Healthy culture: fundamentally, this -- to me -- means self-responsible individuals living, working, transacting, cooperating, competing with other self-responsible individuals. When is the last time such a circumstance was in play?
I'm thinkin': never (not on the large scale, not over the long haul).
That's something which has been talked about on some TRS podcast, don't remember which one(s) though. A lot of those TRS people have come from the libertarian movements and they have become a lot more authoritarian because their reasoning is that all those liberties they would like to have in a society practically only work if the society is rather homogeneous already to begin with.
I can be relaxed and let Johnny be Johnny if Johnny is somewhat similar to me in his nature. If he's a negroid thug it's not gonna be an enjoyable live and let live neighbourhood. And when they dug into what produces rather homogeneous communities and dug into genetics and breeding they also came to the conclusion that 'racism' a.k.a. 'in-group bias for Europeans' is required for this. And you need to be somewhat discriminatory and authoritarian to defend the group against other groups, be it physically or morally, intellectually and so on.
Henry Quirk
Gender : Posts : 335 Join date : 2014-06-03 Age : 62 Location : 'here'
The problem (or, mebbe it's just my problem) is a lack of physical and psychological breathing room. We're all crammed together in a closet, and the closet is gettin' smaller ever year.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 4009 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 41 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
The problem (or, mebbe it's just my problem) is a lack of physical and psychological breathing room. We're all crammed together in a closet, and the closet is gettin' smaller ever year.
Some in the closet are making room for themselves on a psychological, political and also material level. They scream the loudest and are the most outraged. Rabbits.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Anytime you have a diverse population, then the organization along the path of least resistance is always going to be the lcd of the majority, that automatically reduces the state to the anaemic libertarian perspective of the functional night-watchman.
"At best", the state is an organic outcrop of the value-standards of the few and not something to tolerate, but a creative extension of our deepest immortal urge. The automatic pilot that guards and IS the template of timeless values, the heritage beyond our temporality, the example that ferments the germ of our creative consciousness. It makes possible to shoot out our best output, our history in different avatars again and again. The state at best is the germ-vitale of our cultural consciousness, our power, our reach.
No doubt your critique holds for the modern state; but the modern state is not the definitive of state per se.
Anytime you have a diverse population, then the organization along the path of least resistance is always going to be the lcd of the majority, that automatically reduces the state to the anaemic libertarian perspective of the functional night-watchman.
"At best", the state is an organic outcrop of the value-standards of the few and not something to tolerate, but a creative extension of our deepest immortal urge. The automatic pilot that guards and IS the template of timeless values, the heritage beyond our temporality, the example that ferments the germ of our creative consciousness. It makes possible to shoot out our best output, our history in different avatars again and again. The state at best is the germ-vitale of our cultural consciousness, our power, our reach.
No doubt your critique holds for the modern state; but the modern state is not the definitive of state per se.
While it may claim, and the "liberal democratic" theory of the state leads it to so claim, (in contrast to socialist and fascist theories of the state which dominated so much of political philosophy in the earlier part of this century), that the state exists to serve the individual, not the individual the state, yet the brutal fact remains that the individual counts as nothing compared to the state. This is so regrdless of the ideology of the state and can not be otherwise, for by definition the state exists only to the extent that it exercises that very power which defines it: to be more than a sum of individuals.
This is moving towards the creation of a false dilemma, an informal fallacy, and the creation of binary thinking. I see this problem continue throughout the essay as the author uses the thesis, antithesis methodology which is akin to a philosophical sleight of hand with the aid of creating false dichotomies.
I do not write this in defense of libertarianism, but I don't feel the article provided is of great value.
Initiating a discussion about what culture is and why/how it exists (by nature) is important but it should be had in the context of praxis in relation to historical facticity lest it become more noumenal abstraction; a recreation for a sedentary people.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
While it may claim, and the "liberal democratic" theory of the state leads it to so claim, (in contrast to socialist and fascist theories of the state which dominated so much of political philosophy in the earlier part of this century), that the state exists to serve the individual, not the individual the state, yet the brutal fact remains that the individual counts as nothing compared to the state. This is so regrdless of the ideology of the state and can not be otherwise, for by definition the state exists only to the extent that it exercises that very power which defines it: to be more than a sum of individuals.
This is moving towards the creation of a false dilemma, an informal fallacy, and the creation of binary thinking. I see this problem continue throughout the essay as the author uses the thesis, antithesis methodology which is akin to a philosophical sleight of hand with the aid of creating false dichotomies.
I do not write this in defense of libertarianism, but I don't feel the article provided is of great value.
Initiating a discussion about what culture is and why/how it exists (by nature) is important but it should be had in the context of praxis in relation to historical facticity lest it become more noumenal abstraction; a recreation for a sedentary people.
I actually take value in his intent, than the method or content of his essay. The discipline of taking the good as well as the bad without splintering into rigid polarities is what must be our kernel; what Walker considers good or bad need not concern us. For eg., "leftists" like Baudrillard and Sloterdijk, etc. are more right, than "rightists" like Evola, Guenon who are more left [in that they equivocate Aryan wisdom with J.-Xt. gnosis, etc.]
Minus all the obfuscations with Rousseau and all that, I am in agreement with his saying, that a State "ought not to be" some kind of garment one puts on or sheds off at will when it gets too uncomfortable. This organic view of history is largely [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
The State is an organism too, and the highest picture of the highest organism we have so far, is the aesthetic of something that affirms everything in its way, and affirms its way through and Out-Of everything.
The libertarian is an exhausted dwarf and his approach to the state in this and his exhausted period is plainly shameful. It is hedonistic. One must Want to affirm greater and greater complexity, Want to stretch the chain as far back and as far into the past and the future. Much like a juggler accomodating a new object after every balancing act.
From his Untimely Meditations-II,
Nietzsche wrote:
"Each of the three types of existing history is only exactly right for a distinct soil and climate: on every other one it grows up into a ruinous weed. If a man who wants to create greatness uses the past, he seizes upon it for himself by means of monumental history; in contrast, one who is habituated by tradition and custom insists on cultivating the past as an antiquarian historian; and only one whose breast is oppressed by a present need and who wants to cast off his load at any price has a need for critical history, i.e., history which tries and passes judgment. Many a harm stems from the thoughtless transplanting of plants: the critical man without need, the antiquarian without piety, and the connoisseur of greatness without the ability for greatness are the sort who are susceptible to weeds, alienated from natural mother earth and thus degenerate growths." [On the uses and disadvantage of history]
Its only when there is a temporary forgetting, are you able to recover and remember even more, and, its only when you take in more and more forms [vital expressions of an epoch], do you have the Choice to exercize a greater flexibility, adapting to and fro between this form now, that form then, and so forth. Greater the organization > greater the fitness > greater the freedom, and vice-versa, Greater the freedom > greater the fitness > greater the organizational capacity.
A high-culture can only be the product of such a self-stress, the by-product of adaptive agitations, of the will to self-growth and destructions.
Just as a human being feels "joy" [Walker wants to call this Rousseau's return to nature], a consciousness of power, when all his parts find self-expression together in one voice, an organic State in the grand form, must be able to effortlessly give voice to all its historical parts. It is that and their coming together. Some may see Hegel in this, I see the N. in this. How does one create an enduring 1000-year Reich… - by access to all sorts of historical forms.
Without question, the interpolation of history is part of a higher culture. It is really the basis of all culture in the sense of cultivation: the communication of knowledge including practice over generations.
Lys wrote:
a State "ought not to be" some kind of garment one puts on or sheds off at will when it gets too uncomfortable.
I would go one step further and say that a state cannot be shed and to think otherwise is a misconception. Part of the problem is tied to the modern etymology of the word state which is in turn equated with certain types of institutions and practices.
Besides this, I contest that a state and its people is a false dichotomy, but the embodiment of the state in the people does not equate the individual to the state but instead it is the network of relationships between individuals by which right we can call that conglomeration of individuals a people and the history of the people in which the state is embodied.
Modern politics has become irrelevant because we can no longer speak about historical praxis in a political context because we must talk about a state which is embodied in institutions divorced from the life of the people. It is through the praxis of a people elevated by historical consciousness that a people can come to re-embody the state.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Its like a Xt. attempting to expose a jew, and then showing its self to be none other than the same, which isn't to say, it isn't interesting, but on the contrary...
