No More Conserving, Only Serving

[Romanov]

9 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Come on… That is just a silly word game, on the basis that anyone who wants to change the status quo is a progressive.

We all know that certain historical trends have taken place over the last years, decades or in some cases even centuries which certain people regard as positive and others as negative: the former are progressives, the latter are conservatives. Society is increasingly ruled by people of the former camp. Most so-called “conservatives” are only conserving yesterday’s progressive victories, hence the joke: conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.

Yes, Christianity is senile. Like an old man, it’s body is falling apart.

Everything dies. Welcome to reality - and away from Spiral Progress fantasy world where everything just gets better forever!

Why not have something within society which points to that constant? A priestly class, an initiated esoteric elite, perhaps…

As your saying points out, there are so many universal features underlying this change. I still don’t understand why you want to focus on the relative. (I mean, I do understand. Like many people today, you clearly have some kind of personal complaint with dogmatic religion and are rebelling against this. Fine, but I’m not interested in that).

“Why not have something within society pointing to that constant such as a priestly class?” Let me ask you, how do you think any elite group of people became elite? Wasn’t it with the help of the plebes? How can you contrast an elite class without a group of plebes?  

Edited December 17, 2022 by Romanov

[Oeaohoo]

17 minutes ago, Romanov said:

The ego resists it because its job is to resist what is. 

The only thing which IS is Absolute. Everything else has only a relative existence!

2 minutes ago, Romanov said:

Why not have something within society pointing to that constant such as a priestly class? Let me ask you, how do you think any elite group of people became elite? Wasn’t it with the help of the plebes? How can you contrast an elite class without a group of plebes?  

*The pseudo-religion of humanitarian egalitarian emerges…*

“Oh no! A group of people with authority over others! It can only be… OPPRESSION!”

“It is impossible that anyone could be selfless enough to rule benevolently! I know this, because as a relativistic pluralist, I am so selfless!” 

[Oeaohoo]

9 minutes ago, Romanov said:

“Why not have something within society pointing to that constant such as a priestly class?” Let me ask you, how do you think any elite group of people became elite? Wasn’t it with the help of the plebes? How can you contrast an elite class without a group of plebes?  

Joking aside, I’m not sure what you are getting at here. It is obviously important that there be a certain affinity between the rulers and the ruled. That doesn’t mean that you can’t “contrast” them.

[Romanov]

13 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

The only thing which IS is Absolute. Everything else has only a relative existence!

*The pseudo-religion of humanitarian egalitarian emerges…*

“Oh no! A group of people with authority over others! It can only be… OPPRESSION!”

“It is impossible that anyone could be selfless enough to rule benevolently! I know this, because as a relativistic pluralist, I am so selfless!” 

I mean history has shown us time and time again what happens when a group of people or person has authority over others. This is why we have a democracy. 

You can be a fat Jamaican dictator with full authority, but when it comes to the track..you know Usain Bolt is gonna smoke your ass. 

No one is trying to take your differences or individuality away, it’s the superiority/inferiority comparison dynamic which has to go. In fact I’d say that relativism promotes individuality because when you’re free to be creative, your true gift and what makes you, you can shine through. But comparing yourself with others on a scale of superiority/inferiority only holds your true self back. 
 

You are not an individual so long as you perceive yourself to either be the ruler or the ruled.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Romanov

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

   Yes, no more conserving, only serving!

   Now serve me some liberal amounts of breakfast!?

[Oeaohoo]

1 minute ago, Romanov said:

I mean history has shown us time and time again what happens when a group of people or person has authority over others. This is why we have a democracy. 

That is what democracy makes history show you. Every regime will of course rationalise it’s own existence. I agree that democracy is (or at least, was -  there are many signs that it will be difficult to sustain democracy in the West for much longer) the best system for our time. As Schuon brilliantly expressed, however, that is not because of progress or “evolution” - it is because our times are extremely decadent. Consequently, there are so few people remaining who would be endowed with the spiritual integrity required to embody absolute authority. That is what “history has shown” most people who have enquired into this subject, the historical significance of democracy.

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Oeaohoo

   Yes, no more conserving, only serving!

   Now serve me some liberal amounts of breakfast!?

[Oeaohoo]

Anyway, it’s 3:30AM here in England. I’m going to sleep… I will have wonderful dreams of an esoteric avatar of Absolute Consciousness destroying all traces of relativistic tomfoolery! 

[Oeaohoo]

[Romanov]

8 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

That is what democracy makes history show you. Every regime will of course rationalise its own existence. I agree that democracy is (or at least, was -  there are many signs that it will be difficult to sustain democracy in the West for much longer) the best system for our time. As Schuon brilliantly expressed, however, that is not because of progress or “evolution” - it is because our times are extremely decadent. Consequently, there are so few people remaining who would be endowed with the spiritual integrity required to embody absolute authority. That is what “history has shown” most people who have enquired into this subject, the historical significance of democracy.

All this talk of ruler vs. ruled is stimulating for the conservative mind, I get it. 
 

I have one question for you, however. In this hierarchical model of yours of ruler vs. ruled….are you prepared for the possibility of ending up as the ruled with a boot on your neck? Because most of the time when conservatives talk about this dynamic of ruler vs. ruled, what they really mean is “I” want to be the ruler. And all I’m saying is…don’t be surprised if you end up on the side you weren’t hoping for. After all, the ruler class is reserved for only a select few. Because when that happens, then I can say that the system is working perfectly as intended.  Conservatives fawn over a strongman, until it’s someone they detest.
 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Romanov

[Devin]

35 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Come on… That is just a silly word game, on the basis that anyone who wants to change the status quo is a progressive.

We all know that certain historical trends have taken place over the last years, decades or in some cases even centuries which certain people regard as positive and others as negative: the former are progressives, the latter are conservatives. Society is increasingly ruled by people of the former camp. Most so-called “conservatives” are only conserving yesterday’s progressive victories, hence the joke: conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.

The point is; you're the one raging with the machine

[Romanov]

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

The point is; you're the one raging with the machine

You know one thing I never hear from conservatives regarding hierarchy is, “If I end up in a position of power, that’s fine. And if I don’t end up in one, that’s still fine.”

Edited December 17, 2022 by Romanov

[Romanov]

11 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

And another thing. You consider liberals to be at the top, in charge, in power…and conservatives as beneath…the ruled. Let’s say you weren’t joking…so then what’s the problem? There’s your ruler vs. ruled hierarchical paradigm in the making. You’ve got your priestly liberal elites, and the conservative masses being herded. The rulers…and the ruled….

[Danioover9000]

   Even though @Leo Gura made distinctions between the conservative mind and liberal mind, in reality, some peolle have a bit of both conservative and liberal parts of a mind.

   All depending on context, and his video mainly discusses the conservative mind first in a political context, and then proceeds to list hundreds of examples of a conservative mind in some other contexts, it's important to note that the mind can also vary between conservative or liberal. A mind can open and be opening to feedback or ideas or alternatives, but also can close and be closing down to other ideas or possibilities that it perceives as threatening, for good reason.

   Asymmetrical yet balanced.

[Leo Gura]

The mistake is raging and demonizing this machine as though it wasn't your creation.

This thing you call "machine" is just your community. What are you conserving if not your community?

Edited December 17, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Tyler Robinson]

If liberals aren't persecuting conservatives then conservatives will be persecuting liberals. 

Which one is better? 

[jimwell]

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Yes, absolutely. In most cases, the liberal ideology is a pure expression of selfishness: whether it is a case of marginal communities who benefit from the weakening of the old order, or the majority who just want to enjoy a “cosmopolitan” lifestyle by tasting every cuisine, going on fancy holidays and enjoying a buffet of sexual partners from all around the globe… It is so grotesque that all of this masquerades as some grand expression of selfless compassion.

It is selfishness and it is good, not evil. Not all forms of selfishness are harmful to others. 

Despite liberals' selfishness, they are still more empathetic or sympathetic than conservatives.

 

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Some of us conservatives will learn our lesson. We’ll learn to humbly prostrate ourselves before the liberal elite, and the cosmopolitan world that they must succeed in bringing about. Unfortunately, however, some of us won’t… Who knows what horrors we might bring about in our resistance to progress. It chills me to even think about it. The good news is that… soon all of us conservatives will be dead! Then there’ll be nothing more to worry about.

It is still intelligent of you to foresee it. Yes, societal evolution powered by liberal values and AI will purge stubborn conservatives from global human population (already starting to happen). Yes, death will be the eventual result, but before that, extreme horrors and suffering must be experienced first.

Intelligent conservatives will do their best to "grow" to avoid the tragedy I described above.

 

6 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

That is why I have decided to openly and willingly acknowledge our genetic inferiority to liberals. Sure, we can try to rationalise it this way and that… but deep down we know that they are simply better than us in every way.

Not really. In the domain of survival and stability, conservatives are superior to liberals. But in the domains which are most important in existence, liberals are superior to conservatives.   

Conservatives are more animalistic than liberals. But since the past few years, I have been seeing and appreciating the beauty or importance of conservatism. I've also been doing my best to embody it. And to be honest, I have been experiencing and loving the good side of it.

It's all about balance, having healthy amounts of both conservativism and liberalism. 

[aurum]

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

I still see no reason why a metaphysical understanding of relativism has to translate to relativism in the political sense.

You can “understand” relativism in a dry, philosophical way. And maybe then it won’t influence your politics.

But when your mind evolves and it actually becomes more conscious of relativity, it’s going to influence your politics. That’s basically a description of SD Stage Green.

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

What about the understanding of absolutism? Is there not an Absolute?

Of course there is an Absolute. But right-wingers have no clue what the Absolute is. They are not conscious of it. Instead they create a false Absolute out of religion, morality, culture, etc.

[How to be wise]

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Even within the confines of the theory, merely studying it is unlikely to change your “stage”.

Wrong. Studying spiral dynamics is psycho-active and causes spiral growth. You need to read ‘The religion of tomorrow’ by Ken Wilber 10-15 times. 

[Oeaohoo]

6 hours ago, Romanov said:

I have one question for you, however. In this hierarchical model of yours of ruler vs. ruled….are you prepared for the possibility of ending up as the ruled with a boot on your neck? Because most of the time when conservatives talk about this dynamic of ruler vs. ruled, what they really mean is “I” want to be the ruler.

This is a very childish view of authority. In fact, life is much harder at the top.

‘The most spiritual human beings, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in severity towards themselves and others, in attempting; their joy lies in self-constraint: with them asceticism becomes nature, need, instinct. They consider the hard task a privilege, to play with vices which overwhelm others a recreation… Knowledge - a form of asceticism.’

‘Inequality of rights is the condition for the existence of rights at all. - A right is a privilege. The privilege of each is determined by the nature of his being. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights - the coldness increases, the responsibility increases. A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base, its very first prerequisite is a strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity.’

‘Whom among today's rabble do I hate the most? The Socialist rabble, the Chandala apostles who undermine the worker's instinct, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his little state of being - who make him envious, who teach him revengefulness... Injustice never lies in unequal rights, it lies in the claim to ‘equal’ rights… What is bad? But I have already answered that question: everything that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revengefulness. - The anarchist and the Christian have a common origin…’

Nietzsche in The Antichrist crushing all your delusions!

6 hours ago, Romanov said:

Conservatives fawn over a strongman, until it’s someone they detest.

I spoke about an esoteric priestly class, which you have immediately interpreted as “strong man”. You think you’re being clever when you’re just being silly. This attitude towards hierarchy is exactly what every stupid TV show, mass-market novel and mediocre atheist “intellectual” promulgates today.

6 hours ago, Romanov said:

And another thing. You consider liberals to be at the top, in charge, in power…and conservatives as beneath…the ruled. Let’s say you weren’t joking…so then what’s the problem? There’s your ruler vs. ruled hierarchical paradigm in the making. You’ve got your priestly liberal elites, and the conservative masses being herded. The rulers…and the ruled….

Oh yeah… Woke Capital is the perfect earthly embodiment of transcendent wisdom and beatitude. What could possibly be the problem?! It’s practically the Absolute incarnate!

[Devin]

8 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

This is a very childish view of authority. In fact, life is much harder at the top.

‘The most spiritual human beings, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in severity towards themselves and others, in attempting; their joy lies in self-constraint: with them asceticism becomes nature, need, instinct. They consider the hard task a privilege, to play with vices which overwhelm others a recreation… Knowledge - a form of asceticism.’

‘Inequality of rights is the condition for the existence of rights at all. - A right is a privilege. The privilege of each is determined by the nature of his being. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights - the coldness increases, the responsibility increases. A high culture is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base, its very first prerequisite is a strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity.’

‘Whom among today's rabble do I hate the most? The Socialist rabble, the Chandala apostles who undermine the worker's instinct, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his little state of being - who make him envious, who teach him revengefulness... Injustice never lies in unequal rights, it lies in the claim to ‘equal’ rights… What is bad? But I have already answered that question: everything that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revengefulness. - The anarchist and the Christian have a common origin…’

Nietzsche in The Antichrist crushing all your delusions!

I spoke about an esoteric priestly class, which you have immediately interpreted as “strong man”. You think you’re being clever when you’re just being silly. This attitude towards hierarchy is exactly what every stupid TV show, mass-market novel and mediocre atheist “intellectual” promulgates today.

Oh yeah… Woke Capital is the perfect earthly embodiment of transcendent wisdom and beatitude. What could possibly be the problem?! It’s practically the Absolute incarnate!

It appears you have a very deluded view of your cultures history, the only morals and ethics in the past where all just mirage, lies, your true cultural traditions are fear, greed, hate, and oppression; ironically you unknowingly still radiate these qualities very strongly.