No More Conserving, Only Serving

[Oeaohoo]

This reminds me of a significant statement from T.S. Eliot regarding the Christian Church: “But the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either conservative or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often conservation of the wrong things: liberalism a relaxation of discipline; revolution a denial of the permanent things.“

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

God is also Truth, Order, Law, the Good, Necessity, the Absolute. Even the Infinite Freedom of God is one which contains every permutation of unfreedom, otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite! Therefore, and I find it amazing that I even have to say this, God is beyond both liberalism and conservatism.

That's just the consquences of Infinite Freedom.

The point is, a conservative will never understand God because he is not open to every permutation.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Oeaohoo]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's just the consquences of Infinite Freedom.

The point is, a conservative will never understand God because he is not open to every permutation.

Both are closed. The conservative is closed to chaos whereas the liberal is closed to order. Wherever you are starting from, understanding God is going to involve transcending your human limitations. 

A conservative can reconcile themselves with every permutation of relative existence by recognising the shared forms which animate them; in other words, recognising the stability which underlies change.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

A conservative can reconcile themselves with every permutation of relative existence by recognising the shared forms which animate them; in other words, recognising the stability which underlies change.

By the time he does that he will turn into a liberal and everyone in his own tribe will turn on him.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By the time he does that he will turn into a liberal and everyone in his own tribe will turn on him.

Given how there are only a few moderate Republicans left in America, do you believe that the vast majority of Republicans in the US have actually turned into extreme conservatives or not necessarily?

Edited December 18, 2022 by Hardkill

[Oeaohoo]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

By the time he does that he will turn into a liberal and everyone in his own tribe will turn on him.

Not necessarily! He or she could just as well become the esoteric heart of the tribe: someone who is able to radiate transcendence within the plane of relativity, like you are trying to do with people around here.

Even in the major historical case of this happening, Jesus Christ, the tribe has been engaging in ritual penance for this mistake for two thousand years…

[Oeaohoo]

The fundamental problem with this whole model is conflating the difference between esoterism and exoterism with that between historicised stages of development.

[How to be wise]

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Given how there are only a few moderate Republicans left in America, do you believe that the vast majority of Republicans in the US have actually turned into extreme conservatives or not necessarily?

That seems to be the case. 

 

[Bojan V]

@Oeaohoo

37 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

 

Even in the major historical case of this happening, Jesus Christ, the tribe has been engaging in ritual penance for this mistake for two thousand years…

Which tribe?

[Nilsi]

There is no culture without history and thus an evolutionary arc in which this culture is situated in. So the only argument you can make is that evolution is not progress, but rather (random?) change (or perhaps just a cyclical reenactment of the same fundamental movement/story?).

You can criticize Spiral Dynamics and other stage theorys for colonialist tendencies and lack of universality, if you really want to. But even if you look at indigenous cultures with radically different values, you can clearly see that they have undergone an evolutionary arc of increasing complexification. These cultures have extremely sophisticated and elaborate rituals to maintain their social coherence, which must have taken thousands of generations of transmisson and refinement - i.e. mutation and selection - to achieve.

So I dont see how you can remain such a hopeless romantic in the face of all this anthropoligical and scientifc evidence. Just take the cliché example of the holarchy from atoms to molecules to cells to organisms. Thats just undeniable progress.

What youre doing is ironically a postmodernist levelling of the playing field. The only way you can not acknowledge that evolution is progress is by denying all hierarchies (or should I say holarchies).

 

When a scholar of the old culture vows no longer to have anything to do with men who believe in progress, he is right. For the old culture has its greatness and goodness behind it, and an historical education forces one to admit that it can never again be fresh. - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

I know Im reiterating Wilber for the millionth time, but you have to seriously reckon with him (and not some strawman version of integral), if you want to make any earnest attempt at talking about evolutionary progress (or supposed lack thereof).

Edited December 18, 2022 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Given how there are only a few moderate Republicans left in America

This isn't true.

Most people are moderates.

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

A conservative can reconcile themselves with every permutation of relative existence by recognising the shared forms which animate them; in other words, recognising the stability which underlies change.

Answer me this: Why is it that no conservative is doing as you say and recognizing the inherent oneness which underlies all humans, races, and sexes?

How is a conservative gonna recognize the stability which underlies everything when he cannot even treat a brown person or an animal as equal to himself?

So please spare us your utopian nonsense about conservatives and their magic abilities to recognize things.

Your typical conservative has as much recognition as a mule.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[How to be wise]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Most people are moderates.

Most of Germany in ww2 supported Hitler. 

[Oeaohoo]

7 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

There is no culture without history and thus an evolutionary arc in which this culture is situated in. So the only argument you can make is that evolution is not progress, but rather (random?) change (or perhaps just a cyclical reenactment of the same fundamental movement/story?).

There are two simultaneous aspects to the phenomenon of cyclical manifestation: a linear descent and a cyclical ascent and descent.

Let us take the historical example of Christianity. Of course, the Christian religion was most potent when Christ was still alive. It has become increasingly impotent in the times following. This is the linear descent.

However, the culture of Christendom as an embodied phenomenon was quite weak when Christ was alive. It took a millennia of cultural development (the ascent) for Christendom to become a dominant material power.

It has also taken hundreds of years of cultural development (the descent) for Christianity to be deconstructed: the so-called “Renaissance”, the so-called “Enlightenment”, the secular ideologies of the twentieth century, all culminating in contemporary Clown World (in which, heresy is orthodoxy and orthodoxy is heresy, or as the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth say “Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair”).

24 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You can criticize Spiral Dynamics and other stage theorys for a lack of universality and colonialism, if you really want to.

What youre doing is ironically a postmodernist levelling of the playing field. The only way you can not acknowledge that evolution is progress is by denying all hierarchies (or should I say holarchies).

There is a hierarchy, it’s just not a hierarchy of “evolution”. To use Mircea Eliade’s phrase, it is a hierarchical descent, from the Sacred to the profane.

32 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

These cultures have extremely sophisticated and elaborate rituals to maintain their social coherence, which must have taken thousands of generations of transmisson and refinement - i.e. mutation and selection - to achieve.

Isn’t it strange that, amongst all of these cultures, we do not find a single claim to animal origins or “evolution”, but to noble and divine origins?

One of the first things I said when I came back to this forum is: evolution is just an alibi for people who have regressed to the level of apes. I love this phrase and it is completely true.

9 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

When a scholar of the old culture vows no longer to have anything to do with men who believe in progress, he is right. For the old culture has its greatness and goodness behind it, and an historical education forces one to admit that it can never again be fresh. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nice quote, though I prefer his saying: “Progress is merely a modern idea, that is to say a false idea!” 

[Oeaohoo]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Answer me this: Why is it that no conservative is doing as you say and recognizing the inherent oneness which underlies all humans, races, and sexes?

How is a conservative gonna recognize the stability which underlies everything when he cannot even treat a brown person or an animal as equal to himself?

Because it is what Frithjof Schuon, one of the truest embodiments of the “utopian conservatism” that I am describing, called The Transcendent Unity of Religions.

Recognising the inherent oneness which underlies all humans shouldn’t translate to a fanatical (and truly utopian!) “humanitarian” program of annihilating all distinctions in the name of a bland and homogenising uniformity.

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So please spare us your utopian nonsense about conservatives.

You just don’t want anyone bursting the bubble of your degenerate little project, annihilating all distinctions in the name of “actualizing” bug-man style liberal cosmopolitanism on a global scale.

[Oeaohoo]

Unity and uniformity are antithetical.

You are conflating Esoteric Unity with exoteric diversity.

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Most of Germany in ww2 supported Hitler. 

Most of Germany was moderate. Moderates go along with whatever comes to power.

15 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

 shouldn’t translate to a fanatical (and truly utopian!) “humanitarian” program of annihilating all distinctions in the name of a bland and homogenising uniformity.

Nice strawman.

No one is suggesting that.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Leo Gura

[How to be wise]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Most of Germany was moderate. Moderates go along with whatever comes to power.

They elected Hitler to power. 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This isn't true.

Most people are moderates.

Answer me this: Why is it that no conservative is doing as you say and recognizing the inherent oneness which underlies all humans, races, and sexes?

How is a conservative gonna recognize the stability which underlies everything when he cannot even treat a brown person or an animal as equal to himself?

So please spare us your utopian nonsense about conservatives and their magic abilities to recognize things.

Your typical conservative has as much recognition as a mule.

   Yes, most people are moderates, until the political and social situations makes them more liberal or more conservative minded.

   Most conservatives are too busy trying to survive themselves to understand, study, comprehend or even realize or have mystical level insights into the interconnections of oneness.

   My guess, by default, is when those conservatives are higher in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, mastered basic survival and tackled some fears such that they can be more liberal.

   It's insulting to double meaning insult conservatives. Obvious the first order offense is comparing them to animals like mules, which also has the tertiary meaning of hard working that sometimes compliments most conservatives as hard working, but the doubled second order offense, is that mules are offspring of a horse and donkey, and a conservative is typically against high immigration, open borders and generally have concerns with moral degradation with rapid mixing of different races, ethnicities and cultures, which insinuates that you are secondly insulting their political position by saying that the nature of these conservatives, like the nature of mules, is that not only you stood on the soldiers of giants but are also children of parents that some have mixed races and cultures as well due to migration, immigration, market trades and multicultural businesses and commerce.

[Tyler Robinson]

@Leo Gura I asked about Jewish supremacy but you didn't even offer a legit answer or argument. You simply shut it down. I just don't get it. At least you could have offered a proper argument. That's literally banning free speech. Because you literally did not even allow a discussion nor offered a legit answer. Even a question is such  a threat? A question is not hate speech. I'm myself a left wing person but I'm not on the right side but curiosity will always exist. Why do you think this is wrong even without an explanation? I'm surprised. It's a very innocuous question and I think people will always ask this. People will always try to seek a closure on that question. I mean I just don't get it. 

It's not even a conspiracy. Just being open and frank yet it's considered salacious. 

I didn't like how you didn't address it at all. You just glossed over it. 

It's a question that is asked too often these days and I didn't find it illegitimate. 

Can you please tell me what was untrue about it? 

Any arguments please. 

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Tyler Robinson