What potion baneful hast thou witches brewt?

[Donnadogsoth]

I read once about what happens when you give LSD to chimpanzees. Pan troglodytes, as you know, are highly genetically similar to homo sapiens sapiens, and also have highly hierarchical societies encumbered by politicking. The chimp given LSD, “dropped out” and went off by itself staring into space, oblivious of the need to “fit in” to the political structure surrounding it. I don't recall if it busied itself by staring at its hand, but nevertheless it basically became the chimp analogue to a hippie.

 

I suggest that Western Civilisation has been given something of the sort, that has caused it to “drop out” of its own racial, cultural, and religious identity. The “potion baneful” is partly the alcahest which I describe here, and partly something else: a taboo on “discriminating”. Our own native good will spurred us to all agree that “discrimination” was a bad thing. So why is this a problem?

 

It's a problem because to “discriminate” is to “tell the difference”!--Which is the fundamental law of Logic: A=A, the law of identity. Without being able to tell the difference racially, religiously, or culturally, we set up a confusion in our minds that--because we naturally seek to avoid cognitive dissonance, and because the exit toward “discriminating” has been barred by the guilt club of the alachest--slowly drives out logic entirely and replaces it with the metaphysical equivalent to an LSD landscape:  interesting but counterproductive for our survival both individually and socially.

 

How many people do you know live by principle? How many even know of principles, or could say what a principle is? Whatever principles are, they're certainly not central in Western society anymore. And that's because the potion has largely driven logic out out of the public and private spheres, into an underground state of “intuition” which the Witchlords can more easily suppress and guide. Without logic, principles begin to blur into frustrating patterns. Trying to pin them down without logic is like trying to shoot a bullseye target whilst high on Acid. Eventually the “shooter” gives up and just settles down by himself (on a couch) staring into space (tv screen).

 

 

[EclecticIdealist]

If one fails to correctly identify the problem, one is likely to implement an incorrect solution to the problem. In failing to identify the problem with an incorrect solution to a problem, one may be prone to supposing that there wasn't a problem to be corrected in the first place.

 

The problem is not, nor never has been discrimination. Those who think it has been have sought to eliminate the distinctions between different things or people in an attempt to eliminate the detrimental effects they imagine to result from discrimination. The problem is not distinguishing between different people and different things, but rather in the unjust and inequitable treatment which often arises from unprincipled individuals engaging in prejudicial bias and bigoted behavior towards individuals on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin and various other categories by which individuals may be sorted into groups.

 

In seeking to replace the necessary and proper identification of distinctions and differences between things, one ought not to neglect the reason which prompted the incorrect action of seeking to remove such discrimination in the first place.

[Donnadogsoth]

Au contraire, the problem of inability to discriminate has been with us for at least a hundred years, with the liberal arts world extricating the Good, the Beautiful, and the True from each other.  Good-True-Beautiful used to be understood as something together, associated, even identified with each other.  But now Art's motto is "art for art's sake" and it has devolved away from telling truths, from encouraging the good, and from pleasing us with the beautiful, into becoming merely the snotty highbrow equivalent of what I mentioned before:  television.  Television is merely "the interesting" and is hard to resist and ignore for that reason.  How many principles has anyone learned from television?--or from Art?

 

The "don't discriminate" principle--also known as the false white guilt principle--is when the potion was administered in earnest, leaving us with the inability to tell the difference in anything that matters except perhaps rat poison versus Parmesan for our salad.  In other words, Science is all that's left.  Everything else is "diversity is good, but all cultures/religions/races/languages are the same deep down".

[EclecticIdealist]

Au contraire, the problem of inability to discriminate has been with us for at least a hundred years, with the liberal arts world extricating the Good, the Beautiful, and the True from each other.  Good-True-Beautiful used to be understood as something together, associated, even identified with each other.  But now Art's motto is "art for art's sake" and it has devolved away from telling truths, from encouraging the good, and from pleasing us with the beautiful, into becoming merely the snotty highbrow equivalent of what I mentioned before:  television.  Television is merely "the interesting" and is hard to resist and ignore for that reason.  How many principles has anyone learned from television?--or from Art?

You're not indicating an inability to discriminate, but rather, the differences of opinion as to what and how one should discriminate. The Liberal Arts world is hardly a monolithic entity, nor has it separated the sentiment of what is good from the sentiment of what is beautiful and the identification of that which is faithful or true from each other. That art does not depict the truths which you would wish it to tell does not prevent it from engaging in a social commentary or truth telling about the times we live in or our collective past; that it does not depict what you consider to be good does not prevent it from depicting what others consider to be good; that it does not portray things that you consider beautiful does not prevent it from portraying what others deem beautiful.

 

While I certainly agree that much which "passes" for art today will likely not stand the test of time and be regarded indistinguishable from trash or the work of deranged or mentally challenged minds, not all that is out there is like this. If one wishes for the Liberal Art world to have a sentiment more in alignment with your own, such sentiment must be curated and nurtured, and its antithesis possibly even ridiculed - such are the techniques and strategies employed today in shaping the opinions of the patrons of the arts.

The "don't discriminate" principle--also known as the false white guilt principle--is when the potion was administered in earnest, leaving us with the inability to tell the difference in anything that matters except perhaps rat poison versus Parmesan for our salad.  In other words, Science is all that's left.  Everything else is "diversity is good, but all cultures/religions/races/languages are the same deep down".

Collectivist shaming happens. Deal with it or don't, it's up to you. Just realize that denial of a problem, or simply blaming others for what one has the ability and responsibility to address and correct does not absolve one of a current or future guilt. Furthermore, only the weak-minded are cowed by undeserved shame or fear of ostracization from a society that neither wants or values their contributions. Stop blaming Liberals and liberal ideology for the failure of Conservative ideology to counteract its poison.

 

Religion is failing because it has not kept up with modernity and is largely corrupted by old, weak, outdated, superstitious narratives that do not appeal to younger, better educated minds. Science will invariably trump superstition, so when ethics and morality are tied to superstition, they will be abandoned like the baby being thrown out with the bathwater; hence, Stefan's (and the philosophers' who have come before him) vain attempts to tie ethics and morality directly to reason. Ethics and Aesthetics are subjective sentiments independent of reason, they can only be transferred from one generation to the next through indoctrination or by affixing them to a remaining sense of sentiment. Some have tried nationalism, others patriotism, yet others sexism, racism, even tribalism. Some are even attempting to tie ethics and morals to family sentiment. However, if we are to have any hope of preserving ethics and aesthetics, it will only happen by tying it to a sentiment for that which is not under attack -- the sentiment for all of humanity. Instead of looking smaller and smaller and closer and closer to the identity of the self, look outwards to the whole of humanity. Moral sentiment must be tied to a universal empathy for all of mankind based on our similarities and commonalities, not our differences. This sentiment may be expanded further to include all animal life or even to all that exists. It is our capacity for empathy, our capacity to relate to others which must be nurtured and forms the base sentiment for all morality. Instead of Christian morality, or American morality or Western morality, we must strive for a universal morality of humanity and ultimately of all sentient beings capable of moral decision making behavior. UPB strives in this direction; however, I believe it lacks the recognition of non-rational sentiment, as well as failing to sufficiently address positive morality (i.e., what one should do, not merely what one should not) and the sentiments for virtues such as kindness, generosity, fidelity, etc.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

You're not indicating an inability to discriminate, but rather, the differences of opinion as to what and how one should discriminate. The Liberal Arts world is hardly a monolithic entity, nor has it separated the sentiment of what is good from the sentiment of what is beautiful and the identification of that which is faithful or true from each other. That art does not depict the truths which you would wish it to tell does not prevent it from engaging in a social commentary or truth telling about the times we live in or our collective past; that it does not depict what you consider to be good does not prevent it from depicting what others consider to be good; that it does not portray things that you consider beautiful does not prevent it from portraying what others deem beautiful.
 
While I certainly agree that much which "passes" for art today will likely not stand the test of time and be regarded indistinguishable from trash or the work of deranged or mentally challenged minds, not all that is out there is like this. If one wishes for the Liberal Art world to have a sentiment more in alignment with your own, such sentiment must be curated and nurtured, and its antithesis possibly even ridiculed - such are the techniques and strategies employed today in shaping the opinions of the patrons of the arts.

 

Cultural authority is missing. We lack leadership, have only relativism, which corrodes the human identity. From the perspective of classical humanism, art is beautiful when it explains, orders, and uplifts the human spirit. Modern art for the past hundred-twenty years has entailed increasingly intense explorations into confusing, depressing chaos. It obscure man's nature rather than revealing it. This is highly disorientating to the populace who, demoralised, exchange hard beauty for mere easy interestingness, which is often, and increasingly, indistinguishable from outright ugliness.

 

 

 

Collectivist shaming happens. Deal with it or don't, it's up to you. Just realize that denial of a problem, or simply blaming others for what one has the ability and responsibility to address and correct does not absolve one of a current or future guilt. Furthermore, only the weak-minded are cowed by undeserved shame or fear of ostracization from a society that neither wants or values their contributions. Stop blaming Liberals and liberal ideology for the failure of Conservative ideology to counteract its poison.

 

Why do you think the republic is failing to counteract the Liberal poison?

 

 

 

Religion is failing because it has not kept up with modernity and is largely corrupted by old, weak, outdated, superstitious narratives that do not appeal to younger, better educated minds. Science will invariably trump superstition, so when ethics and morality are tied to superstition, they will be abandoned like the baby being thrown out with the bathwater; hence, Stefan's (and the philosophers' who have come before him) vain attempts to tie ethics and morality directly to reason. Ethics and Aesthetics are subjective sentiments independent of reason, they can only be transferred from one generation to the next through indoctrination or by affixing them to a remaining sense of sentiment. Some have tried nationalism, others patriotism, yet others sexism, racism, even tribalism. Some are even attempting to tie ethics and morals to family sentiment. However, if we are to have any hope of preserving ethics and aesthetics, it will only happen by tying it to a sentiment for that which is not under attack -- the sentiment for all of humanity. Instead of looking smaller and smaller and closer and closer to the identity of the self, look outwards to the whole of humanity. Moral sentiment must be tied to a universal empathy for all of mankind based on our similarities and commonalities, not our differences. This sentiment may be expanded further to include all animal life or even to all that exists. It is our capacity for empathy, our capacity to relate to others which must be nurtured and forms the base sentiment for all morality. Instead of Christian morality, or American morality or Western morality, we must strive for a universal morality of humanity and ultimately of all sentient beings capable of moral decision making behavior. UPB strives in this direction; however, I believe it lacks the recognition of non-rational sentiment, as well as failing to sufficiently address positive morality (i.e., what one should do, not merely what one should not) and the sentiments for virtues such as kindness, generosity, fidelity, etc.

 

We have arrived very close together. But I do not think Ethics and Aesthetics are independent of Reason. Rather, all three are bound up in the nature of humankind as the Promethean species, as embodying the Universal principle of Creativity. Man is the one capable of harnessing fire and understanding both himself and the Universe in terms of discoveries of universal physical and cognitive principles. Aesthetics serve this self-interest of man by helping him understand his own mind. Ethics is the rational extrapolation of what is needed to serve Creativity. All boils down to the imperative to Survive!--both individually and as a species. We must survive first, then be happy; survival is the proximate goal, happiness the final.

 

It is here Christianity reenters as the basis for Ethics, Aesthetics, and Reason, combined into service of Creativity as the engine of survival and happiness. The image of the Crucifixion of Christ embodies absolute injustice, the best person suffering the worst death. In this we locate the depths of human love, of passion for creativity, without which the human race will inevitably self-immolate.