Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes! Music is never simply a description but the pure effect of what it describes whose influx can only be equal to the capacity of the hearer to blend with it; in certain works music is beyond any philosphy words can convey.

Let me translate that into duck ....

[Atla]

To say that supernatural realness isn't real, seems absurd? On the contrary. It appears to me that you think like someone who hasn't come into contact with religion and spirituality for the first few decades of his life, and now that you did, it's mesmerizing you.

Spirituality is good, but it can't be overdone anymore on a civilizational scale. A real metaphysical authority is off the table imo, except for lower intelligence.

Your comment here is relevant and I would not dismiss your assertions without careful analysis. First though, if you examine the internal structure of what you are asserting -- you present it as what Occidental man has come to as if to say it is an advance -- I think that you will agree that it is a rather common view. It is the view of those who have risen above such low-level beliefs, immersed as they are in superstition and obscurantism.

You state it plainly here:

"Higher" intelligence will usually arrive at the conclusion that it wasn't supernatural realness itself that effected our entire world. Instead it was our beliefs in supernatural realness, quite possibly even fueled by some kind of innate psychological features we have that create sensations of the spiritual, of the supernatural, of the transcendent. Often forming sensations of God and other higher powers to be followed, but upon closer inspection, that could just be what happens when a reflection of the human self, of the human "I", gets intertwined with our innate spiritual sensations.

What I would say as a kind of response to this formulation is that I think it has elements of truth. It is undeniable that superstitious modes of perception can and do not only *mesmerize* people but trap them into conspiratorial modes of seeing the world. A way to examine this is to examine conspiracy theories today. For example as Michael Barkun documents in A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. I could not deny that religious views, I suppose especially when entertained and handled by populations without the sort of education to enable a clear-headed analysis of these negative aspects of blind belief, can well be described as you do describe them.

In my view -- and I did say this -- there are higher and lower orders of belief and understanding in relation to, and in response to, what I refer to continually as *metaphysical reality*. One problem though is that I am not accomplished enough in my explanations. Dubious recently asserts that any description is simply and only an organization of words to present that description as if it is tangible realness. This implies a sort of internal loop or better said what results when a man stares into an internal mirror and takes the reflection (*invented* they say) as a reality. I do not deny this necessarily. Because I see man's imagination as a very important faculty.

The *imagination* is the sort of internal stage where through -- idea, view -- is played out to use theatrical terms. It can be played out crudely and in hard symbolisms, and these we are all familiar with and more or less detest, but some imaginal productions (if you will permit this turn of phrase) are of a far higher order. I.e. they are purified of dross. It should be clear that I am presenting a way of examining "metaphysical realness" as if describing Plato's Cave. There certainly is a lower order, and it certainly does *enchain* and *entrap* -- but following the terms of the metaphor it is also possible to ascend from one state of perception and understanding to another level.

In other places I have referred to Plato's Seventh Epistle which I admit has influenced the way I understand the internal realness I describe. In that letter Plato describes certain internal processes, impossible according to him to describe in discursive language:

I know indeed that others have written on the same subjects; but who they are, is more than they know themselves. Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries -- that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter. There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself.

So what I came to understand -- indeed reflecting on all sorts of different experiences of my own -- is that it all hinges on that light or spark which is kindled in the soul. I fully admit the subjectivity of such experience. But the core idea I work with does not negate or explain away what is suggested and implied by Plato's reference, which he cannot provide an adequate verbal description of, "For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge".

Now it is true that I began this thread by reference to Christianity and, by implication, something in it of quintessential importance. That is my view. What confuses people is that my own view is more philosophical and grounded in an intellectually realized perception (idea) than it is in a classic "Christian faith" which can and does overtake some people with what is termed (negatively, critically) as enthusiasm. When I study, and I do study, the very innards of Catholic-Christian theology -- a complex interplay of symbols, yes, but also of metaphysical principles, I begin to see what is presented through it and why it has been transformative and elevating.

When you and others use the term *invented* to denounce what I refer to as *metaphysical realness* I personally believe you are making a great mistake. You get stuck seeing the trees when you would do better to see the forest. So let me refer to Plato's description: "suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself" as referring to some type of essence the realization of which, for want of a better word, and one that might confuse, enlightens.

A real metaphysical authority is off the table

I believe that I see your point, and in a sense I agree, but then I also adamantly disagree. In my view it is our task to discover and attempt to explain, through it will always be problematic and misleading, just what we mean by metaphysical authority. I am pretty sure that we know it intuitively and perhaps I can say that man will always know it. But the question is how it can be made real when, as indeed is the case, we live among the *ruins* that Evola refers to. I see ruins as being a densely loaded term that has to be unpacked. To be in a ruinous state, or a ruined state, is to be in a degenerated state -- and it is that state that requires renovation.

The West has moved away even more from this old Platonic nonsense of higher and lower orders of belief and understanding. There is no such real duality of order, there are no real Platonic forms, there are no real Platonic abstract realms.

I meant that more intelligent people tend to arrive at the conclusion that supernatural realness is just an illusion, regardless of such orders. In the 21st century we won't get far by combining 2400 years old Platonic made-up stuff with 2000 years old Christian made-up stuff, some more realistic approach would be preferable.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You know where you stand.

[seeds]

To say that supernatural realness isn't real, seems absurd? On the contrary. It appears to me that you think like someone who hasn't come into contact with religion and spirituality for the first few decades of his life, and now that you did, it's mesmerizing you.

Spirituality is good, but it can't be overdone anymore on a civilizational scale. A real metaphysical authority is off the table imo, except for lower intelligence.

Your comment here is relevant and I would not dismiss your assertions without careful analysis. First though, if you examine the internal structure of what you are asserting -- you present it as what Occidental man has come to as if to say it is an advance -- I think that you will agree that it is a rather common view. It is the view of those who have risen above such low-level beliefs, immersed as they are in superstition and obscurantism.

You state it plainly here:

"Higher" intelligence will usually arrive at the conclusion that it wasn't supernatural realness itself that effected our entire world. Instead it was our beliefs in supernatural realness, quite possibly even fueled by some kind of innate psychological features we have that create sensations of the spiritual, of the supernatural, of the transcendent. Often forming sensations of God and other higher powers to be followed, but upon closer inspection, that could just be what happens when a reflection of the human self, of the human "I", gets intertwined with our innate spiritual sensations.

What I would say as a kind of response to this formulation is that I think it has elements of truth. It is undeniable that superstitious modes of perception can and do not only *mesmerize* people but trap them into conspiratorial modes of seeing the world. A way to examine this is to examine conspiracy theories today. For example as Michael Barkun documents in A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. I could not deny that religious views, I suppose especially when entertained and handled by populations without the sort of education to enable a clear-headed analysis of these negative aspects of blind belief, can well be described as you do describe them.

In my view -- and I did say this -- there are higher and lower orders of belief and understanding in relation to, and in response to, what I refer to continually as *metaphysical reality*. One problem though is that I am not accomplished enough in my explanations. Dubious recently asserts that any description is simply and only an organization of words to present that description as if it is tangible realness. This implies a sort of internal loop or better said what results when a man stares into an internal mirror and takes the reflection (*invented* they say) as a reality. I do not deny this necessarily. Because I see man's imagination as a very important faculty.

The *imagination* is the sort of internal stage where through -- idea, view -- is played out to use theatrical terms. It can be played out crudely and in hard symbolisms, and these we are all familiar with and more or less detest, but some imaginal productions (if you will permit this turn of phrase) are of a far higher order. I.e. they are purified of dross. It should be clear that I am presenting a way of examining "metaphysical realness" as if describing Plato's Cave. There certainly is a lower order, and it certainly does *enchain* and *entrap* -- but following the terms of the metaphor it is also possible to ascend from one state of perception and understanding to another level.

In other places I have referred to Plato's Seventh Epistle which I admit has influenced the way I understand the internal realness I describe. In that letter Plato describes certain internal processes, impossible according to him to describe in discursive language:

I know indeed that others have written on the same subjects; but who they are, is more than they know themselves. Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries -- that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter. There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself.

So what I came to understand -- indeed reflecting on all sorts of different experiences of my own -- is that it all hinges on that light or spark which is kindled in the soul. I fully admit the subjectivity of such experience. But the core idea I work with does not negate or explain away what is suggested and implied by Plato's reference, which he cannot provide an adequate verbal description of, "For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge".

Now it is true that I began this thread by reference to Christianity and, by implication, something in it of quintessential importance. That is my view. What confuses people is that my own view is more philosophical and grounded in an intellectually realized perception (idea) than it is in a classic "Christian faith" which can and does overtake some people with what is termed (negatively, critically) as enthusiasm. When I study, and I do study, the very innards of Catholic-Christian theology -- a complex interplay of symbols, yes, but also of metaphysical principles, I begin to see what is presented through it and why it has been transformative and elevating.

When you and others use the term *invented* to denounce what I refer to as *metaphysical realness* I personally believe you are making a great mistake. You get stuck seeing the trees when you would do better to see the forest. So let me refer to Plato's description: "suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself" as referring to some type of essence the realization of which, for want of a better word, and one that might confuse, enlightens.

A real metaphysical authority is off the table

I believe that I see your point, and in a sense I agree, but then I also adamantly disagree. In my view it is our task to discover and attempt to explain, through it will always be problematic and misleading, just what we mean by metaphysical authority. I am pretty sure that we know it intuitively and perhaps I can say that man will always know it. But the question is how it can be made real when, as indeed is the case, we live among the *ruins* that Evola refers to. I see ruins as being a densely loaded term that has to be unpacked. To be in a ruinous state, or a ruined state, is to be in a degenerated state -- and it is that state that requires renovation.

The West has moved away even more from this old Platonic nonsense of higher and lower orders of belief and understanding. There is no such real duality of order, there are no real Platonic forms, there are no real Platonic abstract realms.

I meant that more intelligent people tend to arrive at the conclusion that supernatural realness is just an illusion, regardless of such orders. In the 21st century we won't get far by combining 2400 years old Platonic made-up stuff with 2000 years old Christian made-up stuff, some more realistic approach would be preferable.

Amazingly, this is exactly what AJ's ducks were discussing...

https://youtu.be/mQJ6q1ZCzsg

Indeed, after debating the philosophy of music and a plan of action to deal with a bullying gaggle of nasty geese that were horning-in on their territory,...

...they too (at least the more intelligent ones) agreed that "supernatural realness" is just an illusion. They then altogether, in an act of group solidarity, pooped in their drinking water.
_______

[Dubious]

Yes! Music is never simply a description but the pure effect of what it describes whose influx can only be equal to the capacity of the hearer to blend with it; in certain works music is beyond any philosphy words can convey.

Let me translate that into duck ....

Well, that was Beethoven's view as well when he said, music is a higher revelation than philosophy. Actually there are books that discuss the relationship of music to philosophy and philosophers who have discussed music in relation to it. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are prime examples. There is a book called The Tristan Chord by Bryan Magee in which there is a chapter called Metaphysics as Music but that is only a small part of music's true relation to metaphysics.

...but what would a low-life butt-plugger like you know of either music or its power to invoke philosophy or its relationship to metaphysics.

...in both cases NADA.

I have a perverse streak in me in that I like seeing an idiot getting better at it each day with each book he reads.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Beethoven can hardly be considered a musician. Some of his *music* sounds to me like a garbage truck rumbling over a pot-holed back alley -- and then those caterwauling felines! And all of it ALL OF IT is just noise. I am surprised people don't see through it. All those sentiments, feelings indeed the INSPIRATION that they imagine coming to them -- can't they see that they are inventing it?

music is a higher revelation than philosophy

A revelation of what?!? What is there *to be revealed*? Like exactly nothing. There is no meaning there. People are so inclined to delude themselves. The solipsistic fumes of self-reflection envelop them in a mire of sheer fantasy.

I have a perverse streak in me

[Atla]

...they too (at least the more intelligent ones) agreed that "supernatural realness" is just an illusion. They then altogether, in an act of group solidarity, pooped in their drinking water.
_______

Pooping in the drinking water is no way to be either, the non-religious will have to find better ways to be. Actually I wouldn't mind religion
either, if globally there was only one major religion, and the religious and the non-religious could co-exist in peace without bothering each other too much, and they would share roughly the same moral code. But there won't be only one major religion, so much for that.

[Dubious]

Beethoven can hardly be considered a musician. Some of his *music* sounds to me like a garbage truck rumbling over a pot-holed back alley -- and then those caterwauling felines! And all of it ALL OF IT is just noise. I am surprised people don't see through it. All those sentiments, feelings indeed the INSPIRATION that they imagine coming to them -- can't they see that they are inventing it?

Honest question: You're not completely sane, are you? I think the final gap in that circle of supreme idiocy has just received its final completion...unless you're just playing another stupid game of some kind.

[Atla]

Beethoven can hardly be considered a musician. Some of his *music* sounds to me like a garbage truck rumbling over a pot-holed back alley -- and then those caterwauling felines! And all of it ALL OF IT is just noise. I am surprised people don't see through it. All those sentiments, feelings indeed the INSPIRATION that they imagine coming to them -- can't they see that they are inventing it?

Honest question: You're not completely sane, are you? I think the final gap in that circle of supreme idiocy has just received its final completion...unless you're just playing another stupid game of some kind.

Maybe he became convinced that he connected with a higher plane of existence, just as Plato promised. And if you're falling from such a high place, the landing hurts more.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dubious: you are perfect for all of this.

[Dubious]

Beethoven can hardly be considered a musician. Some of his *music* sounds to me like a garbage truck rumbling over a pot-holed back alley -- and then those caterwauling felines! And all of it ALL OF IT is just noise. I am surprised people don't see through it. All those sentiments, feelings indeed the INSPIRATION that they imagine coming to them -- can't they see that they are inventing it?

Honest question: You're not completely sane, are you? I think the final gap in that circle of supreme idiocy has just received its final completion...unless you're just playing another stupid game of some kind.

Maybe he became convinced that he connected with a higher plane of existence, just as Plato promised. And if you're falling from such a high place, the landing hurts more.

It would be painless if he fell on his head.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Plato, Aristotle — mere children when I reflect on my own attainments.

[Atla]

Plato, Aristotle — mere children when I reflect on my own attainments.

[Harbal]

Plato, Aristotle — mere children when I reflect on my own attainments.

Except nobody is likely to remember you for more than five minutes after they log out of the forum.

[Alexis Jacobi]