Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalSearchRegisterLog in

Share
 

 Absolute

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Absolute - Page 5 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Absolute Absolute - Page 5 EmptyFri Dec 27, 2019 11:20 am

Just started reading a short book titled New Mythology of Racial Equality, by Byram, Campbell, and from the first pages this is what I found.

Campbell, Byram wrote:
William James in Pragmatism (1907) called attention to a group to which he gave the name, monists or as we shall define this term, those dominated by an irrational
faith in ideas based on oneness. He brought out the fact that they are subjective thinkers, ruled by their temperaments.
In addition to their mania for oneness they have other characteristics, one of which is of extreme importance
in understanding them. For this quality James coined the term tender-minded.
I would judge from James' general position that he held extreme monists to be mainly the product of inborn qualities, though he does not clearly so state. Let us be specific. We now know that individuals are born with
a temperament fashioned by nature, being a part of their genetic makeup. The monist inherits his qualities.
The normal people who are free from the monist's mania for reducing everything to oneness, we shall name
pluralists.
James, unlike Stoddard, was not trying to catch a glimpse of the future; and this being the case we could
not expect him to foreshadow the phenomenal impact that tender-minded monists have had on our age. Therefore, let us take up where James left off.
Having noticed that radicals are inordinately occupied with "unity"; that they, like Communists, reject the individual in favor of social totality, I at first, while trying to describe them, referred to them as "unity-minded". I
later discovered the term, monist, and employed it; and still later, James' work. While James had been interested in monists as they react on religion, my interest in them had been confined to their attempts to change the social system.
Much water has gone over the dam since James' day. Many monists, particularly radicals, have followed the
leadership of Marx and dropped their interest in religion in favor of interest in society. But how could they impose
oneness and inevitability (the latter demand of the monist's nature about which James failed to remark), on society?
Marx, with his elaborate rationalizations, satisfied them; hence, his popularity.
Marx insisted on a "classless society", a society made into one, without divisions. Other monists had invented
this idea but Marx appropriated it, and as far as I know was the first to "discover" that this would be the "inevitable" outcome of the social adventure.
We could write a volume exhibiting the radical's preoccupation with social theories based on oneness; but,
other than evidence of this mania, it would be worthless.
Fortunately we can call on a "shorthand" method which will be adequate for our present purpose. We shall simply name the terms which radicals constantly employ and around which their theories are built. But this will call for a slight step backward in time .


Monism - what I call the "absent absolute - is what ties Abrahamism, and Marxism together, as well as this 'tender hearted- group's denial of free-will, and a general shared attitude towards existence and its 'injustices' and multiplicities.

It's almost as if I had written this.

Campbell, Byram wrote:
Radicals in the last few years have been subjected to considerable criticism of their beliefs and have become more cautious in their theoretical expression. So let us start with the mid-fifties, and work back. We then find an unlimited number of their endorsements of "unity", "one world", "the oneness of humanity". Their propaganda was responsible for giving the term isolationist an evil connotation. They objected that it is negative, and adverse to international togetherness: in short, opposed to their mania for One World. "Integration" , still the subject of active promotion, has their strong support.
This term may be defined as: "to make whole or complete by bringing together parts" - a conception which the
reader will realize arouses the basic drives of the born monist. Monists were becoming intoxicated with a belief
in "togetherness" until it was properly shown that this could only be established on the basis of the lowest common denominator. This psychotic group has been fascinated with dreams of the world ruled from one center.
Monists promoted the League of Nations and, on its failure, the United Nations. In the case of the latter, they
succeeded in having their tender-minded outlook incorporated in its charter.
Most Humanists accept the New Mythology. The true humanism works for the betterment of mankind; present day
Humanists work in the opposite direction , as we shall now prove.
The basic principles of biological progress-on which all progress ultimately rests, as stated or implied by
Stoddard-are differentiation and to some extent elimination, though this may be gradual and painless. The
monistic Humanist is opposed to both principles. Differentiation negates his sense of oneness and therefore to
him is intolerable ; elimination profoundly shocks his tender mind. The proper name for today's Humanists is "animalists",
They promote causes that lead to the perpetuation of the lower forms of humanity-those nearest the lower animals.
The monist is not only tender-minded by nature; he is also a misfit. He is apt therefore to develop a morbid interest in other misfits of whatever kind and wherever found, and shielding them from the hard facts of life may
become his supreme concern. A major aim in the One World which he dreams about is to make life comfortable
and pleasant for misfit groups. In his zealous efforts, he overlooks racial differences.
Though we believe that we can discover inconsistencies in the monist's hope for One World filled with happy
misfits made economically and psychologically comfortable, while normal men are enslaved by these ends, we
shall not stress the point; that is, not now.
The New Mythology shares some ideas with Communism.
At the same time there are differences. The repudiation of human biology is a sideline with the Communists;
it has become a major project for promoters of the New Mythology-which in its baser forms we shall from now
on refer to as animalism.
Aristotle came to the conclusion that man is a social animal. Most modern men apparently agree with Aristotle
and take it for granted that the future of Humanity is interwoven with the fate of civilization, which in its turn
may be looked on as a great complex the totality of which has a different worth in different lands. It will be our
purpose to pass judgments on the worth of the civilizations we visit.
Though a troubled world lies before us, we pluralists refuse to see it only in this light. We also wish to see its
beauties, savor its richness, and explore its strangeness.
Since the rejection of the word Caucasian by many anthropologists has played into the hands of the promoters
of the New Mythology, we shall reinstate it. The term Aryan we shall employ where tradition suggests this, as in India, though we consider it synonymous with Caucasian.
By racist we mean anyone who accepts the fact, opposed by followers of the New Mythology, that significant differences exist in races. Though the term Mohammedanism is not acceptable to the followers of Islam, we shall for convenience employ it, though we may also refer to this group as Moslems, wherever, as in India, such is the
practice.
In view of the fact that radicals have appropriated the term liberal, we shall not use it. Herbert Spencer, in 1884, gave the proper definition of a liberal as: "One who advocates freedom from constraint, especially in political institutions." We shall therefore refer to those who would destroy individualism in favor of centralized power as radicals, or as "priests" of the still unrecognized lay religion which we have named The New Mythology.


Monism = the belief in the irrational absolute, is what distinguishes the Pagan form the Nihilist - both the 'positive' and the pure kin: the form proposing a justification, and the later worshipping the absolute nil instead, i.e., that which requires no justification and can negate all attempts to justify an absolute by the former.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Kvasir
Augur
Kvasir

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2622
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 34
Location : Gleichgewicht

Absolute - Page 5 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Absolute Absolute - Page 5 EmptyFri Dec 27, 2019 11:44 am

Ideas with unintended consequences, will, in time, manifest natural intended purposes.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
Satyr

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 21912
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 54
Location : Flux

Absolute - Page 5 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Absolute Absolute - Page 5 EmptyFri Dec 27, 2019 11:52 am

Monism = confusion of the noumenon for the phenomenon it is a representative of.
Only in the mind can an absolute - singularity - exist as an idea, therefore monism is an ideology that literally believes in its own representations.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
http://satyr-s-sanatorium.forumotion.com/
Sponsored content




Absolute - Page 5 Empty
PostSubject: Re: Absolute Absolute - Page 5 Empty

Back to top Go down
 
Absolute
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: