Oppression Hierarchy and The Anti-Intellectual Left

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Dear Brothers,

There was an earlier conversation on this forum about what broke up the occupy movement.  Alexander is right that it was due to a lack of vision and focus.  There was a dogma to not have any demands due to not wanting to alienate the communists as well as libertarians who were part of the movement.  Which at that point, what is it we are trying to achieve?

Well I was at the forefront of Occupy Riverside.  I was there when the police were hitting my friends with batons and pepper spraying the crowd.  When I really started noticing division within the movement, was when a teacher at my school brought forward this "Progressive" stack.  Meaning that those with the least privilege get to speak first, and those with the most privilege have to step back "check their privilege" and speak last.  The oppression hierarchy in this utterly asinine stack, was as such;

1.  Race

2.  Heteronormativity

3,  Gender

4.  Sexuality

5.  Ability

6.  Class

So, basically a way to measure how much more or less privilege someone has based on this list.  Race being the biggest factor which determines privilege and class being the smallest factor.  As Alexander predicted, this identity politics is what divided the movement.   The fallacy of this regressive stack is that it solidifies privilege through a sort of oppression hierarchy when each individual in all those categories has a very different situation and struggle.  It would be impossible to measure who is more oppressed than the other.

What has happened since, is that, while before, being leftest was about thinking outside the box, promoting a sense of humor, and using creativity in the way we describe and even debate things, it has now been reduced to this narrative of oppression hierarchy.

I am wondering, as Syntheists, how can we use social media, as a way to reach out and expose the divisiveness of such narratives?  I ask this because social media has made the general attention spans shorter.  Many times if you make a statement that is more than seven words, you end up loosing your audience. So what can be done to bring the reality of such manipulation to light?

Kenneth

  

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP-pH3JtWA

Here is a link explaining the regressive stack better than I.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

[Brent Cooper]

To reduce divisiveness, I have argued that abstraction reduces political polarization. Abstraction is also a principle of simplicity, so we need to continue to try to get to the root of the problem without being reductive. As Syntheists, Syntheism is about the unity of religion, not the division of it, like every exclusive religion represents. I think "as Syntheists" we can only really address religion, not politics, but hopefully we can express the logic the supports a more complex worldview.

In the spirit of trying to answer your question, I have to challenge some of the assumptions. Why is the failure of the Occupy movement always framed in terms of its weakness as opposed to the strengths of the opponents of Occupy? I fully agree there is a litany of problems with the protest, I know it- but there is a "so what" factor. The bad guys are still the bankers, not Leftists.The 'progressive stack' of liberal postmodernists needs to be seen (and executed) just as a heuristic to organize testimony, not as the over-arching principle behind the movement. Obviously if the very privileged white man Noam Chomsky wants to speak, we want him to speak and not some random victims who may know nothing about sociology of larger context of systemic-oppression. I agree, identity politics may have compromised Occupy, but lets acknowledge that's a simplistic explanation, because the police with batons played a much more active and divisive role. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP-pH3JtWA

Here is a link explaining the regressive stack better than I.

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Brent,

I seem to remember that Syntheism has some origins with burning man as well as political activism.  

You have some interesting views on that and much of what you say is true.  I think the police with batons had less to do with the eventual break up of occupy than the identity politics.  This is because without identity politics, there would be more reorganizing rather than what has happened now with Occupy being split into different identity politics camps, such as Black Lives Matter, or certain LGBTQ movements.  Occupy was suppose to unite all those movements and did so temporarily until the identity politics came in with this regressive stack.  So yes, more of it was the weakness of the movement, because in principle and from a Hegelian standpoint, (which Syntheism is Hegelian) no one has control over you if you do not comply.  By not reorganizing after the round ups to the different occupy events (I was at the one in L.A.), the occupy movement complied.  What did Martin Luther King do?  He did not comply and therefore was successful.  The lack of success came from those who saw what happened to Martin Luther King and let fear get in the way of finishing what he started.  

First we must notice that control is an illusion, and it is an illusion that we all have complied to.  Then we realize that through this non-compliance, we can make radical changes to the system and return the power to the people.  To have this courage, we have to overcome a fear of the consequences for non-compliance. 

Regards

Kenneth 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com> wrote:

To reduce divisiveness, I have argued that abstraction reduces political polarization. Abstraction is also a principle of simplicity, so we need to continue to try to get to the root of the problem without being reductive. As Syntheists, Syntheism is about the unity of religion, not the division of it, like every exclusive religion represents. I think "as Syntheists" we can only really address religion, not politics, but hopefully we can express the logic the supports a more complex worldview.

In the spirit of trying to answer your question, I have to challenge some of the assumptions. Why is the failure of the Occupy movement always framed in terms of its weakness as opposed to the strengths of the opponents of Occupy? I fully agree there is a litany of problems with the protest, I know it- but there is a "so what" factor. The bad guys are still the bankers, not Leftists.The 'progressive stack' of liberal postmodernists needs to be seen (and executed) just as a heuristic to organize testimony, not as the over-arching principle behind the movement. Obviously if the very privileged white man Noam Chomsky wants to speak, we want him to speak and not some random victims who may know nothing about sociology of larger context of systemic-oppression. I agree, identity politics may have compromised Occupy, but lets acknowledge that's a simplistic explanation, because the police with batons played a much more active and divisive role. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristensen11235813@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP-pH3JtWA

Here is a link explaining the regressive stack better than I.

[Brent Cooper]

Yeah, you're right about all that. I was at Occupy London. We have been divided by left-right politics when we should be focusing on elites vs. masses. I can't help but blame the right though.. while they claim to be salvaging, they are simply sabotaging. There are too many movements, which is why I advocate everyone dedicating to the most abstract causes (general systemic-justice over competing causes). Occupy was the closest thing to it, and it dealt directly with the problem of financial abstraction. 

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brent,

I seem to remember that Syntheism has some origins with burning man as well as political activism.  

You have some interesting views on that and much of what you say is true.  I think the police with batons had less to do with the eventual break up of occupy than the identity politics.  This is because without identity politics, there would be more reorganizing rather than what has happened now with Occupy being split into different identity politics camps, such as Black Lives Matter, or certain LGBTQ movements.  Occupy was suppose to unite all those movements and did so temporarily until the identity politics came in with this regressive stack.  So yes, more of it was the weakness of the movement, because in principle and from a Hegelian standpoint, (which Syntheism is Hegelian) no one has control over you if you do not comply.  By not reorganizing after the round ups to the different occupy events (I was at the one in L.A.), the occupy movement complied.  What did Martin Luther King do?  He did not comply and therefore was successful.  The lack of success came from those who saw what happened to Martin Luther King and let fear get in the way of finishing what he started.  

First we must notice that control is an illusion, and it is an illusion that we all have complied to.  Then we realize that through this non-compliance, we can make radical changes to the system and return the power to the people.  To have this courage, we have to overcome a fear of the consequences for non-compliance. 

Regards

Kenneth 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com> wrote:

To reduce divisiveness, I have argued that abstraction reduces political polarization. Abstraction is also a principle of simplicity, so we need to continue to try to get to the root of the problem without being reductive. As Syntheists, Syntheism is about the unity of religion, not the division of it, like every exclusive religion represents. I think "as Syntheists" we can only really address religion, not politics, but hopefully we can express the logic the supports a more complex worldview.

In the spirit of trying to answer your question, I have to challenge some of the assumptions. Why is the failure of the Occupy movement always framed in terms of its weakness as opposed to the strengths of the opponents of Occupy? I fully agree there is a litany of problems with the protest, I know it- but there is a "so what" factor. The bad guys are still the bankers, not Leftists.The 'progressive stack' of liberal postmodernists needs to be seen (and executed) just as a heuristic to organize testimony, not as the over-arching principle behind the movement. Obviously if the very privileged white man Noam Chomsky wants to speak, we want him to speak and not some random victims who may know nothing about sociology of larger context of systemic-oppression. I agree, identity politics may have compromised Occupy, but lets acknowledge that's a simplistic explanation, because the police with batons played a much more active and divisive role. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Yes, I see you are focusing on the title.  

I do agree with you that the right is more responsible for the problems.  It is just that leftest campus activist have been doing a good job feeding right wing politics by acting so damn immature and entitled with their safe spaces and trigger warnings.  Being on the Autistic spectrum, I can tell you that we have always had to deal with safe spaces.  It is called special ed, and trust me, it is highly condescending and insulting to insinuate to someone like me, that I need to be coddled from the outside unsafe world.  What is happening now, is just another way to say people of color, women, LBGTQ, all need to be in special ed.  I see people promote safe spaces today, and I think "Wow, you must have a very low self image, and no shame."  I mean, I would be embarrassed to promote such decadent entitlements.  

I personally cannot stand the right wing even more.  No matter what part of the world I look at, right wing politics is pretty horrendous.  So If I had to choose between the SJW's and the Alt-Right, or in England's case, the National Front.  It is not much of a choice, but I am at least sympathetic to most SJW causes.  I just find shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos just simply because I find him to be a monumental idiot, only serves to support his views.  As a matter of fact, since I am convinced he is wrong, I encourage that he have a platform to speak on, so that the world can know exactly why he is wrong.  

Regards,

Kenneth

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, you're right about all that. I was at Occupy London. We have been divided by left-right politics when we should be focusing on elites vs. masses. I can't help but blame the right though.. while they claim to be salvaging, they are simply sabotaging. There are too many movements, which is why I advocate everyone dedicating to the most abstract causes (general systemic-justice over competing causes). Occupy was the closest thing to it, and it dealt directly with the problem of financial abstraction. 

Regards, 

Brent

[竜虎風森]

I say leave it alone and don't poke the bear. You don't give co-narcissists of indeterminate size the view counts and interactions they crave.

Because of contextless algorithms rewarding sheer number of interactions, any attention is good attention.

If we're honest, a lot of the impetus to "speak out" about 12 year olds on Tumblr, 20-somethings going through a predictable immature liberal phase and ex-hippies who've failed to progress to a post-pomo pragmatism, is to virtue signal that we're not Tumblrites, immature or unpragmatic.

It's not worth it. Lead by example and starve the narcs.

--K

On 9 Jan 2018 11.19 PM, "Kenneth Morningstar99" <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I see you are focusing on the title.  

I do agree with you that the right is more responsible for the problems.  It is just that leftest campus activist have been doing a good job feeding right wing politics by acting so damn immature and entitled with their safe spaces and trigger warnings.  Being on the Autistic spectrum, I can tell you that we have always had to deal with safe spaces.  It is called special ed, and trust me, it is highly condescending and insulting to insinuate to someone like me, that I need to be coddled from the outside unsafe world.  What is happening now, is just another way to say people of color, women, LBGTQ, all need to be in special ed.  I see people promote safe spaces today, and I think "Wow, you must have a very low self image, and no shame."  I mean, I would be embarrassed to promote such decadent entitlements.  

I personally cannot stand the right wing even more.  No matter what part of the world I look at, right wing politics is pretty horrendous.  So If I had to choose between the SJW's and the Alt-Right, or in England's case, the National Front.  It is not much of a choice, but I am at least sympathetic to most SJW causes.  I just find shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos just simply because I find him to be a monumental idiot, only serves to support his views.  As a matter of fact, since I am convinced he is wrong, I encourage that he have a platform to speak on, so that the world can know exactly why he is wrong.  

Regards,

Kenneth

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, you're right about all that. I was at Occupy London. We have been divided by left-right politics when we should be focusing on elites vs. masses. I can't help but blame the right though.. while they claim to be salvaging, they are simply sabotaging. There are too many movements, which is why I advocate everyone dedicating to the most abstract causes (general systemic-justice over competing causes). Occupy was the closest thing to it, and it dealt directly with the problem of financial abstraction. 

Regards, 

Brent

[Brent Cooper]

Here's my take on safe spaces. I agree, they've become cop-out zones, where people can hide behind whatever. But according to the wiki article, the term was only applied in the context of LGBT struggles, and if they were feeling persecuted on today's campuses then its a valid concept (to not tolerate hate speech masquerading as ideas). And sure, safe spaces existed for special ed and other forms. But the exploitation of safe-spaces is just a puzzle piece in the wider problem, of how the SJW movement dovetails with the fake-progressivism of liberal elites, and how any effort at progress is roundly foiled by conservatives (who claim to also be marching for some kind of progress).

Postmodernism includes a critique, a critique against doctrines and belief systems. We can falsify religion, for example. So, the critique was supposed to win. Secularism, humanism, skepticism were supposed to trump dumb-ass beliefs. But the "values" of post-modern politics, liberal multiculturalism, freedom, whatever you want to call it, say that people have the right to identity and freedom of religion, so people keep being religious, and thus offendable. This is a fault of both the right and the left; the protection of religion from scrutiny. So, the 'safe spaces' became a protected thing, even though they already were de facto existing as whichever club (where people could feel safe with their beliefs). This bullshit culminates with the Lindsay Shepherd scandal, where the admin tried to force her to make a classroom a 'safe space' of all places. The answer is not to condemn the SJWs or the right-wing retards, but to just offer up the correct discourse, one piece at a time. 

Syntheism can help lead the way by showing how everything's connected.

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:59 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I say leave it alone and don't poke the bear. You don't give co-narcissists of indeterminate size the view counts and interactions they crave.

Because of contextless algorithms rewarding sheer number of interactions, any attention is good attention.

If we're honest, a lot of the impetus to "speak out" about 12 year olds on Tumblr, 20-somethings going through a predictable immature liberal phase and ex-hippies who've failed to progress to a post-pomo pragmatism, is to virtue signal that we're not Tumblrites, immature or unpragmatic.

It's not worth it. Lead by example and starve the narcs.

--K

[Jonatan Bäckelie]

I really love how your conversation is unfolding, Kenneth & Brent! It's the kind of good conversation which expands and gives birth to new thought rather than bogging down on details ... but instead seeing them as just that; details.

Here's my five cents: The question of what Syntheism can or should address should, reasonably, be an open-ended one. But as we saw in the days leading up to Borderland and the online debates taking place there; the participatory milieu is not spared 'real world politics'. As Alexander said "how could we ever believe that it would be?".

Thus the point has come where we need to get to grips with what ideologies and discursive frameworks will promote a better world, participatory, atheist-spiritual, syntheist, whatever you like ... 

If we speak of the broader participatory milieu I see two points of negotiation which we ought to go back and forth between in order to sustain and further our 'lifestyle' (pardon the Project Runway-ish choice of word). A) What politics best serves (us) people who want to live and build together in meaningful communion? B) What is the good? I.e. what do we draw on in our creative processes, where does this idea of good come from?

It would of course be naive to think that our concepts of the good life would be unpolitical. So there are these two aspects of politics inbued in syntheism.

The enactment of the syntheist religion in the world is also politico-religious. It's a world view, or to use the better, more precise Swedish term: livsåskådning. 

I for one could list probably a 100 reasons why I believe the SJWs and identity politics to be detrimental to any participatory project, let alone syntheism. Although as Brent (I think it was) said that many of us sympathise deeply with much of the cause proponed. It's just their view of themselves as morally superior that makes then so utterly insufferable with their constant attempts at pattenting goodness™.

So, the question to deal with next is perhaps: What questions are relevant for the furthering of a good participatory, syntheist society, full of dividuals rather than individuals (the Right's fetish) or groups (the SJW's fetish)?

Both this question and the A&B points of negotiations can of course be adjusted or worded, probably radically different. But I believe some sort of basic questions like this is where we ought to start. Do you agree?

Love and respect

/Jonatan 

ons 10 jan. 2018 kl. 07:31 skrev Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Here's my take on safe spaces. I agree, they've become cop-out zones, where people can hide behind whatever. But according to the wiki article, the term was only applied in the context of LGBT struggles, and if they were feeling persecuted on today's campuses then its a valid concept (to not tolerate hate speech masquerading as ideas). And sure, safe spaces existed for special ed and other forms. But the exploitation of safe-spaces is just a puzzle piece in the wider problem, of how the SJW movement dovetails with the fake-progressivism of liberal elites, and how any effort at progress is roundly foiled by conservatives (who claim to also be marching for some kind of progress).

Postmodernism includes a critique, a critique against doctrines and belief systems. We can falsify religion, for example. So, the critique was supposed to win. Secularism, humanism, skepticism were supposed to trump dumb-ass beliefs. But the "values" of post-modern politics, liberal multiculturalism, freedom, whatever you want to call it, say that people have the right to identity and freedom of religion, so people keep being religious, and thus offendable. This is a fault of both the right and the left; the protection of religion from scrutiny. So, the 'safe spaces' became a protected thing, even though they already were de facto existing as whichever club (where people could feel safe with their beliefs). This bullshit culminates with the Lindsay Shepherd scandal, where the admin tried to force her to make a classroom a 'safe space' of all places. The answer is not to condemn the SJWs or the right-wing retards, but to just offer up the correct discourse, one piece at a time. 

Syntheism can help lead the way by showing how everything's connected.

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:59 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I say leave it alone and don't poke the bear. You don't give co-narcissists of indeterminate size the view counts and interactions they crave.

Because of contextless algorithms rewarding sheer number of interactions, any attention is good attention.

If we're honest, a lot of the impetus to "speak out" about 12 year olds on Tumblr, 20-somethings going through a predictable immature liberal phase and ex-hippies who've failed to progress to a post-pomo pragmatism, is to virtue signal that we're not Tumblrites, immature or unpragmatic.

It's not worth it. Lead by example and starve the narcs.

--K

Regards, 

Brent

Regards, 

Brent

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

SUBSECULAR.COM - A Music & Philosophy Interface

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Thank you Brent, Jonatan, and K,

In terms of leaving it alone, I am afraid that will not do much good, as the bear has already been poked.  All of you bring up great points about how giving attention feeds the publicity be it good or bad.  

However, right now, I feel it is something that requires direct action, and especially those of us with liberal views need to call out these pseudo Marxist identity politicking SJW's.  Part of the problem, (I too have been guilty of this) is that not enough of us with left wing views have been willing to take a stand for fear of being called fake leftests, or accusations of not being understanding of the plight of marginalized people,.  We need to create more unsafe spaces where such immaturity will only result in the complete humiliation of someone who tries to tarnish causes of unity with their immature entitlements, and upper middle class bourgeois pseudo leftism.  Because all they serve to do is delegitimize legitimate causes.  Feminism is a legitimate cause, and some immature economically privileged SJWs should not act up in an exclusionary way without consequences.  And it must be us who support feminism who give them such consequences.  

Jonatan, I think you bring up an interesting point about doing this as dividuals and not individuals.  On the topic of dividualism, here is how a professor used dividualism to get a dialogue going to take a stand against such behavior.  Especially when good teachers are loosing their jobs.  The teacher did not want to loose his job, so he posted a semi-anonymous article on Vox.  Before this article, hardly any left wing academics would speak out against this.  Now there are more and more left wing academics waking up to this.  

All I got to say, is if you are studying something like history of labor, and you as a teacher feel compelled to take Upton Sinclair off the curriculum, THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM!  Upton Sinclair should be one of the first reads in terms of the American history of labor.  

I say left for lack of a batter word.  I understand in Scandinavia the liberal side is considered right wing and the conservative view is considered left.  Kind of like how neo-liberal in South American means privatizing everything, while in China neo-liberal is a completely different ideology.  

Regards

Kenneth

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Jonatan Bäckelie <j.bac...@gmail.com> wrote:

I really love how your conversation is unfolding, Kenneth & Brent! It's the kind of good conversation which expands and gives birth to new thought rather than bogging down on details ... but instead seeing them as just that; details.

Here's my five cents: The question of what Syntheism can or should address should, reasonably, be an open-ended one. But as we saw in the days leading up to Borderland and the online debates taking place there; the participatory milieu is not spared 'real world politics'. As Alexander said "how could we ever believe that it would be?".

Thus the point has come where we need to get to grips with what ideologies and discursive frameworks will promote a better world, participatory, atheist-spiritual, syntheist, whatever you like ... 

If we speak of the broader participatory milieu I see two points of negotiation which we ought to go back and forth between in order to sustain and further our 'lifestyle' (pardon the Project Runway-ish choice of word). A) What politics best serves (us) people who want to live and build together in meaningful communion? B) What is the good? I.e. what do we draw on in our creative processes, where does this idea of good come from?

It would of course be naive to think that our concepts of the good life would be unpolitical. So there are these two aspects of politics inbued in syntheism.

The enactment of the syntheist religion in the world is also politico-religious. It's a world view, or to use the better, more precise Swedish term: livsåskådning. 

I for one could list probably a 100 reasons why I believe the SJWs and identity politics to be detrimental to any participatory project, let alone syntheism. Although as Brent (I think it was) said that many of us sympathise deeply with much of the cause proponed. It's just their view of themselves as morally superior that makes then so utterly insufferable with their constant attempts at pattenting goodness™.

So, the question to deal with next is perhaps: What questions are relevant for the furthering of a good participatory, syntheist society, full of dividuals rather than individuals (the Right's fetish) or groups (the SJW's fetish)?

Both this question and the A&B points of negotiations can of course be adjusted or worded, probably radically different. But I believe some sort of basic questions like this is where we ought to start. Do you agree?

Love and respect

/Jonatan 

ons 10 jan. 2018 kl. 07:31 skrev Brent Cooper <brent...@gmail.com>:

Here's my take on safe spaces. I agree, they've become cop-out zones, where people can hide behind whatever. But according to the wiki article, the term was only applied in the context of LGBT struggles, and if they were feeling persecuted on today's campuses then its a valid concept (to not tolerate hate speech masquerading as ideas). And sure, safe spaces existed for special ed and other forms. But the exploitation of safe-spaces is just a puzzle piece in the wider problem, of how the SJW movement dovetails with the fake-progressivism of liberal elites, and how any effort at progress is roundly foiled by conservatives (who claim to also be marching for some kind of progress).

Postmodernism includes a critique, a critique against doctrines and belief systems. We can falsify religion, for example. So, the critique was supposed to win. Secularism, humanism, skepticism were supposed to trump dumb-ass beliefs. But the "values" of post-modern politics, liberal multiculturalism, freedom, whatever you want to call it, say that people have the right to identity and freedom of religion, so people keep being religious, and thus offendable. This is a fault of both the right and the left; the protection of religion from scrutiny. So, the 'safe spaces' became a protected thing, even though they already were de facto existing as whichever club (where people could feel safe with their beliefs). This bullshit culminates with the Lindsay Shepherd scandal, where the admin tried to force her to make a classroom a 'safe space' of all places. The answer is not to condemn the SJWs or the right-wing retards, but to just offer up the correct discourse, one piece at a time. 

Syntheism can help lead the way by showing how everything's connected.

Regards, 

Brent

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:59 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I say leave it alone and don't poke the bear. You don't give co-narcissists of indeterminate size the view counts and interactions they crave.

Because of contextless algorithms rewarding sheer number of interactions, any attention is good attention.

If we're honest, a lot of the impetus to "speak out" about 12 year olds on Tumblr, 20-somethings going through a predictable immature liberal phase and ex-hippies who've failed to progress to a post-pomo pragmatism, is to virtue signal that we're not Tumblrites, immature or unpragmatic.

It's not worth it. Lead by example and starve the narcs.

--K

Regards, 

Brent

Regards, 

Brent

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

"Life... The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence.  To die means having lived, but to not exist means being... NOTHING!  To live means to influence the cosmos!  One's actions.  One's presence, changes every being he meets!  The cosmos is everything!  To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality!  Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow." --Steve Englehart; Marvel Premier Featuring: Dr. Strange #12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

--

SUBSECULAR.COM - A Music & Philosophy Interface

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Syntheism" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syntheism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to synt...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syntheism.

[竜虎風森]

No, the bear-poke has to be maintained or it dies out sooner. It's agonistic to shadow-box with a vague opponent.

Agonism is just politically entrenched resentment, so it should be mitigated at all costs.

This need not be some "No real Leftists" pissing contest. It'll function no different from calling them "cuckliberals" or something.

This unsafe space thing sounds like a convoluted excuse to collect some gratifying schadenfreude.

Cause'ism is on its way out anyway. No one pays as much attention to SJWs as other post-pomo Leftists, but everyone else doesn't care.

Feminism was an F-word in the 90s already bc of rightists.

"We're the real Leftists," on the internet, will atomise and read like a self-indulgent psychodrama.

And it'd be manipulated by rightists to sew even more division.

You'd basically be giving rightists recruitment campaign material.

"Not without consequences" if the consequence is people like us having fun humiliating the same targets we're already **hyper**-focused on, calling it some kind of necessary process-- hypocritical, bc retributive punishment should be beneath all of us-- sounds a lot like you just wanting to blow off steam but avoid being interpreted as hostile and full of resentment.

I'm not buying it. You'll only escalate them and give them greater reach, and even when you lay off them, the rightists will take the tonfa and beat them some more.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I only saw rationalised resentiment and a desire to grandstand and taunt, in your reasoning and I saw nothing about consequentialistic ethical pros and cons.

The bear is poked, but making it "dividual" would require not **feeding** the poked bear. And it certainly wouldn't involve deliberate un-safe spaces. That's just coded "Place to be an asshole."

The concept of safe spaces originally meant Space in which vulnerability for topics that you usually suppress is facilitated by suspending judgment and allowing disclosure.

That's a good thing. It's basically a support group. It simply went south.

There is no "north" for a deliberately unsafe space. Anywhere outside a support group or neo-safe-space is already emotionally risky by virtue of including multitudes of judgment.

Taking a regular space (which are by default unsafe), deliberately enacting less safety within it is the only way to set a deliberately un-safe space from a regular space.

If you add deliberate emotional risks, that's called being a dick and promoting hostility.

Don't stoop to that level, please.

---K 

I myself am not immune from wanting to hand out retribution, so of my guess about you is correct, I'm not dealing any harsh judgment, but it's just not worth it, and these days, it just looks like more attention-grabbing boom-shock-awe from agonised groups. 

Also runs the risk of turning into an outage-olympian cespool if you can't control the peanut gallery from participating vocally, especially through text. Which you can't do. All it would take is one share to a site with a comments section and that encourages divisive, cage-match style psychodrama.

[竜虎風森]

But to level with everyone, why not just gossip about it in private and blow off steam?

It is known: SJWs suck.

But "SJW" is not essentially pomo. It's just a soured fork of it, and once the people who are only there for psychodrama leave, I seriously doubt there'll be anyone left other than 12 to 35 year olds with multiple accounts on each social media platform having conniption fits.

We can have our cake (drain the power by refusing to provide or escalate psychodrama) and eat it, too (bitch about it in private).

Ain't the freedom of private spaces grand?

If you want to publicly taunt, write a stand-up comedy routine.

[Alexander Bard]

I agree, a great conversation! Especially with Brent's brilliant input.

Personally I subscribe to Brendan O'Neill's Marxist libertarian view that Identitarianism is not a leftist movement at all. Actually there is no fundamental dfference between "the Identity Left" and "the Identity Right" but merely a quarrel on who is the biggest victim and therefore tops the "who gets to speak first hierarchy" (which I detest, what is important for the survival of the tribe is the quality of what is being said, not the childish nonsense of who gets to speak).

The Left however has always been about Class (a superior category to any "identity") and Fairness towards Meritocracy. I want to bring it back there too. Which is why I'm a Marxist libertarian as well.

Postmodernism was basically too successful in "deconstructing" "the great narratives". It left us with Identitarianism which will only divide us and never unite us. It is this winning streak and not Po-Mo itself that is so incredibly destructive. We must have a shared utopian vision to overcome this nihilistic loop hole.

Syntheism is the project of constructing that Utopian Vision. Which is why it is shared by us all. My book with Jan Söderqvist on "Syntheism" merely proposes several ways to "build God". Follow-ups of all kinds are set to add to those proposals. You might all want to contribute for that matter. I would for example love to see Brent connect his fascinating "Abstract" with "Syntheos". How do they relate to each other?

This is then religion and only out of that religion can new political models grow (individualism predated conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc). Those are my ten cents.

Big love

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Brother K,

You are taking the unsafe space thing too literally.  As a matter of fact I did not mean it in a literal context at all.  All I am saying, is that at these meetings and events, it is we on the left who have the responsibility to call out immaturity from people who share our cause.  It is a check and balance.  

Ignoring it will do no good, because part of the problem is that the SJWs do these things without consequence and very decent professors end up suffering and loosing their jobs, for not staying in the narrative.  Just the other day on the Zoroastrianism list an SJW went ballistic on me for saying "I admire the ritualism of the Parsis"  Saying that the term ritualism is a colonial word, with an association with hierarchy, and being pagan. due to bad ethnography.  Little did she know I have a degree in Anthropology, and field work under my belt.  And what she said was not true.  Ritualism can be done alone in one's home, so it has nothing to do with hierarchy, and no anthropologist worth their salt would be ethnocentric enough to use the term pagan in a negative context.  That is American Evangelical Christianity which makes that association.  Not Anthropology.  The point being, because she was claiming the right identity chips, it did not matter that she blatantly lied to shut me down and make herself feel good.  People believed her words over mine, because she was claiming to be a marginalized identity.

And there is the problem.  People who know the truth not being willing to call out lies.  At the same time once the immaturity is called out, I think it is up to us to guide these misguided SJWs and show them more effective alternatives for action.  Basically just as Allen GInsberg of the beat generation saw the hippies as children of the beats who needed guidance, so he taught them to meditate and the proper procedure of using LSD.  We need to do the same with SJWs.  They are children we made, and it is up to us to give them guidance.  Part of that may mean they will have to learn humility for wrongful actions which tarnish the cause.

Regards

Kenneth

    

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree, a great conversation! Especially with Brent's brilliant input.

Personally I subscribe to Brendan O'Neill's Marxist libertarian view that Identitarianism is not a leftist movement at all. Actually there is no fundamental dfference between "the Identity Left" and "the Identity Right" but merely a quarrel on who is the biggest victim and therefore tops the "who gets to speak first hierarchy" (which I detest, what is important for the survival of the tribe is the quality of what is being said, not the childish nonsense of who gets to speak).

The Left however has always been about Class (a superior category to any "identity") and Fairness towards Meritocracy. I want to bring it back there too. Which is why I'm a Marxist libertarian as well.

Postmodernism was basically too successful in "deconstructing" "the great narratives". It left us with Identitarianism which will only divide us and never unite us. It is this winning streak and not Po-Mo itself that is so incredibly destructive. We must have a shared utopian vision to overcome this nihilistic loop hole.

Syntheism is the project of constructing that Utopian Vision. Which is why it is shared by us all. My book with Jan Söderqvist on "Syntheism" merely proposes several ways to "build God". Follow-ups of all kinds are set to add to those proposals. You might all want to contribute for that matter. I would for example love to see Brent connect his fascinating "Abstract" with "Syntheos". How do they relate to each other?

This is then religion and only out of that religion can new political models grow (individualism predated conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc). Those are my ten cents.

Big love

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Alexander,

I am going to have to read about Brendon O'Neil's Marxist libertarianism.  It sounds interesting, and much of what you say about it seems to be in alignment with how I see things.

People in American who honor Martin Luther King forget that what he died for was extending his outreach beyond identity politics.  He did not die at a black rally.  He died at a workers rally.  I met Reverend James Lawson, the man who stood next to him when we was shot.  When MLK's colleagues said "Stay on the black issue, don't extend it to the workers or the Vietnam war, you will get your self in trouble."  MLK's response was "But I cannot, all these issues are inseparable."  Martin Luther King in my view is likely the greatest American savior or more accurately as Zarathushtra describes saoshyant.  

Regards

Kenneth 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth Morningstar99 <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brother K,

You are taking the unsafe space thing too literally.  As a matter of fact I did not mean it in a literal context at all.  All I am saying, is that at these meetings and events, it is we on the left who have the responsibility to call out immaturity from people who share our cause.  It is a check and balance.  

Ignoring it will do no good, because part of the problem is that the SJWs do these things without consequence and very decent professors end up suffering and loosing their jobs, for not staying in the narrative.  Just the other day on the Zoroastrianism list an SJW went ballistic on me for saying "I admire the ritualism of the Parsis"  Saying that the term ritualism is a colonial word, with an association with hierarchy, and being pagan. due to bad ethnography.  Little did she know I have a degree in Anthropology, and field work under my belt.  And what she said was not true.  Ritualism can be done alone in one's home, so it has nothing to do with hierarchy, and no anthropologist worth their salt would be ethnocentric enough to use the term pagan in a negative context.  That is American Evangelical Christianity which makes that association.  Not Anthropology.  The point being, because she was claiming the right identity chips, it did not matter that she blatantly lied to shut me down and make herself feel good.  People believed her words over mine, because she was claiming to be a marginalized identity.

And there is the problem.  People who know the truth not being willing to call out lies.  At the same time once the immaturity is called out, I think it is up to us to guide these misguided SJWs and show them more effective alternatives for action.  Basically just as Allen GInsberg of the beat generation saw the hippies as children of the beats who needed guidance, so he taught them to meditate and the proper procedure of using LSD.  We need to do the same with SJWs.  They are children we made, and it is up to us to give them guidance.  Part of that may mean they will have to learn humility for wrongful actions which tarnish the cause.

Regards

Kenneth

    

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree, a great conversation! Especially with Brent's brilliant input.

Personally I subscribe to Brendan O'Neill's Marxist libertarian view that Identitarianism is not a leftist movement at all. Actually there is no fundamental dfference between "the Identity Left" and "the Identity Right" but merely a quarrel on who is the biggest victim and therefore tops the "who gets to speak first hierarchy" (which I detest, what is important for the survival of the tribe is the quality of what is being said, not the childish nonsense of who gets to speak).

The Left however has always been about Class (a superior category to any "identity") and Fairness towards Meritocracy. I want to bring it back there too. Which is why I'm a Marxist libertarian as well.

Postmodernism was basically too successful in "deconstructing" "the great narratives". It left us with Identitarianism which will only divide us and never unite us. It is this winning streak and not Po-Mo itself that is so incredibly destructive. We must have a shared utopian vision to overcome this nihilistic loop hole.

Syntheism is the project of constructing that Utopian Vision. Which is why it is shared by us all. My book with Jan Söderqvist on "Syntheism" merely proposes several ways to "build God". Follow-ups of all kinds are set to add to those proposals. You might all want to contribute for that matter. I would for example love to see Brent connect his fascinating "Abstract" with "Syntheos". How do they relate to each other?

This is then religion and only out of that religion can new political models grow (individualism predated conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc). Those are my ten cents.

Big love

Alexander

[竜虎風森]

Kenneth,

I remember reading that you're autistic, so you can probably understand that I have trouble jumping between what I call 'registers' (literal and figurative, in the subjunctive especially) when interpreting others.

(Spoiler: I'm on the spectrum, too.)

Getting an online correction is very ineffective and the effective outcomes aren't worth giving them the cyber-attention.

In a vocal conversation (or written, but only like with vision-impaired people), calling out works. Because many don't expect it.

Online text-based correction is dulled due to the sheer amount and frequency it occurs. Pumping up the volume on their megaphones and amplifying the output, just to fill some compulsory role and a rather rote imperative (that informal consequences on the Internet and in text are effective from non-significant others), won't counterbalance the amount of validation they'll get by social media interactions that they'll twist or upon which they simply soapbox.

Strangers on the Internet, SJW or not, behave with less accountability (or shame if the lacking is internalised) than offline &or in voice/primary communication.

Many people are of a childish complexity in politics, but that doesn't guarantee that they're childish in everything else.

I would approach 'call-outs' on a peer level, and only in text if you have rapport with the specific person(s).

Even if you're not intending for it, a reasonable interpretation of any "guidance" that assumes general incompetence, rather than incompetence amidst political turmoil, is that it's condescending and pedantic.

Beatniks congregated in person, meaning that they were vulnerable to live, vis-a-vis reprimand. Except for publications but that's time-deferred and indirect.

Vocal communication and written communication are largely separate faculties, so applying beatniks-in-proximity vocal, social dynamics to a text-based constellation of mostly-strangers with no muscle memory related to direct physical interactions, is poor if not impossible fit.

You come across to me as eager to feel like you've got some semblance of rightful pre-ordained mentorshipping you can carry out.

People will likely react similar to how I predict. It will lead to an argument online, which-- due to the general mantra that arguing on the Internet is pointless, you'd have pedantry **and** futility stamped onto your proverbial forehead.

You'll further embarrass "leftism" regardless of whether or not the interaction is between two 'real Leftists' or one 'real' and one 'immature' 

People aren't correcting them online bc they've already seen its unintended consequences (free megaphones) and also its futility. Stick to hypothetical, non-imperative, non-corrective argumentation, or you'll "shoot in the foot" your whole purpose of communicating in those situations.

They're not afraid to call them out. Such an assertion has the effect of flattering yourself antithetically.

You wouldn't be seen as brave or bold by people who've already checked-out of the conversation in terms of correction and makeshift guidance.

It's preposterous, given how fractured the liberal-leftist syndicate became over the past 2 years. That fracturing is part-and-parcel of pointless, foot-shooting, megaphone-amplifying mutual correctiveness amongst non-significant others.

Your 'guidance' is already adulterated by the associations that the self-identifying "not insane" people will make to anything that sounds like text guidance, correction, advice, etc..

"Another person being purposefully provocative on the Internet" is the association, and most people not only see the futility I mentioned, but also developed a visceral negative (or immediately narcotising) reaction to it.

They will thus not read carefully, and likely dismiss you unless they want to cheer you on.

That, and the whole "It Won't Be Enough To Be Able To Counterbalance The Accidental 'Boost' You'll Give Them" thing.

They won't learn humility from such intervention bc the 'guidance' will look like it's coming from self-righteousness, which models anything other than humility.

--K

On 10 Jan 2018 11.01 AM, "Kenneth Morningstar99" <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

Brother K,

You are taking the unsafe space thing too literally.  As a matter of fact I did not mean it in a literal context at all.  All I am saying, is that at these meetings and events, it is we on the left who have the responsibility to call out immaturity from people who share our cause.  It is a check and balance.  

Ignoring it will do no good, because part of the problem is that the SJWs do these things without consequence and very decent professors end up suffering and loosing their jobs, for not staying in the narrative.  Just the other day on the Zoroastrianism list an SJW went ballistic on me for saying "I admire the ritualism of the Parsis"  Saying that the term ritualism is a colonial word, with an association with hierarchy, and being pagan. due to bad ethnography.  Little did she know I have a degree in Anthropology, and field work under my belt.  And what she said was not true.  Ritualism can be done alone in one's home, so it has nothing to do with hierarchy, and no anthropologist worth their salt would be ethnocentric enough to use the term pagan in a negative context.  That is American Evangelical Christianity which makes that association.  Not Anthropology.  The point being, because she was claiming the right identity chips, it did not matter that she blatantly lied to shut me down and make herself feel good.  People believed her words over mine, because she was claiming to be a marginalized identity.

And there is the problem.  People who know the truth not being willing to call out lies.  At the same time once the immaturity is called out, I think it is up to us to guide these misguided SJWs and show them more effective alternatives for action.  Basically just as Allen GInsberg of the beat generation saw the hippies as children of the beats who needed guidance, so he taught them to meditate and the proper procedure of using LSD.  We need to do the same with SJWs.  They are children we made, and it is up to us to give them guidance.  Part of that may mean they will have to learn humility for wrongful actions which tarnish the cause.

Regards

Kenneth

    

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM, Alexander Bard <bardi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree, a great conversation! Especially with Brent's brilliant input.

Personally I subscribe to Brendan O'Neill's Marxist libertarian view that Identitarianism is not a leftist movement at all. Actually there is no fundamental dfference between "the Identity Left" and "the Identity Right" but merely a quarrel on who is the biggest victim and therefore tops the "who gets to speak first hierarchy" (which I detest, what is important for the survival of the tribe is the quality of what is being said, not the childish nonsense of who gets to speak).

The Left however has always been about Class (a superior category to any "identity") and Fairness towards Meritocracy. I want to bring it back there too. Which is why I'm a Marxist libertarian as well.

Postmodernism was basically too successful in "deconstructing" "the great narratives". It left us with Identitarianism which will only divide us and never unite us. It is this winning streak and not Po-Mo itself that is so incredibly destructive. We must have a shared utopian vision to overcome this nihilistic loop hole.

Syntheism is the project of constructing that Utopian Vision. Which is why it is shared by us all. My book with Jan Söderqvist on "Syntheism" merely proposes several ways to "build God". Follow-ups of all kinds are set to add to those proposals. You might all want to contribute for that matter. I would for example love to see Brent connect his fascinating "Abstract" with "Syntheos". How do they relate to each other?

This is then religion and only out of that religion can new political models grow (individualism predated conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc). Those are my ten cents.

Big love

Alexander

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

I was talking more in terms of in person communication, at activist meetings.  

[竜虎風森]

I'm 0 for 2 on the understanding-of-context front. 😵

Well hopefully someone who plans on arguing with SJWs online sees my post and decides not to poke text-based bears.

When it's 'on the record', non-identitarian leftists should simply model behaviour present complexity.

K

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

No worries man.

My autism is different than most where I excel super quick in terms of the abstract, and I really find what Brent said quite interesting in that regard.  One reason why I did well in linguistic Anthropology and why I am good at writing stories.  

Math I better understood after learning about Fibonacci sequences and the aspects of math that can be abstract.  Before learning that, math was difficult.  I did not do too bad with statistics though.  

Kenneth 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:58 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm 0 for 2 on the understanding-of-context front. 😵

Well hopefully someone who plans on arguing with SJWs online sees my post and decides not to poke text-based bears.

When it's 'on the record', non-identitarian leftists should simply model behaviour present complexity.

K

[竜虎風森]

Kenneth,

I have to learn some of the most extensive abstractions-- which you could possibly call "archetypes" for most topics-- ('starting at the end')-- or I have no idea how to contextualise formal skills. In math, I can't remember formulas until I understand the overarching theorems.

I would probably do better if I studied trig before quadratics; and before I'd learn calculus, I'd learn about theories on orifolds, manifolds, singularities, groups, fields, sets and numbers, then bridge to calculus via... I'm assuming through studying properties of integration and change. Next, I'd even attempt equations and learning formulas.

What kinds of questions can linguistic anthropology answer? And patterns it can find?

K

On 10 Jan 2018 11.19 PM, "Kenneth Morningstar99" <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

No worries man.

My autism is different than most where I excel super quick in terms of the abstract, and I really find what Brent said quite interesting in that regard.  One reason why I did well in linguistic Anthropology and why I am good at writing stories.  

Math I better understood after learning about Fibonacci sequences and the aspects of math that can be abstract.  Before learning that, math was difficult.  I did not do too bad with statistics though.  

Kenneth 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:58 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm 0 for 2 on the understanding-of-context front. 😵

Well hopefully someone who plans on arguing with SJWs online sees my post and decides not to poke text-based bears.

When it's 'on the record', non-identitarian leftists should simply model behaviour present complexity.

K

[竜虎風森]

(Should probably take this into private)

On 10 Jan 2018 11.19 PM, "Kenneth Morningstar99" <kchristens...@gmail.com> wrote:

No worries man.

My autism is different than most where I excel super quick in terms of the abstract, and I really find what Brent said quite interesting in that regard.  One reason why I did well in linguistic Anthropology and why I am good at writing stories.  

Math I better understood after learning about Fibonacci sequences and the aspects of math that can be abstract.  Before learning that, math was difficult.  I did not do too bad with statistics though.  

Kenneth 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:58 PM, 竜虎風森 <ryuu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm 0 for 2 on the understanding-of-context front. 😵

Well hopefully someone who plans on arguing with SJWs online sees my post and decides not to poke text-based bears.

When it's 'on the record', non-identitarian leftists should simply model behaviour present complexity.

K

[Brent Cooper]

Kenneth, 

Just on the note of abstraction, this is what I try to specialize in. While I'm probably at the (modest) forefront of promoting it (unsuccessfully) as a methodology, there are certainly others who can abstract better than I can, in which ever expertise. My hope is that my cues prompt new starting points for people thinking abstractly. So I hope to attract people like yourself to my work, to perhaps add to it, or add insight.

I propose that abstraction is the language of truth, or at least a discourse of objectivity. It's really meta-abstraction that I'm getting at.

I've written about a dozen articles (at this Blog) on different aspects or instantiations of abstraction alone, to give a multi-faceted perspective of the process. Abstraction refers to much more than just the thinking process, but various meta-thinking processes and social processes as well. It's very difficult to explain, which is why I try to introduce an abstract perspective in these threads. 

Please do check it out and contact me if you want to delve deeper.

Brent Cooper, Executive Director, Br...@abs-tract.org   

The Abs•Tract Organization: Metamodern Think Tank

|   Website   |   Twitter   |   Blog   |   Film   |   Patreon  |

The Abs-Tract Organization ("TATO") is a nascent non-profit think tank for absolute social philosophy and global civil society, committed to definitively solving the world's systemic social problems through a high-level framework of "abstraction." Global solutions for systemic problems. A nous world order is emerging.

Regards, 

Brent

[Alexander Bard]

Brent's genius lies in his understanding that the dialectical way out of the current predicament of value relativism lies in achieving a much bigger perspective.

The further away we step from a complex mess, the easier we see the connections we did not see before. And metaphyical storytelling is all bout pointing our the previously less obvious connections.

Religion even means "that which connects people".

This is why both Slavoj Zizek and Bard & Söderqvist have called for a "a return to Hegel" to solve the current predicaments. And why our book "Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age" is a Hegelian work through and through. And why we also go to Freud and Jung for the follow-up.

Abstraction is the shit. Abstraction is the core activity of philosophy itself. Keep up your good work, dear Brent!

Best

Alexander

[Martin Munthe]

The need for abstraction in all elements of human activity is fast growing and imminent. Not just philosophy. At this point of the human timeline there is no return. Very interesting discussion.

[Kenneth Morningstar99]

Interesting,

Right now I am reading One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest by Ken Kesey.  Something which I definitely think could be Syntheist literature as it is one of those books which redefines mental illness.  

Brent, I will take a look at your work this afternoon and contact you about it.  

Alexander, about the comic book I announced earlier which should be in print in March.  Good news.  Ken Babbs, who is one of the Merry Pranksters gave me the go ahead to have Ken Kesey as a character in my story.  In many ways you can say that the Merry Pranksters were Syntheists before Syntheism.  Burning Man culture is certainly an extension of what the Merry Pranksters started.  

Kenneth