So like some others here, I've grappled with trying to understand the current (de)volution of popular American culture well enough to be able to accommodate to it personally, and to continue to participate in it, just as I always have throughout my lifetime.

I wish to emphasize that I accepted long ago that things will not be as I would prefer, but that I can find ways to live with this practical fact. This has always worked for me.

But since about 2014, and increasingly so since then, the changes both overtly demanded, and unmistakably implied, are beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone accommodate.

Like no other time within my memory, the default popular sensibility is to accept personal anecdotes at face value, and if conveyed by individuals of certain pre-identified groups, judged to have precedence over verifiable fact.

I repeat: in certain cases, narrative has ascendancy over fact.

So right there we have two situations that are foreign to the values I learned while becoming an adult, 50 years ago. In my own understanding of public values:

1) Objectively verifiable fact takes precedence over anecdotal explanation for the same incident. The entire legal system is based on this.

2) All individuals, regardless of group affiliation, are granted the same level of credibility until proven otherwise by verifiable fact. But now, certain individuals, based on membership in pre-identified groups, have unquestioned credibility. This happened and happens, but prior to the present, at no time within my lifespan was this ever accepted as desirable. It was always portrayed as a throwback to unenlightened times.

It was to be avoided as patently unfair.

The reversal of these two aspects are to me inconceivable in any free and open society governed by law. By extension, those who support these precepts do not support a free and open society governed by law.

Very scary stuff, eh?

But worse is still to come...

Those supporting this kind of thinking seem very ill-prepared to examine and analyze emerging situations, making them ready prey for demagogues, of which, like the proverbial poor, they will always be with us.

These demagogues--and one need not look very far to find them, and they come in both the petty and grand varieties, ranging from mentors to political leaders--seem to envision a complete, not partial, socio-economic reset. They portray that after the reset things will be equitable and will remain equitable, and that this will be the new normal. And that it would have been normal now, except for misdeeds done in the past.

I've read history in a sort of dilettantish way--but I'm a very interested dilettante, and I try hard to be objective. Reading history, I see no indication that a basic, rapid, radical reset ever results in a peaceful and equitable status quo. The opposite is true: there often tends to be bloodshed and mayhem--and here's the kicker--the same sort of system, a meritocracy of sorts--evolves from the ruins of the stable system that has been displaced so thoughtlessly.

So we now have a whole lot of people in the west--young, mostly--who want a radical reset without any informed idea of what the result will be.

So what does this sound like, friends and fellow Ed-ers? If you have had kids this resonates, and if not, I ask you to take my word for it, for now.

It is no different than when your 7 year old, in all seriousness and earnestness, claims to be capable of driving the family car.

Yep. That's it exactly.

That's what we're dealing with, and that's why it makes no sense when judged against adult behavior.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with much that you say, Sawfish. The problem is a corollary of the oft-reiterated notion that everyone's "voice needs to be heard." The claim involves justice, at least if you grant, as most people will, that in the past the "voices" of ethnic minority groups and women have not "been heard" as much as they should. But we're seeing more than a redress of a past injustice. There's the idea that the "voices" of white sexually normal males have been heard and now they must be silent & just listen. If the voices these white males are to listen to express anecdotes, such as you describe, or notions that have been proven again and again to fail (Marxism), etc., still the formerly privileged have to be quiet. This is no time for dialogue, and no time for an appeal to reason (="mansplaining")....

That showed sociological consciousness.

Something else that factors in here sometimes is emphasis on "current research." I sat on a committee once that was to review an academic program. The rule was that only recent research could be adduced. We were allowed, as I recall, to go back as far as ten years, but this was done reluctantly, as the committee chair thought just the past five years' research should be consulted. And the experience of a seasoned and accomplished teacher was disallowed, as this person was not admitted to the committee although the professor had a lot of experience and knowledge including the co-writing of a textbook that had been used in the courses involved. The restriction to recent research meant, of course, a bias in favor of current trends, frames of reference, etc.

Sociological consciousness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21 Jul 21 | 06:49PM by Dale Nelson.

Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where do you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the current cultural changes potentially could be portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As far as I know no such fiction has been written, mainly because all commercial publishing is subordinate under these changes.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where do
> you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the
> current cultural changes potentially could be
> portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As far
> as I know no such fiction has been written, mainly
> because all commercial publishing is subordinate
> under these changes.


7 year olds being certain about driving the car.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That showed sociological consciousness.
>
> Something else that factors in here sometimes is
> emphasis on "current research." I sat on a
> committee once that was to review an academic
> program. The rule was that only recent research
> could be adduced. We were allowed, as I recall,
> to go back as far as ten years, but this was done
> reluctantly, as the committee chair thought just
> the past five years' research should be consulted.
> And the experience of a seasoned and accomplished
> teacher was disallowed, as this person was not
> admitted to the committee although the professor
> had a lot of experience and knowledge including
> the co-writing of a textbook that had been used in
> the courses involved. The restriction to recent
> research meant, of course, a bias in favor of
> current trends, frames of reference, etc.
>
> Sociological consciousness.

Dale, ever since you introduced the term "sociological consciousness", I have not been comfortable with it, intuitively feeling that as you used it, it was employing a very broad term, "sociology", in a very narrow sense.

I understand sociology to be concerned with the study of human interactions at all levels, and in this sense, political science is a subset, and sociology being itself a subset of anthropology.

In your usage, however, the closest easy comparison is "political correctness". I recognize that this is not a congruent fit, but it seems that when you use it, what you are describing is the ready application of moral code formed around the notion that all human social interactions (sociology) MUST conform to a list of ill-defined and ever-growing ideas of "right" and "wrong".

There has always been this tendency in human society to wish to force conformity to a group's moral code; when this moral code is also legally enforceable you have a sort of theocracy. The best example of this currently in operation, is sharia law. In this kind of system, moral beliefs and the enforceable law are almost congruent. Literally, the legal system reflects all of the moral precepts passed along in dogma.

There are no, or few, compromises, and I can still recall a TV debate, perhaps on public TV, back in the 80s, between an Iranian mullah and an Iranian homosexual, in which at one point the mullah wryly noted that "There is no debate in Sharia law over whether it is righteous to put homosexuals to death. The only debate is by what method."

In a secular society, which by implied definition is based around the idea of a fairly loose tolerance of differing moral codes, this is handled differently. There are various moral codes that are tolerated *legally*, and there is a subset of behavior governing human interactions that is prohibited as unlawful. This is a fine balance that satisfies none of the constituent groups entirely, but seeks to not mortally offend any groups.

The idea of negotiated compromise is at the heart of this system, and case law records the evolution of such compromises.

Given all this, I think that what we're talking about is not sociological consciousness, but technically speaking, a sort of dogmatic theocratic type of consciousness, ironically practiced by a large and ever-growing group of rabid adherents who are naive enough to fail to recognize that they're actually practicing a new religion every bit as aggressive and militant as early Islam.

In fact, they think of themselves as secular--and hence eminently fair and just--which is yet another example of the complete misuse of existing terminology, just as the term "marriage" has evolved from its long-standing and fairly narrow legal definition to a new usage never envisioned by the mass of humanity as little as 30 years ago.

In short, we are witnessing a major sociological transition unlike anything I've witnessed within my lifetime. It's anyone's guess how it will turn out, but based on my long experience of human observation, it appears certain that there is bound to be a period of socio-economic instability.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish, by the phrase "sociological consciousness" I mean to suggest the way people in our time and place tend, unconsciously as well as consciously, to experience themselves, others, even nature -- largely or entirely in terms of sociological categories, numbers, scientistic analysis, etc.

"Political correctness" would not be possible if we didn't do this. PC is a phenomenon of sociological consciousness but it's sociological consciousness that is deeper. Let's suppose that people in the democracies threw off "political correctness" as we know it now. Sociological consciousness would probably remain entrenched in our minds. We would continue to think and to imagine in largely sociological categories.

Sociological consciousness thinks in terms of groups, of structures of power and influence, etc. Knygatin, though he is opposed to political correctness, writes here often (not always) in terms of groups that exert visible and invisible power over others, mostly in ways not conducive to their wellbeing, i.e. these comments exhibit sociological consciousness. I often write critically of professional educators, that being the group I know best, but in so doing I often consider them sociologically. "Sociological consciousness" is not only a problem due to self-appointed or government-appointed commissars. It is your problem. And mine.

I'm trying, further, to say that this modern habit of thought is not the only form of consciousness human beings have experienced and though it's what prevails now, it's not in the best interests of us all to occupy ourselves with it.

It seems to me that even quite recently a more poetic consciousness was at work in ordinary human relationships, in literature and the fine arts, etc. It may be seen in writers as different as Joseph Conrad and Jane Austen. Poetic consciousness doesn't ignore "man in society" but does not restrict itself to sociological categorization.

I find it increasingly unappealing to read contemporary literature, with the exception of occasional crime novels/detective stories -- which by their nature deal with man in society. I don't find anything very profound in them but at least I can read them. (A recent historical novel, Punke's The Revenant, held my interest. So I can't write off all contemporary fiction. I would say that the late V. S. Naipaul's writing showed both "sociological consciousness" and poetic consciousness, e.g. A House for Mr Biswas or In a Free State.) But perhaps I miss a lot by ignoring so much; but what I see at sites such as the Times Literary Supplement and Black Gate and Locus Online suggests to me that current fantasy and science fiction are not for me.

Reading pre-contemporary literature and attending to reproductions of pre-contemporary art and recordings of pre-contemporary music help me to experience at least some detachment from sociological consciousness. Sociological consciousness is inherently reductive, ignoring or explaining away or minimizing the human mystery or mysteries. It may shed a little light while missing much. Poetic consciousness works differently.

“Only fools have clear conceptions of everything. The most cherished ideas of the human mind are found in the depths and in twilight: around these confused ideas which we cannot classify revolve clear thoughts, extending, developing, and becoming elevated. If this deeper mental plane were to be taken away, there would remain but geometricians and intelligent animals; even the exact sciences would lose their present grandeur, which depends upon a hidden correlation with eternal truths, of which we catch a glimpse only at rare moments. Mystery is the most precious possession of mankind. Not in vain did Plato teach that all below is but a weak image of the order reigning above. It may be, indeed, that the grandest function of the loveliness we see is the awakening of desire for a higher loveliness we see not; and that the enchantment of great poets springs less from the pictures they paint than from the distant echoes they awaken from the invisible world.”

(The source is a Russian statesman of the 19th century.)

You can get a better sense of poetic consciousness from C. S. Lewis's late book An Experiment in Criticism and Arthur Machen's Hieroglyphics. There is a thread on the Machen here at ED.

Sawfish Wrote:


> In your usage, however, the closest easy
> comparison is "political correctness".

Sociology is properly a tool whose real value is limited to certain types of applications.
Sociological consciousness is a worldview, the dominant one in the English-speaking world and the West.
Political correctness is a militant ideology, a Leftist manifestation of sociological consciousness that could prove temporary while sociological consciousness remained entrenched.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
>
> > In your usage, however, the closest easy
> > comparison is "political correctness".
>
> Sociology is properly a tool whose real value is
> limited to certain types of applications.
> Sociological consciousness is a worldview, the
> dominant one in the English-speaking world and the
> West.
> Political correctness is a militant ideology, a
> Leftist manifestation of sociological
> consciousness that could prove temporary while
> sociological consciousness remained entrenched.

Quote:

DN:
I'm trying, further, to say that this modern habit of thought is not the only form of consciousness human beings have experienced and though it's what prevails now, it's not in the best interests of us all to occupy ourselves with it.
It seems to me that even quite recently a more poetic consciousness was at work in ordinary human relationships, in literature and the fine arts, etc. It may be seen in writers as different as Joseph Conrad and Jane Austen. Poetic consciousness doesn't ignore "man in society" but does not restrict itself to sociological categorization.

I'd say that sociological consciousness is post-modernist in that it either denies, or de-emphasizes the spiritual non-material aspect of existence, focusing more on the individual experience as grounded in a materialistic conception of the cosmos, which is a valid way to view things, since were are bound irretrievably to the subjective experience. However, it is valid only for, and within, that individual, and is basically unsharable. It is a manifestation of the individual will. If this is true, portraying it as anything other than an expression of an individual's will is at best disingenuous.


If true, then poetic consciousness attempts to focus on those subjective experiences that are sometimes commonly shared--if not in the same instant in time, then at least when considered in retrospect. it is like recalling and sharing the experience of one's first sexual kiss. It will not be identical, but the over-arching experience will have points of commonality.

I take it that this example is poetic consciousness?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sawfish, I am looking at your first post. Where
> do
> > you have the metaphor? Did you mean that the
> > current cultural changes potentially could be
> > portrayed in a work of imaginative fiction? As
> far
> > as I know no such fiction has been written,
> mainly
> > because all commercial publishing is
> subordinate
> > under these changes.
>
>
> 7 year olds being certain about driving the car.

Aah, ... I guess that could be called a metaphor. It is also a parallel circumstance, with the difference that we do not allow children to do that, ... yet. But the ongoing madness is reaching there too! I honestly wouldn't be too surprised, if 7 year olds' say is eventually allowed to become equally authoritarian as grownups' decisions. Actually it already is, with "school brainwashed" children allowed genital surgery and taken away by authorities from their parents if these say 'no'. There is also the example of underage Greta, and there are political voices raised to let underage teenagers (and even children) vote in general elections. And pedophile networks in prominent society liberal circles actively sexualize children, and sneak out insidious media propaganda calling it "intolerance" not to allow pedophilia.

As metaphor I was thinking more or the Arts. The madness of the current cultural changes could be used very efficiently as a subject for horror fiction and cinema. And I expect that it will in the future, if we gradually manage to free ourselves from it, and it won't be a stigmatizing crime to mock it.

Quote:

K:
The madness of the current cultural changes could be used very efficiently as a subject for horror fiction and cinema.

Hah!

My wife and I were discussing this very thing a few minutes ago!

We were playing with the idea that today's popular views among younger folk were held as articles of faith, and that any contrary views, even supported by verifiable objective fact, are heretical.

Just like what happened to Galileo in the 15th C.

E.g., try discussing the possibility that all human individuals are not by birth equal. That physical/mental inequalities exist independent of socio-economic inequalities and that...GASP!...these physical/mental inequalities might be for a large part the cause of economic inequalities.

This would imply that inequality might not be caused by racial/gender animus--and heavens! we can't have that.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At least at this point in my thinking, Sawfish, I wouldn't be prepared to agree with you, in your 1:10 pm, since perhaps you're talking more about philosophies than about "consciousness."

While I do believe that, ultimately, poetic consciousness needs religious faith, I think it is possible for one to hold an atheistic or skeptical philosophy and still experience poetic consciousness. Take Joseph Conrad. My sense of Conrad is that he perceived existence as inscrutable and that he had no religious faith. But his is not a sociological consciousness. He retains a sense of the human mystery. Conrad's imagination and perception are a million miles away from the sociological consciousness we see everywhere today, including, or so it appears to me though I'm a Christian, many examples of organized religion. Since poetic consciousness is important to me, I feel closer to Conrad than to many of the prelates and pastors I see quoted these days.

I would say, then, that a person's philosophy often goes hand in hand with his "consciousness," but the "consciousness" is probably prior to, antecedent to, the philosophy.

Put another way: the more poetic your consciousness, the more likely it will be that you appreciate Plato; the more sociological your consciousness, the more likely you don't have much use for Plato; you will probably prefer Theory (e.g. Foucault). You won't be a seeker of truth so much as one who says "Let's play with that idea. How does it work? How does it serve the interests of the privileged?" and so on.

If you've sent a child to university and, when he visits, he spouts slogans and seems to think he "sees through" the happy and lovely things you used to share and value, that's what universities do these days, inculcate sociological consciousness. You may feel that a philosophy or an ideology now obstructs his former consciousness that used to refresh you when you took walks together and so on. His mind has been colonized and his soul is less robust than it was when he was a boy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22 Jul 21 | 02:49PM by Dale Nelson.

....I didn't quite complete the thought in the message sent this afternoon. I wanted to add that an education aligned with poetic consciousness might well return a child from college now enthusiastic about literature (e.g. the poems of Wordsworth) that connect with valuable experiences from younger days.

Poetic consciousness, I'd like to say, works with the growth of the person, brings out that experience C. S. Lewis referred to when he said that an experience is fully grown when it is remembered.

Sociological consciousness displaces such memories, replacing them with theory, with things like Marx's wretched paradigm of class rancor (now manifest in racial rancor), and so on.

The person deeply sunk in sociological consciousness has a clouded mind. It may be clouded by abstractions or it may be clouded by passions evoked by ideology. Listen to these people talk. They may be clever, but are they ever wise? Are they ever fresh, funny, good to be around, making you feel more awake to what life has to offer? Would you really want to take on board their ways of thinking, their notions of what matters? Perhaps so if you have had a typical education that, likely enough, estranged you from your best moments and memories.

The great poetic consciousness vs. sociological consciousness novel is Lewis's That Hideous Strength. Read it attuned to the contrast it presents between household and institution.

Where poetic consciousness prevails, institutions will take on some of the qualities of good households, and where sociological consciousness prevails, household will become more like institutions: rationalized, inorganic, with records maybe but not places where memories come to fruition.

Unfortunately our societal trajectory is towards sociological consciousness. When government wants to get into even pre-kindergarten at one end, and sponsored college at the other, run for the hills.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I do believe that, ultimately, poetic
> consciousness needs religious faith, I think it is
> possible for one to hold an atheistic or skeptical
> philosophy and still experience poetic
> consciousness. Take Joseph Conrad. My sense of
> Conrad is that he perceived existence as
> inscrutable and that he had no religious faith.
> But his is not a sociological consciousness. He
> retains a sense of the human mystery. Conrad's
> imagination and perception are a million miles
> away from the sociological consciousness we see
> everywhere today, including, or so it appears to
> me though I'm a Christian, many examples of
> organized religion. ...
>

Poetic consciousness was prevalent in Europe before the entrance of the Christian church. Christianity, and its humanitarian values, has been a most effective conqueror's tool to get Europe and later US under control, and into the multicultural state we see today, and turning the people's minds into sociological consciousness, through the fear of God, divine punishment, and imprinted guilt, with redemption under the rules of the Christian church offering the only deliverance. Over the last couple of centuries, and especially in the last few decades, Christian religion has gradually lost its foothold (with Consumption being the new global "religion"), people becoming more and more secularized; but the social consciousness remain imprinted on our minds. Christianity may have some sound values for how to treat friends and family. But Christianity is dismally detached from the biological laws of Nature; likewise with the other two Semitic desert-religions. They are all arrogant in the face of Nature, and presume humans detached from and above Nature. It is perverse. That is why their societies are so chaotic, dysfunctional, brutal, and non-aesthetic (or rather, their religions may stem form their degenerate genetics).

The old Germanic and Norse gods were based on the laws of Nature, and gain energy therefrom. Same with Celtic paganism. That is what we have lost with the enforced advent of Christianity, which is ultimately the cause for the madness of the current cultural changes being allowed to take place. But the old truths still sleep deep within us, and can be awakened.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The old Germanic and Norse gods were based on the
> laws of Nature, and gain energy therefrom. Same
> with Celtic paganism. ...

And of course, the Greek and Roman gods for southern Europeans. Those are the gods we should pray to as true Europeans, instead of turning to some Semitic desert-Savior that help us none!

Knygatin Wrote:

> Poetic consciousness was prevalent in Europe
> before the entrance of the Christian church.

Yes, and afterwards too. Poetic consciousness was, I suppose, the norm in the English-speaking lands and the West till the 20th century, and still is in many of the "undeveloped" locations. Sociological consciousness is, I suppose, rooted in the Enlightenment as an ideology (not in its real achievements). Marx, in the mid-19th century, was the great prophet of sociological consciousness. (I recommend Leopold Schwarzschild's classic biography, The Red Prussian.)

In the 20th century, Communism brought over 100 million lives to an end (for extensive documentation, see Harvard University Press's The Black Book of Communism). Hitler's National Socialism was a weird hybrid, an attempt to create a synthesis of pagan elements and sociological consciousness. Its inclusion of Marxist influences is not often mentioned by academics and activists, but read for yourself:

[www.independent.co.uk]


No real pagan revival is likely, though people may attempt it; but the oracles have fallen silent and the cry "Pan is dead!" rang out over two millennia ago, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

[www.perseus.tufts.edu]

[www.perseus.tufts.edu]

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > Poetic consciousness was prevalent in Europe
> > before the entrance of the Christian church.
>
> Yes, and afterwards too. Poetic consciousness
> was, I suppose, the norm in the English-speaking
> lands and the West till the 20th century, and
> still is in many of the "undeveloped" locations.
> Sociological consciousness is, I suppose, rooted
> in the Enlightenment as an ideology (not in its
> real achievements). Marx, in the mid-19th
> century, was the great prophet of sociological
> consciousness. (I recommend Leopold
> Schwarzschild's classic biography, The Red
> Prussian.)
>
> In the 20th century, Communism brought over 100
> million lives to an end (for extensive
> documentation, see Harvard University Press's The
> Black Book of Communism). Hitler's National
> Socialism was a weird hybrid, an attempt to create
> a synthesis of pagan elements and sociological
> consciousness. Its inclusion of Marxist
> influences is not often mentioned by academics and
> activists, but read for yourself:
>
> [www.independent.co.uk]
> itler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Yes.

Do you ever seen Hitler and other western workld leaders of that era as the last gasp of Romanticism?

All if these guys read right straight out of Ayn Rand.

Too, I see an odd similarity between the Nazi movement and Japan's attempt to become a major world power at that time.

Both were deeply racially based. There would ultimately be a collision, had they prevailed.

There was a national/racial myth. Pagan Teutonic man on the one hand and the people of the living sun god.

And both cultures took a tremendous hit in terms of confidence and continuity after being punitively slapped down during, and immediately after, WWII. This was probably by designed policy--or should have been, at any rate.

WWII was an existential war.

>
>
> No real pagan revival is likely, though people may
> attempt it; but the oracles have fallen silent and
> the cry "Pan is dead!" rang out over two millennia
> ago, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.
>
> [www.perseus.tufts.edu]
> us%3atext%3a2008.01.0251
>
> [www.perseus.tufts.edu]
> us%3Atext%3A2008.01.0252%3Asection%3D17

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My issue with the return to paganism is that I don't think any modern person knows how to worship Odin, Dagda, or the ever-evolving Greek gods. The knowledge of these things is fragmented or speculated, and I find that many Neo-pagan movements have an atmosphere of artificiality and desperation, using synthetic creations based on questionable sources, or a sentimental view of the past decorated with golden baubles and royal dresses that the average ancient person wouldn't have owned.

Of course, you can partially blame Christianity for phasing out this knowledge, or for misrepresenting it via questionable manuscripts, but whatever the case the old religions are now fragmented at best, so there will never be a sincere revival.

As half-Japanese, I suppose I'm caught somewhere between the gods of Europe and the many many gods of Japan, but I don't sweat it. I appreciate how Japan is generally closer to its ancient ways than a lot of western Europe, but even Japan was modified into a materialistic consumers' paradise, bowing to every customer with a pleasant yet distant smile. Anyway, in some sense I feel greater affinity with gods of cosmic indifference and impermanence such as Cthulhu, Tsathoggua, Vergama, and Aforgomon. I guess I'm saying that while modern society sends itself on all these wild goose chases, I'll continue admiring the natural world and reading decent literature to the end of my days. :)

Japan used to be heavily invested in its own poetic consciousness. Maybe, if any westerner is willing to follow Lafcadio Hearn, a part of it can be experienced there. Just don't wander into any kinky cafes where waitresses dress in bikinis and cat ears!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 23 Jul 21 | 10:21AM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My issue with the return to paganism is that I
> don't think any modern person knows how to worship
> Odin, Dagda, or the ever-evolving Greek gods. The
> knowledge of these things is fragmented or
> speculated, and I find that many Neo-pagan
> movements have an atmosphere of artificiality and
> desperation, using synthetic creations based on
> questionable sources, or a sentimental view of the
> past decorated with golden baubles and royal
> dresses that the average ancient person wouldn't
> have owned.
>
>

I am sure the sources or understanding of their essences may be found in the right circles. But I agree, a genuine revival with sentimental attachments is doubtable. It will have to take a new dress.


"And out of the shadows, the older gods had returned to man: the gods forgotten since Hyperborea, since Mu and Poseidonis, bearing other names but the same attributes."

-Clark Ashton Smith

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My issue with the return to paganism is that I
> don't think any modern person knows how to worship
> Odin, Dagda, or the ever-evolving Greek gods. The
> knowledge of these things is fragmented or
> speculated, and I find that many Neo-pagan
> movements have an atmosphere of artificiality and
> desperation, using synthetic creations based on
> questionable sources, or a sentimental view of the
> past decorated with golden baubles and royal
> dresses that the average ancient person wouldn't
> have owned.
>
> Of course, you can partially blame Christianity
> for phasing out this knowledge, or for
> misrepresenting it via questionable manuscripts,
> but whatever the case the old religions are now
> fragmented at best, so there will never be a
> sincere revival.

As the self-declared least spiritual poster to ED, I still must admit to some level of sensitivity to something immaterial. It's probably what others refer to as spiritual, and I have no other word for it. The closest I can get is the word "awe".

So the spiritual feelings I get are almost solely from natural phenomena, like mountains, trees, landscapes, big storms, etc. I envision that this response is probably a lot like what our shambling, hairy forebears felt, nor did they apparently feel the need to codify this into various systems until much later.

And that's about where I am, developmentally, as a spiritual being, and why it is sometimes hard for me to follow the thoughts/ideas of other on this forum, apparently because I don't easily--if ever--transfer this feeling to other objects or concepts--except some very powerful objects of art.

...and I suppose now's the time to mention this, although I prefer to not have it advertised, or bruited about in any fashion...

I assume that everyone here has seen Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. There's the opening sequence in which two bands of apelike creatures each approach the Black Monolith from different directions, they being separate tribes.

Then, to ascending music, one member of one of the tribes touches the monolith, and everything is different.

I have long suspected that I'm descended from the *other* tribe.

:^(

>
> As half-Japanese, I suppose I'm caught somewhere
> between the gods of Europe and the many many gods
> of Japan, but I don't sweat it. I appreciate how
> Japan is generally closer to its ancient ways than
> a lot of western Europe, but even Japan was
> modified into a materialistic consumers' paradise,
> bowing to every customer with a pleasant yet
> distant smile. Anyway, in some sense I feel
> greater affinity with gods of cosmic indifference
> and impermanence such as Cthulhu, Tsathoggua,
> Vergama, and Aforgomon.

Hah! Vonnegut, in one of his novels, has The Church of Christ, the Utterly Indifferent, whose core tenet is "Mankind should attend to his own work, and let God attend to his." Or something like that.

> I guess I'm saying that
> while modern society sends itself on all these
> wild goose chases, I'll continue admiring the
> natural world and reading decent literature to the
> end of my days. :)
>
> Japan used to be heavily invested in its own
> poetic consciousness. Maybe, if any westerner is
> willing to follow Lafcadio Hearn, a part of it can
> be experienced there. Just don't wander into any
> kinky cafes where waitresses dress in bikinis and
> cat ears!

Good God!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the 20th century, Communism brought over 100
> million lives to an end. Hitler's National
> Socialism ... Its inclusion of Marxist
> influences is not often mentioned by academics and
> activists, ...

It was national and racial solidarity that was important, not economic equalization or taxing people to death. Private businesses and initiatives were welcome, as long as not a threat to the people's health or to the nation.

Did you read the George Watson article at the link I posted?

I wonder if Nazi Germany was a bit like Red China today -- a totalitarian state influenced by Marx but allowing an element of state-monitored capitalism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23 Jul 21 | 03:11PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you read the George Watson article at the link
> I posted?
>
>

No, I didn't. I avoid mainstream (((media))). I am unfamiliar with Independent. What kind of newspaper is it? And who owns it?

I am really not very interested in what weaknesses Hitler's National Socialism had, as far as using that as an excuse for "guilt by association" and continuing on the misdirected path of today. What is important is what needs to be done today. Fact remains that homogenous countries, culturally and ethnically, work best and most harmoniously. Multiculturalism is a bad choice. The mass-immigration to Europe from Africa and the Middle East is a bad thing, and must stop, and those people need to be sent back to where they came from. It is either them or us. I choose us. Europe belongs to the Europeans. Or rather, as there are no absolutes, it is up to the Europeans to wake up, rise, and reclaim their land. Or else perish. Their choice.

Knygatin asked about my link to The Independent:

----What kind of newspaper is it?------

It's a British newspaper, mainstream media. George Watson was a controversial (in the present regard) historian. I thought he pointed out something of interest for modern history, though I have only an amateur knowledge thereof.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23 Jul 21 | 05:33PM by Dale Nelson.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am really not very interested in what weaknesses
> Hitler's National Socialism had, as far as using
> that as an excuse for "guilt by association" and
> continuing on the misdirected path of today. What
> is important is what needs to be done today. Fact
> remains that homogenous countries, culturally and
> ethnically, work best and most harmoniously.
> Multiculturalism is a bad choice. The
> mass-immigration to Europe from Africa and the
> Middle East is a bad thing, and must stop, and
> those people need to be sent back to where they
> came from. It is either them or us. I choose us.
> Europe belongs to the Europeans. Or rather, as
> there are no absolutes, it is up to the Europeans
> to wake up, rise, and reclaim their land. Or else
> perish. Their choice.

I concede all of what you say, K, but let's look at it like we look at global warming...

If the pundits were correct in the early 2000s, and I see no reason to suppose that they were far wrong, we basically missed the window of opportunity to significantly abate the predicted effects back around 2010.

OK, let's play with that. It means that energy needs to be spent in *adaptation* to the effects, and not so much in the prevention of them, because, Jeez, it's already too late. *They* told us that. long ago, and they wanted us to take them at their word, so I suggest that we do.

So the situation with multiculturalism is not congruent, but what, if anything, could be done to adapt to it?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I concede all of what you say, K, but let's look
> at it like we look at global warming...
>
> If the pundits were correct in the early 2000s,
> and I see no reason to suppose that they were far
> wrong, we basically missed the window of
> opportunity to significantly abate the predicted
> effects back around 2010.
>
> OK, let's play with that. It means that energy
> needs to be spent in *adaptation* to the effects,
> and not so much in the prevention of them,
> because, Jeez, it's already too late. *They* told
> us that. long ago, and they wanted us to take them
> at their word, so I suggest that we do.
>
> So the situation with multiculturalism is not
> congruent, but what, if anything, could be done to
> adapt to it?

It doesn't look very bright, does it? This may end in total anarchy.

By the way, I started watching Melancholia last night, ... synchronistic it seems, to increase my sense of helplessness related to our recent topics, ... perhaps this coincidence was meant to be for me, like so many other things in life that occur together. Melancholia could be interpreted as a metaphor for the present destruction of Western civilization. More on Melancholia later ...

But, we must not succumb to defeatism!

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I concede all of what you say, K, but let's
> look
> > at it like we look at global warming...
> >
> > If the pundits were correct in the early 2000s,
> > and I see no reason to suppose that they were
> far
> > wrong, we basically missed the window of
> > opportunity to significantly abate the
> predicted
> > effects back around 2010.
> >
> > OK, let's play with that. It means that energy
> > needs to be spent in *adaptation* to the
> effects,
> > and not so much in the prevention of them,
> > because, Jeez, it's already too late. *They*
> told
> > us that. long ago, and they wanted us to take
> them
> > at their word, so I suggest that we do.
> >
> > So the situation with multiculturalism is not
> > congruent, but what, if anything, could be done
> to
> > adapt to it?
>
> It doesn't look very bright, does it? This may end
> in total anarchy.
>
> By the way, I started watching Melancholia last
> night, ... synchronistic it seems, to increase my
> sense of helplessness related to our recent
> topics, ... perhaps this coincidence was meant to
> be for me, like so many other things in life that
> occur together. Melancholia could be interpreted
> as a metaphor for the present destruction of
> Western civilization. More on Melancholia later
> ...
>
> But, we must not succumb to defeatism!

Never fear, old friend!

I'm going to continue along on my thoughts about the climate change/unrestricted immigration model, where I'm starting off with the assumption (which could change later to explore different cases) that there is no rolling back to the prior status quo, but that the way forward is a satisfactory adaptation.

Would separate, set-aside territories that state as a condition of their foundation, at the very highest level of law, that the intent of the newly formed nation/state is to maintain a certain set of traditions, and if this means strictly enforced immigration quotas--if indeed any immigration is allowed--based on whatever criteria is judged important to preserving the esteemed traditions, even race--would this be a path worth exploring?

I want to reassure you, too, that I will not attempt to trap or manipulate these discussions, as I've seen happen on other forums, and have happened *to me* on other forums. I'm just really interested in looking at all possibilities objectively, to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Some of these are verboten, but that still hasn't proven, to me, that they are objectively wrong.

Two examples: The Bell Curve--could it be correct in its basic argument, that statistically significant differences exist between the various tradition groupings of humanity, often called races?

Was the basic premise of what is labeled social Darwinism objectively incorrect, that certain cultures are less "fit" in the Darwinian sense to succeed and spread as the human environment evolves?

I can't tell you how many times I've been attacked for even stating these same propositions on other forums, so I just stopped doing it.

Makes me sympathetic to heretics.

Let's leave those alone, but I'm using them to show that I see nothing wrong about discussing the validity of these topics, nor others thought to be off limits in a sort of political/ideological sense. To mean, ideas exist on a separate plane from belief systems. They are sort of auditioning for inclusion into belief systems, and so are at an early exploratory stage.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> Would separate, set-aside territories that state
> as a condition of their foundation, at the very
> highest level of law, that the intent of the newly
> formed nation/state is to maintain a certain set
> of traditions, and if this means strictly enforced
> immigration quotas--if indeed any immigration is
> allowed--based on whatever criteria is judged
> important to preserving the esteemed traditions,
> even race--would this be a path worth exploring?

Who, in the English-speaking world at least, has a traditional consciousness such as you presume? That's a serious question even if it sounds like a rhetorical one.

I know of no such enclave, certainly none sizeable enough to be willing to try to make such a state come about and then able to sustain itself.

(You might be interested in Rod Dreher's blog entries of the past couple of months from Hungary, whose present, democratically-elected, government says it tries to preserve Hungarian identity. My sense is that, whatever else you could say, yea nay or neutral, about Hungary, its current project is doomed. Its citizens have internet, its young people travel, etc., to say nothing of the external pressures on a small country by bigger ones. My guess is that within ten years it will not be very different from its neighbors as regards immigration, etc.)

I've wondered if groups of immigrants to America could maintain themselves as communities with their own traditions and an element of poetic consciousness over against the sociological consciousness pervading and even hag-riding people who grew up and were educated here. If they exist, I might feel more affinity with such immigrant groups (even though their ethnicity differed from my own) than with people of my own majority ethnicity who think in terms of contemporary politics, airports rather than churches, the quantification of data about humans rather than the telling of stories, the habits of Marxist outrage rather than lives accountable to perennial ethics, and so on.

For example, I would rather pass the time of day chatting with a friendly mom in my neighborhood whose accent and appearance indicate that she grew up in another country, who grows vegetables in a teeming backyard garden for her husband and kids and goes to church (not mine, as it happens), who laughs and likes people -- than most of the people who teach in the academic division I used to teach in (all of them people of my own ethnicity). I'll go out of my way to avoid most of them. And I suppose they are more comfortable in meetings now that I'm retired.

Enjoy your good neighbors, and walk under branches.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jul 21 | 11:35AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
>
> > Would separate, set-aside territories that
> state
> > as a condition of their foundation, at the very
> > highest level of law, that the intent of the
> newly
> > formed nation/state is to maintain a certain
> set
> > of traditions, and if this means strictly
> enforced
> > immigration quotas--if indeed any immigration
> is
> > allowed--based on whatever criteria is judged
> > important to preserving the esteemed
> traditions,
> > even race--would this be a path worth
> exploring?
>
> Who, in the English-speaking world at least, has a
> traditional consciousness such as you presume?
> That's a serious question even if it sounds like a
> rhetorical one.

It's a point of departure for speculation.

There is a move currently in OR, which will not come to fruition when viewed realistically, and it is to create the state of Greater Idaho by annexing large parts of mostly rural Oregon. There is a fair amount of vocal support--as there often is--but it's more determined and strident than usual for these sorts of symbolic propositions. And it's due to the very apparent sociological disruptions since about 2012.

So I am talking about this sort of grassroots desire to set off a portion of some nations, need not be English speaking, but there's no reason why not, if sentiments dictated strong support.

So, yes, in a sense I had in the back of my mind Idaho, which seems to me about halfway there, already.

[SIDE NOTE: I plan to alternatively explore a "what if" that postulates that the biological melding that is going on in the US and western Europe--the result of the very immigration polices that many find disturbing--may in actuality be producing the most Darwinian fit population given the current human environment.]

>
> I know of no such enclave, certainly none sizeable
> enough to be willing to try to make such a state
> come about and then able to sustain itself.
There's no telling for sure, and we're discussing not the *how*, but the *suitability as a solution*.

>
> (You might be interested in Rod Dreher's blog
> entries of the past couple of months from Hungary,
> whose present, democratically-elected, government
> says it tries to preserve Hungarian identity. My
> sense is that, whatever else you could say, yea
> nay or neutral, about Hungary, its current project
> is doomed. Its citizens have internet, its young
> people travel, etc., to say nothing of the
> external pressures on a small country by bigger
> ones. My guess is that within ten years it will
> not be very different from its neighbors as
> regards immigration, etc.)

Very possibly, but that's not the focus right now: if one *could* do it, would it be satisfactory as a solution?

>
> I've wondered if groups of immigrants to America
> could maintain themselves as communities with
> their own traditions and an element of poetic
> consciousness over against the sociological
> consciousness pervading and even hag-riding people
> who grew up and were educated here. If they
> exist, I might feel more affinity with such
> immigrant groups (even though their ethnicity
> differed from my own) than with people of my own
> majority ethnicity who think in terms of
> contemporary politics, airports rather than
> churches, the quantification of data about humans
> rather than the telling of stories, the habits of
> Marxist outrage rather than lives accountable to
> perennial ethics, and so on.

If what you are suggesting is that one could form a satisfactory polity from like-minded people of all races/ethnicities, this is yet another possible solution.

In a sense this is happening informally when country folk relocate to the cities. People are attempting to self-segregate into cosmopolitan sophisticates and rural traditionalists.

>
> For example, I would rather pass the time of day
> chatting with a friendly mom in my neighborhood
> whose accent and appearance indicate that she grew
> up in another country, who grows vegetables in a
> teeming backyard garden for her husband and kids
> and goes to church (not mine, as it happens), who
> laughs and likes people -- than most of the people
> who teach in the academic division I used to teach
> in (all of them people of my own ethnicity). I'll
> go out of my way to avoid most of them. And I
> suppose they are more comfortable in meetings now
> that I'm retired.
>

No need to account, so they can relax.

It's a lot like when the Atlantic online shut down the comments section.

> Enjoy your good neighbors, and walk under
> branches.

Here's a funny way to see fundamentalist Islam: they are very militantly trying to preserve many of the same sociological traditions that are under attack in the US.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, huh? :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote:

-----
If what you are suggesting is that one could form a satisfactory polity from like-minded people of all races/ethnicities, this is yet another possible solution.

In a sense this is happening informally when country folk relocate to the cities. People are attempting to self-segregate into cosmopolitan sophisticates and rural traditionalists.-------

Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave of people of like vision of human flourishing, and I have been at least since the 1980s, when my first child was born. I would hope and prefer that this enclave would happen to be ethnically diverse, but would not want an official policy of trying to engineer that (which is "sociological" thinking). The Benedict Option is appealing to me. Note that a component thereof is that the community would practice hospitality towards human wrecks who might find their way there seeking a refuge that they wouldn't have elsewhere. But the community must be able to require conformity to its norms.

People who think like this can learn from the Amish, though Benedict Option adherents often will not live in agricultural communities of people of like beliefs. Read David Williams's novel When the English Fall or Eric Brende's Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology. But some Benedict Option folk might live with a high degree of technology, treated, though, more as an animal to be kept in a cage or on a leash than as a monitor, spy, lover, friend, etc.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote:
>
> -----
> If what you are suggesting is that one could form
> a satisfactory polity from like-minded people of
> all races/ethnicities, this is yet another
> possible solution.
>
> In a sense this is happening informally when
> country folk relocate to the cities. People are
> attempting to self-segregate into cosmopolitan
> sophisticates and rural traditionalists.-------
>
> Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a
> considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave
> of people of like vision of human flourishing, and
> I have been at least since the 1980s, when my
> first child was born. I would hope and prefer
> that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> diverse, but would not want an official policy of
> trying to engineer that (which is "sociological"
> thinking). The Benedict Option is appealing to
> me. Note that a component thereof is that the
> community would practice hospitality towards human
> wrecks who might find their way there seeking a
> refuge that they wouldn't have elsewhere. But the
> community must be able to require conformity to
> its norms.
>
> People who think like this can learn from the
> Amish, though Benedict Option adherents often will
> not live in agricultural communities of people of
> like beliefs. Read David Williams's novel When
> the English Fall or Eric Brende's Better Off:
> Flipping the Switch on Technology. But some
> Benedict Option folk might live with a high degree
> of technology, treated, though, more as an animal
> to be kept in a cage or on a leash than as a
> monitor, spy, lover, friend, etc.

Would this work at the independent polity scale?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> Would this work at the independent polity scale?

I could imagine a loose confederation of such communities, but almost certainly, in the real world, the power of the State would be brought to bear against it. The Amish are, so far as I know, pretty much left alone, by custom, but I wonder how long that can last with a governments as aggressively woke as those we see now.

There are, so far as I know, no "Amish towns," but the various independent households look after each other -- see the books I mentioned. That seems sensible to me. There are some things (e.g. modern hospitals) that they obviously can't do by themselves.

I have hopes that homeschooling families have banded together in various ways & will continue to do so, perhaps without being much noticed. If this sort of thing appeals to you, see Roger Thomas's entertaining suspense novel sequence that begins with Under the Watchful Sky.

I can't believe that some state governments (e.g. California, Michigan, Illinois, etc.) and the feds won't meddle with homeschooling. Their mere existence is a reproach to them. I do see homeschooling as a real-life resistance movement to much of the politics of sociological consciousness; it is MUCH more friendly to poetic consciousness than the public schools and especially the public schools teachers' unions. There are Christian homeschools but also secular ones, "New Age" ones, etc. I imagine that the Nine Noble Virtues could guide the Asatru well: courage, truth, honor, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, industriousness, self-reliance, perseverance. Now I don't know what meanings beyond the obvious meanings of these words these people may attach to the words, but wow, those are words to live by, and a household and a federation of households that sincerely practice them are likely to nurture children well and to foster poetic rather than sociological consciousness. Contrast the crap a kid's likely to absorb from peers, curricula, teachers, administrators, etc. in metropolitan public schools.

I agree that in reality there is very little likelihood of having these separate communities governed by values that are at odds with the current trends of multiculturalism and diversity as the two pillars of the woke modern society.

One stands in awe of a system that ensures separate enclaves for indigenous peoples, only marginally subject to federal and state laws, but not for other such enclaves based on religion, ethnicity, shared values.

The Mormons took a shot at it, and because they were willing to give it a go in land no one else wanted all that much, they were left alone, mostly. Plus they were willing to compromise, politically.

But we'll see no reservations for the preservation of traditional European and/or early US cultural values, that's a given.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The kind of thing I have in mind is more or less being done, though, here and there, and not just in rural enclaves. For example, take the Hasidim in Brooklyn. Of course, they're no strangers to attacks from wretched losers filled with hatred.

[nypost.com]

I would encourage people who want to minimize their involvement with wokeness and all that stuff to find likeminded people and perhaps to buy property where they can live in proximity to one another. They probably don't need to "hide in plain sight," but they don't need to go out of their way to publicize what they're doing either.

If someone wereinterested in this kind of thing, I might say: Even if you don't have kids, look for states that are homeschool-friendly and that rate well on other indices of wellbeing, e.g. low crime, affordable property & cost of living, and so on. Think about your positive beliefs -- are there quite a few likeminded people in the area? And so on.

Incidentally, the 1992 movie A Stranger Among Us is pretty good despite the dubious casting of the main character, a woman police detective.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jul 21 | 07:52PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kind of thing I have in mind is more or less
> being done, though, here and there, and not just
> in rural enclaves. For example, take the Hasidim
> in Brooklyn. Of course, they're no strangers to
> attacks from wretched losers filled with hatred.
>
> [nypost.com]
> ic-couple-and-1-year-old-in-nyc-video/
>
> I would encourage people who want to minimize
> their involvement with wokeness and all that stuff
> to find likeminded people and perhaps to buy
> property where they can live in proximity to one
> another. They probably don't need to "hide in
> plain sight," but they don't need to go out of
> their way to publicize what they're doing either.
>
>
> If someone wereinterested in this kind of thing, I
> might say: Even if you don't have kids, look for
> states that are homeschool-friendly and that rate
> well on other indices of wellbeing, e.g. low
> crime, affordable property & cost of living, and
> so on. Think about your positive beliefs -- are
> there quite a few likeminded people in the area?
> And so on.

This is a good discussion because it forces a sort of "anything goes" approach to problem solving.

Working thru this informal grouping scenario, finding like-minded individuals/families, it certainly seems that religion as the central core is a natural focus, and I would expect such communities to be most often religion centered.

You will note that I have no problem with this. I have a problem with strong evangelistic practices (this is not much of a problem among the Hasidim, I've heard), but other than that, no real problems.

As we discuss this, the realization grows within me that I'm less interested in following a prescribed set of practices or beliefs than I am in how to independently analyze and evaluate EVERYTHING, including belief and/or logic systems.

So for me the biggest current problem is not so much the supposed facts of fluid transgender identity as it is the mindless reflexive belief that the phenomenon is as the adherents and supporters portray, and not subject to question.

If subjected to question and it holds up, then it's valid as stated; otherwise, it is something else.

So I'm repelled by reflexive response to phenomena that are untested, or incompletely tested. It's extremely sloppy thinking.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you pretty confident, Sawfish, that your tools for testing are adequate for all things that matter?

My own belief is that there are some tools that approach complete adequacy for certain tests. An engineer is probably acquainted with tools and tests that are are, he may say, 100% reliable for yielding the needed information about, I don't know, measuring water pressure over a spillway. But it also seems to me that the more we are concerned with specifically human concerns, the less we possess such tools or tests. Sociology may have tools for analyzing certain aspects of the behavior of large "masses" of people (e.g. consumer patterns). But the more I deal with the world as I actually experience it (the domain of imagination, of exercise of free will, the experience of love, etc.), the less likely I am to be able to resolve questions through tests. I would be repelled if someone said he was thinking of marrying a woman, but was figuring out some little tests of her character first, some experiments designed to help him figure out if she's really a good prospect.

There are levels of being -- as I've written about before -- and detached "tests" are of progressively less usefulness or even possibility as you move up the levels.

Minerals -- it's easy to imagine tests (physics, chemistry) that will approach 100% certainty

Plants may be tested according to plant biology, genetics, etc. and a pretty high degree of certainty may be attainable, but because they are alive they're not so easily tested as rocks. I believe some scientists are open to the idea that communities of plants may possess some degree of consciousness.

Animals -- here ethical considerations enter, or ought to enter, because many of the subjects not only possess life but some degree of awareness; most people would agree that it is unethical to subject, say, living cats and dogs to experiments without at least some ethical controls; and we know there is much that we cannot test because we cannot access their consciousness. We can tell that many animals possess some degree of memory, ability to communicate with others of their species, and so on, but we can only, probably clumsily, try to collect data that will let us make inferences about those faculties.

Humans -- the ethical dimension becomes even more important, so that offenses against human dignity, and the infliction of suffering, trouble most people who read about Unit 731, for example -- although perhaps some of that was "good science" that the Imperial scientists undertook.

But at any rate most people who think about it will grant that we cannot have anything like the certainty about humans as humans that we can have about a specimen of tungsten. To be sure, we can treat products of the human body with tests that have a high degree of certainty, e.g. test for blood in a stool sample. But the more specifically human an element is, the less we can test it scientifically.

OK, then I would go further and throw out the possibility that there could, theoretically, be one or more levels of being higher than the human; in which case our ability to test them might approach zero; or, at least, the tests might be radically unlike the kind of tests I've discussed so far. The corollary of this is that one might have to "risk" a great deal indeed -- from the point of view of "testing." But I would say many of us do this all the time. My wife is out of my sight quite a bit of the time. I trust her -- and have trusted her since before we were married -- with a very great deal of my happiness. From a "testing" point of view I may have been rash after all.

In fact, sociological consciousness admits this. In the interests of minimizing emotional pain, it fosters e.g. no-strings-attached sex, prenuptial contracts, no-fault divorce, and so on. Sociological consciousness would "demystify" sexual activity, facilitating a minimal-risk sexual milieu.




"And because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold."

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a
> considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave
> of people of like vision of human flourishing, ... I would hope and prefer
> that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> diverse, ...

Americans of European stock (not quite all) and Europeans tend to look differently on multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans have grown up with diversity, living on a land originally populated by American Indians, and then by more and more immigrants from Europe, and elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad circumstances, by a large African populace, and therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been used to homogenous countries since prehistoric times, which is their ethnic and cultural heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by political encroachment, only in the last few decades. Europeans have lost a great deal, and their history is intentionally being erased, just now. It is an ongoing genocide, which tends to flutter past American minds unnoticed.

So Americans are generally more accepting of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. While Europeans are not. We have different perspectives.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you pretty confident, Sawfish, that your tools
> for testing are adequate for all things that
> matter?

Nope.

But I *am* confident that it's the best I'll be able to do. Of those tools, they are both based in experience, and to a degree on vetted (as best I can) sources.

I've found that many/most situations that require a relatively immediate response, and this entails a judgement of some form. In situations where I'm uncertain, if the situation demands immediate response, I always go with my own judgement. I also try to defer judgments when possible, and when any resultant response has significant repercussions.

But if forced by circumstance, I trust my own response. It's the best I've got, and it has gotten me this far with a fair degree of success.

>
> My own belief is that there are some tools that
> approach complete adequacy for certain tests. An
> engineer is probably acquainted with tools and
> tests that are are, he may say, 100% reliable for
> yielding the needed information about, I don't
> know, measuring water pressure over a spillway.

Yes.

> But it also seems to me that the more we are
> concerned with specifically human concerns, the
> less we possess such tools or tests.

Yes.

And yet circumstances of daily interaction demand that one makes a judgment of some kind before proceeding, else the course of action could be decided by a coin toss.

One of the most important and formulative realizations I've ever had was about 40 years ago, when it dawned on me that the common social sentiments about suspending my judgment ("Who are we to judge?"), were trying to shame me into inaction. They literally were counseling me to forego my best evolved trait--the ability to inductively move forward thru life's pitfalls, and adopt the direction of others whose motive I did not truly know.

This evolved personal judgment is what kept my hairy forebears from trying to "pet the nice kitty" in the instances of encountering a sabre-tooth.

Works the same in South Central LA, too, if I may be so bold as to suggest it.


> Sociology
> may have tools for analyzing certain aspects of
> the behavior of large "masses" of people (e.g.
> consumer patterns). But the more I deal with the
> world as I actually experience it (the domain of
> imagination, of exercise of free will, the
> experience of love, etc.), the less likely I am to
> be able to resolve questions through tests. I
> would be repelled if someone said he was thinking
> of marrying a woman, but was figuring out some
> little tests of her character first, some
> experiments designed to help him figure out if
> she's really a good prospect.

..and yet this would have been of real value with my first wife... ;^)

>
> There are levels of being -- as I've written about
> before -- and detached "tests" are of
> progressively less usefulness or even possibility
> as you move up the levels.

Yes.

I think I recognize fewer levels than you, thus simplifying my problem in dealing with people.

I think that there is, for me, and "inner circle" of close friends and family. For the close friends to join the circle, they may have responded to some situations almost as informal tests.

E.g., when I bought my first house, a former college room-mate with whom I was close, proactively suggested that he help me fix it it, ostensibly for re-sale and profit. He was a licensed general contractor at the time, and he did all of the hard stuff. He also accepted no professional fee--it was cost of materials, alone.

This moved him into the inner circle by some kind of a test, but informally, because he had generously done me a HUGE favor without me asking. I then sought to reciprocate as best I could and he was only one step from being a family member, so far as I was concerned.

Too, so family members can (and have) fallen out of the circle.

>
> Minerals -- it's easy to imagine tests (physics,
> chemistry) that will approach 100% certainty

Yes.

The trick, if there is one, is to be comfortable with the idea that in certain areas you can approach 100%, and that this is a reasonable expectancy, but for human interaction you have only your best judgment, if you are willing to use it.

I am, and at this stage of life, I am appalled that there was ever a time when I did not, and worse--that there are those who never do, deferring instead to the judgment of "kindly strangers".

>
> Plants may be tested according to plant biology,
> genetics, etc. and a pretty high degree of
> certainty may be attainable, but because they are
> alive they're not so easily tested as rocks. I
> believe some scientists are open to the idea that
> communities of plants may possess some degree of
> consciousness.

Maybe, but I currently don't much care.

I *could*, but I'd need to know *why*.

>
> Animals -- here ethical considerations enter, or
> ought to enter, because many of the subjects not
> only possess life but some degree of awareness;
> most people would agree

..and yet is general consensus really any valid threshold for a course of action?

Now, I'd agree with the idea of protections, but I'd see it as a personal judgment (mine) that I happen to share with many others, but it is by no means governed by any higher authority than accepted consensus that evolved to a set of legal limitations.

> that it is unethical to
> subject, say, living cats and dogs to experiments
> without at least some ethical controls; and we
> know there is much that we cannot test because we
> cannot access their consciousness. We can tell
> that many animals possess some degree of memory,
> ability to communicate with others of their
> species, and so on, but we can only, probably
> clumsily, try to collect data that will let us
> make inferences about those faculties.

Yes. I agree with this progression of living organisms as complex entities.

>
> Humans -- the ethical dimension becomes even more
> important, so that offenses against human dignity,
> and the infliction of suffering, trouble most
> people who read about Unit 731, for example --
> although perhaps some of that was "good science"
> that the Imperial scientists undertook.

Always a favorite hypothetical situation of mine!

Suppose a cure for cancer was implied, based on the experimentation. Do were use this tainted science, or not?

Me, I'd say use it, without further thought or comment.

>
> But at any rate most people who think about it
> will grant that we cannot have anything like the
> certainty about humans as humans that we can have
> about a specimen of tungsten. To be sure, we can
> treat products of the human body with tests that
> have a high degree of certainty, e.g. test for
> blood in a stool sample. But the more
> specifically human an element is, the less we can
> test it scientifically.
>
> OK, then I would go further and throw out the
> possibility that there could, theoretically, be
> one or more levels of being higher than the human;
> in which case our ability to test them might
> approach zero; or, at least, the tests might be
> radically unlike the kind of tests I've discussed
> so far.

Yes.

This is an excellent hypothetical situation.

> The corollary of this is that one might
> have to "risk" a great deal indeed -- from the
> point of view of "testing." But I would say many
> of us do this all the time. My wife is out of my
> sight quite a bit of the time. I trust her -- and
> have trusted her since before we were married --
> with a very great deal of my happiness. From a
> "testing" point of view I may have been rash after
> all.

Again, I would not confuse the scientific method with evolved human judgment as applied to human interactions.

They do not belong to the same domain, when we are discussion social interactions in a definitive sense. And this is because we, the evaluators, are too close to the human aspects (feelings, emotions, other such intangibles that have evolved as mechanisms to advance/preserve your bloodline as it pertains to an active particle of the species).

>
> In fact, sociological consciousness admits this.
> In the interests of minimizing emotional pain,

"No pain, no gain!"

Seriously, life without pain or the potential for it, is unrecognizably Utopian for me.

> it
> fosters e.g. no-strings-attached sex, prenuptial
> contracts, no-fault divorce, and so on.
> Sociological consciousness would "demystify"
> sexual activity, facilitating a minimal-risk
> sexual milieu.

It does, but all this is, is recognition of "common knowledge" as ascendant over personal judgment.

And yep, that's what it has devolved to.

>
>
>
>
> "And because lawlessness will increase, the love
> of many will grow cold."

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to
> a
> > considerable degree, not absolutely) to an
> enclave
> > of people of like vision of human flourishing,
> ... I would hope and prefer
> > that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> > diverse, ...
>
> Americans of European stock (not quite all) and
> Europeans tend to look differently on
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans
> have grown up with diversity, living on a land
> originally populated by American Indians, and then
> by more and more immigrants from Europe, and
> elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad
> circumstances, by a large African populace, and
> therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything
> else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been
> used to homogenous countries since prehistoric
> times, which is their ethnic and cultural
> heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous
> mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by
> political encroachment, only in the last few
> decades. Europeans have lost a great deal, and
> their history is intentionally being erased, just
> now. It is an ongoing genocide, which tends to
> flutter past American minds unnoticed.
>
> So Americans are generally more accepting of
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. While
> Europeans are not. We have different perspectives.

Yes, and from my formative youth (1950s-60s) it has been common socio-political policy to inculcate tolerance and this can be at war with one's natural preferred associations.

The observed fact of "black cafeteria tables" at mixed schools, where non-whites cluster *by preference* with others who look like them should inform everyone paying attention that this desire to associate with one's phenotype is ingrained not only in Caucasians, but in black Americans, too.

I'd extrapolate further as a working model, yet to be thoroughly tested, that all distinct phenotypes are like this, but the degree of preferred association--and hence exclusion--may vary among phenotypes.

And if there's validity in this, then the implication that most/all of the black support of integrated schools in the 50s-60s-70s was not because they particularly wanted inclusion in a multi-racial society--one great big happy family, as it were--but simply to have access to what they were told (and accurately at the time) was better quality infrastructure--schools, hotels, etc.

So it was simply based on material gain, and not any great desire for social inclusion.

Shocking!!! ;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good and honest observation, Sawfish. I think only a few of Americans would be so honest in this delicate matter.

I went to junior high school for a year, in Kentucky in 1980, and during lunch-break all the kids gathered in the gym hall, or else had the choice of going to the school library (we were locked into the school all day, not allowed to go out any time; bussed to school in the yellow busses in the morning, and bussed home in the afternoon). In the gymnastic hall the boys played basketball, always the blacks on one side and the whites on the other side, no exceptions; blacks against whites.

I was also threatened to life by a small testy black in the biology classroom, glaring and breasting himself about how he could kill me with the microscope, hefting it in his hand. It is an understatement to say, that this group didn't distinguish themselves as being overly bright in classes.

Knygatin Wrote:

> Americans of European stock (not quite all) and
> Europeans tend to look differently on
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans
> have grown up with diversity, living on a land
> originally populated by American Indians, and then
> by more and more immigrants from Europe, and
> elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad
> circumstances, by a large African populace, and
> therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything
> else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been
> used to homogenous countries since prehistoric
> times, which is their ethnic and cultural
> heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous
> mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by
> political encroachment, only in the last few
> decades.

Knygatin, I suppose American cities have been, as you say, characterized by a multicultural mix for many, many years. A great many of our politicians, professors, etc. come from these cities -- the elites who govern us. On the other hand, the United States are also, almost all of them (I don't know about states such as Delaware and Connecticut) abundantly provided with small towns, many of which are not simply "bedroom communities" that are satellites of metro areas, but that are real towns with their own histories. These towns often are largely populated by people descended from earlier town residents, and the original ones might have been mostly from one European area.

I have a lot of sympathy for people in these towns who didn't ask that Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, or whatever agency bring new Americans to settle in them. This has really been hard for some small towns, as you'll be able to tell from this article:

[www.mprnews.org]

People in small towns may feel that they don't have a lot to offer to keep their children in the area -- restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, whatever -- but they do have a community in which (as I often read in student papers years ago) "everybody knows everybody and everybody will say hi," etc. That changes when people of radically different origins are brought in, obliging schools to provide instruction in the students' languages and so on.


As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the countries heavily invested in colonial activity (e.g. France) probably did have an ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type immigrants to their cities. France had already repudiated a "state religion," so perhaps they have no right to gripe if Islamic immigrants are not in love with French secularism, rationalism, hedonism, and keep to their ways in their communities. If the native-born French resent that, that's just too bad. That doesn't mean those communities should be allowed to persecute Jews, burn cars, and do all that other Islamic-radical stuff. I don't quite understand why countries with little or no colonial activity might feel they ought to welcome lots of immigrants from Islamic countries. Sweden is the most secular nation in the world, as I understand, so they too have no right to moan if Islamic immigrants, accustomed to religion, keep up their Muslim ways, but I'm not sure I understand why Malmo needed to become famous for harboring gangs of Muslims who hate Jews. But my thinking is probably simplistic.

Sawfish wrote:

----Suppose a cure for cancer was implied, based on the experimentation. Do were use this tainted science, or not?

Me, I'd say use it, without further thought or comment.----

I think we discussed this type of situation before, and I agreed with you. The assumption is that the knowledge is information "on paper." The knowledge is there (in this scenario). The ethical principle of doing good to others exerts its own imperative. Withholding the knowledge just because it had been ill-gotten would seem to me to fail an ethical test.

On the other hand, among the recent Covid vaccines was one (J&J) that didn't simply use knowledge derived from ethically questionable sources, but material derived from an ethically questionable source. There were alternatives. I got the Pfizer vaccine, could have got the Moderna. I would hesitate about the J&J.


I wanted to complete a thought in my earlier message about how ethical considerations become more prominent the higher up the levels of being we go, and spell out that, the higher up we go as testers, the more we ourselves are put to the test.

There is little if any inherent ethical pressure on me if I am doing spectrographic analyses of oxidized mineral specimens. (Extrinsic ethical factors would be. e.g., if the specimens are acquired by mining that involved abuse of workers, or paying a noticeably corrupt regime for the minerals.) We the people considering tests using live animals are ourselves being tested, and this is much more the case when human subjects -- we will assume they are volunteers -- are involved. At this point -- tests involving people -- the moral testing of the experimenters is very high. And, of course, they have to be very smart.

Now, theoretically, the moral caliber of the human(s) involved would be as great or even greater when it comes to the knowledge of beings at a higher level of being (let's say, hypothetically, angels). Thus Christian tradition advises humans not to be too preoccupied with angels, and, though God is not a "being," one unit in a category of other beings, certainly "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." And, of course, they would need to be very wise.

In fact, the vocabulary I've been using, about ethics and morality, would suggest only an aspect of what might be needed, which could include "faith," here understood different than as by Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce (was it one of those guys) as "the capacity for believing what you know is not true." Faith, I take it, suggests the endowing upon the person of a capacity that's as much of a distinctive as, say, consciousness is from life when we are discussing levels of being... I'm not sure this a good way of putting it. But let this do for this posting.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:32PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sweden is the
> most secular nation in the world, as I understand,
> so they too have no right to moan if Islamic
> immigrants, accustomed to religion, keep up their
> Muslim ways, but I'm not sure I understand why
> Malmo needed to become famous for harboring gangs
> of Muslims who hate Jews. ...

If you are of European stock, you should probably be more concerned about the elderly and young Swedes, being robbed, beaten, and humiliated, and the thousands of Swedish girls being raped each year (highest rape rate statistic numbers per capita in the World, except for a couple of countries in Africa).

I've contributed almost nothing to this conversation because of my possibly heretical opinion (to all sides I know) that race and nationality hardly matter compared to the individual mind, a sentiment I keep finding (whether or not it actually exists) within the strongly individualistic CAS' fiction, with its stories of poets, low-lives, and sorcerers who are alienated by their fellow countrymen. But I've been reading on with empathy, because I feel this country is gutting itself with these new ideologies of "fairness" and "representation", removing the vital organs of culture and replacing them with artificial "feel-good" constructs that might feel more at home in a dystopian novel.

I'm especially interested in Sawfish's attempts at understanding and adapting to the inevitable.

Sawfish, you mentioned having a Japanese wife and a half-Japanese daughter. Would this, in some sense, make you a heretic to any ideals of cultural preservation and national identity?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:08PM by Hespire.

I wouldn't see it as an either/or, Knygatin. But thanks for the reminder of an aspect that I hadn't mentioned.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've contributed almost nothing to this
> conversation because of my possibly heretical
> opinion (to all sides I know) that race and
> nationality hardly matter compared to the
> individual mind, a sentiment I keep finding
> (whether or not it actually exists) within the
> strongly individualistic CAS' fiction, with its
> stories of poets, low-lives, and sorcerers who are
> alienated by their fellow countrymen. But I've
> been reading on with empathy, because I feel this
> country is gutting itself with these new
> ideologies of "fairness" and "representation",
> removing the vital organs of culture and replacing
> them with artificial "feel-good" constructs that
> might feel more at home in a dystopian novel.
>
> I'm especially interested in Sawfish's attempts at
> understanding and adapting to the inevitable.
>
> Sawfish, you mentioned having a Japanese wife and
> a half-Japanese daughter. Would this, in some
> sense, make you a heretic to any ideals of
> cultural preservation and national identity?

Honestly, I don't know.

I *do* feel an affinity for European culture, that's for sure, and especially S or SE European paternal domestic organization, which appears to me to be very similar to what I see practiced by my wife's relatives. The domestic roles/relationships were immediately reconizable to me, whereas with my first wife, of N European/English descent, the relationships, while within the bounds of acceptable, were not really comfortable to me.

So as unlikely as it sounds, there were very few needed adjustments by either of us to settle into a comfortable domestic relationship.

Go figger, huh? :^)

Now she feels an affinity for Japanese cultural sentiments, and this seems to be exactly what I'm doing with European ones, and it seems merely a reordering of values, not a replacement of them. E.g., I feel social obligation, but as a much less compelling force, than she does.

So given that I'm really happy with the way all this has turned out for the last 35+ years, if I ever come under criticism as a heretic of some kind by people who--ironically like me--are in favor of European cultural preservation (and I suppose that I include in this that the most important ones are: self-reliance; ownership of personal responsibility; a deep respect for educational accomplishment; a level of basic honesty--and I find that these are *also* core values that my wife's relatives esteem, so no conflict there), then I'll wear it as a badge of honor.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:58PM by Sawfish.

Dale:

"As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the countries heavily invested in colonial activity (e.g. France) probably did have an ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type immigrants to their cities."

It's good for us to understand this point as it affects our future exchanges, Dale.

I do not see any such obligation. I see it as a recent historic example of the impetus to expand cultural/ethnic, and likely racial hegemony, and as such we can find examples of this all thru recorded history, and implied evidence of this from the archaeological record.

Too, I see recognizable traces of it in the social apes, making me think that it is a very deeply embedded evolutionary "strategy"--if this term can aptly be used to describe an evolutionary result.

So I see no rational reason, but instead some form of group guilt--which I understand exists, but cannot for the life of me understand *why* it exists, and fear that it may well be associated with religious precepts.

I mean, it seems to me to be best explained by a belief is something akin to Original Sin.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> One of the most important and formulative
> realizations I've ever had was about 40 years ago,
> when it dawned on me that the common social
> sentiments about suspending my judgment ("Who are
> we to judge?"), were trying to shame me into
> inaction. They literally were counseling me to
> forego my best evolved trait--the ability to
> inductively move forward thru life's pitfalls, and
> adopt the direction of others whose motive I did
> not truly know.
>
> This evolved personal judgment is what kept my
> hairy forebears from trying to "pet the nice
> kitty" in the instances of encountering a
> sabre-tooth.
>
> I am, and at this stage of life, I am appalled
> that there was ever a time when I did not, and
> worse--that there are those who never do,
> deferring instead to the judgment of "kindly
> strangers".
>
>

I have the same experience. And I would say that these social sentiments about suspending judgment, stems form Christian thinking and values ("Thou shalt not ..". "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone." Etc. ). It is downright dangerous, and this naive and guilt-ridden attitude can get you in a lot of trouble. One should trust one's inner instincts about individuals; a lot can be read immediately on the outside, in the signs of the body-language.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth,
> is that the countries heavily invested in colonial
> activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type
> immigrants to their cities. ...

The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and atonement.

No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland instead.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's
> worth,
> > is that the countries heavily invested in
> colonial
> > activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> > ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type
> > immigrants to their cities. ...
>
> The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and
> atonement.
>
> No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help
> them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland
> instead.


I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex," Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In other words, for perhaps 200 people of Northern European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y, probably bringing many benefits (e.g. hospitals) but also profiting for a time from these "jewels in the crown." (My understanding is that eventually these colonial empires sometimes were more costly than the exports they produced, etc. -- or maybe I'm thinking of the Roman Empire. Don't know very much about this stuff.) I'm just saying that a fair-minded observer might suppose that, if for 200 years the Europeans settled in Region Y, well, fair's fair, people from Region Y might be regarded as having a right to settle in European Region X.

Is there an obvious error of reasoning there? I understand that (say) native Parisians might wish the Moroccans or whatever would stay home, but perhaps the Moroccans wished the Parisians would stay home back then.

I'm really not all that interested in this type of question, by the way, since I feel no personal duty to concern myself with it, am not captivated imaginatively by it, and so on, but I hope my comments can receive temperate responses if any. Reasonable responses differing from mine would be welcome. One such response might be, "The Northern Europeans never should have colonized those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first one."

I suspect I'll be watching from the sidelines from now on, on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if I will see sentiments attributed to me that I haven't expressed and that are not necessary implications of what I did say. Cheers!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 04:05PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dale Nelson Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's
> > worth,
> > > is that the countries heavily invested in
> > colonial
> > > activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> > > ethical obligation to welcome
> commonwealth-type
> > > immigrants to their cities. ...
> >
> > The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and
> > atonement.
> >
> > No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help
> > them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland
> > instead.
>
>
> I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex,"
> Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms
> of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In
> other words, for perhaps 200 people of Northern
> European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y,
> probably bringing many benefits (e.g. hospitals)
> but also profiting for a time from these "jewels
> in the crown." (My understanding is that
> eventually these colonial empires sometimes were
> more costly than the exports they produced, etc.
> -- or maybe I'm thinking of the Roman Empire.
> Don't know very much about this stuff.) I'm just
> saying that a fair-minded observer might suppose
> that, if for 200 years the Europeans settled in
> Region Y, well, fair's fair, people from Region Y
> might be regarded as having a right to settle in
> European Region X.
>
> Is there an obvious error of reasoning there? I
> understand that (say) native Parisians might wish
> the Moroccans or whatever would stay home, but
> perhaps the Moroccans wished the Parisians would
> stay home back then.

It was not based on a notion of "rights"; indeed, it's not hard to argue that the idea of "rights" is a sort of western construct.

The French had the same "right" to Algeria as Atilla did to central Europe. It was not a matter of rights so much as it was within his power to do so, and he exercised that power.

>
> I'm really not all that interested in this type of
> question, by the way, since I feel no personal
> duty to concern myself with it, am not captivated
> imaginatively by it, and so on, but I hope my
> comments can receive temperate responses if any.
> Reasonable responses differing from mine would be
> welcome. One such response might be, "The
> Northern Europeans never should have colonized
> those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of
> Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a
> further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first
> one."
>
> I suspect I'll be watching from the sidelines from
> now on, on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if I
> will see sentiments attributed to me that I
> haven't expressed and that are not necessary
> implications of what I did say. Cheers!

I won't, and wouldn't, do that Dale. I enjoyed trying to think this thru.

There is no "right answer" here; I'm merely after trying to follow the threads of any given [policy to see where they may be likely to lead.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The Northern Europeans never should have colonized
> those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of
> Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a
> further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first
> one."
>
>

I agree with the premise. Although I am not sure who actually colonized. It is not in the Nature of hardworking North Europeans, especially Scandinavians, who tend to struggle and toil with what they have. (The Vikings were out on temporary trading trips.) Neither common folks among the French, or Englishmen. Darwin went on scientific excursions, which is in line with the European soul.

Who exploited southern regions? Aggressive financial interests. Perhaps we should define exactly what group that entails.

We must neither forget all the "help" and "gifts" these southern regions have received, in the form of medicines, food, Western technology, material conveniences. Although it is not a good thing to make people dependent upon others. It would have been better to let them have their own cultures and societies, creating after their own ability; then their populace would have adjusted naturally. Africans are predicted by UN to double or even triple in numbers over the next 50 years, to several billions. Any sensible individual can conclude that that is not desirable.

I think I will draw a line there for my own comments on this matter.

Let me recommend to anyone interested in the topic of English colonialism in India, the book by Nirad Chaudhuri called Autobiography of an Unknown Indian. I am sure it is relevant to the topic. But it is too many years since I read it for me to say much more than this. Also of interest are various writings by V. S. Naipaul.

Oh brother. There I went again, posting messages that were not adequately proofread. And this time there's an important word missing, here supplied in capital letters:

----I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex," Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In other words, for perhaps 200 YEARS people of Northern European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y,------

In that message I meant to suggest that I think there is a case to be made on secular principles for the admission into the colonizing countries of descendants of people whose countries were colonized. That, of course, is not the same thing as saying that this is a case for automatic "unrestricted immigration," although one version of the idea could be that people without criminal records from Commonwealth countries should be able to move to the colonial homeland as freely as a citizen of the state of Washington should be able to move to Idaho.

There's another factor here that hasn't been mentioned, that would relate to some former colonizing countries. If I'm not mistaken, people from India and other colonized countries understood that, in return for their assistance in World War II, Britain would admit them to the island afterwards. I could be wrong about that. But if that was the deal, then the deal should be honored. And I have to admit it would seem a bit thick if I were a Sikh, say, who fought hard for the Brits in North Africa against the Nazis, and then, after the war, when I wanted to emigrate to England, I was told, "Sorry, old chap." Fair's fair.

Whatever else, we could probably agree that police in places like Britain ought to enforce laws protecting the safety of British citizens of whatever ethnicity, so if Islamic immigrants are rampaging in Brixton, the police should shut that down. If they fear to do that because they anticipate even worse behavior, then you need more cops, or whatever the British version of the National Guard is, to make things settle down. Feeble responses to mob violence encourage more of the same.

I said I didn't want to comment further, but I hope the attempt at clarification is acceptable even if you don't agree.

DN:

"Whatever else, we could probably agree that police in places like Britain ought to enforce laws protecting the safety of British citizens of whatever ethnicity, so if Islamic immigrants are rampaging in Brixton, the police should shut that down. If they fear to do that because they anticipate even worse behavior, then you need more cops, or whatever the British version of the National Guard is, to make things settle down. Feeble responses to mob violence encourage more of the same."

Portland in a nutshell...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Such a shame... I liked ol' Stumptown back in the late 1970s-early 1980s, or what I knew of it in general anyway. Btw is there, do you know, a cafe or restaurant, as you're coming into the city from the South (I suppose on I-5), with the sign "There Is Always Something Delightful For You Here"?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Such a shame... I liked ol' Stumptown back in the
> late 1970s-early 1980s, or what I knew of it in
> general anyway. Btw is there, do you know, a cafe
> or restaurant, as you're coming into the city from
> the South (I suppose on I-5), with the sign "There
> Is Always Something Delightful For You Here"?


If there was it was gone by the time we moved here in '87.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If there was it was gone by the time we moved here
> in '87.


I refer to you as "La Jolla". ;)