Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:10 pm
Harbal writes: Why does a desire to understand necessarily have to come with a need to change things? Does thinking we understand something give us the right to involve ourselves in activities that affect how others are able to live their lives? "Idea-revolutions" should be treated with caution.
I think the core reason, speaking for myself, is because
personal processes led me to a detailed examination of
my own trajectory. I have described myself as a product of California Radicalism.
Well I describe myself as the product of Yorkshire, working class indifference, so that might go towards explaining our differences in outlook. I neither deny nor begrudge your entitlement to hold whatever opinions you like, but why on earth do you think I should find any value in them?
The influences largely but not exclusively were, as I have said, Richard Weaver, René Guénon, Robert Bork and to some degree Julius Evola. I also must mention Christopher Dawson (a Catholic historian of Europe).
After absorbing all that -and more- one has to wonder how much of the actual you remains, and whose book one is arguing with at any given point.
Change things? No, reorient myself.
You reorient yourself to your heart's content, but I won't be using you as a reference by which to recalibrate my own orientation. I doubt that California Radicalism would travel well to my part of the world.
Recover and rediscover a foundation that made sense. Radicalism is a breaking away from *sound structures*. If it does not involve the establishment of foundations it merely veers into chaos. This is why I speak of *anchors* and *moorings*.
I live less than 10 miles from where I grew up, so I think I am pretty well anchored.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:10 pmSo what are you doing to change the world? If you had a significant function outside of demonstrating your verbosity on the internet, I doubt you would have the spare hours that you spend here.
I am pulsing down into the world certain notes and chords, operating at such high and transformative frequencies, that all of humanity will (eventually) respond. For example one day soon you Harbal -- you! -- will wake up and start to spontaneously SING in harmony with these high high notes! Mark my words!
Despite the air of flippancy, I suspect you believe that.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 2:10 pmHarbal wrote:You keep saying that. Why do you think it matters whether it's personal or not?
It matters in conversations of this sort. One has to separate oneself from emotional commitments to that which *informs* us in order to be able to see it (more) clearly.
It doesn't make any difference to me. If you reference me, and I decide to respond, I do it in accordance with what you say, not whether you meant it personally, or as an example of something.
We are here to think about, and arrive at conclusions, about what each of us thinks. Really, that is what *philosophy* is supposed to be unless I am very very wrong. It ultimately determines *how we choose to live*, doesn't it?
I am mainly here for entertainment, and you seem to be here to bolster your ego. Let's not get carried away about the significance of any of this.