By using the word absolute you have already framed the parameters of your argument. And what do you mean with your use of the word sacred?
These paragraphs written by a remarkable Buddhist Spiritual Master who was acutely sensitive to the state of our collective psychosis sums up the situation.
There are times in human history, such as the present world-moment, when the factors of security, longevity, freedom from need, and enjoyment of life are becoming increasingly threatened - experienced by fewer than before, and experienced much less by those who are accustomed to enjoying them at least to some degree. in such a circumstance, people begin to suffer a psychic crisis.
Civilization is in crisis. The human world altogether is in crisis. The notions of security, longevity, freedom from need, and enjoyment of life are showing themselves to be illusions - very tentative, and able to be enjoyed by only a relative few. And the relative few who enjoy such life-conditions do so at the expense of others - and, in fact, on the basis of the suffering and exploitation of others.
Humankind as a totality must relinquish the old civilization. It must accept that the old civilization is dead, the old civilization is dead, the old civilization is gone, useless, non-productive. The old civilization can no longer provide security, longevity, freedom from need, and life-enjoyment for people. Less and less can the old civilization do anything useful at all. The old civilization is now profoundly degraded, and will only get worse with time,
With "sacred" I mean those assumptions and presuppositions that we take most for granted and often believe to be timeless truths, the bedrock of our thinking. This makes it hard to understand history, because past people often had very different ones.
Well isn't the purpose of studying history to try to understand what "past people" thought. I for one think there is much wisdom there unexplored, but I also hesitate to ever use words like "absolute" unless I'm absolutely sure or it is an absolute presupposition.
I'm not thinking so much along the lines of this or that theory of history, but more in idealist terms which focuses on how people thought and how that produces history. In that picture, "better" or "worse" or "cyclical" are not really the right levers, but rather: how did people think? And why? What were they observing, and how did they frame it in terms of their paradigms?
As for whig history, yes, this idea of blissful progress has been around for a long time. Perhaps one could say that today's absolute progressivism is the logical conclusion of such ideas, leading to a total disconnect from history and an existence in an almost complete historical vacuum.
Does God the proceed to ' judge ' all periods equally? Religion is one of many mine sites for mind sights. Good, bad, who knows relatively? or what good has come from bad? Maybe suffering and pain V's period of less suffering and pain?
We might as well borrow a looking glass from earlier post of our esteemed host:
💬 concepts we absolutely take for granted might, in fact, be merely a contingent product of our specific thought history.[...] our access to Reality depends on our history.
PS By way of illustration via imperfect analogy: enter the canonical Monkey Business Illusion --> youtu.be/IGQmdoK_ZfY 🤸
Pssst I have had conflict with this individual before in threads on my own posts, I rather suspect he is one those people who cannot create himself, so he tears down the creations of others.
Spiteful gainsayers are not without utility: they help refine your reasoning and keep your mind sharp. As long as you don't let them corrupt your spirits, they can even be rather amusing. I just see no point in getting into the weeds by arguing mean-spirited snipes piecemeal 😊
Are the middle ages really that dark compared to today's widely celebrated child mutilations and global wars? Perhaps a little respect for bishop and king would do us all some good?
And if not respect, at least a sincere attempt to understand how people thought like they did, and why. It boggles many modern people's minds, for instance, that lower classes in the past simply had no intention and drive whatsoever of becoming aristocrats. They might have had their grievances about specific rulers and figures, but they understood their station, and that they can only grow closer to God from within their station. Utterly different ideas, inner life, and mindset.
I understand 'absolute progressivism' as a utilitarian position. A utilitarian judgement that holds over time requires a timeless standard of value. This is possible perhaps only in a narrow, analytical sense, which is not relativistic/utilitarian but absolute/a-priori, distinguishing not between better/worse but good/evil and sense/nonsense, and therefore does not satisfy the utilitarian premise. Moreover, time itself poses an obstacle to the utilitarian judgement; the meaning-content of history we recall in the present is not the same meaning-content we recalled yesterday, and is different again from the meaning-content of chronologically ‘the same’ history when it was still in the making. In short, since the meaning of the past is not fixed, consistent relativisation of historical value is not possible either.
Interesting point: for the same reasons that at least some forms of historical non-relativism are impossible, relativism itself is impossible. This makes a lot of sense actually. Another reason why the "hot" debate of relativism vs non-relativism often seems to be missing the point.
Another way, we can measure/evaluate anything that is subject to change only by means of something that does not change. Existence of something unchangeable is a necessary condition of being in the same world and time. It is the basis of narrative continuity, grasping together an otherwise disconnected multiplicity of things and events.
Thing is, you can always make a good case for how things got better (because in many ways they have) and a good case for how they got worse (because they did). And one man's collapse is another man's renaissance. It all depends on our priors, which determine what and how we see--and the same is true for people who lived in the past. This makes it all so confusing and interesting!
Perhaps, but only when talking about global judgements about certain epochs and the like. Specific historical matters and ways of thinking are a different matter. Remember that there are always different streams, different groups, and different thoughts at each time. For instance, one might look back at our own time one day as the dark age of clown world. But hopefully also as the beginning of something new, a new awakening of sorts. Often one is incomprehensible without the other. Where something fades into the background, something new arises and so on. So I still maintain that there's good and bad, but these have historical context, which complicates things. Like, educated people used to lool down on Barock music, until Bach became all the rage... In any event I think it can be very fruitful not to assume a specific universal timeless morality (our morality) too quickly, and deepen our historical understanding to understand ourselves and our ideas, too. Well! You see, I'm still thinking about all that.
History is recorded and kept and maligned by those that survive it....the allignments forming between physics and ' spiritual ' thought is very hopeful. Thanks for bringing this up!
No, I'm not at all making an argument here for morality being entirely relative to culture. Just saying that we should be careful with knee-jerk reactions when looking at history, because it can obstruct our vision, including our perception of different thought currents at the period in question playing out againt a background of assumptions different to ours. (Notice I used "should" here :))
Why are you such an asshole Eugine? Perhaps you ought to go create something yourself, and see how hard it is before you come charging in full of snark, eager to tear down other people's accomplishments?
Beautifully put, the older I get this less interested I become in modern art, for me I know music best, so listen to less rock, jazz, funk, etc, and more classical. Same for reading fiction, though I do enjoy the recent essays here.
Happened to me too. I also play piano and got back into classical lately, although I still enjoy some jazz and classic rock and so on. Each period had something to offer with people going about it in new ways, although there has been a period of drought, to say the least. But this too shall pass.
I enjoy your short notes too Luc as they are packed full and succinct and when one reaches the end one still fully remembers the beginning and can tie it all together neatly to understand your points of view and what you are saying and meaning. You always make one think and question things irrespective of what you write about. I like that you’re free thinking and won’t let yourself be put in a box and I appreciate your knowledge and insights that you pass on through your writing.
I think we have to know where we came from in order to know where we are going. What has gone wrong with everything as it was I don’t understand but there is just too much wrong now to fix or so it feels anyway. Do you think it could all be put in a nutshell with the old saying “ That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? “ I’m thinking of the Roman Empire, is this where we are today in our so called modern enlightened progressive world? If so Lord help us all!
In its current form Western culture altogether has no sacred foundations.
Indeed it never really did. It was always about the quest for power and control over everyone and every thing. The historical development and cultural manifestations of that quest for total power was described in great detail by Lewis Mumford in his book The Pentagon of Power
Ordinary Western religion, ordinary science and ordinary culture want to achieve absolute power for human beings. The quest for power (or control) over the unknown is the collective sinners pursuit or aggressive search of Western man, in the midst of, and on the basis of the human reactions of fear, sorrow and anger.
To affirm, as the now world dominant culture of scientism does, that all of space-time is merely materiality - limited, dying,, and, effectively dead - is, itself, a kind of aggressive affirmation of power, a collective cultural manifestation of a dissociative disposition that is merely afraid, self-absorbed, and deeply depressed by sorrow and anger.
I think your talking about absolute absolute progressives who don't realize an absolute presupposition don't need two absolutes. In fact, if there are two absolutes -they cancel each other out.
I am very greatful to you for writing this very expansive and yet focussed letter.
A word comes to mind -
mantra (n.)
1808, "that part of the Vedas which contains hymns," from Sanskrit mantra-s "sacred message or text, charm, spell, counsel," literally "instrument of thought," related to manyate "thinks," from PIE root *men- (1) "to think." Meaning "sacred text used as a charm or incantation" is by 1900; sense of "special word used for yoga meditation" is recorded in English by 1956.
By using the word absolute you have already framed the parameters of your argument. And what do you mean with your use of the word sacred?
These paragraphs written by a remarkable Buddhist Spiritual Master who was acutely sensitive to the state of our collective psychosis sums up the situation.
There are times in human history, such as the present world-moment, when the factors of security, longevity, freedom from need, and enjoyment of life are becoming increasingly threatened - experienced by fewer than before, and experienced much less by those who are accustomed to enjoying them at least to some degree. in such a circumstance, people begin to suffer a psychic crisis.
Civilization is in crisis. The human world altogether is in crisis. The notions of security, longevity, freedom from need, and enjoyment of life are showing themselves to be illusions - very tentative, and able to be enjoyed by only a relative few. And the relative few who enjoy such life-conditions do so at the expense of others - and, in fact, on the basis of the suffering and exploitation of others.
Humankind as a totality must relinquish the old civilization. It must accept that the old civilization is dead, the old civilization is dead, the old civilization is gone, useless, non-productive. The old civilization can no longer provide security, longevity, freedom from need, and life-enjoyment for people. Less and less can the old civilization do anything useful at all. The old civilization is now profoundly degraded, and will only get worse with time,
With "sacred" I mean those assumptions and presuppositions that we take most for granted and often believe to be timeless truths, the bedrock of our thinking. This makes it hard to understand history, because past people often had very different ones.
Well isn't the purpose of studying history to try to understand what "past people" thought. I for one think there is much wisdom there unexplored, but I also hesitate to ever use words like "absolute" unless I'm absolutely sure or it is an absolute presupposition.
Isn't this the Whig theory of history, i.e. history as progress? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
Versus a Spenglerian theory of history as cyclical, or history as cause-and-effect...
I'm not thinking so much along the lines of this or that theory of history, but more in idealist terms which focuses on how people thought and how that produces history. In that picture, "better" or "worse" or "cyclical" are not really the right levers, but rather: how did people think? And why? What were they observing, and how did they frame it in terms of their paradigms?
As for whig history, yes, this idea of blissful progress has been around for a long time. Perhaps one could say that today's absolute progressivism is the logical conclusion of such ideas, leading to a total disconnect from history and an existence in an almost complete historical vacuum.
Your thought may not be interested in tracing those lines, but one particular—bearing Leopold von Ranke's name—is thrilled to quite fit 😊
🗨 God gazes over history in its totality and finds all periods equal.
Better/worse shouldn't be the yardstick of choice.
🗨 Thus, the Middle Ages were not inferior to the Renaissance, simply different.
Does God the proceed to ' judge ' all periods equally? Religion is one of many mine sites for mind sights. Good, bad, who knows relatively? or what good has come from bad? Maybe suffering and pain V's period of less suffering and pain?
Yardstick is a good word though.
There's no accounting for God's taste 😉
We might as well borrow a looking glass from earlier post of our esteemed host:
💬 concepts we absolutely take for granted might, in fact, be merely a contingent product of our specific thought history.[...] our access to Reality depends on our history.
PS By way of illustration via imperfect analogy: enter the canonical Monkey Business Illusion --> youtu.be/IGQmdoK_ZfY 🤸
> God gazes over history in its totality and finds all periods equal.
Replace "periods" with "people" to see how ridiculous the above statement is.
Replace Eugine Nier with party pooper... and nothing to see further 😏
Pssst I have had conflict with this individual before in threads on my own posts, I rather suspect he is one those people who cannot create himself, so he tears down the creations of others.
Spiteful gainsayers are not without utility: they help refine your reasoning and keep your mind sharp. As long as you don't let them corrupt your spirits, they can even be rather amusing. I just see no point in getting into the weeds by arguing mean-spirited snipes piecemeal 😊
As though the geist of an era is the same as the failings of an individual false metaphor is false.
It's not a perfect metaphor, but there's no reason for all periods to be equally moral.
Nice shot in the own foot 😂 Though admittedly not perfect, there's still room to refine these peculiar skills 🤭
The old Whigs at least had an interest in learning history and recognized the existence of dark ages.
Are the middle ages really that dark compared to today's widely celebrated child mutilations and global wars? Perhaps a little respect for bishop and king would do us all some good?
And if not respect, at least a sincere attempt to understand how people thought like they did, and why. It boggles many modern people's minds, for instance, that lower classes in the past simply had no intention and drive whatsoever of becoming aristocrats. They might have had their grievances about specific rulers and figures, but they understood their station, and that they can only grow closer to God from within their station. Utterly different ideas, inner life, and mindset.
We need something different than today, the libertine relativism of today's society is producing insanity and sickness.
We may be headed for another dark age, but I wouldn't say we're there yet. We appear to be at the decadent Roman orgie phase.
Exactly.
I understand 'absolute progressivism' as a utilitarian position. A utilitarian judgement that holds over time requires a timeless standard of value. This is possible perhaps only in a narrow, analytical sense, which is not relativistic/utilitarian but absolute/a-priori, distinguishing not between better/worse but good/evil and sense/nonsense, and therefore does not satisfy the utilitarian premise. Moreover, time itself poses an obstacle to the utilitarian judgement; the meaning-content of history we recall in the present is not the same meaning-content we recalled yesterday, and is different again from the meaning-content of chronologically ‘the same’ history when it was still in the making. In short, since the meaning of the past is not fixed, consistent relativisation of historical value is not possible either.
Interesting point: for the same reasons that at least some forms of historical non-relativism are impossible, relativism itself is impossible. This makes a lot of sense actually. Another reason why the "hot" debate of relativism vs non-relativism often seems to be missing the point.
Another way, we can measure/evaluate anything that is subject to change only by means of something that does not change. Existence of something unchangeable is a necessary condition of being in the same world and time. It is the basis of narrative continuity, grasping together an otherwise disconnected multiplicity of things and events.
I’m reminded of Mary Harrington’s “myth of progress”... I keep meaning to order and read her book
Thing is, you can always make a good case for how things got better (because in many ways they have) and a good case for how they got worse (because they did). And one man's collapse is another man's renaissance. It all depends on our priors, which determine what and how we see--and the same is true for people who lived in the past. This makes it all so confusing and interesting!
And you've just talked yourself into embracing relativism.
Perhaps, but only when talking about global judgements about certain epochs and the like. Specific historical matters and ways of thinking are a different matter. Remember that there are always different streams, different groups, and different thoughts at each time. For instance, one might look back at our own time one day as the dark age of clown world. But hopefully also as the beginning of something new, a new awakening of sorts. Often one is incomprehensible without the other. Where something fades into the background, something new arises and so on. So I still maintain that there's good and bad, but these have historical context, which complicates things. Like, educated people used to lool down on Barock music, until Bach became all the rage... In any event I think it can be very fruitful not to assume a specific universal timeless morality (our morality) too quickly, and deepen our historical understanding to understand ourselves and our ideas, too. Well! You see, I'm still thinking about all that.
Our modern life has undeniable economic benefits, but things quickly get murky on social costs front ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In other news, mavericky Carver Mead asserts his...
🗨 ...firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.
History is recorded and kept and maligned by those that survive it....the allignments forming between physics and ' spiritual ' thought is very hopeful. Thanks for bringing this up!
> Perhaps, but only when talking about global judgements about certain epochs and the like.
So merely a cultural relativist, not a full moral relativist.
No, I'm not at all making an argument here for morality being entirely relative to culture. Just saying that we should be careful with knee-jerk reactions when looking at history, because it can obstruct our vision, including our perception of different thought currents at the period in question playing out againt a background of assumptions different to ours. (Notice I used "should" here :))
'Tis highest-level annoying how you—repeatedly!—won't sit still within tidily labelled boxes 😂
Why are you such an asshole Eugine? Perhaps you ought to go create something yourself, and see how hard it is before you come charging in full of snark, eager to tear down other people's accomplishments?
> Why are you such an asshole Eugine?
The "don't be an asshole" attitude is how the woke were able to take over.
Beautifully put, the older I get this less interested I become in modern art, for me I know music best, so listen to less rock, jazz, funk, etc, and more classical. Same for reading fiction, though I do enjoy the recent essays here.
Happened to me too. I also play piano and got back into classical lately, although I still enjoy some jazz and classic rock and so on. Each period had something to offer with people going about it in new ways, although there has been a period of drought, to say the least. But this too shall pass.
I enjoy your short notes too Luc as they are packed full and succinct and when one reaches the end one still fully remembers the beginning and can tie it all together neatly to understand your points of view and what you are saying and meaning. You always make one think and question things irrespective of what you write about. I like that you’re free thinking and won’t let yourself be put in a box and I appreciate your knowledge and insights that you pass on through your writing.
I think we have to know where we came from in order to know where we are going. What has gone wrong with everything as it was I don’t understand but there is just too much wrong now to fix or so it feels anyway. Do you think it could all be put in a nutshell with the old saying “ That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? “ I’m thinking of the Roman Empire, is this where we are today in our so called modern enlightened progressive world? If so Lord help us all!
In its current form Western culture altogether has no sacred foundations.
Indeed it never really did. It was always about the quest for power and control over everyone and every thing. The historical development and cultural manifestations of that quest for total power was described in great detail by Lewis Mumford in his book The Pentagon of Power
Ordinary Western religion, ordinary science and ordinary culture want to achieve absolute power for human beings. The quest for power (or control) over the unknown is the collective sinners pursuit or aggressive search of Western man, in the midst of, and on the basis of the human reactions of fear, sorrow and anger.
To affirm, as the now world dominant culture of scientism does, that all of space-time is merely materiality - limited, dying,, and, effectively dead - is, itself, a kind of aggressive affirmation of power, a collective cultural manifestation of a dissociative disposition that is merely afraid, self-absorbed, and deeply depressed by sorrow and anger.
I think your talking about absolute absolute progressives who don't realize an absolute presupposition don't need two absolutes. In fact, if there are two absolutes -they cancel each other out.
I am very greatful to you for writing this very expansive and yet focussed letter.
A word comes to mind -
mantra (n.)
1808, "that part of the Vedas which contains hymns," from Sanskrit mantra-s "sacred message or text, charm, spell, counsel," literally "instrument of thought," related to manyate "thinks," from PIE root *men- (1) "to think." Meaning "sacred text used as a charm or incantation" is by 1900; sense of "special word used for yoga meditation" is recorded in English by 1956.
Source -
https://www.etymonline.com/word/mantra
Removing the charm/ spell bit ; your piece sort of encapsulates what cannot be contained.