But. There's always a but:
In our own day, within the flattened-out worldview of secularized science and materialism, there is clearly no place for the conception of the human being as living on the frontier of matter and spirit: there is nothing there on the upper side of the border! It has all been leveled out and absorbed down into the material underside (Clarke).
Now, one thing I like about Thomistic psychology is that it simply describes what humans do, always do, and can't help doing, when we engage in intellection of any sort: to say intellection is to say transcendence, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it, no matter how tightly we cling to the myths and superstitions of material scientism. Transcendence is. If it weren't, then no one could have poor taste:
The rhetoric that is in the worst taste is that which renounces transcendence without renouncing its vocabulary.
With apologies to Horace, you can drive out transnature with a pitchfork, but she keeps on coming back. Imagine bothering to engage in thought only to promulgate a vulgar metaphysic that denies its real existence and even possibility:
The vulgar epistemology of the natural sciences is a burlesque idealism in which the brain plays the role of “I” (Dávila).
But these earthbound factsimians are not abnormal, for they represent the spiritually untutored and untransformed mob.
Rather, we are the weird ones. Which is one reason why the World -- the world of vulgar normotics -- hates us. Seems like a kind of envy, only displaced from the horizontal to the vertical, and which resents anyone who isn't as empty as your typical childless SJW Karenoidal wacktivist.
Not only is transcendence a fact, it is the first fact encountered by the awakened mind. Without it, we are indeed plunged into the senses and imprisoned in matter. But thanks to it, we are vaulted into this luminous new dimension abiding at a right angle to mere existence. Speaking for mysoph, I would much prefer to be a pauper here than the King of all Flatland.
Trolls, of course, like to argue. But we never argue, only offer. Take it or leave it:
He who does not doubt the value of his cause does not need his cause to win. The value of the cause is his triumph (Dávila).
With regard to our abnormality, it reminds me of a point Alex Epstein makes in his excellent Fossil Future: Why Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas -- Not Less.
I won't go into detail, but Epstein makes the obvious point that, thanks to fossil fuels, we live in by far the most abnormally pro-human time since human beings first appeared on the scene 50 or 60,000 years ago. It is because of fossil fuels that climate-related deaths have plummeted 98% over the past hundred years, that billions of people have been lifted from poverty over the past few decades, and that average lifespan has more than doubled.
In short, it is natural and normal to die before the age of 30 due to disease, famine, cold, drought, and other various natural disasters. Untransformed and unmastered nature is not your friend!
Excuse me while I think the following through out loud. Now, the lesson of the Genesis 3 is that supernatural grace has been withdrawn from man. Therefore, it seems to me that the fall must represent a kind of descent from supranature to mere nature. Not completely, of course, unless you're one of those Total Depravity advocates:
the new theology of Luther and Calvin taught that when the human race fell into original sin, human nature itself was not only weakened, as Catholic theologians had always held, but thoroughly and irremediably corrupted so that even justification by faith did not heal this corruption intrinsically but only "covered it over" with the merits of Christ (Clarke).
We won't argue the point, but such a perspective lands us in the same anti-transcendence ditch as materialism, and dismembers the cosmos at the source:
As a result, any singing of the natural dignity and glory of humanity was now deemed quite inappropriate. It was the misery of man, not his grandeur, that now deserved to be sung after the Fall (ibid).
As usual, it's not either/or but both/and: dignity and depravity, misery and grandeur. But in any event, no one here is bragging, if that's what you suspect:
Nobody will ever induce me to absolve human nature, because I know myself.
Indeed,
We can never count on a man who does not look upon himself with the gaze of an entomologist (Dávila).
Now, we've all heard about Gregor Samsa, who woke up one morning from anxious dreams only to discover that he had been changed into a monstrous bug. But have you heard the one about the monstrous ape who woke up to transhumanness?
The question is, how? That is, how does the ape wake up to manhood, and how does the human being awaken to something transcending man? How convenient! The next chapter is called The Immediate Creation of the Human Soul. I suppose we'll discuss it in the next post, but meanwhile, let's suggest that
Only the souls that are made fertile by a divine pollen bloom (Dávila).
57 comments:
Besides being a criminal, racist, and fascist enterprise, what's so bad about the left?
Nobody will ever induce me to absolve human nature, because I know myself.
I met a fellow recently who apparently likes to greet new people by saying unironically, "I'm in the presence of greatness!"
I know he meant well, but... well, I know myself.
Even if humility did not save us from hell, in any case it saves us from ridicule.
Nobody discredits the benefits of fossil fuels. They’re concerned about the negative effects of the world being addicted to such.
It really is just that simple. But lets complicate things for the sake of FUD.
Scientists have just one argument, human caused CO2.
Deniers have hundreds of arguments. That these hundreds of arguments conflict and contradict each other is of no concern to them. Their only concern is that there are hundreds of arguments, and that any “concerns” are all just a vast demonic left wing conspiracy to pull Christians away from God.
Critical Race Theory used to mean a class taught in law school. Now it means anything Marxist-bad.
Woke used to mean a white person awakened to the racism which others not colored like them have to deal with. Now it means anything Marxist-bad.
I’m starting to wonder what “Marxist-bad” means.
Within solely Marxist categories not even Marxism is explicable.
The absurd belief that AGW is an existential threat is literally an existential threat.
Indeed. If you're campaigning against "climate change," anthropogenic or otherwise, what you are advocating for is anthropogenic climate stasis. As if such a thing were possible; and if it were possible, as if it wouldn't be truly catastrophic.
For the AGW extremists, there's some weird parallel between fossil fuels and original sin -- as if breaking our "addiction" to them will return us to Eden.
It's the one addiction they find unacceptable.
California is the cutting edge of Fight Against Climate Change. It's why we have the highest energy costs in the nation and the most poor people.
Yep, and it's only going to get worse. In the name of fighting climate change and saving endangered species, we've given up our water reserves and told people to let their plants die in the middle of a drought. With wildfire season upon us, naturally.
I'm sure that will be great for the climate and endangered species, too.
In other news, bees are now fish.
Clown world.
We also have more illegals than any other state, and yet these illegals use much more petroleum here than they did in the places from which they came. Why, it's almost like political power is more important than climate change!
Just like how the most lavish and expensive properties are the ones right along the coast, which we are assured is going to be washed away by rising sea levels at any minute.
They worry about what the climate will be like in 100 years, but can't be troubled to build a new reservoir, much less a nuclear power plant to help us in the present.
I'll be worried about sea levels when Obama and Streisand flee the coasts.
Yep.
Many things seem defensible until we see their defenders.
I think my favorite defenders of the left -- excluding our own precious trolls -- are Keith Olbermann and the actor Ron Perlman.
Our moral and intellectual betters.
I haven't heard much about Perlman lately, has he been thinking out loud? Or is it just in a general sort of way?
Re. Luxury beliefs, there's a good post at Ace's today that touches on that.
"-- excluding our own precious trolls --"
Awww.... that's so sweet. It is so nice to be appreciated...
You are most welcome. The unbeliever restores our faith.
Liz Cheney, despite voting with Trump 93% of the time, will be primaried and probably lose badly, because of her preferred loyalty “to America” instead of to Trump.
Trump supporters don’t seem to care if there was an “Election Defense Fund” grift or not. He deserved their money just because.
Liberals describe a past that never existed and predict a future that is never realized.
The leftist emulates the devout who continue venerating the relic after the miracle has been proved to be a hoax.
Liberals describe a past that never existed and predict a future that is never realized.
Back when I grew up (and Bob), the (far more liberal, leftist) Democrats owned national politics so much that even the Republicans like Ike and Nixon were moderates. Many say that's the time when America was great.
I don't think conservatism is about liberty and patriotism anymore.
The perfect conformist in our time is the ideologue of the left.
The leftist screams that freedom perishes when his victims refuse to finance their own murder.
Does believing you got more votes than your opponent license you:
(1) to break the law to keep your opponent from taking office — or
(2) to pursue only legal avenues for recourse?
Unless you reply (2), the law of the jungle ensues.
And this must be the rule for everyone.
Laurence Tribe: https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1538512371353894914
What does the Russia Hoax have to do with anything?
anon @6/19/2022 08:21:00 AM,
You speak of the demise of Rule of Law.
When I was a kid back in the days when America was great, the overwhelming majority of ministers, priests and religious teachers had to pass at least six years of higher education. Not to mention conservative leaders.
Today, with higher education considered a satanic ruse by most modern conservatives, any telegenic yahoo who can observe the direction of the mob then jump in front and shout "Listen to me!" is going to be considered a prophet from God.
And whenever their prophecies fail, "the left" (or other handy scapegoat) will always be blamed. Always.
I can remember when conservatives spoke of Iron Law principles. God, liberty, country and family. Many of them even struck down upon me with great vengeance and furious anger whenever I suggested that major national problems were going unresolved by their leaders, because their principles solved everything.
Those people are gone. Shunned and forgotten. (But never canceled since it's only "the left" who does that, besides causing all the problems)
Modern conservatism is now all about worshipping Dear Leader, at least until he's no longer Dear Leader. And if you don't worship Dear Leader, you shall be Liz Cheney'd regardless of whatever you believe. Shunned and forgotten. (But never canceled since it's only "the left" who does that, besides causing all the problems)
Confused ideas and murky ponds seem deep.
I wasn't referring to the "Russian Hoax", however I think that is applicable. Durham was appointed to do an legal independent investigation into this. Although it looks like there were questionable and ethical issues, he did only come up with one prosecution which returned a not guilty verdict. The investigation isn't completed and if he finds any other actions which warrant prosecution and which result in a conviction, the legal process was followed in accordance to the laws of our land and the penalties should be as prescribed by our laws.
As was within his right, Donald Trump followed the law when bringing over 60 legal cases claiming election fraud. He lost all but one. He had plenty of time to file other legal cases. However, he never did and continued to baselessly claim fraud without ever providing any evidence of it. He then broke the law by trying to have Pence illegally throw out the election results. Again done without any evidence of election fraud. Whether the justice dept has the balls to follow through with a prosecution is another story.
Biden is a horrendous president, but he won. What kind of precedent would be set had Pence illegally overturned the election. How about if in the next election it is Biden against Trump (god forbid re either one IMO) and Trump wins, but Biden decides to have Harris overthrow the results because he wants to hold on to power? I suspect you would feel differently about that. I wouldn't. I would support Trump's legal right to the presidency if he had won and would be strongly against what Biden had done.
My advice to Dems: by all means continue your insurrection obsession -- it's what voters truly care about!
And my advice to the GOP: continue the hearings after taking power, so ignorant Dem voters can find out what actually happened.
Dems would NEVER urge an illegal movement of faithless electors to deny Trump the presidency in 2016.
I am not a Democrat. If Democrats did anything illegal in 2016, then they should be prosecuted. Same goes for Republicans. There are many Republicans who think Trump acted illegally and the evidence that has been presented so far seems to back that up (https://www.axios.com/2022/06/19/6-in-10-americans-now-say-want-trump-charged-jan-6-poll)
You don't see anything wrong with the Jan 6 riot or Trump trying to have Pence illegally overturn the election? You don't see anything wrong with Trump calling Georgia election officials and asking them to find votes? You are ok with someone who looses an election, working to overturn it when legal attempts contest it failed? Can you not separate actions from who is doing them? (in other words, it isn't the activity that is wrong it is who partakes in the activity)
There is plenty wrong with both Democrats and Republicans, but what Trump did is off the scale. We have had smooth transfers of power for over 200 years and for the most part, fair elections. Do you seriously think that if Trump runs and looses to whoever is opponent is he will concede and not try to overturn that election? Not having electoral integrity could be the end of Democracy.
If the J6 commission is any more successful in persecuting Trump, he's a shoe-in to retake the presidency in '24.
Agreed -- the more the Dems attack him, the more popular Trump becomes. Same with DeSantis.
I once frequented a Democrat blog, not far left but more centrist-liberal (among many other blogs I viewed ranging from anarchist-libertarian to outright Marxist).
There was this commentor who was relentless when it came to climate change. Only he and his select few experts knew the truth. Everybody else, ranging from Exxon's carbon-capture technologists, to actual climate scientists, to Northwest Passage Cruise advertisers, and anybody in between, were all telling lies.
One day he said he'd changed. He said he'd no longer be debating anybody who "wasn't informed about climate change". And of course he, a chemical technician, would be the sole determinant of another's expertise. For several months thereafter he'd post lengthy daily reports about climate change denial, each more contradictory than the next, with the only rare other bothering to comment on any of it being the occasional sarcastic telling him how sad it'd be if he wasn't getting paid.
I wonder what his motivation was. Maybe Nicolás can opine.
It is not the one who answers the questions, but the one who complicates them, who knows the subject.
In general, AGW has all the trappings of any other cult, only with much more lavish funding.
I kind of wish the J6 kooks would lay off Trump, in order to give DeSantis a chance. But maybe that's the point of their otherwise self-defeating exercise -- that they think Trump is more beatable than DeSantis.
If the J6 commission is any more successful in persecuting Trump, he's a shoe-in to retake the presidency in '24.
What’s interesting about this thread is that nobody has dissed Christianity or legacy conservatism, but Bob certainly seems to think so. No matter what a couple centrist anonymii may say.
More to your point, a core folk-tenet of Christianity has always been their historic persecution.
But in reality, aside from a handful of Roman emperors and some Moslems and Stalinists, it’s really been the Christians who’ve done the persecuting. Conquistadors, colonial Americans, slave owning Americans, Francoists, British and French imperialists, Putin, Pinochet, the Nazis (no matter what side of the political aisle you think they came from, they were mostly Christians back then)…
Is this more about Trump “the Christian” being persecuted, or is about him reversing White Replacement?
It may very well be a self defeating exercise and given that the the most potent adversary of Democrats is themselves as they never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot. However, IMO, you can't let something as serious as J6 be ignored or it won't be a deterrent to someone else down the line. Instead of listening to the spin of the commission or CNN, or Fox, listen to the testimony of the Republicans such as Bill Barr, that conservative judge who speaks painfully slowly, etc... These guys are on the team Republican and are testifying under oath. They have no incentive to lie and plenty if disincentive to lie under oath.
Regarding persecuting vs prosecuting, where there is fire... and there is plenty.
Let's agree to agree: the J6 committee must continue its vital work to SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!
I’ll drink to that. Is it beer o’clock yet?
I hoisted one to Adam Schiff, who I'm sure will get to the bottom of J6, just as he did with the Russia conspiracy and Ukraine call. He makes Joseph McCarthy look like an amateur.
Great!! I'm glad that both you and Daisy agree that the constitution of this country matter and that the laws of this country matter and that defined legal processes with evidence must be followed in order to challenge an election and that it cant be based on anything lesser than that. (and yes Adam Schiff is a dick, which of course you realize is not significant when it comes to something as monumental as overturning an election). I'm glad we are making some progress!
I'm also pleased that Pelosi rejected any actual Republicans on the committee, since the Constitution declares political enemies of the left to be unworthy of a defense, and with no need to subject witnesses to cross examination. The American legal tradition at its finest.
While I don't think this crew is much into thought experiments, I'll try anyways.
Lets say Trump wins in 2024 and fulfills Sloppy Steve's dream of a 100 year Republican rule. He also fulfills Mike the Pillow guy's dream of locking up any "rats" including Liz Cheney, Bill Barr, Ivanka, etc... and every Democrat that ever stood in his way, except of course for Hillary. He never, ever, seems to actually lock her up.
I'd think that most conservative evangelical church bells would ring. We'd finally have true liberty and freedom throughout the land, and our white macho Christian nationalism too. No more brownies moving in all the time!
But what if all we got was just another Putin instead? As some know, after acquiring true authoritarian power Putin has carefully guided Russia's once proud Soviet 2nd place/class economy to one even smaller than that of Canada. I don't think Trump would want to invade Canada because of a few Canadian Nazis, since they'd mostly be here. But he might find another "reason" to invade. He's pretty good at finding "reasons".
I'm rambling, I know. What I'm wondering about is what others might think of a Trump family dynasty. What would America be like?
Pass: no answer can be more intelligent than the question that gave rise to it.
Agreed Nicolás. I'd deflect as well. Easier to say that an oligarch-owned government would be as impossible as a leftist mob-owned government, just because both have happened before.
The mob always loses; the bosses of the mob always win.
The problem isn’t with the mob bosses. They’re just taking advantage of a good thing.
It’s the mob. I’ve tried getting the mob to take a more MLB fans approach, where they only pay bosses big after they’ve performed big. But sadly, whenever the mob isn't stupid, they're nuts.
For example, some mobs want to declare Triumph the Insult Comic dog an insurrectionist and their own insurrectionists harmless puppets. But the boss said they were insurrectionists and now they sit waiting for a presidential pardon.
I’m now trying to get mobs to always wear puppets on their arm. So the next time they’re being harmless puppets at some capitol building, the bosses will be less suspicious.
Post a Comment