Br. F- No one--save grifters and sociopaths--believes position X because they truly know it is false. Even to say "there is no truth or meaning and knowledge is impossible" is to say that this statement is true and meaningful. It seems fairly obvious, but we humans are often so intent on missing each other. A odd quirk, this need to be right on the backs of others. In a world of scarcity it may be about who gets to eat and who doesn't. Who is ruled and who does the ruling.
I see tolerance as fully trusting that people are smart enough to be wrong all on their own. It isn't my job to correct anyone or try to force them to see things my way. The world is read as metaphysically multivalent and ambiguous--though I do believe there is Truth. Either a fruitful dialogue is possible or it isn't. Why argue in circles?
But that too, is just one more take among a million. I am tending towards a position which isn't quietism so much, but rather (and awkwardly) silencism. I was out again under the stars this morning wondering how it is we (ahem: *I*) make things so complicated. I am pondering this in my (hopefully) upcoming post. -Jack
All well said. Acceptance is often the default mode of the conflict avoidant. For those hesitant to get into debates and uncomfortable disagreements, it can be easier to lapse into generalized warmth and receptivity, without discernment.
Tolerance is indeed so difficult because it recognizes that genuine differences exist, and are hard to deal with, and that we cannot all be friends (and yet, can still be good neighbors).
My current preoccupation (moving along a bit from demonology) is how liberalism’s focus on the self manifests as hyper conformity and mimetic dynamics. Struggling to tease out these strands.
I assume you have no objection- I'm going to edit my most recent article to link to this as I think it's a wonderful complement to my subjective/objective discussion as regarding postmodernism/woke.
It was great to read this so shortly after my own piece- made me feel like my head is definitely in the right place.
This whole acceptance and "hate" thing revolves around whether or not you believe that humans have an innate nature, and that our highest happiness is fulfilling our nature.
Currently, the mainstream is pushing the notion that there is no such thing as nature, and that happiness lies in "free choice" (choice not guided towards an objective good, but mere spontaneity - which is logically incoherent). It is part of the program to dominate nature, begun over 500 years ago and now entering it's terminal phase.
If that's true, then any judgement whatsoever is nasty hate. But if there is human nature, then ignoring it is going to make people depressed, anxious, and dysfunctional.
Well, society is now in the midst of a grand experiment to see which theory is correct.
I am not particularly worried, because I think there is such a thing as fulfilling our nature and objective good - which means this radical experiment will not last very long.
For the moment, though, doubling down is the order of the day. The more this experiment obviously fails, the more our society doubles down on it - for now.
At the same time, I feel like the whole way this debate is framed in the mainstream is unfortunate - someone should clearly outline the two opposing theories, that there is no innate human nature and that there is, fulfilling our nature makes us happy or acting as if we have no nature makes us happy, and make clear we in the midst of an experiment, and clearly state that whether something is "hate" or immoral depends entirely on which - unproven - assumption you adopt.
If we have innate nature's, then encouraging someone to violate it is "hate", and encouraging someone to return to it is clearly "love".
Love it! The king is humility ; the soldier, tolerance. There's a lot in your article that has the ring of truth.
One point I'm not sure is right though: Is Yorkshire really the greatest place on Earth? I'd always assumed it was hovering a little above the rest of the world.
Br. F- No one--save grifters and sociopaths--believes position X because they truly know it is false. Even to say "there is no truth or meaning and knowledge is impossible" is to say that this statement is true and meaningful. It seems fairly obvious, but we humans are often so intent on missing each other. A odd quirk, this need to be right on the backs of others. In a world of scarcity it may be about who gets to eat and who doesn't. Who is ruled and who does the ruling.
I see tolerance as fully trusting that people are smart enough to be wrong all on their own. It isn't my job to correct anyone or try to force them to see things my way. The world is read as metaphysically multivalent and ambiguous--though I do believe there is Truth. Either a fruitful dialogue is possible or it isn't. Why argue in circles?
But that too, is just one more take among a million. I am tending towards a position which isn't quietism so much, but rather (and awkwardly) silencism. I was out again under the stars this morning wondering how it is we (ahem: *I*) make things so complicated. I am pondering this in my (hopefully) upcoming post. -Jack
All well said. Acceptance is often the default mode of the conflict avoidant. For those hesitant to get into debates and uncomfortable disagreements, it can be easier to lapse into generalized warmth and receptivity, without discernment.
Tolerance is indeed so difficult because it recognizes that genuine differences exist, and are hard to deal with, and that we cannot all be friends (and yet, can still be good neighbors).
My current preoccupation (moving along a bit from demonology) is how liberalism’s focus on the self manifests as hyper conformity and mimetic dynamics. Struggling to tease out these strands.
I assume you have no objection- I'm going to edit my most recent article to link to this as I think it's a wonderful complement to my subjective/objective discussion as regarding postmodernism/woke.
It was great to read this so shortly after my own piece- made me feel like my head is definitely in the right place.
This whole acceptance and "hate" thing revolves around whether or not you believe that humans have an innate nature, and that our highest happiness is fulfilling our nature.
Currently, the mainstream is pushing the notion that there is no such thing as nature, and that happiness lies in "free choice" (choice not guided towards an objective good, but mere spontaneity - which is logically incoherent). It is part of the program to dominate nature, begun over 500 years ago and now entering it's terminal phase.
If that's true, then any judgement whatsoever is nasty hate. But if there is human nature, then ignoring it is going to make people depressed, anxious, and dysfunctional.
Well, society is now in the midst of a grand experiment to see which theory is correct.
I am not particularly worried, because I think there is such a thing as fulfilling our nature and objective good - which means this radical experiment will not last very long.
For the moment, though, doubling down is the order of the day. The more this experiment obviously fails, the more our society doubles down on it - for now.
At the same time, I feel like the whole way this debate is framed in the mainstream is unfortunate - someone should clearly outline the two opposing theories, that there is no innate human nature and that there is, fulfilling our nature makes us happy or acting as if we have no nature makes us happy, and make clear we in the midst of an experiment, and clearly state that whether something is "hate" or immoral depends entirely on which - unproven - assumption you adopt.
If we have innate nature's, then encouraging someone to violate it is "hate", and encouraging someone to return to it is clearly "love".
Love it! The king is humility ; the soldier, tolerance. There's a lot in your article that has the ring of truth.
One point I'm not sure is right though: Is Yorkshire really the greatest place on Earth? I'd always assumed it was hovering a little above the rest of the world.