Question for RHC

[Scott Roberts]

Bob,

I am distressed that Ashvin was banned, and would like to know why. Unfortunately, there is a deleted message, which might be the cause, so if it was, ignore the following, and I'll just have to remain in ignorance.

Otherwise, I presume it is this: "Yes, RHC, you should probably restrict this thread before I tear 'anti-ontology physicalist' Jim here to shreds on his anti-Constitutional understanding of 'free speech'. "

If the "tearing to shreds" is taken literally as a physical threat, then obviously this is highly objectionable. But since the thread had taken a jokey turn, I simply read this comment as Ashvin's saying in a metaphorical and flamboyant way that if a debate on what the Constitution means by free speech were allowed, he (Ashvin) would win that debate handily, and I don't see anything objectionable in that.

Or if the problem was calling Jim an 'anti-ontology physicalist', then it should be noted that Jim pretty explicitly stated that he is against ontology, and though he wouldn't call himself a physicalist, he mainly presents physicalist points of view. So it is pretty much a correct characterization, and not an insult.

Ashvin's posts have generally been of high quality, well-reasoned and sticking to the point, and I would hate to think the forum would lose his contributions due to a misreading of this comment.

[Dana Lomas]

For the record, I too will miss Ashvin's keen metaphysical insights. Perhaps he should be cut some slack for the adversarial tone, as he is a lawyer after all, even as I feel that language such as 'tearing someone apart', although clearly metaphorical, is not conducive to maintaining a respectful dialogue. However, I certainly will not miss the political polemic. So if indeed it is now emphatically off the table, so that the slightest suggestion of so-called 'leftist' sensibilities, or Covid, needn't trigger an antagonistic objection/rant about the violation of constitutional rights, then I welcome Ashvin's contributions.

In any case, I support Bob's intention to keep the forum as apolitical as possible, especially if the new Essentia Foundation should be seen to be as neutral and welcoming as possible.

[Santeri Satama]

Hear hear.

[David Sundaram]

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 3:42:46 PM UTC-7 jse...@gmail.com wrote:

If the "tearing to shreds" is taken literally as a physical threat, then obviously this is highly objectionable. But since the thread had taken a jokey turn, I simply read this comment as Ashvin's saying in a metaphorical and flamboyant way that if a debate on what the Constitution means by free speech were allowed, he (Ashvin) would win that debate handily, and I don't see anything objectionable in that.

There are 'physic'al threats-n-assaults and then there are 'spirit'ual threats-n-assaults . If you are still primarily 'matter'-oriented, you may not realize that the latter be just as or even more Life-consequential, as documented by examples of results of personal well-being disruptive internet-(i.e. 'speech')-'bullying'.

Your (and many others') presumptions regarding 'constitutionally-guaranteed' 'free-speech' are in need of revision - they are heartless, IMO!

[Scott Roberts]

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-10 Dana Lomas wrote:

For the record, I too will miss Ashvin's keen metaphysical insights. Perhaps he should be cut some slack for the adversarial tone, as he is a lawyer after all, even as I feel that language such as 'tearing someone apart', although clearly metaphorical, is not conducive to maintaining a respectful dialogue.

That was why I mentioned that the the thread had turned jokey. There was no dialogue, respectful or otherwise going on. In any case what was meant to be torn apart were arguments, not a person.

 

However, I certainly will not miss the political polemic. So if indeed it is now emphatically off the table, so that the slightest suggestion of so-called 'leftist' sensibilities, or Covid, needn't trigger an antagonistic objection/rant about the violation of constitutional rights, then I welcome Ashvin's contributions.

In any case, I support Bob's intention to keep the forum as apolitical as possible, especially if the new Essentia Foundation should be seen to be as neutral and welcoming as possible.

As do I.

[RHC]

I appreciate the input from everyone.  When multiple people come to someones defense like this, then clearly I have over-reacted.  I'm happy to retract the ban on Ashvin.

[Scott Roberts]

Great! I much appreciate your willingness to reconsider.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Thanks, Scott! What you said about my comment was, of course, 100% correct, and how I intended it. Dana and Santeri, I appreciate your added support. Bob, you may have over-reacted a bit but I also needed a cool-off period after everything that happened this week. I respect your concerns for keeping this forum a place where people can feel comfortable discussing metaphysics and also your judgment on how best to achieve that goal. So don't worry, no more politics from me on this forum while it is not allowed. 

[RHC]

Ashvin thank you for your graceful response to my impulsive over-reaction. 

I appreciate everyone's support of my ongoing attempts, however flawed,  to keep this place something like a refuge. 

[Lou Gold]

Nice moves on everyone's part. I support.

Because it is my nature to do so, I can not help but point out that what we just witnessed here at the forum was itself a political process. And because events in the world are rapidly unraveling centrist containment and revealing greater intensities of both light and shadow, I do not expect that a denial of politics as somehow un-metaphysical will resolve much. I expect that the core challenge of balancing individual freedom and collective responsibility will remain and intensify. Events are larger than such puny moves. I do not have any simple solutions to offer for the crises of cascading current events other than to say that they will not be banned or denied. Metaphysically, I suggest that the only way to be real is to find ways to deal with reality. YES! This is not a simple task. May we work well.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Lou, clearly you are correct about politics and metaphysics being inextricably linked and how that relationship is becoming more clear than ever. But I see Bob's concern as specific to this forum, where people are coming to literally avoid political discussions and get a grasp on philosophical issues first and foremost. If anyone creates a new forum for the intersection of metaphysics and current politics, then you can count me in. As Dana mentioned, my adversarial disposition and training gives me a higher tolerance for that kind of 'heated' debate than most. I am sure there are others here who feel the same way as you and I do.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

I grok Bob's good intention and support his excellent moderation. 

I have little interest in joining yet another specialized bubble of a forum. The challenges of events are communal and I doubt a digital forum can offer the dynamic of lived community. How, exactly to make a more global communal politics and not regress into the tribal is the challenge. I think we must pass through difficult times with as much compassion as we can muster. Yes, that's a platitude. To make it practical we are going to have to live it. The peaceful process is called politics.  Another alternative is called war. Transcendence involves initiation or baptism. 

Since poetry is a big theme today, here's the ending of Eliot's "Four Quartets" ... 

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half heard, in the stillness
Between the two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always–
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of things shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

[Dana Lomas]

No-one is suggesting that metaphysics doesn't have political implications. And ideally this forum could be a example of how politics should be done in a metaphysically nuanced way, rather than how it is currently dysfunctionally playing out in the US ~ which, btw, this quite international group of participants may not find reflective of their own political situations where they are living. The problem is, as demonstrated, keeping it from degenerating into the kind of charged polemic, and the fallout, that makes it quite problematic to moderate in a fair and balanced way, all too easily leaving it up to Bob to deal with that often thankless task, while continuing to push the boundaries of provocation, when given an inch and a taking mile. If I had faith that the highest standard could be attained and maintained, knowing that Bob needn't be concerned about having to constantly be monitoring every thread, and having to intervene, then perhaps the rules could be relaxed. Until then, as suggested, start a metapolitical forum with that standard of nuanced discourse in mind, and show us more apolitical types how you are capable of it. Then hey, even I may be tempted to join in.

On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 9:47:19 PM UTC-5 Lou Gold wrote:

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

The problem is getting people to contribute. Some here may want to check out the "Thinkspot" forums (started by JP). The platform is very nice, but the activity is somewhat dispersed and infrequent, but I am also in the process of trying to get more metaphysical-political discussion going there.

[Lou Gold]

And ideally this forum could be a example of how politics should be done in a metaphysically nuanced way, rather than how it is currently dysfunctionally playing out in the US ~ which, btw, this quite international group of participants may not find reflective of their own political situations where they are living.

Yes, and Twitter, Facebook, etc are global corporations. The current issue is erupting in the US. Do you think it does not extend to elsewhere?

The problem is, as demonstrated, keeping it from degenerating into the kind of charged polemic, and the fallout, that makes it quite problematic to moderate in a fair and balanced way, all too easily leaving it up to Bob to deal with that often thankless task, while continuing to push the boundaries of provocation, when given an inch and a taking mile.

I am very supportive of Bob. YES, I do push boundaries. NO, I've never disapproved of his actions or the way this forum has chosen to respond. It's a process.

Until then, as suggested, start a metapolitical forum with that standard of nuanced discourse in mind, and show us more apolitical types how you are capable of it. Then hey, even I may be tempted to join in.

Undoubtedly a noble cause but it's not my role. 

BTW, I do notice a cheering section when BK tears into and shreds physicalist or neophysicalist positions. Is this intrinsic to philosophy? I'm not criticizing, I'm asking?

[Dana Lomas]

Lou ... whenever there are debates going on this forum with critics of the idealist premise, my expectation is that they should be held to the same standard. I trust now, as BK becomes more involved with the Essentia project, his focus will shift to collaboration with other proponents of the primacy of consciousness, which as they grow into more and more acceptance, both at the grass roots and academia levels, will no longer involve him having to confront his detractors and their misrepresentations of his ideas, who will eventually become a non factor. But he too tends to have some combative proclivities, and if he feels compelled to indulge them, and some feel compelled to cheer him on, then so be it.

As for the collective shadow reckoning going on in the US now, suffice to say it will have implications and ramifications elsewhere, so best to wish them well. I remain optimistic that some sane and sanative process will eventually prevail, as the alternative of a whole lot more increasingly intolerable suffering becomes ever more apparent. 

Undoubtedly a noble cause but it's not my role. 

And so far it seems like no-one else wants that role either ... so carry on with the seeming exercise in  futility of engaging us apolitical ones here.

[Lou Gold]

I remain optimistic that some sane and sanative process will eventually prevail, as the alternative of a whole lot more increasingly intolerable suffering becomes ever more apparent. 

I thought I just witnessed such here at this forum. Do you agree?

so carry on with the seeming exercise in futility of engaging us apolitical ones here.

Did you become engaged in a political process here (in this very thread)?

[Dana Lomas]

Sure, it's politics in the broadest sense, and I'll still suggest that the most crucial political act one can engage in is to seek first the Kingdom, and act from there, which is what most in this forum are seeking, and which need not involve engaging in the kind of polarized polemic that passes for politics in the 'real' world, and for good reason should not be perpetuated herein, but rather be a place wherein the politics works so well, it's not even noticed. 

[Santeri Satama]

If politics is defined as who and what metanarratives the ruling class of class society consist of, moderation of a forum is of course miniature politics. But size matters, here we are small emotionally connected community instead of mass governed by mechanized algorithms. Mechanized algorithms don't care about the pain of social exclusion, but our empathy does. Are we able to study and comprehend cancel culture as a mechanized algorithm, and not just otherize it but also observe its deep psychological mechanisms in ourselves, to witness them without feeding them more power?

Class society and it's politics is of course only small part of society and sociology in general. We are conditioned to think/believe that metaphysical etc. metanarratives are only and all about which ideology the ruling class should adopt and enact, so we could be ruled by the ideology of our preference, and force our preferences over others through gaining control of state monopoly of violence.

Therefore, I fully support liberation of metaphysics and metanarratives from politics, support the metanarrative process from antipolitics to apolitics, process of wider society becoming less mechanized mass and more communal and emotionally connected field of empathy.

[Lou Gold]

... for good reason should not be perpetuated herein

For sure but why does this means not tested? 

[Lou Gold]

I fully support liberation of metaphysics and metanarratives from politics, support the metanarrative process from antipolitics to apolitics, process of wider society becoming less mechanized mass and more communal and emotionally connected field of empathy.

Sure, and how does one do this when the signals are limited to disembodied text? I often delight in your sometimes ruthless language to convey how you feel. BTW, I consider politics as the process resulting from egos bumping. It's either politics or war. I prefer the former, even if the language gets crass. Don't you? Sure, we want the wider society to become less mechanized mass and more communal and emotionally connected field of empathy. Do you believe this can be accomplished without some form of a political process?

[Santeri Satama]

First seek Kingdom... for what? For the embarrasment of some people treating you like their King, drooling for your blessing and words of wisdom, when you have nothing to give? Charming esthetic for sure, the whole business. The person, the shaman mask as gate and gatekeeper to the Kingdom, in the eye-I-creation by the See-ker. Channeling a bit of David style here, I see. :)

What is the Goliath in the porcelain shop, then? This Kingdom, this Internet text as whole as the person mask for seeker to question and enter, this Living Logos of p2p written discourse? Laser focused sling shot to kill our fear of Goliath, and make this whole person mask of Internet text our friend. This monster, this Dragon of our own making, our Queendom of Drakaina. :)

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, my idea of a great country to live in is one where the politics works well enough that it's process is actually quite boring, you know, like where I'm living ... Is Finnish politics as blessedly boring? :))

[Dana Lomas]

Santeri ... as you well know, the 'Kingdom' which I refer to actually defies naming as such, but for the those among us who resonate with certain personified naming rights, I make that concession :)

[Santeri Satama]

sunnuntai 10. tammikuuta 2021 klo 14.09.17 UTC+2 Dana Lomas kirjoitti:

Is Finnish politics as blessedly boring? :))

I was tempted to answer "what politics?" We had civil war century ago. Still dealing with that trauma too, among others. Bureaucracy here is not as bad as some other places, the honor of a public servant, esprit de corps, is still a thing, at least a theme in cultural discussion and art, unlike in some other places. Anal retentive obedience of bureaucracy and its rules is worse than in some other places.

I don't really follow any local political media anymore, though, it's as nauseating as elsewhere.  

 

[Santeri Satama]

Dana, you know me. Take a word and and run with it as the text goes in its poetic license. The metanarrative of performance art is it's own making. 

[Lou Gold]

I don't really follow any local political media anymore, though, it's as nauseating as elsewhere.  

Sounds like a pandemic. Nauseous for sure but not necessary? How to separate from place and maintain it in a healthy state?

[Santeri Satama]

sunnuntai 10. tammikuuta 2021 klo 13.49.51 UTC+2 Lou Gold kirjoitti:

It's either politics or war.

No. There's also war without politics, and other options besides politics of class war.

[Dana Lomas]

Well politics was actually more exciting here when Quebec was fighting for separatism, even with acts of terrorism, but now they seem mostly content with their joie de vivre ways, as long as they're not forced to learn the other 'official' language of les maudits anglais.

[Dana Lomas]

Btw, how does Swedish being an 'official' language in Finland go over with y'all.

[Santeri Satama]

sunnuntai 10. tammikuuta 2021 klo 14.37.41 UTC+2 Lou Gold kirjoitti:

How to separate from place and maintain it in a healthy state?

Stand under the Wendigo Sickness in local devotion?

I've scored a local victory. It's doable by use of all weapons, spiritual, political, what ever it takes. Activism does not work, though, because everything is interconnected, and for every local battle you win, there's uncountable many battles lost, and much more where no battle was put up.

Revolutionary (anti)philosophy is all about systemic thinking, diagnosis of how deep the roots of the sickness go, where can healing start from? And the conclusion is that aye, very deep they go. Through the bottom to whenanywhere and no-place.

[Lou Gold]

"It's either politics or war" and "war without politics" sound the same to me. How are they different?

I very much agree there are "other options besides politics of class war."  Are any compelled by idealism or must one add a moral or social philosophy?

[martin...@gmail.com]

Hey Watch it! Now i'm feeleing even more guilty!  ( Me = Swedish!, and also cis-gender white male. )

Note: This is an attempt to be funny. 

I'd be very interested in an answer to Danas question myself.

[Lou Gold]

How to separate from place and maintain it in a healthy state?

Stand under the Wendigo Sickness in local devotion?

Very important to under stand Wendigo Sickness anywhere and everywhere.

 

I've scored a local victory. It's doable by use of all weapons, spiritual, political, what ever it takes. Activism does not work, though, because everything is interconnected, and for every local battle you win, there's uncountable many battles lost, and much more where no battle was put up.

Which is why Taoism advises to conduct one's victory as a funeral.

 

Revolutionary (anti)philosophy is all about systemic thinking, diagnosis of how deep the roots of the sickness go, where can healing start from? And the conclusion is that aye, very deep they go. Through the bottom to whenanywhere and no-place.

Yes! to systemic and process thinking. Can metaphysical idealism be "revolutionary (anti)philosophy"?

[Santeri Satama]

Dana, bättre at jag talar inte om den saken. ;)

sunnuntai 10. tammikuuta 2021 klo 15.07.39 UTC+2 Lou Gold kirjoitti:

"It's either politics or war" and "war without politics" sound the same to me. How are they different?

Again, I define politics inherent to polis, the class society of city ruling over periphery and class of scribes ruling the subject classes both urban and rural. Tribal communities without class structure and hence without politics are also perfectly capable of resource etc. wars. Because they are local. If we want peace, our experience (both indigenous and "civilized") points towards global and apolitical as the option left.

 

[Dana Lomas]

Oh no, Martin is a sardonic cisgender Swede ! LOCK THIS THREAD! LOCK THIS THREAD! LOCK THIS THREAD!

[Lou Gold]

Again, I define politics inherent to polis, the class society of city ruling over periphery and class of scribes ruling the subject classes both urban and rural. 

I define politics as the process of negotiation. This is the difference making the difference.

If we want peace, our experience (both indigenous and "civilized") points towards global and apolitical as the option left.

Global for sure but apolitical only according to a particular definition. Meanwhile, we stand in a place.

[martin...@gmail.com]

Regarding where to draw the line in this forum.

Ultimately, isn't is a question of civility?

Bob, the following section contains second guessing your thoughts, and my shallow recollections of the past. Please forgive me if i'm mirepresenting anything. That is not my intention. 

If i remember correctly, Bob didn't ban Ashvin because he was discussing politics. He banned him because he perceived that Ashvin was doing it in an uncivil and malicious manner.

I hope Bob would do the same thing if he perceived that someone was being uncivil while discussing a purely philosophical subject as well.

Again, if I remember correctly, the "[Politics]" tag was allowed with the caveat "we'll see how it goes". How what goes? Well, exactly that; whether we can stay civil or not. 

We couldn't. (in Bob's eyes, at the time). 

Politics is a sensitive subject. The more sensitive subject - the harder it becomes to stay civil. Apply this fact to something like a forum and you get: "The more sensitive subjects that is allowed in a forum, the more moderation is required to keep the forum civil". 

As forum members, if we want to be allowed to discuss sensitive subjects, we have a big responsibility ourselves to not increase Bob's burden. (Not saying that anyhing of this is easy)

 

 

[martin...@gmail.com]

Who lives in Quebec now, btw...

[Santeri Satama]

Lou,

Internet as a big talking stick circle is a possibility. To live up to the potential of Hermes Dancing in Writing, also spiritual (r)evolution with idealism/animism as a frame of no-frame.

[Dana Lomas]

Long live the politics of badinage ! (Speaking of french)

Who lives in Quebec now, btw...

Much like the rest of the country, a multicutural mix, but where someone can get by learning only french.

[David Sundaram]

Lou Gold wrote:

 

I grok Bob's good intention and support his excellent moderation. 

I have little interest in joining yet another specialized bubble of a forum. The challenges of events are communal and I doubt a digital forum can offer the dynamic of lived community. How, exactly to make a more global communal politics and not regress into the tribal is the challenge. I think we must pass through difficult times with as much compassion as we can muster. Yes, that's a platitude. To make it practical we are going to have to live it. The peaceful process is called politics.  Another alternative is called war. Transcendence involves initiation or baptism. 

Since poetry is a big theme today, here's the ending of Eliot's "Four Quartets" ... 

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half heard, in the stillness
Between the two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always–
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of things shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

Aye to all that, Lou. The only difference(s) in terms of 'philosophy' that I have with you is our respective interpretations and thought-to-be-'best' modes of co-operating with dynamic (nature-al) principle' spoken of in "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:  Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;  but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew Ch.3)

[Lou Gold]

David,

It seems that yeah-buts are perennial critters. 

[David Sundaram]

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 6:36:08 AM UTC-7 Lou Gold wrote:

Again, I define politics inherent to polis, the class society of city ruling over periphery and class of scribes ruling the subject classes both urban and rural. 

I define politics as the process of negotiation. This is the difference making the difference.

You, I assume, would advocate that people 'negotiate' with megalomaniacal types and groups, such as Hitler and The Nazi ('political' party) (now in different spiritual form)?? If not, when and why not?

[David Sundaram]

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 9:00:22 AM UTC-7 Lou Gold wrote:

David,

It seems that yeah-buts are perennial critters. 

Isn't conscientiously engaging/dealing with 'buts' as possibly being 'important' (even if 'incovnenient') an integral part of the con-verse-ational process which (unless my understanding is faulty) you generally advocate as 'ideal'? Or is "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Matthew Ch.23) applicable here?

[Lou Gold]

David,

You, I assume, ...

You presume and seek in the jargon of T S Eliot to have me "pinned and wriggling on the wall" and I, in shrink talk, say, "that's your stuff." No need for you to change. Just know that it's expected.

[Dana Lomas]

Lou playing role of windmill ...

[Lou Gold]

exposed -- nothing to defend -- so be it

[Santeri Satama]

As we see, wind-mill is a fearsome opponent, impervious to earth, beanie wind and other chivalrous virtues. That is why our piercing eyed Cyclop with his claridad of vision is recommending fire.

[Lou Gold]

Santeri,

Synchronously(?) I flashed on similar.

[RHC]

> The platform is very nice, but the activity is somewhat dispersed and infrequent, but I am also in the process of trying to get more metaphysical-political discussion going there.

Excellent! I think we have reached that point where a Political Metaphysics forum is a necessity for you guys.  If that doesn't work out I will see what I can do.  Dont worry I have absolutely no interest in any kind of role other than maybe dropping by occasionally.

"Ultimately, isn't is a question of civility?

Bob, the following section contains second guessing your thoughts, and my shallow recollections of the past. Please forgive me if i'm misrepresenting anything. That is not my intention. 

If i remember correctly, Bob didn't ban Ashvin because he was discussing politics. He banned him because he perceived that Ashvin was doing it in an uncivil and malicious manner.

I hope Bob would do the same thing if he perceived that someone was being uncivil while discussing a purely philosophical subject as well.

Again, if I remember correctly, the "[Politics]" tag was allowed with the caveat "we'll see how it goes". How what goes? Well, exactly that; whether we can stay civil or not. 

We couldn't. (in Bob's eyes, at the time). 

Politics is a sensitive subject. The more sensitive subject - the harder it becomes to stay civil. Apply this fact to something like a forum and you get: "The more sensitive subjects that is allowed in a forum, the more moderation is required to keep the forum civil". 

As forum members, if we want to be allowed to discuss sensitive subjects, we have a big responsibility ourselves to not increase Bob's burden. (Not saying that anything of this is easy)"
"

Martin Yes!, exactly right. Thank you. Though its not so much about my burden, but community solidarity and mutual aid.  Oops that sounds political.   Lets go back to civility.

Allow me to beat this to death. mostly for Lou.

People need places to come together and share their common humanity through common interests AWAY from the conflicts of the day.  This forum is no different in that regard from any other kind of club, interest or study group. For most of us this is a kind of hobby.  The reason people people join clubs is be mutually supportive, to share, to learn, to avoid conflict, though certainly not disagreement.  The only thing missing is the beer, unfortunately.

Of course I dont have to curate from this perspective, but I choose to.  I am motivated by the community building aspects of doing this.  I want to all kinds of people to come here, and enjoy expressing an idea in 2000 words or more  ;  )  or asking a question because they are confident they will be responded to with at the very least civility,  and hopefully more.  For the most part I think it works. Its really that simple.

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 11:19:15 AM UTC-5 Lou Gold wrote:

[Lou Gold]

Of course I dont have to curate from this perspective, but I choose to. 

I like the way you curate.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"Excellent! I think we have reached that point where a Political Metaphysics forum is a necessity for you guys.  If that doesn't work out I will see what I can do. " 

Bob, don't get me wrong... if you are open to setting something up for us where we can get into 'Metapolitical Discussions', please do! Thinkspot is a long shot and the most active people there do not seem to well versed in any philosophy, let alone idealist philosophy. 

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

I doubt the people here talking about "political metaphysics" mean it in the sense it is described here:

examine the nature and extent of the metaphysical element in normative political theory, the central contention being that all such theory is a kind of metaphysics  

More likely what is being meant  is not metaphysics or philosophy at all but instead the usual arguments about politics and events of the day. If some group want to create yet enough political forum with the usual right/left arguments, I'd say go for it but I find plenty of that kind of stuff elsewhere.

On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 5:53:03 PM UTC-5 RHC wrote:

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"I doubt the people here talking about "political metaphysics" mean it in the sense it is described here:

examine the nature and extent of the metaphysical element in normative political theory, the central contention being that all such theory is a kind of metaphysics"  

That's exactly how I mean it. Specifically, how idealist ontology and corresponding implications for language/speech are essential to understanding current political events and trends as well as formulating (or refraining from) any course of 'political action'. Many other metaphysical implications could be explored as well. 

[Lou Gold]

It's how I mean it as well and not the Lasswellian Politics: Who Gets, What, When and How.

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Ashvin,

That almost seems to fit into this forum.

But the most recent thread on the matter started with references to POTUS and social media platforms. I didn't any connection to metaphysics or political theory.

Since in your opinion "most active people there do not seem to well versed in any philosophy", how would you keep the discussion from degenerating to the usual stuff?  For that matter, if your expectation is that people here be "versed in any philosophy",  this may be the wrong forum. This forum frequently detours off into all sorts of areas loosely connected to metaphysics. Just looking at topics now I see subjects like sentient plants, gravitinos, many worlds interpretations, the afterlife, and psychedelics.

[Eugene I]

Any private company or private group of individuals have right to choose the rules regarding what they allow and not allow to say. The constitutional freedom of speech only applies to the Government, not to private groups or companies. Therefore, any private internet community or any privately owned social media (like Twitter, Facebook etc) have right to censor their content and put rules in place on what is allowed and what is not allowed to discuss or say. There is no need to make any excuses about those rules, as long as the majority of the members of the group or the shareholders of the company approves them. I work in the private sector and there is a lot of rules on what is allowed to say and what is not allowed (harassment policies, corporate ethics, etc) and nobody questions them, anyone who does not like them is free to resign. As a member of this forum I support RHC's decision to disallow political discussions and any uncivil, malicious, insulting or disrespectful behavior and comments.  

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Eugene,

I agree and said as much in the other locked thread that spawned this one.

I think a discussion that really did tie metaphysics and political theory might fit in this forum but I doubt the discussion could be kept to such a narrow focus.

[Lou Gold]

I need to add that I have not read the article (behind a paywall) but the assertion that there's a metaphysical way to transcend the "who gets what, when and how" is damn intriguing because as a political scientist I arrived at a perception that politics cannot lead the way out of the mess we are in. Later, and unexpectedly, I discovered that spiritual/religious politics can often make civil politics seem more reasonable. Bottom line for me now is the question: How Do Egos Become Citizens?

[Lou Gold]

I agree and said as much in the other locked thread that spawned this one.

I think a discussion that really did tie metaphysics and political theory might fit in this forum but I doubt the discussion could be kept to such a narrow focus.

It would surely (as it did) challenge the ability to offer an engaged idealism, which I consider as an intriguing and fundamental question. 

 

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Lou,

I'm not what the "it" is you are referring to. Nor do I understand how an "engaged idealism" would be defined.

 I'm not clear what metaphysics would bring to discussion when people with opposed metaphysical viewpoints could have similar political ones, and people with the same metaphysical viewpoints could have very different political ones.

[Lou Gold]

`Eugene,

I don't buy the strong private/government dichotomy for two interconnected reasons: 1) the juridical interpretation that (under the US 14th Amendment) a corporation is equivalent in some regards to an individual person is a fiction and 2) this fiction which gives certain 'private rights' to corporations is made real only by virtue of government rules and regulations that enforce it. Metaphysically, I would say that private/government dualism is an illusion.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Eugene, there are at least two separate issues you are raising - 1) What is legally allowed under the U.S. Constitution (I disagree with your 'legal analysis', but much more discussion is required to flesh the reasons why I disagree out), 2) What type of speech policies are most aligned with various metaphysical ontologies (specifically idealist ontology for most people here). 

(we could also add in what is legally allowed under other U.S. federal and state laws, which are relevant)

Although there will be significant overlap between #1 and #2, the latter will be much broader in its implications for what 'ought' to be done or not done in the political sphere for the overall benefit of humanity, especially since it will apply to almost all cultures and not just American or Western.

None of the issues surrounding free speech, let alone all Metapolitical issues, can be summarily and exhaustively discussed in a post or two, hence the request for a separate forum or avenue of discussing them in greater detail and at length. 

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 10:16:09 AM UTC-5 Eugene I wrote:

[Lou Gold]

Jim,

I'm not what the "it" is you are referring to. Nor do I understand how an "engaged idealism" would be defined.

The 'it' is 'metaphysics and political theory' and 'engaged idealism' means in the world as well as only abstract. Possibly, the key concept to explore might be citizenship.

 I'm not clear what metaphysics would bring to discussion when people with opposed metaphysical viewpoints could have similar political ones, and people with the same metaphysical viewpoints could have very different political ones.

Of course, like most things we talk about, there would be a bundle of paradoxes. Philosophy and life are full of them. The question is does metaphysics have anything to offer in this regard and how to find out without discussing it? 

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Lou,

I haven't any kind of coherent argument on this forum that ties idealism to any particular political philosophy. 

I can't speak for RHC, but some coherent argument in that regard might be allowed. Maybe you or Ashwin or anybody else should write something and see.

I think the problem would be whether the discussion would degenerate into a current politics discussion.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

A great resource for that link between idealism and political philosophy would be Rudolf Steiner's The Philosophy of Freedom:

The Philosophy of Freedom is the fundamental philosophical work of the philosopher and esotericist Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). It addresses the question of whether and in what sense human beings can be said to be free. Originally published in 1894 in German as Die Philosophie der Freiheit,[1][2] with a second edition published in 1918, the work has appeared under a number of English titles, including The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (the title Steiner proposed for the English-language translation[3]), The Philosophy of Freedom, and Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path.

Part One of The Philosophy of Freedom examines the basis for freedom in human thinking, gives an account of the relationship between knowledge and perception, and explores the role and reliability of thinking as a means to knowledge. In Part Two Steiner analyzes the conditions necessary for human beings to be free, and develops a moral philosophy that he describes as "ethical individualism".[4] The book's subtitle, Some results of introspective observation following the methods of natural science,[5] indicates the philosophical method Steiner intends to follow.

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Ashvin,

Good example. I would be surprised if an extended post on Steiner's political philosophy would be banned.

[Santeri Satama]

maanantai 11. tammikuuta 2021 klo 17.44.36 UTC+2 Lou Gold kirjoitti:

 Bottom line for me now is the question: How Do Egos Become Citizens?

Another way to put it: How do subjects of state become citizens to each other? 

[Santeri Satama]

maanantai 11. tammikuuta 2021 klo 18.06.43 UTC+2 jim.c...@gmail.com kirjoitti:

 Nor do I understand how an "engaged idealism" would be defined.

Young Hegelians?

[David Sundaram]

Lou Gold wrote:

Bottom line for me now is the question:

How Do Egos Become Citizens?
....

 

I discovered that spiritual/religious politics can often make civil politics seem more reasonable.

IMO, said 'spiritual' 'poiltics' can't/won't as long as it enables and supports con-verse-ational 'tactics' (such as Ashin's) which hitherto at least have been very much like those of policemen and prosecutors who perseveratively exercise their personal authority power to 'convict' and 'nail' those who they pre-judicially think are 'guilty' of what they consider to be 'crimes' against what they consider to be 'absolutely' sacred, disregarding the perspectives and evidence others share which support contrary conclusions. - all 'in the name' of 'compassionately' appreciating such vigilante-bullying as 'valid' aspects of the One Life that we are all part of.

It strikes me that such attitude is similar to those of many (not all mind you) who vociferously inveigh against 'abortion' of 'innocent' babies while waving 'Pro-Life" as a 'flag', when what they are basically 'fighting for' is selfishness (including their own which they don't see as being unwholistic though it is ) to be 'absolutely' 'honored'!

Any group 'constitution' based on the principle the personal prerogatives are 'sacrosanct' will sooner or later lead to what's going on on "America's" stage right now. Good luck 'inclusively hosting spiritual attitudes and consequent verbal behaviors such Ashvin's have been till now.

[Dana Lomas]

One idea of 'engaged' idealism could be the deep nuanced realization of the profound implications that every expression of mind is inextricably and lastingly entangled with every other expression, and so however 'awakened' any given mind may seem, if any other is suffering from the spell of separation, then one is still entangled with that suffering, and so there is no possibility of being truly unengaged, or free of the ramifications. So with this fact in mind, engage accordingly, as if one's own freedom from suffering depends on it, for so indeed it does.

[Lou Gold]

Jim, 

I dunno how coherent coherent must be. Afterall, climate, population, tech and metaphysics are all challenged by a changing planetary condition in which planetary citizenship is an emergent theme.

In the past Dana has offered podcasts, etc with Charles Eisenstein who is one who is attempting to address the issue. However, I've never seen anyone pick up on it. I think Santeri offers hints of citizenship concerns in a cybersphere but, again, that's not a planet. I'm highlighting the word 'citizenship' because it seems more palatable despite the fact that citizenship and politics are inseparable, which is my basic point. 

[Lou Gold]

Dana, 

I agree with your word rush. I believe it actually turns the Bodhisattva Vow from a choice to an acceptance of reality (entangled interbeing).

[Santeri Satama]

maanantai 11. tammikuuta 2021 klo 21.17.37 UTC+2 Lou Gold kirjoitti:

I think Santeri offers hints of citizenship concerns in a cybersphere but, again, that's not a planet.

Yes, cybersphere is a social sphere just like Elders institution is an evolutionary step in the social sphere of shamanhood.  The common theme in both is characterized by geometries of distributed, decentralized, peer-to-peer.

What is a planet, then? Human social sphere is part of the biosphere. "Political" is mostly antithetical to citizenship of other species. Idealism and animism don't a priori exclude spiritual sphere of a planet. What about Gaia consciousness, spiritual negotiation with Sol, etc?

[Lou Gold]

Here's an on-point quote that just appeared in one of my feeds:

"Having a good heart goes further than anything in terms of empathising with the nondual state. Intellectual elaborations are not important. Kindness is something you feel – a warmth and expansiveness which flows from our growing openness. Kindness is our contact, our strongest link with the nondual state. So much for law and order. The essence of Buddhism is similar to anarchism. Not anarchy in the distorted popular sense in which the word is understood—in the sense of dog-eat-dog-chaos—but anarchism in terms of ‘no external government’. Anarchism is the naturally manifesting inner government of awareness – unconditioned, present, direct and utterly responsible."

- Ngakpa Chogyam

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Dana,

Sounds very Bodhisattva-ish.

A Feuerbachian approach to Buddhism would entail a recovery of the historical Gotama as a human conversation partner as well as an uncompromisingly secular reading of his teaching. Discarding all elements of supernaturalism and magical thinking, one returns to the mystery and tragedy of the everyday sublime. Instead of nirvana being located in a transcendent realm beyond the human condition, it would be restored to its rightful place at the heart of what it means each moment to be fully human.  

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/stephen-batchelor-secular-buddhism/

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Now that I've reread the rules and based upon what people have expressed as their interest, I fail to see why anyone would feel the need to start a new forum.

Rule 4 states:

No partisan politics, current events or topics that don't directly pertain to metaphysics. No ideological or religious evangelizing, or posts with links to downloadable files.    

I don't see that excludes any discussion of the philosophy of politics and its relationship to metaphysics unless that discussion is just a segue to partisan politics or current events.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Basically, if I resist David's constant and annoying provocations, I'll be good. Avoiding current events is not a problem because they are unfolding so quickly nothing remains "current" in even a colloquial, let alone metaphysical, sense. 

[Lou Gold]

or posts with links to downloadable files.   

What does this mean?

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Lou,

Yeah, I noticed that too and I'm not sure why it is a rule or why it is tied to rule 4. I think sometimes I've posted links to PDFs for various papers partly because it is sometimes hard to find the PDF links on the web pages that reference the paper. But this could be referring to Word docs or spreadsheets or something. At any rate, I still would think it should be a separate rule unrelated to the other stuff in rule 4 or not there at all.

[RHC]

Lou Bernardo doesn't want the risk of people downloading viruses.  Its a pretty standard exclusion. 

Im actually skeptical of the utility of attempting to derive political philosophy from core Idealism. 

My personal favorite insight of Bernardo's, paraphrased of course, is the core truth that valuing abstraction ahead of direct living/altered experience, yours and everyone else's, is the First Sin.  In a way the Anti-Golden Rule.  --You want politics derived from Idealism, thats where I would start. 

But having said this I bet that one could derive any current existing political philosophy from Idealism in a completely logistically consistent way even though you would end up with contradictory philosophies.  There is simply to much intellectual distance between metaphysics and politics for any reference to not end up being rationalizations of personal preference. 

Even more so I currently think that most of what we what we consider political perspective is a combination of cultural brainwashing,  hard wired tendencies to react in certain ways to certain stimuli,  and projected psychological needs.  At least at a movement and national level. At a local level the garbage has to actually be picked up and there the feedback loop between belief and consequences is much tighter. As are human relationships.  If I was king I would replace the States with the 300+ Standard metro areas in the US.  A federation of city and county states. Note Im not making any value judgements about any particular beliefs and Im certainly not excluding myself from this assessment.  

Thinking about Donald Hoffman's' dashboard metaphor for our experience of underlying reality, I think civilization is yet another layer of intermediation above the dashboard.  By that I mean it further increases the lag time between the beliefs and survival consequences, good or bad. if they are good they contribute to the overall resiliency of civilization so the lag isnt that big of a deal, but if they are bad it becomes more likely you wont find out until things get very bad.  But of course even if im right what do you do with this?  Its to high level.  

Anyway Im rambling.  This thread has been interesting, high level and sane so feel free to keep it that way and continue.

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 3:57:29 PM UTC-5 Lou Gold wrote:

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"But having said this I bet that one could derive any current existing political philosophy from Idealism in a completely logistically consistent way even though you would end up with contradictory philosophies.  There is simply to much intellectual distance between metaphysics and politics for any reference to not end up being rationalizations of personal preference. "

I doubt any totalitarian political philosophy could be derived from idealism [accurately represented] in a logically consistent way.  And those of the types of political philosophies we have been dealing with for the last 100 years. I think the "intellectual distance" you reference is simply an artifice of a rationalist/materialist mode of experiencing and thinking through political issues. A few hundred years ago, it would be inconceivable for anyone to approach issues of commerce, law or politics (or culture in general) without tying those issues into explicitly philosophical/theological considerations. It only takes a little bit of imaginative reframing to restore that approach to politics in our minds and discourse.

[Santeri Satama]

tiistai 12. tammikuuta 2021 klo 0.07.35 UTC+2 RHC kirjoitti:

Even more so I currently think that most of what we what we consider political perspective is a combination of cultural brainwashing,  hard wired tendencies to react in certain ways to certain stimuli,  and projected psychological needs. 

Starting from that observation, fighting ideology with anti-ideology would remain in the mirror-world of reflective philosophy. So, what is Zizek about with garnishing his Hegel-burger with a little Lacan and a dash of Marx? Before thinking forwards(?) the relation of idealism and ideology, Zizek in a nut shell offers perhaps digestable back tracking to what has been already investigated in this field, and what are the main obstacles found/unsolved. I'm watching this now second time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpaKKKEkn8g&t=2s

Aufhebung / sublation, not an easy word-concept, but as I'm trying to figure it's meaning, seems useful addition to vocabulary of philosophy. 'Eväys' sounds like decent translation into Finnish, not least because 'eväs' means provisions, hopefully suggestive of the meaning negating by taking something with. In a sentence: Sublation of a polar opposition is the beef of a Heegel-böögel.  

 

[RHC]

> A few hundred years ago, it would be inconceivable for anyone to approach issues of commerce, law or politics (or culture in general) without tying those issues into explicitly philosophical/theological considerations. It only takes a little bit of imaginative reframing to restore that approach to politics in our minds and discourse. 

Oh I think this never stopped, as we entered the age of democratized thought where everyone's opinion about everything is of equal value, a direction clearly still evolving or if you prefer devolving;  in many cases its just become less mindful and well organized or again if you prefer confused.  I'm playing with a framing of politics in which "..philosophical/theological considerations" are in actuality manifestations of my second point; evolving hindsight justifications/rationalizations filtered for first by the inner sub-intellectual needs of individuals, and then those individuals and their ideas promoted in mind-share by various reward feedback loops in a given society  The most powerful in scarcity agricultural civilizations (the regime of the last 8000 years or so) being oligarchy in all its various manifestations.  And that feedback loop primarily promotes beliefs and defenders that justify whatever the current status quo arrangement of wealth and power is at the time and place. 

Unfortunately when you combine positive feedback loops with abstractions, stories about the world, these abstractions/beliefs/stories tend towards over-optimization.  That is become increasingly more disconnected from, survival, to the extent the complexity of a given civilization will intermediate between them and bad outcomes. This continues until even that is no longer possible and they crash, with over the course of history increasing bad collateral damage.  The evolution of this dynamic is not that linear of course.  The continued existence and rationales for nuclear weapons might be an example.  The current development of hypersonic ones that reach their targets in minutes an example of runaway optimization because there is no cost to their existence until suddenly there is tremendous cost. 

On the other hand on a more positive note, maybe increased complexity in civilization leads to negative feedback loops that will eventually prevent the runaway optimization processes of anti-survival memes from gaining a footholds.   Science, independent judiciaries, militaries implemented to stay out of domestics politics, all might be examples.  Hell maybe people screaming at each other in social media will end up being a governor on over-abstraction.  Maybe we will cross from scarcity based civilizations to abundance based ones, which might result in reward feedback loops rewarding completely different kinds of people and ideas. 

I think all the above is a high level sanity check on a tendency I see to think that past thinkers, especially the ancients have bascially ALL the answers about human nature and the possibilities for what we can collectively become. Putting aside the obvious past that everybody cherry picks the past as part of their story making, context matters, especially technological.  I think human nature is much more a usefully thought of as a set boundary conditions rather than imperatives. But of course all this is just the intellectual manifestation of my own particular set of cultural brainwashing,  hard wired tendencies to react in certain ways to certain stimuli,  and projected psychological needs.  Actually maybe psycho-spiritual needs is more accurate. Everything Im playing with here is almost certainly mostly wrong as a remotely accurate view of how the world works because of the root problem is that all abstraction is over-simplification.   All models fuck you in the end if you fall into the trap of identifying with them as more real than what they describe. Which is why the Golden rule has to be the final litmus test for all model application in the world.   Note I think everything I have said here could be spun into Left or Right, religious or secular versions. Which is fine with me as long as that last bit about the Golden rule remains intact which of course it rarely does. 

Santeri I think the Left over fixates on Capitalism and needs to see it as a manifestation of oligarchy given a particular technological regime.  If you want to break the cycle of oligarchy the only sane way to do it is through grass roots, ground up incrementalism.  Tinkering with more equalitarian feedback loops that start small but feed on themselves because they actually work.  Cooperatives are an example.  This notion that the Anarchists had and its seems Zizek  (man you have way more patience than me, pulling out utility from all that language abuse. Though I suppose once you get used to it is like any other shop talk.)  that if we stand back with the right mindset and do nothing, eventually the solutions will organically present themselves seems nuts to me, not to mention no fun whatsoever. 

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

RHC,

Im actually skeptical of the utility of attempting to derive political philosophy from core Idealism.   

Me too but I think people should be given a chance to attempt it, which seems to be the same as you feel. 

But having said this I bet that one could derive any current existing political philosophy from Idealism in a completely logistically consistent way even though you would end up with contradictory philosophies.  There is simply to much intellectual distance between metaphysics and politics for any reference to not end up being rationalizations of personal preference. 

Yes. Should we consider when BK wanders into political topics, those thoughts are not derived from or directly related to his idealism? 

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 5:07:35 PM UTC-5 RHC wrote:

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Bernardo doesn't want the risk of people downloading viruses.  Its a pretty standard exclusion.   

Makes sense for sure for dropbox files and such. Does that include links to PDFs? And should the exclusion be a rule by self, not tied political or religious commentary?

On Monday, January 11, 2021 at 5:07:35 PM UTC-5 RHC wrote:

[Santeri Satama]

tiistai 12. tammikuuta 2021 klo 14.21.39 UTC+2 RHC kirjoitti:

Santeri I think the Left over fixates on Capitalism and needs to see it as a manifestation of oligarchy given a particular technological regime.  If you want to break the cycle of oligarchy the only sane way to do it is through grass roots, ground up incrementalism.  Tinkering with more equalitarian feedback loops that start small but feed on themselves because they actually work.  Cooperatives are an example.  This notion that the Anarchists had and its seems Zizek  (man you have way more patience than me, pulling out utility from all that language abuse. Though I suppose once you get used to it is like any other shop talk.)  that if we stand back with the right mindset and do nothing, eventually the solutions will organically present themselves seems nuts to me, not to mention no fun whatsoever.

Capitalism/Modernity/Civilization/Matrix/World-As-We-Know-It/The System, how to get out of (or how to sublate) this totalizing all-assimilating loop and its self-destructing teleology? The question of liberatory idealist philosophy, that Continental philosophy asks in its Hegelian and Young Hegelian abuses of language, which try to step out of the capitalist/etc. abuses of language. I didn't bring up Zizek in order to agree - or disagree - with his analysis and suggestion, but to remind that the question of idealism, ideology and politics does not exist in philosophical vacuum, on the contrary.

Capitalism and Hegelian are of course not the only languages available. There's still indigenous language that nurtures the loop of human life, there's direct language of the punk-shaman... I'm a translator by profession and vocation, which requires not only patience but also curiosity of languages and poetic playfulness. In its core translation science is deeply ethical praxis, based on benevolent interpretation and putting your self-importance aside while you channel meaning.  

Ground up incrementalism of local co-ops, ecovillages and nurturing indigenous traditions is not sufficient alone. Language of concrete mathematics already enables first aid intervention at systemic top level, creation of money directly as UBI by global money creation co-op, together with evolution of decentralized digital self-governance. An of course the system is using same tools for even more Orwellian totalitarianism, writing is a pharmakon, both poison and medicine. We'll see how that goes.

Naturally, idealism and animism allow also holographic and holonomic language of epigenetics by morphogenetic fields, spiritual reprogramming of biology... 

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"Oh I think this never stopped, as we entered the age of democratized thought where everyone's opinion about everything is of equal value, a direction clearly still evolving or if you prefer devolving;  in many cases its just become less mindful and well organized or again if you prefer confused.  I'm playing with a framing of politics in which "..philosophical/theological considerations" are in actuality manifestations of my second point; evolving hindsight justifications/rationalizations filtered for first by the inner sub-intellectual needs of individuals, and then those individuals and their ideas promoted in mind-share by various reward feedback loops in a given society" 

Right, and the "less mindful" part is the key. Everyone has an implicit metaphysics which will partly drive their perspectives on the world. Making that conscious and explicit is the key to integrating it (we will never get rid of these underlying motivations, nor should we want to IMO). Back in the day of Descartes, who we consider the father of rationalism, or Francis Bacon, who we consider the father of scientific method, there was no such thing as being educated and politically oriented without also being well-versed in the entire 'Western canon' of philosophy, theology and literature up to that time. Now it's almost the opposite for the average person in the West and most places influenced by the West - the most politically active seem to be the least well-read and the least critically minded. Nothing good comes of keeping our metaphysical motivations 'unconscious' rather than conscious. 

"The most powerful in scarcity agricultural civilizations (the regime of the last 8000 years or so) being oligarchy in all its various manifestations.  And that feedback loop primarily promotes beliefs and defenders that justify whatever the current status quo arrangement of wealth and power is at the time and place." 

I hear this 'historical materialist' approach a lot and I just don't think it is accurate. The "scarcity of agricultural civilizations" does not make sense to me. At best, I think that approach tells only half of the story, but most likely a smaller fraction of the story. Idealism posits that there is mental activity which is not strictly related to "power dynamics" but is just as important in driving human civilization, namely those involving creative/spiritual activity and competence. I believe the axioms of rationalism are chiefly responsible for our desire to reduce all dimensions of human existence and progress to manifestations of exercises in power. 

[Santeri Satama]

tiistai 12. tammikuuta 2021 klo 16.28.35 UTC+2 ashvi...@gmail.com kirjoitti:

I hear this 'historical materialist' approach a lot and I just don't think it is accurate. The "scarcity of agricultural civilizations" does not make sense to me.

Horticultural science makes plenty sense and is holy in it's own way. I assume the scarcity refers to the loop of mining fertile topsoil for population overshoot, collapse of carrying capacity and die-off / colonialist imperialism. 

 

Coevolution relation focused on being used by couple annual hay plants to clear them more lebensraum by killing forests and perpetually preventing forest from growing again is perhaps not the most intelligent coevolution relation available. It's possible that agriculture is making and keeping us more stupid, creating scarcity of intelligence.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

"I assume the scarcity refers to the loop of mining fertile topsoil for population overshoot, collapse of carrying capacity and die-off / colonialist imperialism."  

But that's not what happened.  There was no "population overshoot" and collapse of carrying capacity which motivated Europeans to colonize the 'new world'. What was critical, though, was the evolution of a new 'horizontal consciousness' in the European mind, which discovered the infinitely extended dimension of space and were impelled to 'broaden their horizons' across all fronts, artistic, philosophical, scientific/technological, commercial, and political.

[Santeri Satama]

Ashvin, read the classic study on the topic:
https://soilandhealth.org/copyrighted-book/topsoil-and-civilization/

"This classic survey of world history should never have been allowed to fall out of print. It demonstrates how every civilization from Mesopotamia to Rome has destroyed its agricultural resource base and thus destroyed itself. The book also looks at modern-day Europe and the United States with considerable uncertainty about the sustainability of our own system."

Europe had Black Death die-off right after the Great Famine of 1315-1317, as part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Late_Middle_Ages.

Die-off => Famine, pestilence, war, continuous popular revolts, witch hunt. And then imperialism and colonialism of the New age. There were also horticultural improvements, new crop plants, especially potato (but remember also Irish famine), and shift to 3-field crop rotation after the crisis, less damaging to natural fertility, and spread of small scale gardening of greater variety with increased yield per area.  However, these and further improvements have not solved the underlying unsustainability of agriculture, which has become now dependent from mining mineral fertilizers and extensive use of fossil energy.

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

I should not have said that such material concerns have no role to play in colonial expansion, because I think it is self-evident they did. My issue is when it is framed as THE motivating concern, i.e. the rational cause we can all point to as driving these various cultural, economic and political developments, and therefore we can extrapolate that rational cause to what's driving all developments today, tomorrow and indefinitely into the future. Such a view is incompatible with objective idealist metaphysics and correspondingly ignores the evolution of the irrational unconscious and its major role in shaping these developments. 

[Santeri Satama]

Ashvin,

crossing over of various levels and layers of being-becoming (Deleuze: go crazy and start tripping!) deserves also careful consideration of coherent integration and therapeutic story telling. Especially as you contemplate assigning Will / Spirit as a causal principle of some kind to some-thing.

The ministry of Jesus - just a duration - declared: "Multiply and fulfill the Earth!" and threw his breath with words "It's fulfilled." Gnostic corpus reveals the dude also as a presciently laughing maniac. Rational vs Irrational is just another relatively boring polarity to kick in the groin and steal its lunch box. 

So yeah, the dude royally fucked up a Kingdom. That's what spiritual freedom is about, caring. I see no reason or a-reason to stop caring about how to feed and nurture our kids, or how to protect Mama from big fiery rocks falling from the sky. Pure love is the puddle of our tears of joy and sorrow and compassion.

[Santeri Satama]

Jaz Coleman talking spiritual revolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=390GRXplPJ4

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Boring for me is the deconstructing language-game which devolves into nothing but dismissive missives. Exhausting... yeah, that captures it better. Like the actor who becomes a parody of his own character. 

The role I am assigning unconscious Will is beyond causation. Regardless, the rationalist fails to acknowledge it even exists, let alone has a role to be assigned, and that's all I am saying here.

[Santeri Satama]

"devolves into nothing but dismissive missives. Exhausting... yeah, that captures it better. Like the actor who becomes a parody of his own character." 

That is just language telling how it feels. Not me. Let's feel better.

To touch is to feel a boundary. But it's not the boundary that feels. In Aristotelean logic (which really didn't make the Stageiran any better than Plato), boundary is imagined as infinitesimally thin dimension of separation. Of course from experience we know that in actual touch there's no LEM, skin bursts into avalanche of sensations with infinitely rich texture. Skin is the in-between of intuitionistic logic.

The weirdest thing about the WEIRD* is their categorical omission of bodily awareness. But there is even a SEP article on this aspect of gnothi seauton. So not totally mystical either. :)

On the contrary, perfectly scientific experiment that every body can do. Focusing attention on bodily awareness, how you feel, can you feel your boundary? If not, can you also feel a fullness of body, growing and releasing to feel every surface from both sides, how ever differently, so lovingly uniquely? This pure between?

[Lou Gold]

Hmmm. Words. Deconstruction. Will. And more. 

In my philosophically naive way I contemplate and grok the dualist dilemma of "the bigger the light, the bigger the shadow," which might be iconically displayed in this photo. The only approach I find, again in my intuition, is an ongoing integrating journey intending toward "there is no other" while confessing humbly that I'm in process.

I continue to love, in a challenging more than an accomplished way, Rumi's great poem:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase “each other”
doesn’t make any sense.
The breeze at dawn has secrets to tell you.
Don’t go back to sleep.
You must ask for what you really want.
Don’t go back to sleep.
People are going back and forth across the doorsill
where the two worlds touch.
The door is round and open.
Don’t go back to sleep.”

[Santeri Satama]

"the bigger the light, the bigger the shadow,"

Put your finger in front of a lamp. Look at the shadow of your lamp. Move your finger away from the lamp towards its shadow. The further your finger, the bigger the light becomes in relation to your finger, and the smaller the shadow grows. Or, keep your finger in place and increase the area of the source of light for same effect.

The bigger the light, the smaller the shadow. QED

[Lou Gold]

"The bigger the light, the smaller the shadow. QED"

Of course! And seeing one's self and the other as one is a means of doing this.  The closer one's finger is to one's light, the larger the shadow will be. QED.