Double Predestination

Cladistic inheritance necessitates that I begin talking about the Calvinist doctrine of Providence here (soon), despite my total cognitive depravity on the topic. I’ve been reading the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and around it, but inevitably as if from Mars (and as a Confucian). It has to be the case that many of the visitors here are vastly more intellectually fluent on the subject, so any anticipatory comments will be hungrily seized upon.

The fatality, as far as it is initially evident:

(1) Neoreaction, cladistically located, is a Cryptocalvinist splinter.

(2) The doctrines that placed Calvinism in H. L. Mencken’s “cabinet of horrors” (“next to cannibalism”), have never been philosophically dissolved, whether by theological or secular argument.

(3) The moralistic dismissal of Modernity and, through association, of Protestantism, evidences an almost incomprehensibly crude conception of Providence — as if the way things have turned out was not a fatality, and in theological terms a message (or punishment), but rather an accident, or man-made contingency. The rigorous theology of Modernity cannot reduce to mere denunciation.

(4) Calvinism is an instrument with which to explore Catholicism, especially in respect to its implicit philosophy of history (and recourse to teleological reasoning). The ‘Neo-‘ in Neoreaction appears to be a Calvinist mark. There are any number of influential secular explanations for the way history has tortured the Church — such that even the religious seem typically to default to them. Where does one find a radically providential account (excavating the theological meaning of Modernity)?

(5) Is not the very word ‘Cathedral’ in its Neoreactionary usage a complex providential sign? (Which suggests that it has far more to tell than anything either Neoreactionary writers or mere accident put into it.)

(6) The cluster of disputes around ‘predestination’ (or the action of eternity upon history) is the Occidental key to the problem of time.

I’m sure there’s much more …

[This helps to set the tone.]

 

November 30, 2013admin 70 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Arcane , Philosophy , Templexity

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

70 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    O/T…on the subject of the impending water dunking of NR/DEC….
    ===============================================================
    ====================Principles of the Tesla Turbine===============
    Adhesion is the tendency of dissimilar molecules to cling together due to attractive forces. Viscosity is the resistance of a substance to flow. These two properties work together in the Tesla turbine to transfer energy from the fluid to the rotor or vice versa. Here’s how:
    1. As the fluid moves past each disk, adhesive forces cause the fluid molecules just above the metal surface to slow down and stick.
    2. The molecules just above those at the surface slow down when they collide with the molecules sticking to the surface.
    3. These molecules in turn slow down the flow just above them.
    4. The farther one moves away from the surface, the fewer the collisions affected by the object surface.
    5. At the same time, viscous forces cause the molecules of the fluid to resist separation.
    6. This generates a pulling force that is transmitted to the disk, causing the disk to move in the direction of the fluid.
    The thin layer of fluid that interacts with the disk surface in this way is called the boundary layer, and the interaction of the fluid with the solid surface is called the boundary layer effect. As a result of this effect, the propelling fluid follows a rapidly accelerated spiral path along the disk faces until it reaches a suitable exit.
    ——————————————————————
    =========================TESLA CONFLICT==========================
    Based on the principles of the Tesla Turbine

    Adhesion is the tendency of dissimilar molecules to cling together due to attractive forces. Viscosity is the resistance of a substance to flow. Once the flow begins the weak will by nature adhere to the strong. Hence flow is a pre-condition. Resistance is certain and can be used as energy. Hence the viscosity is also energy.

    Conflict is the Boundary Effect

    The flow is the centrifugal forces set in motion by PTB. Where the flow meets is the boundary layer, the conflict is the boundary layer effect. This means the proper path is to go with the flow created by the opponent and your strength to cause the dissimilar weak to adhere to the Strong, the process of adhering and the transfer of energy along the boundary layer and the conflict effect transfer energy to you.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    @ admin,

    Reference conflict – TESLA CONFLICT. Tesla theory of conflict. Based on Tesla Turbine.

    Conflict is the boundary layer between dissimilar people.

    Strong adhere to the weak, flow of conflict produces energy.

    There’s no reason conflict with the Cathedral shouldn’t generate energy for DEC, as well as make the weak Cathedral flock break off from them,and adhere to the stronger argument. Which is reaction.

    Not exactly what Tesla said. I’m stealing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 9:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    The moralistic dismissal of Modernity and, through association, of Protestantism, evidences an almost incomprehensibly crude conception of Providence — as if the way things have turned out was not a fatality, and in theological terms a message (or punishment), but rather an accident, or man-made contingency. The rigorous theology of Modernity cannot reduce to mere denunciation. (…) There are any number of influential secular explanations for the way history has tortured the Church — such that even the religious seem typically to default to them. Where does one find a radically providential account (excavating the theological meaning of Modernity)?

    Regicide as a recapitulation of deicide? French royalists are fond of detecting biblical resonances in the circumstances surrounding the execution of Louis XVI — from Robespierre’s remark that “Louis must die so that the nation may live” to the anonymous citizen who clambered on to the guillotine, plunged his hand into the martyr-king’s gushing blood and sprinkled it over the crowd, crying: “Brothers, we have been threatened with the blood of Louis Capet falling on our heads. Let it fall!” Ecclesiocide would complete the process.

    Meanwhile Tesla, Man’s Greatest Achievement:

    “There manifests itself in the fully developed being – MAN – a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives. Inspired to this task he searches, discovers and invents, designs and constructs, and covers with monuments of beauty, grandeur and awe, the star of his birth. He descends into the bowels of the globe to bring forth its hidden treasures and to unlock its immense imprisoned energies for his use. He invades the dark depths of the ocean and the azure regions of the sky. He peers in the innermost nooks and recesses of molecular structure and lays bare to his gaze worlds infinitely remote. He subdues and puts to his service the fierce, devastating spark of Prometheus, the titanic forces of the waterfall, the wind and the tide. He tames the thundering bolt of Jove and annihilates time and space. He makes the great Sun itself his obedient toiling slave. Such is his power and might that the heavens reverberate and the whole earth trembles by the mere sound of his voice.

    What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?

    Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

    Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? More still – cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?

    If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms.

    To create and to annihilate material substance, cause it to aggregate in forms according to his desire, would be the supreme manifestation of the power of Man’s mind, his most complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning achievement, which would place him beside his Creator, make him fulfill his Ultimate Destiny.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Regicide as a recapitulation of deicide?” — That will take some reflecting upon (and it’s probably the most accessible part of your comment). It’s a great puzzle to me — and no doubt very many others — how Milton is able to juggle his radical republicanism and his theology, when the symbolic bridge he draws between the Satanic spirit and the Regicide is so stark and robust. I agree that it serves as an excellent symbolic figure, above the Gate to Modernity. Holding aloft the King’s severed head before the baying crowd … “We will need a new mass.”

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    A ‘republican eucharist’.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    It’s a great puzzle to me — and no doubt very many others — how Milton is able to juggle his radical republicanism and his theology, when the symbolic bridge he draws between the Satanic spirit and the Regicide is so stark and robust.

    “In consideration of the provocative and limitless iconoclasm of Christian Doctrine, from which I think a reasonable case can be made that Milton meant what Satan said, it might even be legitimate to ‘transvalue’ Paradise Lost so as to conceive of God as the Royal Villain (Charles I), his son, Jesus, as heir to the mantle of oppressor (Charles II), with Satan as the arch-rebel and resistor, combined type of the Puritan Revolutionary (Milton himself for the eloquence; Cromwell for the action), and the lesser devils as varieties of Levelers, Ranters, Fifth Monarchists and other ‘heretic’ fellow travelers on the road beyond Apocalypse to New Jerusalem, where they might even meet up with Sabbatians.”

    – Philip Beitchman, “Miltonic Evil as Gnostic Cabala”

    http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Beitchman.html

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That would be the most straightforward Moldbuggian reading, certainly.

    The linked essay is a treasure (thanks), and highly relevant right here.

    “Everything, indeed, that starts up in Heaven or on Earth is in response to demonic initiatives; while the rationale that these are in the service of divine ends might compare in lameness to the effrontery of a similar apology for modern fascism, AIDS, and Rwanda-level decimations!” — As a piece of evasive sub-Theodicy, this is surely no less “lame”? The objection to “effrontery” sounds to me like mere spluttering.

    Alex Reply:

    The objection to “effrontery” sounds to me like mere spluttering.

    Particularly when you consider that God has decreed the death penalty for every man, woman and child who ever lived, is living or will live. That’s what I call genocide .

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 10:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    On Revivals, Great Awakenings, and Tone setting [link]…

    There is an anecdote of an Anglican minister in Albions Seed about the American Backcountry people among whom I was born and raised [despite being Catholic]. The Anglican Minister went forth amongst the Scotch-Irish backcountry people and found himself being ambushed and abducted by “reivers”. He was taken to the Clan camp where instead of being robbed and harmed, they returned his property and agreed to release him in exchange for a proper “Fire and Brimstone” sermon.

    He delivered and they kept their word.

    I’d keep one real scorcher in reserve, you may want to learn a couple in Chinese Dialects as well.

    It’s worked before…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 10:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • GoingPro Says:

    Firstly, please excuse the amateur questions. Just trying to understand.

    I can understand the pragmatism of Calvinism in socio-political reality, insofar as it forces obedience in the subjects knowledge of being “foreseeably chosen,” or not. If one believes in this harsh reality, they can choose to try to live in faith and obedience, and when they do, they may believe they were “foreseen,” even if they weren’t by the hand of God.

    There’s just theological questions, if theological questions are worth investigating independent of socio-political reality.
    e.g.,
    – why do beings exist that aren’t “foreseeably choosen?” I’m not posing this as a moral question, but as a logical question.
    I could imagine a paradise-lost-gaming board where reaction extends the game (time). In this case, extension (stretching recognized as time as History) is teleologically grounded.

    This thinking doesn’t seem useful to me though; i.e philosophical-theological thinking in a vacuum, except as a hobby (bench park philosophizing). Well, it does have vacation-value though if I don’t have an enertron for relaxation and revitalization.
    Way off topic at this point.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    My intuition goes in the opposite direction, I suspect. Digging through the crypt of what a culture already supposedly believes, in order to find what is really there, is a task that might be disguised as a “hobby” — but not because of its essential lack of consequence.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 30th, 2013 at 11:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    The neoreaction is a child of the dark enlightenment, and I don’t think the Dark Enlightenment is cladistically a decedent of Puritanism. Mencius is cladistically a Jew, I am cladistically a high Church Anglican. Mencius wants Israel to be Israel, to be as cheerfully chauvinist and warlike as the original Israel, to kill Arabs by truckload until the remaining Arabs discover that peace is desirable, I want something emulating restoration Anglicanism,

    The origins of the Dark Enlightenment are that as the official truth of the enlightenment was enforced with greater and greater severity on more and more people, and as these official truths became more and more insane, as everyone was being coercively converted to a religion cladistically ultra protestant and puritan descended, we got resentment of, and rebellion against, this official truth, this official religion.

    And this rebellion was greatest amongst those who were cladistically not very protestant, not puritan descended.

    Thus, while anarcho capitalism and such are to some extent heresies of progressivism, and thus heresies of puritanism, and thus cladistically descended from it, the dark enlightenment is counter puritan movement, a reaction to puritanism’s universal domination by those being dominated.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I don’t think the Dark Enlightenment is cladistically a decedent of Puritanism” — wouldn’t it then have to abandon its self-understanding as ‘libertarianism mugged by reality?’

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    We’re all descended from fish, doesn’t mean we have that much in common.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Strictly speaking, it does. At least, common descent accounts for much of what we have in common. Insane progs, libertarians, and ‘mainline’ NR understand each other pretty well, certainly when compared to genuine religious traditionalists (as found in various marginal backwaters of the world).

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 1:51 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    Huh? Progs are saying we’re supporting North Korea. They don’t understand shit. Traditionalists with their convoluted theology and unshakable dogma have more in common with progs as far as I can tell.

    HBD shatters the mind of any non NR. Prog, libertarian, Catholic, Muslim, Confucian, they all shut their minds and shout you to stop. Descent doesn’t mean much. Shared concepts do.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Descent doesn’t mean much. Shared concepts do.” — Isn’t that the anti-HBD position in a nutshell?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Please. If you insist in the analogy, we are as removed from Calvinists as modern Europeans from Andaman Islanders. Evolution works fast with software.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I still see a lot of common traits. Ideological intensity, disrespect for regnant intellectual authorities, sectarianism, extreme social irritability …

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 12:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • mailadreapta Says:

    I was raised as an evangelical Protestant, then spent several years in Calvinist circles, before finally converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. So I may have something to say about this subject.

    The doctrine of predestination when it first appears is actually meant as a pastoral (comforting, therapeutic) doctrine, to allow late medieval Christians to know that they are saved. In Luther, particularly, though Calvin largely follows Luther here, the decree of predestination is manifested in baptism, so a baptized Christian could be certain that he was one of those predestined for salvation, thus freeing him from the terror of damnation which permeated late medieval Catholicism. Later iterations of Calvinism tended to lose this robust sacramentalism, though, and instead located the assurance of salvation in an inner confidence and outer righteousness, thereby reintroducing the same terror of damnation that Luther and Calvin had attempted to abandon. Except where Catholic conciences were salved by ritual and institutional cures, the Protestant conscience must be saved by virtue, the cultivation and demonstration of which is the main means by which the Puritans and their descendants prove themselves to be saved.

    I’m not aware of any robust treatment of Modernity-as-providence by a Western (Latin) writer, but I know of several Orthodox writers who have talked about the tragedy of the West, usually reading it as judgement. From the Eastern perspective, first Protestantism and then Modernism appear as intensifications of Latin errors which had existed since before the Great Schism, and Latin theology ultimately finds its culmination in Modernist annihilation (a theme which neoreactionaries should appreciate). I know that when I was reading about the history of the Reformation from an Orthodox perspective, I came to the conclusion that Progressivism was a species of radical Protestantism, years before I had ever read Moldbug. Indeed, once you situate yourself in a proper pre-Modern frame of reference, which Orthodoxy provides, the relationship becomes obvious. Vladimir Lossky and Alexander Schmemann both wrote on this theme, though I’m having trouble finding a good pull quote at this time.

    Orthodox theology may not directly provide much grist for the neoreactionary mill, as neoreaction begins from the arch-Protestant clade. It is apophatic and mystical, in opposition to the rational and reductionistic methods of the Latin West. At a civilizational level, however, things look much better. Orthodoxy is the largest Christian body which knows nothing of Modernism in itself, and the Slavs and Greeks who populate the Orthodox homeland experienced Progressivism in its cruelest form. From their perspective Modernism enters as a foreign body, a sickness unto death. It can be expelled, or at least selectively resisted. After all, isn’t Russia the nearest thing to a successful neoreactionary state in the world today? It is autocratic and capitalistic, nominally secular but in practice suportive of the Russian Orthodox Church, and openly contemptuous of Progressive dogmas. It is also, alas, extremely corrupt, which is not something that a neoreactionary should overlook.

    [Reply]

    mailadreapta Reply:

    As for the pull quote, the following is a suitable taste of Schemann’s writing:

    The third task of Orthodox theology in America must be defined as prophetic, even if the word sounds presumptuous. The prophets were sent to the people of God not only to announce future events, but also to remind the people of their true mission and to denounce their betrayals of Divine Will. And if, with the coming of Christ, “the fulfillment of all law and the prophets,” their first function has become obsolete, the second remains as needed as ever. And properly understood, theology must always share in this prophetic function. For the eternal task of theology is to refer the life of the Church to the absolute Truth of the Church’s own tradition, to keep alive and operative a criterion by which the Church judges herself. Immersed in human history, the Church is always full of temptations and sins and, what is even more serious, of compromises and accommodations to the spirit of “this world.” The temptation is always to prefer peace to Truth, efficiency to rectitude, human success to the Will of God. And since, in the Orthodox Church, there exists no visible center of infallible authority, like the Papacy, since her ultimate criterion and recourse is always the Truth abiding in her, it certainly belongs to those whose specific ministry is the study and the search of that Truth to make it known and manifest in all its purity and clarity. There is no arrogance, no pride in that claim. The theologian has no rights, no power to govern and to administer that which belongs exclusively to the hierarchy. But it is his sacred duty to supply the hierarchy and, indeed, the whole Church with the pure teaching of the Church and to stand by that truth even when it is not considered “opportune.” It must be admitted that much too often our official “academic” theology has failed to accept this “obedience” and preferred quiet complacency. It has thus become accomplice to many deviations and distortions from which the whole Orthodox Church suffers today. But again, it was not so with the Fathers. Almost to the one, they suffered from the various “power structures” of their days for their refusal to opt for the compromise or to accept silent obedience to evil. And the fact is that ultimately the Chuiich followed them and not those who, then as today, have a thousand excellent reasons for avoiding the “abstract principles” and preferring the “demands of reality.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Where would one look for the most intense theodicy discussion in Orthodox Christianity? (Other than Dostoevsky?)

    [Reply]

    Michael Reply:

    back issues[ before editors demise ]of first things and you will LOVE the late editors Fr Neuhaus reactionary observations in the backs “while we’re at it section” He left the lutherans [and canada] to become a catholic ans american.

    Michael Reply:

    for what its worth heres my opinion assuming we believe theres a personal god and grace etc which is a bridge too far for me currently
    evil is a by product of cause and effect. there would be no point to existence without free will ,free will has consequences, consequences that in the space time created by god for our initial existence teach us wisdom through experience. Grace can not be bestowed against ones will so while grace may seem miraculous its essentially choosing gods will or going with the flow, in other words its not so much moral as its just the reality of the system we are in.which is why all the traditions stoic etc are pretty consistent on how best to live.now for the suffering
    god created a times space world to train spirits that he created in his likeness the way american indians trained horses in water. this allows his all powerful beings in training to work it out without harming anything real,from a gods eye perspective Auschwitz is a mere video game horrible yes but see what it taught the world now maybe the lesson is out of control so another lesson is being learned and so on. The parable I like to demonstrate this is the blind man that was healed so the glory of god might me made manifest. the worm in the apple is the disparate impact of evil but of course christianity is communitarian
    but of course one needs to accept all sorts of premises for this to be reasonable.

    Artemisia Reply:

    Pavel Florensky – The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Can’t find it online except in Russian though. Florensky’s later works shift to anthropodicy, which I suppose was some kind of justification of humanity as good, or at least salvageable (I’ve not really read this, so I apologize that I cannot be more contentful).

    You could also try looking at some of Tolstoy’s writing (The Kingdom of God within You?), but I suppose that would not be as intense. And it would be Tolstoy. Ugh.

    admin Reply:

    @ Artemisia — thanks for the pointers. I’ll see how far I can get.

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 2:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • mailadreapta Says:

    Thus spake Wikipedia: By and large, Eastern Orthodox dismiss the problems of philosophical theology as peculiar to the Christian West, preferring only to point to the mystery of the cross. This is part of what I meant when I said that Orthodox theology proper is unlikely to provide grist for the neoreactionary mill.

    St. Serapion’s Treatise Against the Manichaeans was recommended to me on this subject by my priest, though as he warned me, it’s hard to track down and I haven’t succeeded in doing so yet. Contemporary approaches to the subject tend to sound like this, though you may find it insufficiently intense.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 4:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    “Neuhaus’s Law”,[7] which states that “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 4:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • mailadreapta Says:

    A succinct and accurate summation of the leftward ratchet as it manifests in the religious context.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 4:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    @Michael
    sounds like somebody elses law i i wont mencion

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 6:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    *I still see a lot of common traits. Ideological intensity, disrespect for regnant intellectual authorities, sectarianism, extreme social irritability …*

    That’s modernity. You should see a political demonstration in Korea, Taiwan or Thailand. Who’s the Calvinist there?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s an off-the-shelf Moldbug answer to that, of course: Anglospheric evangelism at work.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 6:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Says:

    @
    HBD / culture its a feedback loop nurture [culture] is an expression of a groups nature which becomes part of its environment and so on. So here comes this heretical sect of the Semites a desert people through a border empire Rome into a forest people.is it serving us

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 6:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Solex Says:

    I’m beginning to wonder if NR is actually an (unconscious) expression not of a Calvinist tradition but in fact of another great reform – Islam: the desire for a Caliphate, plenty of race/sex realism and debate about role of capitalism, fondness for schism, credible and growing opposition to progressive modernity: what’s not to like?

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    al-Ghazali.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 9:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Puritans insisted that they themselves could read the bible. This is a particular case of the Enlightenment position that people should think for themselves.

    Dark Enlightenment proposes that superior people should think for themselves, and that the official belief system should not be obviously falsifiable.

    So on reflection, obvious similarity resulting from cladistic descent, contrary to what I argued earlier.

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    But did the puritans read the bible? They concluded that marriage was not a sacrament, because, in the time of Saint Paul, marriage was conducted by the patriarch of the wife’s family, and then by the patriarch of the groom’s family, and did not directly involve the Church, and this led to the puritan attack on marriage that continues in ever more extreme form to this day. Instead of restoring authority over the marriage ceremony to the patriarchs, they gave it to the state.

    But if the patriarchs were Christians, they would invoke God to support the marital oaths, making them sacred oaths, which makes marriage a sacrament, or something very like a sacrament.

    In the end, holier than thou religion, phariseeism, tossed away bible based religion. And the original enlightenment was never too strongly connected to observable reality in the first place.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 10:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • James A. Donald Says:

    Iran provides a disturbing example of left wing Islam.

    Islam, like progressivism, found that science was subversive. While the Roman Catholic Church merely gave Galileo a tour of the instruments of torture, Islam killed their equivalent of Tycho, and burned his observatory to the ground.

    We need an official religion which, like Restoration Anglicanism, is unlikely to encounter problems with science.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (As pretty much always, I agree.)

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Agree, as long as it’s the unofficial [official] religion rather like before.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 1st, 2013 at 11:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Add – and add to Dialectics [I’m pro] – we have an official religion, it’s a Puritanism that in casting down God as they are Holier than Jesus, has embraced sin as it’s sacraments. Along with blood sacrifice, carnal rituals, drugs, deviancy, insanity, bankruptcy.

    Gay for instance is sacred, as is race. And “gender”.

    Abortion is easily the Feminist Eucharist, and you have to give them this: No Transubstantiation for THEM. It really is flesh of their flesh, blood of their blood.

    Now that’s a Dialectic T-Shirt.

    We can all probably agree the New Puritan too covets the soul. But not to save it. To destroy it and degrade it utterly.

    But that’s the Ruling Religion.

    We may want to introduce ourselves: Why I am an atheist of a type you may recognize. There’s only one religion, and I’m against it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 1:42 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Speaking of pre-destination: with the Tidewater Aristocracy long since defeated and destroyed where do we look next?

    I’m definitely thinking Presbyterian. They are warlike, heavily armed, hate the left and the gubbermint hardest of any group in the nation, are paranoid about their guns [and everything else] and have some particuliarly choice real estate from a certain POV. Not by accident.

    Besides when they encounter a recent Veteran at their revivals, the older ones [also veterans] take them aside to give them a divine message “Son, you don’t understand. God WANTS you to kill people.” **

    Now this is God I can get behind and follow.

    ** and that was in New Jersey.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Old school.

    [Reply]

    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    “the older ones [also veterans] take them aside to give them a divine message “Son, you don’t understand. God WANTS you to kill people.”

    a religion like this could make me believe in God again.

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    As a probable crypto-Presbyterian myself, I approve this message.

    Expand it to old-school Scottish Calvinism in general and you even get Carlyle.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    They also have lightsabers…or something.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    “The God Whose followers will not kill in His name is dead indeed.” – Cioran

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 1:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    @Admin

    Are you making a critical distinction between communism and Progressivism? You’ve written in the past that there is “enough egalitarianism wired into the brain the make communism inevitable”. But here you make it sound like Progressivism is a kind of original sin of which only Anglo-Americans can conceive. How do you reconcile these positions?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Quick and dirty answer: every culture has its own road to communism, so — yes — progressivism has to be a distinctive one (marked by Puritan themes of dissenting sectarianism). A longer answer would begin with the querulous demand: shouldn’t everybody exploring NR consider themselves addressed by this same (excellent) question?

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 3:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    Forgive me if I’m mistaken but aren’t the decidedly non-rabid non-progressive Afrikaners Calvinists? They seem to have maintained quite a robust traditional Western civilized state falling only to Anglo interference from outside.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    The Afrikaner is apparently some sort of coelacanth.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    … but on a harsher path to extinction.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    The Afrikaner was done in by the Cathedral, first in Rhodesia then in South Africa.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    The Afrikaner could be a special case like the Mormons, the Amish, and even in a way the Americans. At any given point, progressivism consists of a set of beliefs and also of an orientation towards moving on to an even lefter set of beliefs (in math terms, a point and a derivative of that point). People who adhere to the set of progressive beliefs more than to the orientation get left behind and become unprogressive. But their obvious lack of progressivity doesn’t mean that their belief set didn’t spin off from progressivism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 5:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Artemisia Says:

    @ Old Nick

    In case “I’ll see how far I can get” includes “how far I can get with reading the Russian text without knowing Russian”, here Florensky is (fortunately, in post-revolutionary spelling): http://azbyka.ru/vera_i_neverie/o_boge2/stolp_i_utverzhdenie_istiny-all.shtml

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m expecting Google Translate to be more or less mainlining sheer Satan, but I’ll see how it goes.

    [Reply]

    Artemisia Reply:

    It is – trying to use it on particularly mind-boggling bits of Schelling to figure out German sentence structure routinely makes me more miserably wretched than anything else, but two things:
    1) what’s mainlining Satan to you, Old Nick?
    2) you do have here a reference human for for parts that are particularly infernal and/or interesting (and I genuinely like translating thigs for a lot of reasons, most having to do with how I process information).

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    1) Ssshh
    2) Thanks, appreciated.

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 7:49 am Reply | Quote
  • nydwracu Says:

    The cladistic method chokes on creolization. Ex-libertarians, ex-conservatives, ex-communists, and Catholic traditionalists, all thrown together by a common enemy — it’s as Calvinist as what they speak in Haiti is a Niger-Congo language.

    Which isn’t to say it’s not Calvinist, of course.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed, rhizomes are not cladistic.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Rhizomes? Don’t you mean grafting? (Inosculation?)

    But from what I see on wikipedia of either rhizomes or grafting, neither one of them actually produces cross-species DNA combinations. To the degree that this happens, the cladistics analogy misleads us.

    What about breeding hogs and ducks on the same farm and generating new flu viruses that way? I don’t know what the technical term for this is.

    We seem to be arguing about how much different religions steal from each other (or infect one another). Maybe we are using the wrong unit of analysis, and should be looking at individual beliefs or behavior patterns rather than religions. A religion is like a pond with many different types of plants, animals, and bacteria growing in it. Boaters can easily spread zebra mussels from one pond to another.

    I’m also toying with a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or alcoholism analogy. A man may be a decent citizen, husband and father most of the time, but every once in a while he goes on a drinking binge and beats his wife. Christian sects keep vacillating between tragic and utopian views of human nature.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Rhizomes’ was a Deleuze & Guattari reference. Their Rhizomatic / Arborescent distinction quite exactly describes lateral / cladistic difference.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Swastika of Life vs. Swastika of Death
    https://youtu.be/lYG-wwc69rg?list=PL3WscdisMwUNM0jOuqA7B7RDFuKJiyAcr

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    Thank you.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Gee. Could we call them American rhizomes?

    [Reply]

    James A. Donald Reply:

    That was my argument, but on reflection, I see that the dark enlightenment best described cladistically rather than by hybridization.

    Enlightenment:

    Primacy of reason.

    Dark Enlightenment:

    Reason from observation, stupid!

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Positioning the Dark Enlightenment as the legitimate heir to the Scottish Enlightenment would be an excellent way to troll David Brin.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 11:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Dupla Predestinação – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 11:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    A correct reading of the Bible is that it´s a fractal history of your own life.

    Since time is an illusion, and there is eternity: if you know yourself to be saved (scientia factum est) you are saved. If you know this once: you know this (essentially) always.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 21st, 2016 at 9:50 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment