Very well said. You have articulated in much more clarity and accuracy than I could, some vague ideas that have been swimming just under the surface of my consciousness for some time. There seems to be a note of petulance (and maybe some degree of avtism) in the way RW people advocate for things like building communities/lifting weights/buying farmland.
You ask them why do it and they'll give you a laundry list of reasons why it's good, which are usually instrumental, but rare is the man who just shrugs, gets back to doing the damn thing, and letting its innate goodness speak for itself.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that my takeaway from this is we should really be more like monke.
Very interesting argument, I also find it to be very true. Club Tropical Excellent (New Jerusalem) is not merely a post/counter-apocalyptic commune, but perhaps primarily a good unto itself (unto God).
However, I doubt that non-apocalypticism could be used as a general solution, for the masses, because the apocalyptic drive must be satisfied and aimed at something. You yourself are stacking beans, and I'm stacking the bullets and bandages. Maybe there's a very g*y (early definition) Golden Mean between apocalypticism and non-apocalypticism, as there is a work week and a Sabbath.
i think it only gets apocalyptic when it's in excess, basically. i have some more thoughts on that but that gets very strictly theological and involves jesus, maybe ill get into that later
>the idea that you are the messiah, that you are christ.
This seems to me the problem.
Radicalism is a drive, yes. But there is a drive and there are rails on which it drives. Lenin was a radical using Marxism (Liberalism) for lack of anything better. Prophets are radicals too.
Radicals are warriors driven by eschatology stemming from desire for Justice (not Good (Tradition) and not Happiness (Liberalism)) as a result of a dissatisfaction with everything there is and any alternative to it. Being for them is fundamentaly wrong hence comes desire to bring the end of time.
Idea cited above is a Traditional teaching of identity, as above so below.
Traditionalism is 1. Misplaced transcendent pursued as a goal, 2. Identification of messiah and God.
-How it is "solved"?
-Revelation.
Whats the difference between Tradition and Revelation?
By revelation people are lead by prophets but only with God's intervention can new earth be achieved (I understood it as happening after a critical mass reached). Religion of revelation draws a clear line between Adam and his descendants (prophets) and God, which cannot be thought as a transposition from "this" to "that", because "that" is already linked with "this" hence is a false transcendent.
To get back to cited quote - people are taking the role not suited for them, hence lifting weights to get it under control is the best solution, maybe we need a social equivalent..
I understand that you may disagree about Christ and all. But i am all for lifting weights and farming for its own sake!
The philosopher John Gray said somewhere that the difference between ancient and medieval-modern philosophy was that ancient thinkers pursued the good life, or the tranquil life, while modern ones pursue truth and knowledge for themselves.
Excellent article that sums up a lot of the issues I have had with mainstream far-right thought over the last couple years. Most people have not learned to internalize reaction; they merely apply its facts and truths towards their futile war against society. Head over to Moldbug’s comment section for a prime example.
I’ve always been interested in an exact genealogical history of Protestantism— tried to track it once just through Wikipedia, got lost somewhere in the 1500s. I will definitely have to check out Seraphim Rose.
I was looking for that quote from Seraphim Rose and I don't recall it from Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which I just read. Was there another book it might have come from?
Very well said. You have articulated in much more clarity and accuracy than I could, some vague ideas that have been swimming just under the surface of my consciousness for some time. There seems to be a note of petulance (and maybe some degree of avtism) in the way RW people advocate for things like building communities/lifting weights/buying farmland.
You ask them why do it and they'll give you a laundry list of reasons why it's good, which are usually instrumental, but rare is the man who just shrugs, gets back to doing the damn thing, and letting its innate goodness speak for itself.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that my takeaway from this is we should really be more like monke.
Very interesting argument, I also find it to be very true. Club Tropical Excellent (New Jerusalem) is not merely a post/counter-apocalyptic commune, but perhaps primarily a good unto itself (unto God).
However, I doubt that non-apocalypticism could be used as a general solution, for the masses, because the apocalyptic drive must be satisfied and aimed at something. You yourself are stacking beans, and I'm stacking the bullets and bandages. Maybe there's a very g*y (early definition) Golden Mean between apocalypticism and non-apocalypticism, as there is a work week and a Sabbath.
i think it only gets apocalyptic when it's in excess, basically. i have some more thoughts on that but that gets very strictly theological and involves jesus, maybe ill get into that later
Please do!
Cozy
>the idea that you are the messiah, that you are christ.
This seems to me the problem.
Radicalism is a drive, yes. But there is a drive and there are rails on which it drives. Lenin was a radical using Marxism (Liberalism) for lack of anything better. Prophets are radicals too.
Radicals are warriors driven by eschatology stemming from desire for Justice (not Good (Tradition) and not Happiness (Liberalism)) as a result of a dissatisfaction with everything there is and any alternative to it. Being for them is fundamentaly wrong hence comes desire to bring the end of time.
Idea cited above is a Traditional teaching of identity, as above so below.
Traditionalism is 1. Misplaced transcendent pursued as a goal, 2. Identification of messiah and God.
-How it is "solved"?
-Revelation.
Whats the difference between Tradition and Revelation?
By revelation people are lead by prophets but only with God's intervention can new earth be achieved (I understood it as happening after a critical mass reached). Religion of revelation draws a clear line between Adam and his descendants (prophets) and God, which cannot be thought as a transposition from "this" to "that", because "that" is already linked with "this" hence is a false transcendent.
To get back to cited quote - people are taking the role not suited for them, hence lifting weights to get it under control is the best solution, maybe we need a social equivalent..
I understand that you may disagree about Christ and all. But i am all for lifting weights and farming for its own sake!
Thanks for your writing.
The philosopher John Gray said somewhere that the difference between ancient and medieval-modern philosophy was that ancient thinkers pursued the good life, or the tranquil life, while modern ones pursue truth and knowledge for themselves.
Excellent article that sums up a lot of the issues I have had with mainstream far-right thought over the last couple years. Most people have not learned to internalize reaction; they merely apply its facts and truths towards their futile war against society. Head over to Moldbug’s comment section for a prime example.
I’ve always been interested in an exact genealogical history of Protestantism— tried to track it once just through Wikipedia, got lost somewhere in the 1500s. I will definitely have to check out Seraphim Rose.
I was looking for that quote from Seraphim Rose and I don't recall it from Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, which I just read. Was there another book it might have come from?
It might be "Survival guide", those are the only two things I've read of him and I read them back to back
Oh yes. I just read it. That was good