tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post2275714736348800872..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: The Paradox of Moral ObligationsBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-14075269958331645452017-02-04T12:09:00.356-05:002017-02-04T12:09:00.356-05:00Thanks for your response, Ben. "Disgust and a...Thanks for your response, Ben. "Disgust and awe"--I think that would make a good band name (not to belittle your point). Cheers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-50479979469184177792017-02-01T16:09:05.667-05:002017-02-01T16:09:05.667-05:00I think the question of misanthropy is about chara...I think the question of misanthropy is about character and mood, not principles, and so misanthropy would come and go as a person's feelings change. As a social outsider in several ways, I am indeed appalled at what most people do. <br /><br />An outsider's negative feelings could be attributed to bitterness for having been marginalized, or to the objectivity of someone who doesn't have to protect conventions, because he's not part of the group. I suspect such negative feelings are typically a mix of both bitterness and horror/angst. When we see how things are, without the benefit of feeling at home in a culture, because we're alienated for one reason or another, we're not likely to admire what we observe, especially when the world generally is fundamentally absurd. <br /><br />There are always reasons to be disgusted by any human phenomenon. The only question is whether an outsider's capacity for disgust is bottomless. Presumably, it can't be, so the horror that's appropriate when contemplating, say, political, religious, or economic states of affairs must come and go, as the outsider tires of being in a foul mood and resorts to comedy or to some neutral pastime to keep his spirits up.<br /><br />In general, do I loathe people? No, because my capacity for contempt is limited. However, I suspect that if you look closely enough, you'll find that everyone is so vile that if your stomach for disgust were infinitely large, you would always find yourself repulsed by what people are and do. <br /><br />Still, there's more to people than our cliches and animality. There's also our godlike autonomy and creative power. So I think an existentially authentic witness of social practices should fluctuate between feeling disgust and awe.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-83084751239817451562017-02-01T05:29:39.348-05:002017-02-01T05:29:39.348-05:00Hi Ben, same Anon here. Thanks for the response. I...Hi Ben, same Anon here. Thanks for the response. I would just like to ask one more question: would you define yourself as a misanthrope? Or is that too reductionist a term? I find myself torn on this issue. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-40872930848120039152017-01-22T15:40:39.016-05:002017-01-22T15:40:39.016-05:00If we confine ourselves to the root meaning of the...If we confine ourselves to the root meaning of the conservative/liberal divide, the conservative would be skeptical of social change and so would cling to tradition for security, whereas the liberal would be optimistic and even iconoclastic, welcoming progress in the name of establishing personal liberties. <br /><br />This distinction is quaint in the contemporary political context. In any case, descriptively I'd say that conservatism in that sense is a smokescreen, since the traditions themselves are ideologies in something like the Marxist respect, except that the basic structures the dogmas rationalize aren't just economic but biological (class divisions between haves and have-nots). Even the most liberal, progressive, supposedly radical societies such as Soviet Russia, communist China, or democratic US devolve into oligarchies with class divisions that function like those between alphas, betas, and omegas throughout the animal kingdom. Kings, dictators or plutocrats emerge because power must be centralized for the sake of managing any sufficiently large social group. This is true in politics, business, and even the arts (e.g. a director on a movie set). <br /><br />It's not as if antisocial chaos would be a return to a Hobbesian state of nature, since our animality is preserved even in our most complex civilizations. That's my point: a culture begins as an anti-natural attempt at transcending the mammalian life cycle, but we lose our nerve, become corrupted, forget our guiding ideals (as Spengler said), and so we let our animal instincts take over. For example, in the US the beta class (what Thomas Frank calls the class of neoliberal professionals) becomes preoccupied with entertainment and so unconsciously welcomes the Trump regime rather than voting en masse for Hillary Clinton. Politics is a game for the average Western consumer, since her mindset is shaped by the postindustrial environment (e.g. by the internet and communications technologies which lower attention spans and intellectual standards so that we lose interest even in the difference between fact and fiction). <br /><br />Prescriptively, I see advantages and disadvantages to both the state of nature (naked or covert dominance hierarchies, disguised as transcendent, artificial social orders) and to genuinely radical societies. I see no reason to be optimistic about our chance of sustaining a non-mammalian (i.e. progressive) way of life, unless we turn ourselves into posthumans at the biological level. <br /><br />The fundamental question is whether society should be hierarchical or devoid of class divisions. The liberal says that although some social differences may be natural (innate), we should seek to give everyone equal opportunities. The conservative (who is a naturalist, not a religious lunatic, regardless of the rhetoric or lack of self-awareness) says that going against nature in that respect prevents the rise of individual greatness. This was Nietzsche's view of the "order of rank." <br /><br />Unfortunately, the greatness in question is often short-lived. Billionaires or dictators who climb to the top of a "free" society that allows hierarchies to emerge tend to become mentally subhuman as their power status corrupts their character. Trump is currently the most glaring example, since his mind is childlike rather than impressive or befitting his godlike lifestyle. Philanthropists can leave behind great organizations, but the leaders are often lucky and awarded with the success of their underlings.<br /><br />So the next question is how a hierarchy should be structured: who should be at the top? It doesn't seem to matter, since the leader tends to be corrupted by the access to centralized power. The differences are cosmetic (e.g. the difference between the George W. Bush and Obama regimes).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-5753405440370651892017-01-22T12:25:49.879-05:002017-01-22T12:25:49.879-05:00Thanks for reading, Anon. I've criticized both...Thanks for reading, Anon. I've criticized both liberalism and conservatism on this blog. I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. What's sacred to me is the potential for personal autonomy which leads to enlightenment and to real transcendence (to anti-natural, "satanic" creation of artificial worlds, to the slaying of the dragon of nature). This is a quasi-Gnostic starting point, so I value individual choice as long as it's philosophically informed. <br /><br />So on social issues like abortion or gay rights, I respect the right to choose. However, the proof that these personal choices are made in an enlightened and thus respectable way is that the individual should be humbled by the existential stakes rather than childishly proud of her subversion of nature, as in liberal identity politics. I'm opposed to the political correctness of postmodern liberalism, and to the scientism implicit in classic liberalism (to the view that reason can tell us how we should live). <br /><br />I side with conservatives on their pessimism about human nature, their valuing of honour, and the aesthetic (disgust) basis of their morality. But of course I reject the postmodern condition of current American and European conservatism as a disgraceful sideshow and smokescreen for their plutocratic deep states. <br /><br />I could go on and on, but the political view I'm trying to work out transcends the liberalism/conservatism dichotomy. I try to reduce these divisions to the animal dynamics. Thus, I prefer to talk about ethological classes of alphas, betas, and omegas, and of power relationships between the inevitably-corrupt, psychopathic deities who tend to rule our dominance hierarchies; the flocks of spiritually-unaware beta sheep who follow the psychotic gods and lead the megamachines to ruin; and the alienated outsiders who are enlightened but impotent.<br /><br />If you'd like a more specific answer, perhaps you could raise a particular political or economic issue, and I could ask my daemon what I should say about it. ;)Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73962955631056805112017-01-22T09:54:08.639-05:002017-01-22T09:54:08.639-05:00I've read your rants for years Ben, and I find...I've read your rants for years Ben, and I find great solace from them. I wanted to ask if you subscribe to a specific political ideology. I doubt you do, because of your cynicism about humans generally (and I share your misgivings), but I just thought it would be interesting to see where your political sympathies lie. I know you despise capitalism for it's cosmic cliches. Where do you stand on the alternatives? Apologies if you've answered this question many times before.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11374705146920421002017-01-07T09:46:31.498-05:002017-01-07T09:46:31.498-05:00Excellent video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Excellent video. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsT9MWMm9PU<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com