Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
Hong Wu wrote:If we accept the idea that Christian progressivism eventually turned countries based upon Aristotle's conception of philia and tradition into shared currency zones based upon material desires and orgia,
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Explain what you mean here, and to which time you are referring. I don't want to launch into a critique if I don't know your meaning. Especially if I could possibly agree.
Hong Wu wrote:I guess it is pretty vague. I view western multiculturalism as sort of like a materialization of Christian progressiveness, by which I mean progress towards a judgment day or era of peace that is good for most people. Although this was originally described in spiritual/magical/metaphysical terms, modern western, multicultural utopianism seems like an attempt to make something like this into a material reality. Mixing races too much though eliminates that sense of fundamental unity that anyone can understand. The EU and to a lesser degree the US are not based upon this racial philia and in a sense they are not even really nations, they are just market zones that use the same currency as each other. The goal is also not to produce philia/tradition but to consume and enjoy themselves (which is what I mean by the term orgia; it's possible that this behavior is related to the same phenomenon that created early Dionysian cults). In going abroad and seeing places where most people are of the same race, where there's still somewhat shared art forms (or at least themes) and so-on, I believe I see places that function as nations in a subtly different way than the west does.
Hong Wu wrote:I think one hangup the west has is that they are actually relatively late-comers to the game of civilization and the problem is that they don't know it. To some degree it's natural to attach yourself to ancient empires but the truth is that most westerners were never really Roman outside of Italy, yet the west still views themselves as a sort of apotheosis of the Romans. Another issue with this is the dichotomy between high fertility and degeneracy that seems to exists as an expectation in the west. Liberals hold it just as much as conservatives, this is why they assume that the natural outcome of "whiteness" (by which they mean white western-ness) is high fertility and attempting world domination. By the time western civilization developed into a powerful form, a lot of things had already been developed by other peoples and the human fertility rate really shot up in the west first but prior to this happening there were generative, developed civilizations that had lower or even somewhat stable fertility rates. So the dichotomy that I believe exists in the west between disappearing or reproducing a lot and conquering everything is not strictly necessary, western people just think it is because the west developed so suddenly into world powers. The truth is probably that even the Arabs are older than the west. Western people convinced themselves that they were both the scions and the originators of modernity but they were in many ways actually late adopters who can't distinguish between culture and power, so if they reject culture and power (like liberals do) they seem to presume a movement towards their opposites, something that I'm not convinced is necessary.
Paradigm wrote:I don't know why you take Hegel's philosophy to be so disconnected from Christianity. He was a lifelong Lutheran, strongly influenced by the mystical writings of Jakob Böhme, and in the end a Christian triumphalist. Karl Barth once described him as a "Protestant Aquinas." He may have been engaging with the ideas of Kant and Spinoza, but it was Marx who secularized him. His philosophy in itself was thoroughly religious.
Paradigm wrote:I would add that the Christian eschatological view of time in terms of divine Providence is an inheritance from Judaism and its sacred view of history. While other religions have their own eschatology (many involving the end of one cycle and the beginning of another), Judaism set itself apart by seeing the hand of God as present throughout the course of world events, leading toward some greater purpose. We can see the seriousness with which the Jews treated history in the fact that their scriptures record not just their triumphant victories but also their humiliating defeats. What's more, they contain the words of the prophets who foretold of those humiliating defeats as divine judgment for their disobedience to God and betrayal of their covenant with Him. By seeing Providence not only in their triumphs but in their downfalls, they saw God as the author of History
Paradigm wrote: What the Catholic and Orthodox churches have long held is that the "millennium," though not referring to a literal thousand-year period, had already begun with the founding of the church. This is how the church conceived of its mission in the world: Not only to bring about the salvation of souls, but the transformation of the world. This position is often referred to as "amillennialism." A position called "postmillennialism," espoused by both progressive reform movements and some rather reactionary Reconstructionist churches, holds that the millennium has not yet begun, but will be brought about by the eventual triumph of the church, at the end of which Christ finally return. For both amillennialism and postmillennialism, the church's role is itself eschatological in nature.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Indeed, Christian eschatology, in the main reformation, papist, and eastern churches, always played a minor theological role. The obsession with the end times in the 20th and 21st centuries is sort of an anomaly in church history (perhaps with the exception of the first century A.D.).
Historically, all of these bodies (making up the vase majority of Christians) always held to either a-millennial or a firmly theological post-millennialism; wherein, the main point of both systems was that Christ was reigning over the world in triumph from the time of His ascension until the time in which He returns to judge the quick and the dead.
A-millennialism, which most of these churches held to with the partial exception in some of the Reformed churches (about 20% of which are post-mil) held that Christ's return could more-or-less come at any time. This is not a doctrine congruent with progressivism, progressivism cannot affirm a potentially-immanent end at any time (the proletariat has a long way to go after all).
Paradigm wrote:I don't know why you take a dead person's philosophy to be so disconnected from a religious myth. He was a lifelong biochemical reaction, strongly influenced by the morphological field (past & present) and the writings of a dead dude, and in the end a mythological archetype. A dead person once described him as a "label." He may have been engaging with the ideas of dead folk, but it was a dead person who influenced him. His mythology in itself was thoroughly mythological.
Hong Wu wrote:There was this American sociologist, I think his name was Carl Zimmerman, who argued that civilizations go through cycles of the nuclear family, then atomistic, then tribalistic. He seemed to believe that each time the atomistic stage is staved off, a civilization "survives" for longer and grows more powerful but at the same time it also becomes more brittle. Western civilization was pretty brittle by the time the pill came along. Did the pill cause this or was it a manifestation of existing metaphysical principles (since the precursors to the "sexual revolution" are clearly demonstrable well before the pill was invented) or was it something else? There's one of my deep thinks for the day.
Hong Wu wrote:If western civilization is the greatest, it should be able to survive its own superiority but the values of reproducing a lot and conquering the world are facing unforeseen obstacles in modern times.
Hong Wu wrote:My personal metaphysical beliefs, vaguely stated, is that reincarnation is a thing but that people are supposed to "transcend" from the earth and when a civilization does well in terms of the number of people transcending, it gains in temporal power but once those souls have left, all that is left is a shell of the transcendental process that is of little to no spiritual use to most of those who remain, at which point the civilization decides that it hates itself and collapses.
Hong Wu wrote:A truly "great" civilization in my mind is not one that conquers the earth but one that can suitably reconstruct itself so that the process of transcendence can be carried out again in a similar form. If it can't be carried out again, the whole thing has to be scrapped and the "civilization" will disappear. This is ultimately what I suspect is happening to the west, their systems no longer work in the current conditions for the current people and so the system has to either change or die and at the moment it is closer to dying.
Hong Wu wrote:America functions as the last bastion of this form of civilization because in the rural areas there is a lot of land, right to bear arms, concerns about foreigners that are occassionally validated, so the form of the transcendental process that defined the west still works there but that is likely temporary.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. This is only "so far," there is still a chance, though it will be the first in history, that the West will turn this around (there is your white pill for the day).
2. When I say that the West is the greatest civilization, its because it had the most extensive empires, and the greatest of these empires was the greatest empire in human history, it has had the greatest artistic, musical, architectural, and technological achievements of any civilization ever, and the Bible is the greatest literary achievement in human history both in its scope as no other book has ever been printed more, and of which, more additional books have been written on the Bible and Christian theology than on any other subject EVER. Likewise, we have developed more complex schools of mathematics, science, and philosophy than any other people, and had the most extensive lingua franca EVER (english).
That is why we are the greatest, but whether we survive or kill ourselves, that is yet to be seen.
Here is a question for you, given that you have a notably non-Christian metaphysical worldview: Why shouldn't I (as someone who seeks to preserve the religion and traditions of western civilization, and marries and bears as many children as possible), see you as part of the problem? I mean this only as a friendly jab and as thought provocation, I'm not trying to start a fight or be belittling (but since PoFo is full of D-bags I just wanted to clarify my tone). I am genuninely curious though, so I want you to make the case to me, why should I as a true traditionalist and western chauvenist see you as being on the same team as myself?
Living in the rural rustbelt my whole life, I can tell you, you would be far more pessimistic if you lived here. lol. the AVERAGE income in my county is just over $20,000.00 a year, unemployment and addiction are rampant, We are running off the pride of yesteryear. In my church, I am the only family besides the pastor's family with young children. just this past sunday we had three different prayer requests due to geriatric falls occuring. My family has lived here for almost 300 years and I don't know if i can stay here anymore. All our young people have left for "college" never to return to their home or their values, or if they did stay, they became addicted to heroin. The only people holding up this community are conservative working class baby-boomers, Once their generation dies, there will be nothing left.
Here is another question for you. Should I stay in this area and start a farm and mail-order mates for my children or try to find somewhere else that is not economically depressed, but may end up being more liberal and alien to my family?
That is my personal dilemma.
and yet.....I remain oddly, if not irrationally, optimistic about the future.
Hong Wu wrote:Older class divides were based upon things like, you physically aren't allowed to do a different job, you physically aren't allowed to leave your country (or sometimes, a certain region within your country), you physically aren't allowed to marry X person or do Y activity.
Modern so-called class divides are basically different kinds of people treating their social perceptions as if they were policy opinions. If you're tall, attractive, physically fit and actually do something with yourself you are more likely to be "conservative". If you're none of those things, which often describes the very top and very bottom of society, you're more likely to be "liberal". Lots of people have noted how modern liberals aren't actually like classic liberals at all, less commented upon is how modern conservatives are not very similar to previous conservatives or traditionalists at all. These things are both true because the idea that random, average people are educated enough to have opinions on things like public policy is clearly just something we pretend is happening.
Modern political policy theories, such as western communists who don't resemble actual extant communists at all, are really just social opinions that are 100% shaped by the place those who hold them posses within a social hierarchy.
Potemkin wrote:In other words, the way that people live determines the way that they think, the fundamental insight of Marxism. You seem to be groping your way towards a Marxist worldview, Hong Wu. You're almost there. You can do it, Hong Wu!
Hong Wu wrote:It's true, I'm already more of a communist than you areOhhh, so human myths produce pissing contests, complete with arbitrary measurement. You are what you eat, because you're encased in a biological vehicle. You're the universe, you're consciousness having a human experience. You didn't write the program called life, so now you're trying to override the program and invent 'truth.' Nonetheless, you're Truth, in a living sense (that's the trick of the veil). But by all means, focus on the past and future, dissect (y)our myths.
Both the sense of "western Christendom" and "Empire" and the contrary sense of "nationalism" and "state churches" came from and were fostered by Christianity and its preservation of its Roman, especially Constantinian, heritage.When you see something like this folks, just know it's a poop-parade. Humans create problems by solving problems, because they're living fragments of something larger than their individual experiences. The mind must be on the run because it doesn't understand the present moment or movement. The mind is so uncomfortable with the fact that it is being penetrated by the grand scheme of things that it invents pseudo-purpose (but even fake purpose will be gobbled up by living Truth/the universe in the beginning & end (the universe never lies)). Dats why folks group together and smell their own farts. They love the smell of yesterday's nourishment, and they really enjoy planning their future bowel movements (to think, the mind could gather enough poop to blow up the toilet.). They write long boring pornographs talking-exhibition, drab-drizzle about how much poop they've collected throughout the years... But it's cool yo, they're just blowing smoke bro. If they really cared about the present, they wouldn't be on this forum typing out long boring second hand interpretations of life. And I wouldn't be here addressing their addresses.
RhetoricThug wrote:Look @ this, a bunch of ding-dong jargon
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Did @RhetoricThug, just say that I wrote a bunch of meaningless jargon? Did I read that right? @Hong Wu.The ego-mind, as a survival mechanism, tries to protect its investment(s). After-all, time is an illusion of energy, so forum images usually feel obligated to save-face value. Surface details will always be signs & symptoms of consciousness. What "titular image X" wrote is not the whole story, it's a fragment of everything else happening... Therefore it's a myth. Likewise, problem-solution interplay produces more meaningless banter (I reply, I reply, I reply, I reply, I=eye=ego ergo ego=eye=I in this particular case), as the very nature of Being present penetrates this very moment, we're stuck in the middle grasping at the beginning and end of it all. I'm not impressed by conceited knowledge, because it's a fleeting impression bound by its disposition. Truth be told, being present creates an information bias, and your version of Truth is a story maid for story-telling. What's the point exactly, especially when visual space is a visual bias employed by the eye? Furthermore, you do not see with thy eye, you see with thy mind. Thought itself is a constant/continuous/contagious polycentric ripple effect, with no point of origin. Figures must be abstracted from the ground, and the ground is always (r)evolving. Figures (images) become myths by virtue of time (the nature of being present).
A Theory of Informational Autocracy https://static[…]
@AFAIK :roll: Another person who has no fucking[…]
@Pants-of-dog "historical facts" […]
Okay. Would you mind elaborating a bit on th[…]