Oh that it should come to this
The Earth war — part eight The man who hangs upside-down. Yes I am all for science, but not that kind! Not dogmatic science, the sarcasm is we have replaced God by appliances and if we define God this or that way matters little, the shell game is a joke on us…
The focus on Daniel Bell is not lost, but as we will see Greek ideas out of the mists of time figure via Nietzsche, using Greek universals we can halt and be amazed at their ideas, as given by Homer — the entering into the Cyclop’s cave is not what we think it is. For as Lappalainen (a Finnish writer who has written extensively on the mob and its inner workings and ethics) shows the rough style of the argonauts is not idyllic at all. It is supposed to spurn the reader to see the racketeering gentlemen trying to ‘host’ the cave — the owner opposes them but both parties pay a hefty prize as we all know. These ideas provided by Homer are Greek universals, but are as we can see hardly universal. This too big subject we will touch upon for it helps us see better in that eternal darkness of contemporary society (cf. Lappalainen 2017, in Swedish; full title: The World´s first citizens — on the arrival of the State in Greek antiquity).
BIG refrigerator goddess and/ or idol
Yes we are these people, bible-carrying bigots who see a false god who in fact is a mean S.O.B. who wears the crown of Christ — the ‘god’ is all-wise and rational and European, and all dressed up in white (colour of innocence). These folks are improved men, which should dress up as real bigots, these technoised fools who follow rational wisdom and not faith at all. We can replace God too put in it’s place (for we have degraded even grace itself) a contrapualised appliance from A.T.T, and his spirit will depart… In so many words we must never reach this goal and by the way we never will, striving t’wards it is not rational in fact; for man is not rational…
Yes there you have it! Let us start summing up.
We must add at least two more parts but as a preliminary we must concieve of Shakespeare as an apocalypse, in so far as BOTH Milton and Shakespeare, and to some extent Bacon (1st Viscount of St Alban) attest to a BIG shift in European culture…
Hegel is in some senses regaining balance by taking a leap of faith (see previous part on Anunki and Archons etc). There is a close (if not perfect) affinity here to the ‘powers and principalities’ that Paul talks of (Ephesians) and as such I stick with Hegel who for all intents and purposes is a revamped Mandean, using a apagoge (Greek for proof by opposit) which conflates metaphysics with a world spirit (I am no great believer in such determinism though I think the model a sound one at heart, as a model only). Please rehash chapter titled ‘precursor to a critique…’! One main reason PC and the dogmatisms surrounding it are hard to ‘get at’ we will come back to.
#PC-activism is this just ‘protecting’ the machine? Yes, the animal in us.
#Economics and Science replaced theology as the new new, or the new black whatnot inside society.
Methods of study matter
#Study of social change and social concepts require wholist — as in warts’n all- approaches. Just a prerequisite for saving ourselves…
#Universals, these dangerous companions of the enlightened soul, both good and bad, full of possibilities. Stoicism embraces them, liberalism too, as indeed Christianity and indeed Hermeticism — more on this below.
Ok. So what’s the mechanics of all of this? The Johova’s Witnesses seem to believe (among other silly things) that intimate comradeship with God is the main strive or purpose. In Nietzsche (as in all of his contemporaries) this folly is in fact present too — the superman replaces God; and now for a small apocalyptic rant. The respect for any or all congregations must be preserved but being a true blue scientist in Russell’s vein, I mean no disrespect, I merely feel that religion is religion and science science, and that we must separate.
Weltschmertz was a fashionable invention by the 19th century and in some ways even before — but in feeling the alienation (as Voegelin perhaps best describes it) of a modern world (the eschatology in Voegelin is the slow stripping away of our paradisical past or ‘better’ selves) think about this; (warning rant begins) Well if the schmertz is at all possible it is possible because we feel at one with the world. The DARK side of this is this quality which in fact Harari has misconstrued and The Jehova’s Witnesses have plainly understood (if for ALL the wrong reasons — not reasons of science) is in BEING the DOMINANT species of our REALM (the earthly kingdoms) we should entertain the idea (I dearly think) that a mere thought or an IDEA plain and simple which inadvertently WE DIFFUSE (upon this our REALM) is DANGEROUS — the very universals we discovered and have inside our MIND and our C U L T U R E (which we covet and cradle) have BECOME the potential threat to both us and our planet (this in so many words says Harari, he hath though misconstrued how and why and for what reasons, for he did not read Hume properly but too superficial be his thoughts in metaphysics) — IS THAT SCARY OR WHAT?
My plain strive is to not be apocalyptic, but here is a relation tween John of the book of revelations, of Nietzsche and these dangerous universals we use. Both Chomsky and Freud have stumbled upon it in another relation, in Freud Freier einfall (free conjecture, almost dissociation but not quite), and in Chomsky the slippery notion of ‘language’ which he admits, or proclaims to be an assortment of instable and incontrollable relations which change over time.
Is this my dangerous FEAR as such ‘actionable’, and any lunatic might think that this is so, but just maybe this ‘thing’ can be useful to us SOME HOW — Jeremy Rifkin proselytises us into thinking so (cf. The Empathic civilization).
I am here entering upon the dark path that Harold Bloom sets out for us in searching for an American intellectualism (Freier einfall), amongst other places in his Omens of Millenium (cf. Bloom 1996). But also the mere fact that 1) we use these universals at our peril, and 2) Yuval Harari is beholden to a European universalism, not an American one. This is useful, for although these universals are and remain dangerous, juggeling with dynamite is quite possible if we proceed carefully (I am not saying it is to be promoted).
In much this way as we read Shakespeare we have at one level the joy (or admiration as in Harold Bloom) but forget that such admiration destroys our historic reality and thus that of Shakespeare’s time which most of the time was not romantic but a BIG mess; this applies to Bacon for these same reasons as I now must relate. The relativism here is obvious to Chomsky, his view of language takes such RADICAL relativism to heart, which makes of Chomsky a true interpret of Adam Smith unlike much else that is said about this ‘saint’.
I believe maybe (just maybe…giggles) Gary Gygax belongs among the minor saints… too.
Indeed so many are the faults we might perpetrate into committing, here is one; (Advice to the Officer)’Watch out so as not to pick quotes from Holy Writ to read for it is not likeable unto God. Although the Bible by inspiration was handed to us for our education, all of its clauses and parts are not equally made to give direct supervision, not to fit every soul and faithful believer etc ‘(Francois Fénelon, chapter 40, Ernest Naville; Le Christianisme de Fénelon). My own rendering of the first passage of chapter 40 from the Swedish title: Christian advice and musings (Kristliga råd och betraktelser 1930 (1994)). I think you get the gist of it.
Universals to my mind are a two-way, they can mean what they say, but indeed ALSO say what they mean — very confusing indeed. Also these are of various kinds, useful in terms of ‘laws’ in science and useful in religion as they reflect all-embracing ethical laws, but there are universals inside culture, these apply ethnographically to THAT culture only.
There is an interesting shift inside tragic and comic of all theatrical forms, which in Greece (following Plautus’ opinion) was tragic and comic if gods and slaves where present all at once, as such a double (cf. Aristotle) ending was not impossible but ordinary life/ secular life was consistent with comedy and the ‘serious’ with tragedy. These are first principles of the Greek drama.
A ‘tragic’ shift
Jumping ahead these forms are all-abandoned in our modern world (Habermas’ notion of the loss of religion in favour of a focus on words might be noted here in passing). The use of older classic forms without these rules is common only at this late state, but as we can see an origin of important ideas shine through for the above reasons inside 17th century french drama so that Gods are replaced inside tragedies by matters of state/ and sometimes religion. Another factor which plays into this is the above mentioned UNIVERSALS which are present during different periods in poetry and writing spilling over occasionally and at last into drama (thus diluting it) — these universals or occasions of their use rather, are visible in Homer as universal ONLY in the sense of bequething a sinister warrior morality and feistiness on part of a ‘good’ (i.e aggressive) male or man. But this is to us not a proper universal as we noted above; in Shelley a dissasociation or escape from the squabbles of this world and the ideal result of the hero is romantic, and we might see how from our point of view this is oddball. But this marks also these universals as related indirect to tragedy; the tragicomedy solves this dilemma (if in part only). Like so many on-off switches. The chief reason I believe we find Fénelon interesting today is he lived in area dominated by Huguenots and had to walk the mysticised path to reconcile his faith inside Catholic dogma. There is a general trend in the shift away from farce and comedy, a tragic drift if you will inside baroque Theatre. The backdrop is easily monitored as strife inside society and emphasis on state control. Shakespeare lives before the seriousness completely drops over the neck of the dramatical play and the playwright — his was a period of contestation of forms toward the tragic drift. It is freedom to one side and control of forms on the other (and sometimes of content/ censorings as in Jonson’s case). Love in Constant is a code which means freedom — hence this age (1700s) was hung-up on propriety/ and or the doubly interpretable ‘virtue’ which contains both an idea of force and of restraint. Oh, humans are a mess!!! Language changes over time, the implications for grammar is there as Chomsky noted, this however concerns me less than word-contents and cultural meanings, although as Whoorf and Sapir in the 1950s or Collinder noted in the 1930s these are almost inseparable. A language is a window on the world, it is wrong to think this our own culture to be ‘universal’ no matter how much we’d like this idea...
Others including Terence McKenna, proclaim that language in the end may have profound implications on culture — in PROactive and REactive systems here at Medium.com, I pull on this idea; the fact that Latin is analytical whereas Greek is syntactic is at heart what McKenna points to, which makes this hugely influencial on Western culture despite our fondness of this revelation, the impact of this is obvious and profound.
My pinpointing of universals was to prove ALL of the ways in which these universals decieve and mock us. To SOME effect I hope… there is the example of Greece and Athens which was universialising on the back of its own fraternal group and which we as late as the turn of the 19th century thought of as universally applicable to us…
Some closing ideas
These concept we can now draw upon, in the Poetics Aristotle in fact deal a lot in these ‘universals’ for rather likely his was a time of contestations too, and it seems western culture shifts like a sparrow between winter migrations and summer breeding (duality seem innate in Western ways, if any of the above has any credulity to itself — including the language argument above).
I feel it is a moot point if Chomsky is right about Liberalism — either 1) because interpretations of historic change plays against Chomsky´s claim that liberalism was ‘captured’ by capitalism, I find it difficult to level this kind of critique at Chomsky, 2) there is another type of argument in which as Rome captures Greece it is itself captured (an argument seen in Daniel Bell)… I percieve (perhaps wrongly) this agument to point to Toynbee and Hegel. This DOES NOT resolve the issue but as you can see it might fit my thinking (which is hardly a proof but rather an idiosyncracy on my part, or even a deep fallacy of mine, my ‘take’ if you will). Much like Steve Keen is post-keynesian, so Chomsky is post-descartian. These are positive developments says I.
Francis Bacon’s apocalypse
I must evidently now move on to make good on all of my promises, on how Shakespeare has become an ICON, the ‘illusions’ that Francis Bacon does flesh out should stem from his apocalyptic (a more correct word here is spiritual or eschatological, for by definition eschatology is a personal experience, but as we might know You and Me my Dear Reader the ins-and-outs of this is of necessity both universal AND personal — a thing which underpins mystic experience but which mainstremers reject — hopefully they might listen to sound circumstantial evidence of these things) which likely took place on his return to England and as his father died (safe guess) — these ‘insights’ are the fundamentals of his thoughts plus the prop we call hermeticism, available via Italian sources as I have elaborated upon in the above (see previous parts). Who cares, these insights stay with Bacon but the apocalypse of his own age and of Shakespeare are REAL, not at all imaginary. Societies shift and change. The fact as McKenna points to that Marsilio Ficino emphasised Hermetism and so it was a bit of a darling of the early or Italian Renaissance. The core of hermeticism is a truth of the inner realms which in a sense turns the soul inside-out, or put another way it over-emphasises the individual mind, the illusions of village, square and theatre in Bacon are ripped from the corpus hermeticum (veils of the consciousness whatnot) quite blatantly.
I feel the stormy contents of this part leads to a next part, for all too many are the ‘revelations’ of this piece to evince any further traction to My Readership (You My Dear Reader) — commenting upon it further leads to salads (a dish Aleister Crowley for some traumatic reasons hated and avoided up until his middling yrs; some kind of neurosis? on this silly note let us end the endeavour and come back to it in our finishing parts) and will merely strain both me and you.
Thank You! and Thank you for being there for me…
Thank you for reading this (as best we might but the faults are all mine)!