Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Dubious]

What Ortega understood is that the nineteenth century created the kind of human being who would become the dominant social force in the twentieth century—and thus that there is no way back to the aristocratic style of politics that dominated history for millennia. Mass man, fortified by an array of rights, is in charge of historical destiny.

Why shouldn't he be? It's from the masses that the exceptions, good and bad, are born. It's from the masses that genius is born. It's total bullshit to think that the masses are a new phenomenon. They have always been around. Think of the vast hordes in the Roman Colosseum watching and assenting to the human and animal massacres taking place. Except for the killing and bloodshed, what's the difference between then and now?

[Harbal]

The “mass man” that Ortega y Gasset writes about is a phenomenon of our present, and we are all a part of it or subsumed in it.

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care, and that desire makes me realise how important not caring is to me. It seems I do have a purpose, after all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why shouldn't he be? It's from the masses that the exceptions, good and bad, are born. It's from the masses that genius is born. It's total bullshit to think that the masses are a new phenomenon. They have always been around. Think of the vast hordes in the Roman Colosseum watching and assenting to the human and animal massacres taking place. Except for the killing and bloodshed, what's the difference between then and now?

Were you to read his essay, you would grasp how insightful and nuanced is his view of this present era.

Yes, I critique that vulgar attitude or mood especially when I criticize those who disrespect worthy and valuable hierarchy — but that is not exactly O y G’s real focus. He does not describe the process of emergence of this mass man as an entire negative and he certainly notes the •positive• aspects. But he really is an aristocrat and a developed •sophisticated• intellect. In that he is a rare, valuable man.

Effectively I am demonstrating by reference to him my personal commitment to the valuation and honoring of those who deserve it.

They [the mass] may have •been around• but in no sense with the power and reach “they” have now. To disregard that fact would be a mistake.

But everyone is entitled to arrive at their own views and conclusions. I do find it a wee bit absurd you are arguing against a developed, considerable position that you are not familiar with (his of course). My own take of his work is, as I say, reductive and a bit tendentious, and I bend parts of his discourse so to beat on poor poor Harbal.

[Dubious]

They [the mass] may have •been around• but in no sense with the power and reach “they” have now. To disregard that fact would be a mistake.

That's true, good in one way; not so good in another. But much worse were the prior periods when power was concentrated in the few of whom so many were incompetent, stupid and cruel who did not achieve power but were born into it or attained through assassination. To disregard that would also be a mistake. There was very little that could be considered noble in all those periods, in spite of so many nobles being around and calling the shots. Consider, as well, all the revolutions and uprisings of the masses against the elite. That didn't happen because life was so good it got boring.

[seeds]

I realize that what I propose here does not seem adequate enough for many.

Belief systems are the containers of intuitions which are often inculcated before they are properly examined. It seems to me - and admit I may be wrong - you are attempting to modernize Christianity into a contemporary Western system of values by stripping it of its historic religious connotations hoping to reveal its metaphysical underpinnings, i.e., its denotations into a new advanced system of values more in alignment with modern sensibilities. It demonstrates not merely a conversion but a metamorphosis of a long-held historical belief transcribed into a current and future metaphysic; mysteries which endorse our consent in drawing us on, not unlike Goethe's Eternal Feminine.

Yes, that does seem to be what he's attempting to do.

However, stripping Christianity of its alluring "hook",...

(the promise of eternal life in Heaven)

...and of its fearsome "cudgel",...

(the threat of eternal torture in Hell if one doesn't accept Christ as savior)

...would render Christianity impotent.

It would more or less reduce it to some kind of Buddhist-like "noble path" to follow if one wants to avoid the pitfalls of life on earth.

Now, on the other hand, if the endeavor is conducted in the spirit of attempting to extract the best features of all of the world's spiritual traditions in order to formulate a new and sensible code of conduct for all of humankind in general,...

...then that would make more sense, for nobody's belief system would be excluded from the project.

And that is something that AJ's narrow focus on just "Christian Civilization" ("Christian Nationalism") fails to consider.

Perhaps when AI soon reaches the predicted "Technological Singularity," it can assist us in bringing this new "code of conduct" into fruition.
_______

[Wizard22]

For quite a while the left was characterized as anti-hierarchy, which was seen as bad - the anti part. But Christ and Christianity undermined hierarchies. The founders of the nation undermined hierarchies. At the very least it seemed to me that Wizard and AJ put forward general rules about what is bad about liberals/The Left, but don't seem to notice or want to notice that if these rules were correct much of what they believe to be good traditions, should never have been accepted.

I think the unraveling of certain kinds of authority is fine, if the authority is pernicious or causes more problems that it solves. A kind of decomposition, which is necessary in nature. The issue is whether the authority at issue or the hierarchy at issue should be kept. There's no need to classify the people you are talking to and the general rules that get held up: modern, destructive, secular, hierarchy, authority, tradition, multiculturalism
just don't hold up if one goes back in time and looks at what happened in the past and where things came from.

I don't think Secularists have a good understanding of Hierarchies in general...to me it seems quite clear, Christianity, Catholicism, pick any other religion, spiritual hierarchies revolve around inter-generational politics. It's not about you; it's not about me; it's not about any one individual or family. Rather, it's about a whole society over time. Thus, when Westerners refer to 'God', they explicitly and implicitly present God as the apex Authority of the whole society over time.

This is a simple point—yet one that doesn't seem to stick among the Secular/Liberal/Left, regarding spirituality.

I believe there are specific reasons for this, namely, in how politically-obsessed the Liberal-Left are, historically, to gain societal and cultural power...which means trying to deprive that societal-cultural power from the Conservative-Right. In other words, the Left needs its own "Catholic Church", which it simply doesn't have. Since the Enlightenment, Secularists and Marxists have argued that "Muh Science!" or "Muh Secularism!" or "Muh Liberalism!" fills the gaps, so-to-speak. But it doesn't. Because there's no real nor substantial history behind or underneath the cultural or religious-Left.

This goes back to the main point in my religious-left sex thread: the Left cannot offer a moral system that defends any notion of Homogeneous Family.

When that is *ALL* that the Right does, and needs to do!

Wizard's most recent post seemed to miss the fact that the CORE and only clearly communicated message from AJ about his position in this thread has to do with something Wizard thinks is false, ( even if he does think it's fine if all the stupid sheep in society hold a belief that, to him, is bullshit.)

They certainly share similar reactions to many current phenomena, but as far as the thread topic they are very, very far apart. An Aristocratic (elitist) Nietzschian is absolutely a product of among other things the Enlightenment (irony there) and not at all aligned with the call for the formation of an intimate relationship with a deity, a relationship that is considered necessary to the core. That it is the very essence of moving the West to a better place. And not in the sense of, give that to the unwashed peasants because it keeps them in line and they're too stupid to be in the lofty intellectual realms of Wizard.

And, actually, I think it would clarify a lot of they could actually hash out their differences. Because then we'd see what AJ considers necessary and perhaps if even his core metaphysical idea is necessary, because Wizard certainly doesn't hold it.

I asserted to AJ and IC a few months ago, that if any 'progress' is to made, the cultural-Right needs to set aside our differences and work together toward a common or universal goal, to counter-attack and push back the cultural-Left. IC failed to heed my warning and suggestion. However, my intentions are clear. If AJ feels my positions are problematic, I don't doubt he'd press me on them.

Go on...what problems are there, exactly Iwan??

[Harbal]

If AJ feels my positions are problematic,

Why not just ask him what position he prefers?

I don't doubt he'd press me on them.

Would you like to be pressed by AJ?

[Wizard22]

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care,

Try zero words then.

[Harbal]

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care,

Try zero words then.

No can do.

[FlashDangerpants]

The “mass man” that Ortega y Gasset writes about is a phenomenon of our present, and we are all a part of it or subsumed in it.

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care, and that desire makes me realise how important not caring is to me. It seems I do have a purpose, after all.

Perhaps I can tempt you with the philsophisings of Hortence P Gusset who tells us that the "mass religion man" is a phenomenon of the past and we are more or less done with it now.

[Harbal]

The “mass man” that Ortega y Gasset writes about is a phenomenon of our present, and we are all a part of it or subsumed in it.

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care, and that desire makes me realise how important not caring is to me. It seems I do have a purpose, after all.

Perhaps I can tempt you with the philsophisings of Hortence P Gusset who tells us that the "mass religion man" is a phenomenon of the past and we are more or less done with it now.

It definitely sounds more tempting than the prospect of becoming a Catholic.

[Wizard22]

No can do.

Fine, continue caring then.

[Wizard22]

Religion will always be necessary because most of humanity lag behind moral, ethical, and spiritual development.

Hairball and Dpants being prime examples.

[phyllo]

I wish I could find the words to express how little I care, and that desire makes me realise how important not caring is to me. It seems I do have a purpose, after all.

Perhaps I can tempt you with the philsophisings of Hortence P Gusset who tells us that the "mass religion man" is a phenomenon of the past and we are more or less done with it now.

It definitely sounds more tempting than the prospect of becoming a Catholic.

"Mass consumption man" or "mass social media man" or "mass porn man" are better and more tempting?

[Harbal]

Religion will always be necessary because most of humanity lag behind moral, ethical, and spiritual development.

Hairball and Dpants being prime examples.

Shut up, you idiot.