It strikes me that so many of us seem to be hounds picking up on the same distant scent. It's getting to the point that we can all smell and parse out the distractions. The RETVRN LARPers, the NRx gadflies, the Dime² scene queens, the pill pushers looking for the next big hustle. No, no, no, no.
That's not to say we'll all agree on what comes next. But there seems to at least be a process of narrowing and honing taking place. It might actually become a sword someday.
As an unfrozen caveman physicist, I cannot react to a 22,000 word post in a timely fashion. There are times I wonder if I should do the random slice and dice thing that Robert Anton Wilson used to do with his earlier works in order to generate immense hard to read posts that people recognize as profound.
Maybe I'll find time this weekend to finish that immense post.
This week I've been too busy writing a 6000 word response to your previous post in order to keep up.
Substack is to words what Modern Monetary Theory is to dollars.
I have finally read it in full. I'll make my main comments over there. While you make some good points, it's my Christian duty to be a bit of a Blue Meany when it comes to inventing new religions.
Also, I'm old enough to remember the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Dabbling in experimental religion and myth used to be a lefty thing not that long ago.
As I said repeatedly: the purpose here is not to invent a new religion. It's rather to look at how religion emerges naturally from the soil of myth; to look at myth itself in a different fashion; and to look at the myths of the modern era, in order to see how these might generate something new/regenerate something very old.
Again, and it cannot be emphasized enough, no one person or group can really create a genuine religion. They need to emerge organically and collaboratively, as a social work of the collective unconscious.
Some claim religion is natural to human mentality, or that transcendence is an evolved natural desire, somehow derivative from our lower brain stem ability to assign agency to certain natural (and later on abstract) phenomenon:
1) Justin L. Barrett, Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief [2012/2019]
2) Robert McCauley, 'Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not [2011]
3) Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right, 1998
4) Michael Tomasello, The Evolution of Agency: Behavioral Organization from Lizards to Humans [2022]
I am skeptical of the phrase "collective unconscious", in that social developments certainly seem to require extensive conscious connections. But in other books Tomasello also provides evidence of humans as "ultra-social" animals (even more so than any of the apes), so just maybe we do contain unconscious "theory of mind" types of skills that can lead in part to your assertion. I do agree with the language organic, collaborative, and collective.
Except MMT tries to claim that excessive empty dollars actually store value that has not yet been created. Substack is supporting many (17,000!!??) essayists and their excellent to mediocre output, so the question will not be that we lack for words but perhaps for wise or useful thinking. That is, output that is also well phrased, reasonable, rational, and perhaps uplifting in some way.
MMT can produce billions of $$$ at the push of a button. I don't think you can do that with a 6000-word response, at least not a 6000-word response worth reading.
early 14c., restitucioun, "a making good or giving equivalent for crime, debt, injury, etc.;" late 14c., "restoration of goods, land, etc. to a former owner, repayment of money;" from Old French restitucion or directly from Latin restitutionem (nominative restitutio) "a restoring," noun of action from past-participle stem of restituere "set up again, restore, rebuild, replace, revive, reinstate, re-establish," from re- "again, to a former state" (see re-) + statuere "to set up" (from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm").<<
In other words (looking at the PIE root *sta), the time has come for Western man 'to stand & be firm' on what he Fights for, & What Ends he Wishes to Pursue.
Should he Fail, it is but a portent that his DOOM cometh & he will be but a stepping stone to those who have the former two pursuits in order.
I just worry that we're about to take a big step backwards. Romanticism, by elevating the emotions above the intellect, set the stage for a lot of the silliness that we see today. The Right seems to be turning NeoRomantic, and it scares me.
The whole quote from Levi of Sularia is great, but this part may be most relevant: "... it is the insistence on virtue as the lode-star of all questions which determine the affairs of men, … Rectitude, uprightness, virtue; this is our true love… "
In 2012 Newt Gingrich wrote that the Founding generation considered the "pursuit of happiness" to mean the pursuit of wisdom and virtue. And Adams said something about a constitutional order only suitable "for a moral and religious people". Once I realized that many people can be both highly rational and intelligent and abysmally irrational in regard to their religious devotion and faith, I came to the conclusion we have evolved both rationality and "religious drives" or desires in parallel. And that both of these mental capabilities contributed to our level of within group cooperation and thus enhanced our survival chances.
Any discussion of social or political realignments, rectification, etc., should also consider the role of our complicated* evolved psychology in how we are what we are, have done what we have done, and that we might be limited or enabled in what we can do in the future. Ignoring this side of things may lead to failure or a flawed viewpoint. In particular, consideration should be given to the nature of "morality" as having both genetic/ instinctual components and cultural ones. For us in the West, this means the often hidden influences from Christianity and/or Judaism.
*I realize that evolutionary psychology has a lot of "just so" assertions as to what must or may have happened over the last few million years of homo- evolution, so I try to maintain a modest stance on this view. The concepts of group selection and co-evolution of genetic and cultural impacts also plays into this type of analysis.
Exceptional piece—enlightening, edifying, and entertaining. Thank you.
For those interested in the practical strategic and tactical re reenchantment, consider the cause/movement Team Manalive is leading to Return (to sanity), Renew (the spirit), and Re-enchant (the imagination). Peace
had to unsub from John Carter because he publishes too much! Both links and recs are much appreciated, I'll give it a read.
I've been cultivating virtue and letting the Logos lead ms to something more than atheism recently. As such, what Levi writes about really speaks to me. I certainly identify with the Upright and the Forthright. I worry about hewing too close to the Latin on this one; I'd rather we not become "The Rectals". Perhaps that's an argument for not forgetting irreverence, when it's needed. We don't want to get sticks up our rears.
Sorry man! I've loved your stuff but last year I was still trying to read everything and I found myself getting pulled in a more paranoid and right wing direction than I was comfortable with.
These days I'm more confident in my values, more able to resist the pulls, and the inbox is always overflowing anyway, so I might as well resub to see your interesting ideas and the cool artworks you decorate them with.
To enchant... is to ensorcelle or to seduce or deceive. 🤷 One might posit that We are already in that parlous state! Enchanted, seduced, deceived. That what one needs rather, is CLARITY. What we require is a measurement. A Ruling. A Standard. Grade A must mean "For Good", and "good" DOES NOT MEAN for PROFIT. Our economic wetware should not rule us, it is just a Narrative. What is The Story?
"What is the Story?" Experience as much pleasure as possible, short of satiation and ennui.
Avoid as much pain as possible, unless surviving or surmounting it can be made into a virtue.
I am finding great pleasure in reading a few selected Substacks and commenting occasionally, but overall Substack and the internet are just overwhelming, so it is pretty much a random result to find something useful and "good" to read and/or to comment upon.
If Good does not mean For Profit, that is not the same as saying "For Profit is BAD!" Sometimes (most times) it is actually very good indeed. I understand Adam Smith's reference to a hidden hand was only made once in Wealth of Nations. I would have preferred him citing it as an open network of pricing signals, not really hidden at all.
Like Confucius' "rectification of names." In order to reform a system, one must first calls things by their true name.
I don't think there is one answer, I think there are several. Hopefully we get enough local and regional organization to put at least one of those answers into practice before the tyranny hardens and it becomes impossible to act.
It strikes me that so many of us seem to be hounds picking up on the same distant scent. It's getting to the point that we can all smell and parse out the distractions. The RETVRN LARPers, the NRx gadflies, the Dime² scene queens, the pill pushers looking for the next big hustle. No, no, no, no.
That's not to say we'll all agree on what comes next. But there seems to at least be a process of narrowing and honing taking place. It might actually become a sword someday.
As an unfrozen caveman physicist, I cannot react to a 22,000 word post in a timely fashion. There are times I wonder if I should do the random slice and dice thing that Robert Anton Wilson used to do with his earlier works in order to generate immense hard to read posts that people recognize as profound.
Maybe I'll find time this weekend to finish that immense post.
This week I've been too busy writing a 6000 word response to your previous post in order to keep up.
Substack is to words what Modern Monetary Theory is to dollars.
I feel like I'm living in a Stanislaw Lem story.
OK I can't figure out the subtext of this, can you explain?
Memoirs Found in a Bathtub.
I have no expectation that anyone will read a 22,000 word post essay quickly ;)
I have finally read it in full. I'll make my main comments over there. While you make some good points, it's my Christian duty to be a bit of a Blue Meany when it comes to inventing new religions.
Also, I'm old enough to remember the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Dabbling in experimental religion and myth used to be a lefty thing not that long ago.
As I said repeatedly: the purpose here is not to invent a new religion. It's rather to look at how religion emerges naturally from the soil of myth; to look at myth itself in a different fashion; and to look at the myths of the modern era, in order to see how these might generate something new/regenerate something very old.
Again, and it cannot be emphasized enough, no one person or group can really create a genuine religion. They need to emerge organically and collaboratively, as a social work of the collective unconscious.
Some claim religion is natural to human mentality, or that transcendence is an evolved natural desire, somehow derivative from our lower brain stem ability to assign agency to certain natural (and later on abstract) phenomenon:
1) Justin L. Barrett, Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief [2012/2019]
2) Robert McCauley, 'Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not [2011]
3) Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right, 1998
4) Michael Tomasello, The Evolution of Agency: Behavioral Organization from Lizards to Humans [2022]
I am skeptical of the phrase "collective unconscious", in that social developments certainly seem to require extensive conscious connections. But in other books Tomasello also provides evidence of humans as "ultra-social" animals (even more so than any of the apes), so just maybe we do contain unconscious "theory of mind" types of skills that can lead in part to your assertion. I do agree with the language organic, collaborative, and collective.
Except MMT tries to claim that excessive empty dollars actually store value that has not yet been created. Substack is supporting many (17,000!!??) essayists and their excellent to mediocre output, so the question will not be that we lack for words but perhaps for wise or useful thinking. That is, output that is also well phrased, reasonable, rational, and perhaps uplifting in some way.
"Except MMT tries to claim that excessive empty dollars actually store value that has not yet been created."
That's why it's called MMT - Magical Monetary Theory.
MMT can produce billions of $$$ at the push of a button. I don't think you can do that with a 6000-word response, at least not a 6000-word response worth reading.
I'll happily accept a billion magical dollars!
As for my 6000 word response, it got more traction than many of my shorter works. (But I did actual work...)
I would also happily accept a billion magical dollars. Unfortunately, only the Magical Elite will get them.
The world in not becoming re-enchanted, simply more people are becoming aware of enchantment, this beware, is not bad or good. Be careful.
Excellent Choice Pater!
Etymological Breakdown:
>>restitution (n.)
early 14c., restitucioun, "a making good or giving equivalent for crime, debt, injury, etc.;" late 14c., "restoration of goods, land, etc. to a former owner, repayment of money;" from Old French restitucion or directly from Latin restitutionem (nominative restitutio) "a restoring," noun of action from past-participle stem of restituere "set up again, restore, rebuild, replace, revive, reinstate, re-establish," from re- "again, to a former state" (see re-) + statuere "to set up" (from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm").<<
In other words (looking at the PIE root *sta), the time has come for Western man 'to stand & be firm' on what he Fights for, & What Ends he Wishes to Pursue.
Should he Fail, it is but a portent that his DOOM cometh & he will be but a stepping stone to those who have the former two pursuits in order.
What's the difference between Romanticism and Reenchantment?
John Carter would know better than I, but if I had to guess, Romanticism was still situated within the default materialist paradigm.
I just worry that we're about to take a big step backwards. Romanticism, by elevating the emotions above the intellect, set the stage for a lot of the silliness that we see today. The Right seems to be turning NeoRomantic, and it scares me.
Romanticism is…tinged with a sort of nostalgic despair. A yearning that can never be fulfilled. Searching for meaning in the exotic and the taboo.
Reenchantment seems to have less of that self-loathing, premature death tendency we saw in the Romantic movement.
I prefer Rectification because "Reenchantment" is super-hard to translate into Serbo-Croatian.
Also, I ADORE the description of the blog as "market leader in the development and dissemination of despair". xD
Thank you! Just telling it how it is :-)
Within Temptation! Hot DAMN!
If I was leading a Latter-Day version of the Knights Templar, their would be my battle hymns.
We are on the right path.
Thank you for all you have done, and are doing.
Credit to Mrs. Woe, whose musical taste far exceeds my own in virtue.
The Company uses the appellation "Age of Militants".
The label is less important than the inbound tide.
And the tide is coming...
It's well here.
It merely needs those who have prepared for it without ego; and who understand the difference between patience and timing.
The whole quote from Levi of Sularia is great, but this part may be most relevant: "... it is the insistence on virtue as the lode-star of all questions which determine the affairs of men, … Rectitude, uprightness, virtue; this is our true love… "
In 2012 Newt Gingrich wrote that the Founding generation considered the "pursuit of happiness" to mean the pursuit of wisdom and virtue. And Adams said something about a constitutional order only suitable "for a moral and religious people". Once I realized that many people can be both highly rational and intelligent and abysmally irrational in regard to their religious devotion and faith, I came to the conclusion we have evolved both rationality and "religious drives" or desires in parallel. And that both of these mental capabilities contributed to our level of within group cooperation and thus enhanced our survival chances.
Any discussion of social or political realignments, rectification, etc., should also consider the role of our complicated* evolved psychology in how we are what we are, have done what we have done, and that we might be limited or enabled in what we can do in the future. Ignoring this side of things may lead to failure or a flawed viewpoint. In particular, consideration should be given to the nature of "morality" as having both genetic/ instinctual components and cultural ones. For us in the West, this means the often hidden influences from Christianity and/or Judaism.
*I realize that evolutionary psychology has a lot of "just so" assertions as to what must or may have happened over the last few million years of homo- evolution, so I try to maintain a modest stance on this view. The concepts of group selection and co-evolution of genetic and cultural impacts also plays into this type of analysis.
Re enchantment. Is that like the dawning of the Age of Aquarius?
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation!
AQQQQUARRRIUSSS
Let the sunshine in, baby!
Exceptional piece—enlightening, edifying, and entertaining. Thank you.
For those interested in the practical strategic and tactical re reenchantment, consider the cause/movement Team Manalive is leading to Return (to sanity), Renew (the spirit), and Re-enchant (the imagination). Peace
https://www.manalivemediagroup.com/
I hadn't encountered them before -- thanks for sharing!
You are most welcome. Grateful for your writing. Godspeed re same. (And perhaps we'll have you join us for a Manalive Salon event in the fall.) Peace
I'd love that!
Definitely an upgrade from Hate Media.
Nicely done! John's essay was remarkable, and as you said not easily summarized. Perhaps this does become a new unifying vocabulary.
had to unsub from John Carter because he publishes too much! Both links and recs are much appreciated, I'll give it a read.
I've been cultivating virtue and letting the Logos lead ms to something more than atheism recently. As such, what Levi writes about really speaks to me. I certainly identify with the Upright and the Forthright. I worry about hewing too close to the Latin on this one; I'd rather we not become "The Rectals". Perhaps that's an argument for not forgetting irreverence, when it's needed. We don't want to get sticks up our rears.
The Rectus is is what prevents Western civilization from being flushed down the toilet!
>don't publish anything for a month
>get told I publish too much
😥
Sorry man! I've loved your stuff but last year I was still trying to read everything and I found myself getting pulled in a more paranoid and right wing direction than I was comfortable with.
These days I'm more confident in my values, more able to resist the pulls, and the inbox is always overflowing anyway, so I might as well resub to see your interesting ideas and the cool artworks you decorate them with.
To enchant... is to ensorcelle or to seduce or deceive. 🤷 One might posit that We are already in that parlous state! Enchanted, seduced, deceived. That what one needs rather, is CLARITY. What we require is a measurement. A Ruling. A Standard. Grade A must mean "For Good", and "good" DOES NOT MEAN for PROFIT. Our economic wetware should not rule us, it is just a Narrative. What is The Story?
"What is the Story?" Experience as much pleasure as possible, short of satiation and ennui.
Avoid as much pain as possible, unless surviving or surmounting it can be made into a virtue.
I am finding great pleasure in reading a few selected Substacks and commenting occasionally, but overall Substack and the internet are just overwhelming, so it is pretty much a random result to find something useful and "good" to read and/or to comment upon.
If Good does not mean For Profit, that is not the same as saying "For Profit is BAD!" Sometimes (most times) it is actually very good indeed. I understand Adam Smith's reference to a hidden hand was only made once in Wealth of Nations. I would have preferred him citing it as an open network of pricing signals, not really hidden at all.
Like Confucius' "rectification of names." In order to reform a system, one must first calls things by their true name.
I don't think there is one answer, I think there are several. Hopefully we get enough local and regional organization to put at least one of those answers into practice before the tyranny hardens and it becomes impossible to act.
I hadn't made the connection to Confucius's rectification of names but you're right!