Comments on: New Low

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:30:11 +0000

I reject the “self-blaming” description of Progressivism. Scott Alexander has been brilliantly articulate on this. When, e.g., Blue State Americans criticize “America”, they are not criticizing themselves, they are criticizing Red State America. And in saying this, Alexander realizes that he is doing so as part of the “Gray” (libertarian) team, not the “Blue” team.

Peck wrote that he he mostly saw neurotics. Character disordered people won’t generally get therapy unless they are coerced, in which case it does no good. Neurotics eventually straighten themselves out. A bias towards being a little “neurotic” in that sense is good. I don’t want to name names, but I would like to see more “neurosis” from both my Jewish and gentile acquaintences.

I’m going to have to compose another rant on “universalism” some day. The way we discuss this issue is wrong. It’s like a door that needs to open sometimes and close sometimes. No sane and honest person will say “always open” or “always closed”. A person who says “always open” is invariably a hypocrit who is either sabotaging an enemy or signalling superior holiness. A person who says “always closed” is a paranoid schizophrenic.

By: Y.Ilan

Y.Ilan — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:22:59 +0000

I see what you’re getting at. Self-blaming/Scapegoating and Universalist/Particularist values would seem to map well together on the same axis. Different cultures, in general, would position themselves differently on said axis; from your own personal experience of WASPish Exile Jews you deem to position Jewish Culture on the Self-blaming, Universalist segment. Certainly there is a certain neurosis in exilic European Jewry, obviously stemming from the conditions of the Exile itself, and there is certainly a Universalist strain in Judaism; the very belief in Monotheism being radically Universalist when compared to older religions. Beyond that, though, Judaism is inherently particularist in its natural habitat. I believe that a certain balance needs to be struck for a society to be stable and healthy.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:29:05 +0000

Not a bad idea. Provided one does not go off too far on tangents lon the long road to nowhere. Certainly there are dark occult areas to be explored with the clear light of reason, but avoiding all the blind alleyways a very necessary prerequisite.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:57:26 +0000

I have nothing specific in mind. The Jews I know all seem very WASPish. But in general, I’m thinking of things like what Robert Priest says in this podcast:

http://www.researchonreligion.org/audio/RoR_184_Priest_01222014.mp3

There are some cultures that are like what is described in the Book of Job, where, if something bad happens to you, you think, “I must have done something to make God angry. I’d better mend my ways.”

There are other cultures where, if something bad happens to you, you think, “One of my neighbors must be practicing witchcraft. I’d better figure out who it is and kill him.”

To go off on a tangent, there was an interesting discussion in the comments to the “Disturbance in the Force” post here at Outside In among Handle, Thales, and Adam G. Thales suggested that the Christian crucifixtion story is a psychological tool for forcing people to examing the scapegoating process through the eyes of the scapegoat.

M. Scott Peck wrote about this sort of thing in terms of “neurotic” (blames self too much) vs. “character disordered” (refuses to accept enough blame) psychotherapy patients.

Another issue would be particularism vs. universalism, but that language has taken on a life of its own around here, so we probably can’t discuss it easily without doing some rectification of names. That might be worth pursuing.

By: Y.Ilan

Y.Ilan — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:36:40 +0000

@Sam Goldwyn
http://isteve.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/israeli-jewish-total-fertility-rates.html
Certainly the ultra-Orthodox are having a lot of babies, but so are other sectors of the Jewish population. While the Orthodox have been living off welfare for a long while, they are also slowly but surely integrating into mainstream society, and not by force; certainly, the system where the State pays ultra-Orthodox to study is not sustainable as it is, and it’s not going to stick around. Not to mention the very healthy birth rate of the National Religious crowd, who are both traditional and support the State perhaps more than any other segment.

By: Y.Ilan

Y.Ilan — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:27:33 +0000

Post-Jews, assimilated and assimilating Jews, are indeed sometimes indistinguishable from mainstream, progressive WASP culture. Jewish culture is another thing entirely; when I say Jewish culture, I mean that which makes Jews similar in every place they settle down, a record and tradition of 2500 odd years. The rituals and holidays, practiced to a larger or smaller degree; these are the things that truly matter in any culture, more than belief. Jewish culture is in practice the culture of Israel, which after all is the only place with a growing Jewish population. There is certainly a huge difference between Israeli and WASP culture, it would be laughable to say otherwise.

Thus I say to all Jews who wish to remain Jews and prolong the existence of their own people: come to Israel, it is the only place that has a future for us. What denials and projections are you talking about specifically? I am not attempting to avoid anything.

By: Sam Goldwyn

Sam Goldwyn — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 02:07:21 +0000

The birth rate is largely due to the ultra-orthodox, who are culturally opposed to the ruling European Ashkenazim. They live off welfare and various scams. They have a 5-8 kid TFR. The productive members of society are gradually being overwhelmed by them. The birth rate is extremely culturally bipolar.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:38:41 +0000

Ilan, can you expand on this? What are the important aspects of culture? How different is Jewish culture from WASP culture? Less denial and projection, maybe?

By: Son of Olorus

Son of Olorus — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:40:47 +0000

@Muhammad Chang
i see what you mean, as a way of getting round the limiting effects of “behavioural space” needed by an individual physically, one could give the sensation of greater space to conduct behaviour in -virtually. However i would not consider urban planning as virtual, but rather as physical techspace(with an aesthetic bent).

Techspace = virtual techspace + physical techspace

-considering that you made the comment of “techspace” in the context “to alleviate the stresses of cramped living conditions”–>which i presume we can both agree on as the result of the laws of proxemics, then virtual techspace could possibly circumvent the limitations of physical techspace in this context. However virtual techspace or simply virtual reality can branch off into other areas where different modes of behaviour are simply off-shored out of the physical setting- i can see how this can solve proxemic related problems in behaviour such as increased aggression etc however it may not solve some of the other consequences of high denisty populations such as low fertility–> unless it was directed towards such goals, which one could leave to the imagination.

Would techspace be a more useful/meaningful word, if it meant nothing more than solving spatial-behavioural problems in society(via techne) ?

if not how should its definition be expanded?

By: Muhammad Chang

Muhammad Chang — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:26:21 +0000

@Son of Olorus,

I’m referring to virtual techspace too, a combination of both urban planning, virtual reality, and the internet.