You Have Answers, We Have Questions!

"The factor that sustains consciousness in its multidimensional concern with meaning is questioning" (Hughes). That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far if there are no answers. And even answers don't go far enough unless they are related to the Answer.  

Thus, one of our first principles around here that the first object of the human intellect is intelligible being. Or, as Schuon expresses it, "The worth of man lies in his consciousness of the Absolute." This is so because the human station is characterized by this implicit consciousness of the Absolute, precisely. Always has been, always will be. 

For which reason man cannot surpass the imperative to ceaselessly surpass himself -- until the lights go out. Here again, the man who fails to surpass himself is a failure at the one thing needful.  

I could trot out a batch of aphorisms, but you get the point. And you -- yes, you there -- never will. Unless you exchange paranoia for metanoia immediately.

Human nature -- obviously -- comprises both being and becoming. There is a word for any philosophy that defaults to one side of this complementarity: wrong. As God's essence is to exist, I suppose we could say that man's essence is to become who he is -- more deeply, integrally, luminously, etc. 

"The dynamic core of human consciousness," writes Hughes, is this "omnidimensional desire to know that unfolds in the uncountable variety of human interests," gorounded in "a desire to understand the origin and ground of meaning itself."   

Our omnidimensionality is vertically reminiscent of the tridimensionality of the Godhead -- in other words, you could say that our restless omnidimensionality -- which is ceaselessly engaged with unity -- is a distant analogue of the divine perichoresis. If your mind isn't dancing, it ain't right. 

Do the monkey bone, do the shingling, get your slack back and take trip, slip, lose your grip & turn a backover flip and say: not the god of the philosophers, not the god of the scholars! (author too embarrassed to take credit).

This "questing consciousness" of ours "seeks out and discovers 'eternity,'" thereby becoming what it quintessentially is. Ultimately, our quest for God is God's quest for man. 

Who said that!

Now, this questioning quest begins vaguely but becomes increasingly differentiated through history. To cite one of the most obvious differentiations, primitive man locates his multitude of gods in the exterior/immanent world. It takes some time -- and psychological development -- to integrate these projections and to locate the one God beyond space and time. So if you see a Jew today, thank him.  

Speaking of which, and with great irony, Sr. Dávila observes that Unless circumstances constrain him, there is no radically leftist Jew. The people that discovered divine absolutism does not make deals with the absolutism of man. Among other celestial violations, statism is idolatry.

For this and additional reasons, In the Christianity of the leftist Christian, one of the two elements sooner or later eliminates the other. 

Why is that? Easy: antithetical first principles. If you think Judaism or Christianity are consistent with the first principles of the left, we have another aphorism for you: The theses of the left are rationalizations that are carefully suspended before reaching the argument that dissolves them.

True, there are plenty of "thinkers" on the left (too many!). It's just that their thinking isn't tall enough to reach the ground:

Consciousness is an emergence from the very ground of reality that is simultaneously the goal of its questioning concern (Hughes).

If this is starting to sound repetitive, I suppose it is, because in our Age of Stupidity it is necessary to repeat the fundamentals, since we are surrounded on all sides by a toxic culture that conspires to draw us away from them: from the ontological center to the existential periphery. 

Well, they won't get me! For our consciousness "constitutes an irruption of awareness of meaning," and is the site "where the 'cosmic process becomes luminous for its meaning.'" They can't reach their grubby hands into this space for the same reason that one can add an infinite number sides to a polygon without ever forming a real circle.  

Consciousness is the meeting place of man and God. If not, then it is the intersection of animal and contingency, or of primate and rationalization, AKA the Place of Tenure. Presumption + Stupidity, like MSNBC

Again, the divine presence is always here, but it unfolds and differentiates in the course of mankind's engagement with it. 

For example, it has always been true that All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. But man is a little slow, dim, and thick. He still struggles with this question, despite profiting so much (in multiple ways) from the answer.  

That's enough perfect nonsense for today. 

You Have Answers, We Have Questions!

"The factor that sustains consciousness in its multidimensional concern with meaning is questioning" (Hughes). That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far if there are no answers. And even answers don't go far enough unless they are related to the Answer.  

Thus, one of our first principles around here that the first object of the human intellect is intelligible being. Or, as Schuon expresses it, "The worth of man lies in his consciousness of the Absolute." This is so because the human station is characterized by this implicit consciousness of the Absolute, precisely. Always has been, always will be. 

For which reason man cannot surpass the imperative to ceaselessly surpass himself -- until the lights go out. Here again, the man who fails to surpass himself is a failure at the one thing needful.  

I could trot out a batch of aphorisms, but you get the point. And you -- yes, you there -- never will. Unless you exchange paranoia for metanoia immediately.

Human nature -- obviously -- comprises both being and becoming. There is a word for any philosophy that defaults to one side of this complementarity: wrong. As God's essence is to exist, I suppose we could say that man's essence is to become who he is -- more deeply, integrally, luminously, etc. 

"The dynamic core of human consciousness," writes Hughes, is this "omnidimensional desire to know that unfolds in the uncountable variety of human interests," gorounded in "a desire to understand the origin and ground of meaning itself."   

Our omnidimensionality is vertically reminiscent of the tridimensionality of the Godhead -- in other words, you could say that our restless omnidimensionality -- which is ceaselessly engaged with unity -- is a distant analogue of the divine perichoresis. If your mind isn't dancing, it ain't right. 

Do the monkey bone, do the shingling, get your slack back and take trip, slip, lose your grip & turn a backover flip and say: not the god of the philosophers, not the god of the scholars! (author too embarrassed to take credit).

This "questing consciousness" of ours "seeks out and discovers 'eternity,'" thereby becoming what it quintessentially is. Ultimately, our quest for God is God's quest for man. 

Who said that!

Now, this questioning quest begins vaguely but becomes increasingly differentiated through history. To cite one of the most obvious differentiations, primitive man locates his multitude of gods in the exterior/immanent world. It takes some time -- and psychological development -- to integrate these projections and to locate the one God beyond space and time. So if you see a Jew today, thank him.  

Speaking of which, and with great irony, Sr. Dávila observes that Unless circumstances constrain him, there is no radically leftist Jew. The people that discovered divine absolutism does not make deals with the absolutism of man. Among other celestial violations, statism is idolatry.

For this and additional reasons, In the Christianity of the leftist Christian, one of the two elements sooner or later eliminates the other. 

Why is that? Easy: antithetical first principles. If you think Judaism or Christianity are consistent with the first principles of the left, we have another aphorism for you: The theses of the left are rationalizations that are carefully suspended before reaching the argument that dissolves them.

True, there are plenty of "thinkers" on the left (too many!). It's just that their thinking isn't tall enough to reach the ground:

Consciousness is an emergence from the very ground of reality that is simultaneously the goal of its questioning concern (Hughes).

If this is starting to sound repetitive, I suppose it is, because in our Age of Stupidity it is necessary to repeat the fundamentals, since we are surrounded on all sides by a toxic culture that conspires to draw us away from them: from the ontological center to the existential periphery. 

Well, they won't get me! For our consciousness "constitutes an irruption of awareness of meaning," and is the site "where the 'cosmic process becomes luminous for its meaning.'" They can't reach their grubby hands into this space for the same reason that one can add an infinite number sides to a polygon without ever forming a real circle.  

Consciousness is the meeting place of man and God. If not, then it is the intersection of animal and contingency, or of primate and rationalization, AKA the Place of Tenure. Presumption + Stupidity, like MSNBC

Again, the divine presence is always here, but it unfolds and differentiates in the course of mankind's engagement with it. 

For example, it has always been true that All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. But man is a little slow, dim, and thick. He still struggles with this question, despite profiting so much (in multiple ways) from the answer.  

That's enough perfect nonsense for today. 

Light Privilege in the Ultimate Patriarchy

I don't usually read comments, but when I do, I typically respond with a shrug, although occasionally with a sense of wonder at man's preternatural ability to miss the point. This morning I will make an exception and respond to a few. 

One commenter asks why I "feel a need" to write about the left, and "always with the same utter lack of insight." Well, if I had insight, I'd understand the need, wouldn't I?

For that matter, if the left is so banal, Bob, why the fascination? That one is easy. I'm not actually interested in the left except to the extent that they're interested in us. 

For example, they want to censor us, raise our taxes, indoctrinate our children, discriminate on the basis of race, destroy women's sports, force us to pretend that psychological deviancy is normality, and destroy the energy industry because of some goofy religious belief about the weather. 

"As a psychologist, surely you've given some thought to this?" Yes, but psychology only explains so much. I've since graduated to post-postgraduate work in applied pneumatology and divine pslackology (which are two sides of the same nonlocal coin). 

"I have a similar problem – I find the right pretty boring, yet I'm also somewhat obsessed with them, can't leave them alone [you don't say!]. There must at least be a name for this type of compulsive interest in that which disgusts."

Apples and oranges. In your case, it is called projection. For while it is true that the left is obsessed with conservatives and can't leave us alone, the desire is not reciprocal. We want a limited government with enumerated powers, while the left wants a vast government with unlimited powers. We would be more than happy to leave you alone. Your entire platform is devoted to never leaving us alone. I live in California. Nuff said. 

"And most Democrats believe in God, which Bob has expressed as impossible." Not only have I never suggested this, I have written extensively on the impossibility of literal a-theism (whether speculative or practical), and of how the left is quintessentially a political religion.  But the principles of leftism and Christianity are antithetical, period.  

For what is the first principle of the left? 

Trick question! You will have noticed that the left always plays philosophical Calvinball, hence the chaotic and contradictory policies -- defund the racist police one day, heroic police the next day for saving our capitol from white supremacists! Black riots are righteous insurrections, pro-Trump clowns are treasonous insurrectionists! Global warming is an existential crisis, but let's not solve the problem with nuclear power! I can't think of a prominent leftist policy that isn't riddled with contradictions.  

Bob calls Democrats "leftists, a meaningless term if ever there was one." Which demonstrates the principle that leftism itself always involves an attack on the plain meaning of words. 

"He indicates Democrats are partially demonic but has never admitted a Republican could be partially demonic." 

Never said that. First, Democrat and leftist are not synonymous, although rapidly becoming so. At any rate, I never attribute to evil what is adequately explained by ignorance, stupidity, indoctrination, mental illness, and sociopathy, in that order. For the great majority of decent Democrats, the first three are sufficient. If we're analyzing, say, an Adam Schiff, then deeper factors and lower motives come into play.  If he isn't diabolic, then I have no sense of smell.

Never call Republicans demonic? If so, it is because they are more adequately explained by stupidity, cowardice, and petty self-interest. 

But "'demonic' itself is a nebulous concept which arguably has no reality in the One Cosmos comprised in total of God's good Self and nothing else." No, it's not at all nebulous. Quite specific, rather, and a "necessary" component of the total psychic economy -- necessary in the sense that this is not heaven and man is free to reject the good and true, even though culpable for doing so.

"As far as I know Bob does not believe centrist political views are possible, or admit the existence of people who fall between the Democrat and Republican continuum of opinions." 

This is mostly correct. For example, what is the centrist view between the principle that the Constitution means what it says and the principle that it means what the left wants it to mean? What is the compromise between the principle that men cannot be women, and the principle of "oh yes they can, fascist!" What is between the principle that discriminating on the basis of race is evil, vs. racial discrimination should be the animating principle of every last federal agency?

What is the centrist compromise between the 1776 and 1619 projects? There isn't one, because the second is crazy, stupid, false, and evil.

Etc.

That was a total waste of time, because no amount of logic, evidence, or elucidation of first principles can have any impact on the committed leftist. Now, on to this morning's post. This chapter is called History and Transcendence, and based upon the amount of highlighting, it must be a good one. 

Much of it revolves around a gnomic statement by Voegelin to the effect that history is a web of meaning with a plurality of nodal points. What could this mean? 

Among other things it means that history can never be reduced to a single explanation, as in, for example, Marxism. Rather, it is -- obviously -- not only multifactorial and overdetermined, but multidimensional. It is also teleological, only not in a deterministic manner. 

History is oriented to a transcendent attractor which history itself can never reach. But this is precisely where gnostic political religions go off the rails: on the one hand they pretend to deny transcendence even while forcing it to occur on the terrestrial plane. This always involves countless broken eggs, but they say it is worth it because the omelet will be delicious.  And free!

Let's not even waste time on that one, for the yolks write themselves.

Back to this multidimensional web of meaning. You have heard it said that Truth is just your opinion, man, but I say unto you that truth is symphonic. Not only that, it is a jazz symphony, meaning that it is simultaneously deeply structured and yet improvisational, which is why there is no liberty in the absence of order, and vice versa.

At every level and in every endeavor, we must conform ourselves to this order. For example, there are orders of physics, biology, morality, politics, metaphysics, and theology. 

And let's not forget the importance of time in this ambiguous space inhabited by man: "the intelligible order of history is made up not merely of a line of development though time." Rather, there are numerous lines of "meaningful advance," which is how the most privileged people on earth -- e.g., Barack Obama, Susan Rice, John Kerry, George Soros -- can be such moral retards.    

And this is a Big Problem: that "lines of meaning" can sometimes run "backward." One of the reasons I left the left is its deeply regressive ideas about race and gender. 

More generally, the tribal identity politics that so defines the left is as atavistic and barbaric as a principle can be -- at antipodes to the principle that the Constitution is colorblind and that all people are created equal. But Dems never really change, so Antifa and BLM are just their new KKK, as Jason Whitlock points out.

Yes, man always lives in the vortex of the now, but what a show!  Consciousness -- mine, anyway -- is situated in this vertical space between" human and divine modes of being," which is the "site" where "divine presence meets human response."  Truly, it is what it is -- or AM what it AM, rather, and we have the unique privilege of participating in this luminous center, or what we call light privilege. 

Groan. The end

Light Privilege in the Ultimate Patriarchy

I don't usually read comments, but when I do, I typically respond with a shrug, although occasionally with a sense of wonder at man's preternatural ability to miss the point. This morning I will make an exception and respond to a few. 

One commenter asks why I "feel a need" to write about the left, and "always with the same utter lack of insight." Well, if I had insight, I'd understand the need, wouldn't I?

For that matter, if the left is so banal, Bob, why the fascination? That one is easy. I'm not actually interested in the left except to the extent that they're interested in us. 

For example, they want to censor us, raise our taxes, indoctrinate our children, discriminate on the basis of race, destroy women's sports, force us to pretend that psychological deviancy is normality, and destroy the energy industry because of some goofy religious belief about the weather. 

"As a psychologist, surely you've given some thought to this?" Yes, but psychology only explains so much. I've since graduated to post-postgraduate work in applied pneumatology and divine pslackology (which are two sides of the same nonlocal coin). 

"I have a similar problem – I find the right pretty boring, yet I'm also somewhat obsessed with them, can't leave them alone [you don't say!]. There must at least be a name for this type of compulsive interest in that which disgusts."

Apples and oranges. In your case, it is called projection. For while it is true that the left is obsessed with conservatives and can't leave us alone, the desire is not reciprocal. We want a limited government with enumerated powers, while the left wants a vast government with unlimited powers. We would be more than happy to leave you alone. Your entire platform is devoted to never leaving us alone. I live in California. Nuff said. 

"And most Democrats believe in God, which Bob has expressed as impossible." Not only have I never suggested this, I have written extensively on the impossibility of literal a-theism (whether speculative or practical), and of how the left is quintessentially a political religion.  But the principles of leftism and Christianity are antithetical, period.  

For what is the first principle of the left? 

Trick question! You will have noticed that the left always plays philosophical Calvinball, hence the chaotic and contradictory policies -- defund the racist police one day, heroic police the next day for saving our capitol from white supremacists! Black riots are righteous insurrections, pro-Trump clowns are treasonous insurrectionists! Global warming is an existential crisis, but let's not solve the problem with nuclear power! I can't think of a prominent leftist policy that isn't riddled with contradictions.  

Bob calls Democrats "leftists, a meaningless term if ever there was one." Which demonstrates the principle that leftism itself always involves an attack on the plain meaning of words. 

"He indicates Democrats are partially demonic but has never admitted a Republican could be partially demonic." 

Never said that. First, Democrat and leftist are not synonymous, although rapidly becoming so. At any rate, I never attribute to evil what is adequately explained by ignorance, stupidity, indoctrination, mental illness, and sociopathy, in that order. For the great majority of decent Democrats, the first three are sufficient. If we're analyzing, say, an Adam Schiff, then deeper factors and lower motives come into play.  If he isn't diabolic, then I have no sense of smell.

Never call Republicans demonic? If so, it is because they are more adequately explained by stupidity, cowardice, and petty self-interest. 

But "'demonic' itself is a nebulous concept which arguably has no reality in the One Cosmos comprised in total of God's good Self and nothing else." No, it's not at all nebulous. Quite specific, rather, and a "necessary" component of the total psychic economy -- necessary in the sense that this is not heaven and man is free to reject the good and true, even though culpable for doing so.

"As far as I know Bob does not believe centrist political views are possible, or admit the existence of people who fall between the Democrat and Republican continuum of opinions." 

This is mostly correct. For example, what is the centrist view between the principle that the Constitution means what it says and the principle that it means what the left wants it to mean? What is the compromise between the principle that men cannot be women, and the principle of "oh yes they can, fascist!" What is between the principle that discriminating on the basis of race is evil, vs. racial discrimination should be the animating principle of every last federal agency?

What is the centrist compromise between the 1776 and 1619 projects? There isn't one, because the second is crazy, stupid, false, and evil.

Etc.

That was a total waste of time, because no amount of logic, evidence, or elucidation of first principles can have any impact on the committed leftist. Now, on to this morning's post. This chapter is called History and Transcendence, and based upon the amount of highlighting, it must be a good one. 

Much of it revolves around a gnomic statement by Voegelin to the effect that history is a web of meaning with a plurality of nodal points. What could this mean? 

Among other things it means that history can never be reduced to a single explanation, as in, for example, Marxism. Rather, it is -- obviously -- not only multifactorial and overdetermined, but multidimensional. It is also teleological, only not in a deterministic manner. 

History is oriented to a transcendent attractor which history itself can never reach. But this is precisely where gnostic political religions go off the rails: on the one hand they pretend to deny transcendence even while forcing it to occur on the terrestrial plane. This always involves countless broken eggs, but they say it is worth it because the omelet will be delicious.  And free!

Let's not even waste time on that one, for the yolks write themselves.

Back to this multidimensional web of meaning. You have heard it said that Truth is just your opinion, man, but I say unto you that truth is symphonic. Not only that, it is a jazz symphony, meaning that it is simultaneously deeply structured and yet improvisational, which is why there is no liberty in the absence of order, and vice versa.

At every level and in every endeavor, we must conform ourselves to this order. For example, there are orders of physics, biology, morality, politics, metaphysics, and theology. 

And let's not forget the importance of time in this ambiguous space inhabited by man: "the intelligible order of history is made up not merely of a line of development though time." Rather, there are numerous lines of "meaningful advance," which is how the most privileged people on earth -- e.g., Barack Obama, Susan Rice, John Kerry, George Soros -- can be such moral retards.    

And this is a Big Problem: that "lines of meaning" can sometimes run "backward." One of the reasons I left the left is its deeply regressive ideas about race and gender. 

More generally, the tribal identity politics that so defines the left is as atavistic and barbaric as a principle can be -- at antipodes to the principle that the Constitution is colorblind and that all people are created equal. But Dems never really change, so Antifa and BLM are just their new KKK, as Jason Whitlock points out.

Yes, man always lives in the vortex of the now, but what a show!  Consciousness -- mine, anyway -- is situated in this vertical space between" human and divine modes of being," which is the "site" where "divine presence meets human response."  Truly, it is what it is -- or AM what it AM, rather, and we have the unique privilege of participating in this luminous center, or what we call light privilege. 

Groan. The end

The Most Dangerous Animal: A Bored Leftist

It is not enough for the democrat that we respect what he wants to do with his life; he also demands that we respect what he wants to do with our life. --Dávila

We may need to rethink the truism that a leftist is always some combination of ignorance (whether innocent or culpable), stupidity (whether innate or acquired), indoctrination (including conformity and social acceptance), sociopathy, mental illness (including dysregulated envy), and demon possession. 

Sociopathy is of course a mental illness, but it deserves its own category due to the extent of externalization involved. Sociopaths are "victims" of a mental illness characterized by the compulsive victimization of others. 

One of the appeals of leftism is that it allows sociopathy and selfishness to masquerade as charity and generosity. Those with misgivings about this kind of charitable thieving are called "fascists."

Sociopathy is what distinguishes, say, Antifa and BLM from the typical feminist hysteric or depressive. Feminism is the cause and consequence of personal unhappiness, but its victims don't typically engage in arson, looting, and murder. Soul murder, yes, but not usually the lesser kind. 

But another major component of leftism must be boredom, and for reasons that necessarily follow upon its shrunken metaphysical assumptions. For if life isn't a wild spiritual adventure drawn into permanent engagement with the Transcendent Real, what is it?

There's nothing new under the sun, for every possible alternative to this normative human state has been known and discussed since the time of ancient Greece, from hedonism to skepticism to stoicism, not to mention monism, dualism, determinism, et al. These sophistries are permanent possibilities of the human state, which is why they persist in some form or fashion to this day. For it is written:

It is not so much that men change their ideas, as that the ideas change their disguises. In the discourse of the centuries, the same voices are in dialogue.

Thus,

For man to fall repeatedly into the same trap, just paint it a different color each time (Dávila).

Just paint envy with the bright new color of "social justice," and you can trap millions.  

As the saying goes, freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. Let's hope generation Z will not prove to be generation Zzzzzzz, and will awaken to this danger before generations X and Y finish the job. (Biden, of course, transcends generations, as his dementia means he was born yesterday, every day.)

A certain type of political activity is a treatment -- not a cure, obviously -- for existential boredom, for it inserts one in the center of an externalized, cosmic Manichean struggle against the forces of evil and darkness -- like an episode of The View, only not as subtle.  

In other words, the religious impulse is denied, transformed, and displaced, which is why one has only to look into the eyes of the deranged leftist to see that their souls are genuinely on fire for their strange gods. They're not faking it.

And what is the impeachment trial but a faux exorcism? If President Trump were dead and buried, they would no doubt want to dig up the body, drive a stake through its heart, and burn it, as they did to heretics in days of old.

Say what you want about revolution, it is exciting, in particular, for a person lacking the intrinsic excitement of being alive and free in the greatest nation that has ever existed.  I've never been sufficiently bored to entertain fantasies of power and control over others to cure my boredom. I don't really care what a leftist does with his life, nor do I wish I had the power to censor or suppress him. Why does he wish to control and censor others?

Thus, we have a vertically asymmetrical situation: if boredom approaches, I grab a book, watch a game, or simply contemplate the magnificent, luminous abyss between ourselves and our creator. But when the leftist is bored, watch out: grab your wallet, your wealth, and your weapon (for defensive reasons, of course)! Many aphorisms apply:

--When one does not concede to the leftist all that he demands, he proclaims himself the victim of an institutional violence that is licit to repel with physical violence. (BLM and Antifa, the fascist militias of the left.)

--Activism is the asylum for one who has nowhere to dwell and nowhere to go. (A folk remedy for boredom.)

--Social problems are the delightful refuge of those fleeing from their own problems. (A large proportion of the left consists of misfits, rejects, losers, malcontents, and paranoiacs of various kinds.) 

--The left is made up of individuals who are dissatisfied with what they have and are satisfied with who they are. (Envy and class warfare.)

--The left calls a critique of capitalism what is merely a lawsuit for possession. (The current name is "equity.")

--Revolutions do not solve any problem other than the economic problem of their leaders. (Sharpton, Jackson, Kamala, and Sandy Cortez will somehow survive the plague of White Supremacy and Privilege.)

--The only man who should speak of wealth or power is one who did not extend his hand when they were within his reach. (We're looking at you, Bernie, Barry, & Bidens.) 

--Minorities that become majorities continue to believe they are brave. (Feminists and left wing homosexuals are the bravest of all.)

Back to boredom. Everything discussed above was in response to the following passage in Transcendence and History, so blame Hughes: "the modern eclipse of transcendence" has

given rise both to disastrously influential visions of historical determinism and to experiences of history as a monotonous sequence of strictly mundane and equally valueless moments (emphasis mine).

Is that it?  No, here's a bit more along the same lines:

all points of view that reduce historical meaning to purely worldly conditions are not only frustrating but finally terrifying, because by removing timeless meaning from those conditions they "empty them of all exemplary meaning," and what results is a "terrible banalization of history..."

The left is nothing if not banal. Which is precisely the problem, for they think activism will remedy the banality. Which it does for a while, until they run out of other people's money. Then what?

The Most Dangerous Animal: A Bored Leftist

It is not enough for the democrat that we respect what he wants to do with his life; he also demands that we respect what he wants to do with our life. --Dávila

We may need to rethink the truism that a leftist is always some combination of ignorance (whether innocent or culpable), stupidity (whether innate or acquired), indoctrination (including conformity and social acceptance), sociopathy, mental illness (including dysregulated envy), and demon possession. 

Sociopathy is of course a mental illness, but it deserves its own category due to the extent of externalization involved. Sociopaths are "victims" of a mental illness characterized by the compulsive victimization of others. 

One of the appeals of leftism is that it allows sociopathy and selfishness to masquerade as charity and generosity. Those with misgivings about this kind of charitable thieving are called "fascists."

Sociopathy is what distinguishes, say, Antifa and BLM from the typical feminist hysteric or depressive. Feminism is the cause and consequence of personal unhappiness, but its victims don't typically engage in arson, looting, and murder. Soul murder, yes, but not usually the lesser kind. 

But another major component of leftism must be boredom, and for reasons that necessarily follow upon its shrunken metaphysical assumptions. For if life isn't a wild spiritual adventure drawn into permanent engagement with the Transcendent Real, what is it?

There's nothing new under the sun, for every possible alternative to this normative human state has been known and discussed since the time of ancient Greece, from hedonism to skepticism to stoicism, not to mention monism, dualism, determinism, et al. These sophistries are permanent possibilities of the human state, which is why they persist in some form or fashion to this day. For it is written:

It is not so much that men change their ideas, as that the ideas change their disguises. In the discourse of the centuries, the same voices are in dialogue.

Thus,

For man to fall repeatedly into the same trap, just paint it a different color each time (Dávila).

Just paint envy with the bright new color of "social justice," and you can trap millions.  

As the saying goes, freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. Let's hope generation Z will not prove to be generation Zzzzzzz, and will awaken to this danger before generations X and Y finish the job. (Biden, of course, transcends generations, as his dementia means he was born yesterday, every day.)

A certain type of political activity is a treatment -- not a cure, obviously -- for existential boredom, for it inserts one in the center of an externalized, cosmic Manichean struggle against the forces of evil and darkness -- like an episode of The View, only not as subtle.  

In other words, the religious impulse is denied, transformed, and displaced, which is why one has only to look into the eyes of the deranged leftist to see that their souls are genuinely on fire for their strange gods. They're not faking it.

And what is the impeachment trial but a faux exorcism? If President Trump were dead and buried, they would no doubt want to dig up the body, drive a stake through its heart, and burn it, as they did to heretics in days of old.

Say what you want about revolution, it is exciting, in particular, for a person lacking the intrinsic excitement of being alive and free in the greatest nation that has ever existed.  I've never been sufficiently bored to entertain fantasies of power and control over others to cure my boredom. I don't really care what a leftist does with his life, nor do I wish I had the power to censor or suppress him. Why does he wish to control and censor others?

Thus, we have a vertically asymmetrical situation: if boredom approaches, I grab a book, watch a game, or simply contemplate the magnificent, luminous abyss between ourselves and our creator. But when the leftist is bored, watch out: grab your wallet, your wealth, and your weapon (for defensive reasons, of course)! Many aphorisms apply:

--When one does not concede to the leftist all that he demands, he proclaims himself the victim of an institutional violence that is licit to repel with physical violence. (BLM and Antifa, the fascist militias of the left.)

--Activism is the asylum for one who has nowhere to dwell and nowhere to go. (A folk remedy for boredom.)

--Social problems are the delightful refuge of those fleeing from their own problems. (A large proportion of the left consists of misfits, rejects, losers, malcontents, and paranoiacs of various kinds.) 

--The left is made up of individuals who are dissatisfied with what they have and are satisfied with who they are. (Envy and class warfare.)

--The left calls a critique of capitalism what is merely a lawsuit for possession. (The current name is "equity.")

--Revolutions do not solve any problem other than the economic problem of their leaders. (Sharpton, Jackson, Kamala, and Sandy Cortez will somehow survive the plague of White Supremacy and Privilege.)

--The only man who should speak of wealth or power is one who did not extend his hand when they were within his reach. (We're looking at you, Bernie, Barry, & Bidens.) 

--Minorities that become majorities continue to believe they are brave. (Feminists and left wing homosexuals are the bravest of all.)

Back to boredom. Everything discussed above was in response to the following passage in Transcendence and History, so blame Hughes: "the modern eclipse of transcendence" has

given rise both to disastrously influential visions of historical determinism and to experiences of history as a monotonous sequence of strictly mundane and equally valueless moments (emphasis mine).

Is that it?  No, here's a bit more along the same lines:

all points of view that reduce historical meaning to purely worldly conditions are not only frustrating but finally terrifying, because by removing timeless meaning from those conditions they "empty them of all exemplary meaning," and what results is a "terrible banalization of history..."

The left is nothing if not banal. Which is precisely the problem, for they think activism will remedy the banality. Which it does for a while, until they run out of other people's money. Then what?

I AM ? !

"Memes," as we know, are “units of culture," that is, "ideas, beliefs, practices, and anything else that can be passed on via social learning.” In his weekly newsletter, Rob Henderson further notes that memes which "confer social status on the host have a high likelihood of propagating themselves."

Which means that the mind of the meme-host is not properly conformed to intelligible being, rather, to social acceptance and popularity, AKA pride. This being the case, it is a form of vertical pathology, even if it afflicts the majority of human beings. 

Well, not exactly, for it depends upon the nature of the society conferring the status. For example, if one wished to maintain social status in Nazi Germany, one would express antipathy toward Jews. On the other hand, if one wishes to maintain social status in leftist academia, one will express antipathy toward Jews. 

Come to think of it, anti-Semitism is one of the world's oldest pathological memes, isn't it? If memes are analogous to genes, then it has also been passed on to anti-Christian bigots right down to the present. Remarkably, Jesus predicted as much, and on numerous occasions, e.g., "you will be persecuted for my sake," or "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you."

How did he know that? That's above our paygrade, but it's fair to say that truth is always in a battle with social status. The latter explains how and why so many blatant falsehoods remain popular, from global warming to feminism to BLM. The average believer in catastrophic global warming knows literally nothing about the subject except that mouthing its pieties confers social standing, or at least doesn't trigger the hysteria and hatred that punish a lack of conformity.

Henderson alludes briefly to the timeless and universal appeal of Marxism, albeit in passing: "Marxism seems to click well with certain aspects of our nature." 

We've discussed this at length in the past; suffice it to say that nearly everything about the "progressive" left is deeply regressive and atavistic, appropriate for life in the paleolithic world in which we evolved genetically, but not the present world. 

Let's refocus on the subject at hand, Transcendence and History. We're just going to flip through the text and free associate on any meme that strikes our fancy. 

Ah, here's one: "a human being is first and foremost a questioner," and has even the "capacity to out-question the finite and the knowable and thereby to encounter transcendent meaning."

I don't know about "first" or "foremost"; perhaps he doesn't mean it literally. Rather, man the (?) is a consequence or side effect of a deeper principle. 

I would say that man is first and foremost created in the image and likeness of the Creator. Or, you could say that he is characterized by consciousness of the Absolute, or of O. As such, his mind surpasses any- and every-thing in this world. This sur-passing is another name for transcendence.

Think about it: there is nothing man cannot question. Except, of course, the election. And global warming. And "diversity." And the Religion of Peace. And the redefinition of marriage. And the abolition of biological sex. These questions have all been settled via the mechanism of social acceptance.

Nevertheless, not every mind is predominantly conformed to social popularity. There will always be some questioners (?) who remain in conformity to O rather than mass ideology. How to tell the difference? Well, for the ideologue, ideology is the end, whereas for (?) there is no end. 

Or rather, there is literally an "endless end," similar in a way to the inexhustibility of true creativity (and for the same reason). We will never actually run out of truth or beauty, so long as we remain attuned to their source.  Here again, the "artist" who is attuned to something less is tedious and soul-deadening. "Popular culture" overflows with these leaky sewer pipes.

(?) is characterized by unrestricted questioning. Conversely, as we've all seen over the past several months, the technofascist left is characterized by severely restricted questioning or unrestricted censorship of questioners. This is not healthy, to put it mildly.  Rather, it is as sick as the intellect can be, for it negates the purpose of the intellect and enables everything else.

Yes: "fidelity to the spirit of inquiry is the elementary normative standard for gauging human genuineness or authenticity" (ibid.).  It is normal for a human being to ask questions, even if our masters were to successfully ban all the wrong questions.  

I'm going to stop now, except to say that I've made a big decision. Yes, after giving it much thought and consideration, I've chosen my pronoun. Until just a moment ago it was going to be I AM. But now I hereby declare:

I AM ? !

I AM ? !

"Memes," as we know, are “units of culture," that is, "ideas, beliefs, practices, and anything else that can be passed on via social learning.” In his weekly newsletter, Rob Henderson further notes that memes which "confer social status on the host have a high likelihood of propagating themselves."

Which means that the mind of the meme-host is not properly conformed to intelligible being, rather, to social acceptance and popularity, AKA pride. This being the case, it is a form of vertical pathology, even if it afflicts the majority of human beings. 

Well, not exactly, for it depends upon the nature of the society conferring the status. For example, if one wished to maintain social status in Nazi Germany, one would express antipathy toward Jews. On the other hand, if one wishes to maintain social status in leftist academia, one will express antipathy toward Jews. 

Come to think of it, anti-Semitism is one of the world's oldest pathological memes, isn't it? If memes are analogous to genes, then it has also been passed on to anti-Christian bigots right down to the present. Remarkably, Jesus predicted as much, and on numerous occasions, e.g., "you will be persecuted for my sake," or "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you."

How did he know that? That's above our paygrade, but it's fair to say that truth is always in a battle with social status. The latter explains how and why so many blatant falsehoods remain popular, from global warming to feminism to BLM. The average believer in catastrophic global warming knows literally nothing about the subject except that mouthing its pieties confers social standing, or at least doesn't trigger the hysteria and hatred that punish a lack of conformity.

Henderson alludes briefly to the timeless and universal appeal of Marxism, albeit in passing: "Marxism seems to click well with certain aspects of our nature." 

We've discussed this at length in the past; suffice it to say that nearly everything about the "progressive" left is deeply regressive and atavistic, appropriate for life in the paleolithic world in which we evolved genetically, but not the present world. 

Let's refocus on the subject at hand, Transcendence and History. We're just going to flip through the text and free associate on any meme that strikes our fancy. 

Ah, here's one: "a human being is first and foremost a questioner," and has even the "capacity to out-question the finite and the knowable and thereby to encounter transcendent meaning."

I don't know about "first" or "foremost"; perhaps he doesn't mean it literally. Rather, man the (?) is a consequence or side effect of a deeper principle. 

I would say that man is first and foremost created in the image and likeness of the Creator. Or, you could say that he is characterized by consciousness of the Absolute, or of O. As such, his mind surpasses any- and every-thing in this world. This sur-passing is another name for transcendence.

Think about it: there is nothing man cannot question. Except, of course, the election. And global warming. And "diversity." And the Religion of Peace. And the redefinition of marriage. And the abolition of biological sex. These questions have all been settled via the mechanism of social acceptance.

Nevertheless, not every mind is predominantly conformed to social popularity. There will always be some questioners (?) who remain in conformity to O rather than mass ideology. How to tell the difference? Well, for the ideologue, ideology is the end, whereas for (?) there is no end. 

Or rather, there is literally an "endless end," similar in a way to the inexhustibility of true creativity (and for the same reason). We will never actually run out of truth or beauty, so long as we remain attuned to their source.  Here again, the "artist" who is attuned to something less is tedious and soul-deadening. "Popular culture" overflows with these leaky sewer pipes.

(?) is characterized by unrestricted questioning. Conversely, as we've all seen over the past several months, the technofascist left is characterized by severely restricted questioning or unrestricted censorship of questioners. This is not healthy, to put it mildly.  Rather, it is as sick as the intellect can be, for it negates the purpose of the intellect and enables everything else.

Yes: "fidelity to the spirit of inquiry is the elementary normative standard for gauging human genuineness or authenticity" (ibid.).  It is normal for a human being to ask questions, even if our masters were to successfully ban all the wrong questions.  

I'm going to stop now, except to say that I've made a big decision. Yes, after giving it much thought and consideration, I've chosen my pronoun. Until just a moment ago it was going to be I AM. But now I hereby declare:

I AM ? !

Unity, Or Else!

"The horizon of modernity," suggests Hughes, "was established through the absolutization of immanence," AKA "nontranscendent reality."  

We rate this suggestion Entirely Plausible, with the caveat that it is strictly impossible for man to deny transcendence, any more than he could deny, say, language, for to deny it is to affirm it, even if one attempts to deny it with an interpretive dance.

To be perfectly accurate, one can obviously pretend to deny transcendence, but this hardly eliminates it. Seriously. Eight year olds, dude.

The far more interesting and consequential question is, What happens to transcendence when someone denies it? Where does it go? How is it transformed, distorted, and symbolized?  

And, more to the point, what happens when a mass political movement is organized around the violent rejection of transcendence, as with Marxism or national socialism or Antifa or BLM?

To ask the question is to answer it. Unless one is on Twitter or Facebook, in which case to ask the question is to be censored by the very fascists one is describing.

Happy Acres Guy asks: Did you notice how quickly Lefty relativism turned into Lefty absolutism? (https://twitter.com/HappyHectares/status/1352975030531973120) 

Why, yes. We've noticed it for a long time, for it is one of the permanent possibilities of man: the ineradicable freedom to get it utterly and catastrophically wrong.

Longtime readers -- if they've been paying attention -- already know how and why leftism is a destructive political religion, so let's try to build on that foundation rather than just rebleating ourselves. 

Among other things, this religion believes men can be women, that it is possible to run a modern economy on renewable energy, that it is possible to control the world's temperature, that the most effective way to end racial discrimination is make racial colorblindness illegal, and that forcing businesses to overpay employees will increase wealth and employment.

And that was just day one. What other strange gods does the left have in store for us, good and hard?

Ironically, another hallmark of the postmodern left is "incredulity toward metanarratives," but this is just a consequence of the rejection of transcendence, since "meta" and "trans" are synonymous. But here again, the only way to eliminate metanarratives is to...

Come to think of it, I can think of several ways. For example, psychosis is characterized by a terrifying loss of any metanarrative, or alternatively, a rigid and unbending one, e.g., a fixed paranoid delusion. In each case, reality is denied, or rather, the organ through which reality is contacted and interpreted -- the intellect -- is dysfunctional.

But there are nonpsychotic ways to seal oneself in unreality, e.g., indoctrination, ideological deformity, and miseducation. There are also purely utilitarian reasons to render oneself stupid, for it is difficult to get a journalist or professor to see something when his paycheck, his prestige, and his social standing all depend upon not seeing it. 

The bottom line is that the Absolute is the bottom -- i.e., the ground -- of intelligible being. It is the first object of the intellect. Always was and always will be, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Like it or not, the soul of man is immaterial and immortal.

Only human participation in a dimension of meaning that is nonparticular, nonfinite -- a realm of transcendent meaning -- justifies any metanarratives about humanity (ibid.).

"Nonparticular" and "nonfinite." Or in other words, universal and infinite. The left likes to talk about "unity," but there is and can be only one unity and one ground of unity. 

Or is that too complicated? For in the absence of transcendence, you won't have unity, rather, its impossibility. And because it is impossible, it must be violently forced into being. Hence all the censorship, repression, and threats: unity, or else!

Here is another pet point of ours: that symbols of transcendence "tend, in the course of their use and diffusion, to become cut off from the experiences of transcendence that originally engendered them." These symbols can "lose the power to communicate, or to evoke, such experiences and insights." 

Seeing through our vernoccular, these symbols become saturated and thereby unfit for the influx of transcendent experience and meaning.

This is a genuine problem, partly because people don't recognize it as one. And it is a more general problem, because our minds are on the one hand narrowly adapted to survival, but ultimately conformed to a reality that vastly transcends mere biology or psychology. Language can become disengaged from transcendent reality, resulting in an enclosed world of concretion and literalism. 

You will have noticed that this error characterizes two kinds dysfunctional religiosity, one of which unironically calling itself "a-theism." 

Suffice it to say, one must be careful with language, because it can both engender the experience of transcendence and foreclose the experience. Just don't blame transcendent reality for rendering its experience impossible. That was you, not God.