for example, are affected or find justification in texts for their beliefs, I'd much prefer they pull out what they use and their interpretation. If you don't want to, well, that's the way it is.
As to the larger question of Traditionalism and Metaphysics (Guénon, Evola) I’m still here and will likely have more things to say.
I take it you never read The Crisis of the Modern World? It is an interesting essay. But you would label it •abstract• and thus non-useful to you (?)
I can get use from abstract texts, though generally I think it's best that there is a flow between the abstract and the concrete and the general and the specific. It's so easy to project our own biases on abstract texts and then also to not really get a sense of what it means.