Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Ideological "Reality" and the Immortalizing Process

Not much time this morning. Just flipping through this volume of correspondence by Voegelin, looking for any nuggets of joy before it undergoes the transition from desk to shelf.

In particular, I was looking for a passage about the unforgivable evil of ideologues warping the minds of children -- which is what Governor Christie will be doing by signing legislation making it a crime for a psychologist to help sexually confused adolescents.

To not know that ideologues and activists have taken over the American Psychological Association -- along with most every other professional group -- is to live in a state of profound naivete. I suppose he also thinks the ACLU is full of people who just really care about the Constitution.

But if the left is really sincere in its objection to "conversion therapy," how about a law forbidding colleges from converting impressionable students into liberal ideologues?

This one's good: "[B]ankers are tough and have common sense; one can discuss with them rationally; it is not like the academic world, where opinions, if wrong, do not cost you any money, so that one can have any opinions that look pleasing."

In fact, at the epicenter of the financial meltdown of 2008 was the state forcing bankers to lend money to unqualified borrowers -- as if the state actually understands such a complex system!

But that's the essence of the problem with both government and the educational establishment, isn't it? To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, politicians are forever making decisions affecting our lives that cost them nothing if they are wrong (and often enrich them, as in the case of Clinton). Thus the built-in moral hazard of liberalism.

The purpose of life? What else could it be than to "immortalize as much as possible"?

I interpret this to mean that man lives in the vertical space between the beginning and the beyond -- or between immanence and transcendence -- and that the immortalizing process, so to speak, involves the metabolism of the latter into the former, or of eternity into time. One might say: God creates time so that time may become eternity.

What is art, for example, but the immortalization of matter, or color, or shape, or sound, or language?

If that is not what's going on down here, then I frankly don't see the point.

This would also explain why "Existences that have been abandoned by God are boring, or burlesque, or dangerous to public safety.... over time, perversity becomes stale." One can hope, anyway.

About the curiously named "progressivism" which is frozen in time when it isn't moving backward. The ideologue exits the vertical space alluded to above, which makes real growth -- which is indistinguishable from the immortalizing process -- impossible. This frequently occurs around college age. The rejection of reality naturally results in (or from, depending) a kind of anxiety, and

"from anxiety is born hatred. From such hatred then may arise an infinite variety of attempts to stop the flux of time -- childish things like the professor for whom science must stop at the point that he has reached... at the time of his Ph.D."

Speaking of Obama, the hatred of reality can result in "terrible things like the political leader who wants to freeze history at some ridiculous point of order that he has picked up somewhere in his youth."

This would explain why, for example, for the left, it is "always Selma" -- even in a high-end handbag boutique in Switzerland. Note that they don't just freeze history, but freeze a delusion about history -- like the global warmists who don't know the warming stopped seventeen years ago.

Again, it begins with an attack on language, on meaning: "an ideological language has the purpose of interrupting the contact with reality, and on the other hand, to admit as 'reality' in quotation marks only the phantasy of the ideology.... Every ideology with its apparatus of taboos is, therefore, a Newspeak in the sense of Orwell."

This distortion of language always results in the deformation of reality, for "in the beginning is the word," whether you believe that or not.

In contrast to the immortalizing process is the immanentizing process of ideologues -- the attempt to force transcendence into immanence. This can only be achieved through an "outburst of cruelty in overcoming resistance" -- a cruelty that must be permanent because the goal of the ideologue can never be reached. It's why the IRS is still harassing Tea Party groups. Why wouldn't they? They may be crazy, but they're also evil.

Thus, where the normal person in vertical space lives in loving attraction to O, the ideologue lives in a spiteful rejection of O, and cruelly takes out the hatred on others.

An Emmanuel Goldstein a day keeps the reality at bay.


julie said...

Speaking of perversity becoming stale...

Magister said...

The Christie thing illustrates the deconstructive drive of the Left perfectly: take some norm, argue that the norm is based on some oppression, elevate the oppressed and make it an equivalent new norm.

Example: hetero is natural, but it's based on oppressing homo, so argue that homo is natural, and then elevate it to hetero status. Presto, "social justice."

They'll do the same thing with "trans" whatever, as we've seen.

Magister said...

I can go either way on it.

How helpful would this attitude be to a Ukrainian in the USSR?

The leftist is not *only* a suffering brother. That's the rub.

Magister said...

Thus, where the normal person in vertical space lives in loving attraction to O, the ideologue lives in a spiteful rejection of O, and cruelly takes out the hatred on others.

For crystalline illustration of this, just visit the comments section of any article in the Guardian about the Pope.

julie said...

Yep. Or for a more specific example, the letter to the parents of an autistic kid in Canada that has been making the rounds the last couple of days. I understand that at CNN at least, there were no small number of commenters supporting the letter-writer. CNN seems to have removed comments for that article, as far as I can tell...

ge said...

'The purpose of life? What else could it be than to "immortalize as much as possible"?'
{Bang!: Kerouac comes to mind...his boyhood friends and cats and streets of Lowell, Denver, Gotham, Paradise portrayed and paved with gold}

mushroom said...

OK, let me see if I have this straight: it's wrong to offer therapy to a homosexual because homosexuals are born that way.

Wouldn't that apply to everything? If someone is born schizophrenic or bi-polar or, God forbid, normal, wouldn't we be obliged to leave them alone? Why do we punish people for anything or try to make them "better"? Who are we to judge?

My God, it's full of maroons -- fat, stupid, fascist maroons.

Magister said...

Good morning, open.

"Social justice" is a phrase that allows Christians to speak in a way their secular peers consider (maybe "deem" is a better word) acceptable, i.e. stripped of any traditional Christian language or discernible metaphysic.

We used to have a very serviceable word called "charity," which secularists (especially Marxists) have tried over the years to debase into connoting "condescending and ineffective."

America has never been Hindu or Japanese, so I can't imagine how "social justice" has made America avoid these things. America has never had to avoid them.

overall, aren't you glad you are free to move about the country and boink anyone you want?

Seeing as I don't want to "boink anyone I want," the question doesn't affect me personally. Am I glad that we don't have mutawwa in America? Yes, absolutely. Am I glad that our freedom is defined negatively, allowing a very broad range of behavior? Yes, very much so. Am I glad that sexual libertinism has destroyed the natural family, reduced large areas of our culture to shallow caricature, and driven males to the pitiful isolation of porn, and much else?

It's not just about what I want as an individual. Liberty is a dimension of culture, and affects everybody.

I have to get to work. Hope this helps a little.

mushroom said...

Somewhat related, Bradley Manning wants to be Chelsea Unmanning.

I'm sure his dance card will be full when he gets to Leavenworth.