The Age of Hunter's Laptop

We've been f... fooling around with Schuon's essay the Prerogatives of the Human State, but let's try to be a little more serious. 

Again, he starts with "Total intelligence, free will, and sentiment capable of disinterestedness," which correspond to Plato's Big Three transcendentals, the true, good, and beautiful. 

Of course, Plato tosses in a fourth, Unity, which almost goes without saying, since nothing could be said in its absence.

Ever thus to nihilists.

Correct. The implications of unity -- and its inverted shadow, nothingness, are as Light and dark, respectively.

As to the latter, one might well ask, how much more black could this be? None more black. 

Let me briefly hand the wheel of the bus over to Prof. Wiki while I take a couple of restorative gulps. He can be pretty unreliable on a good day, but surely he can't f... foul up something so basic:

The transcendentals are "properties of being," nowadays commonly considered to be truth, unity, being, and goodness. Viewed ontologically, the transcendentals are understood to be what is common to all beings. From a cognitive point of view, they are the "first" concepts, since they cannot be logically traced back to something preceding them.

From the time of the High Middle Ages, the transcendentals have been the subject of metaphysics. Although there was disagreement about their number, there was consensus that, in addition to the basic concept of being itself, unity, truth, and goodness were part of the transcendental family. Since then, essence, otherness, and, more recently, beauty, have been added. Today, they are found in theology, particularly in Catholic thought, as unity, truth, goodness and beauty.

So, Schuon is coming out of this great philosophical tradition of Being. All lesser philosophies -- which is to say all modern and postmodern pseudo-philosophies -- start and end in non-Being, which is why they generate such absurdity. 

I won't even bother to explain why, because if you read and understand this blog, you already know why. Existentialism, for example, begins with existence, as if it were self-explanatory and not a consequence of Being.  

Disgusting.

Indeed, Petey, a reminder that disgust might as well be another transcendental, for 

God is the transcendental condition of our disgust.

But dis-gust is a primordial, gustatory recognition of bullshit, founded in a deeper realization that 

God is the substance of what we love.

This being because the substance of God is love, or so we have heard from the thrice-wise. I'm not presumptuous enough to put myself in their company, but I do love truth, so it's a start. 

I also think that in our Dark Age -- the evil Age of Progressive Malice and Stupidity -- we have to fight back with the tools of intellect, never forgetting, of course, the tools of the second amendment without which the most self-evident truth and airtight logic are subject to the truncheon and worse, to the Manhattan jury of Nancy Pelosi's peers.

You will have noticed that this evil age not only rejects Being and its transcendentals, but covertly sneaks in pseudo-transcendentals of its own such as Race, Gender, and Sexual Perversion, AKA identity politics. 

Now, identity is a Judeo-Christian concept and applies to the individual, not some abstract class of sacred victims.

"Yes, but what about the Jews," you might ask. "Doesn't your whole fairy tale religion begin with your imaginary sky god singling out this group for some special status?"

Absolutely, but as usual you mis- and disunderstand, for they are chosen precisely for a universal mission, which is to bring the transcendentals into history -- for example, universal morality. 

It would be a rookie mistake to suggest that the Jews were selected because they somehow embodied these universals before being chosen to follow and embody them for the restavus. It's kind of the whole f... freaking point of the OT.

In the final analysis, God may work with nations and peoples, but 

For God there are only individuals.

God is, of course, the very principle of persons, since He is them.

Here is a rare occasion that I have to disagree with the Aphorist, or at least would have to if taken literally:

If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism. The rest is rhetoric.

For there is vulgar leftism, vulgar scientism, vulgar postmodernism, and just plain vulgarity. 

The list isn't endless, because it ends in the vulgar nihilism that is currently in the saddle. And how appropriate that the man in the saddle has no mind at all. Who said the left is devoid of poetic irony? Who could be more vulgar? None more vulgar.

Are you forgetting Hunter?

Don't be so literal. We include him in the unholy trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Bottomless Vulgarity.

God does not die, but unfortunatey for man, the lesser gods, like modesty, honor, dignity, and decency, have perished.

The Age of Hunter's Laptop, my Empurpled Friend.

Indeed, back in film school we called it the "objective correlative": A physical representation or manifestation of an abstract concept; especially, a symbolic artistic representation of a particular emotion, feeling etc.

At the same time, and correlative to the objective correlative, is the utter shamelessness that accompanies the vulgarity. Which can be summarized in Nancy Pelosi's awesome tweet the other day, in which, for once, she was brutally honest:

No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove their innocence. 

Before a Manhattan jury of her peers, of course, in order to determine if Trump floats. The mailed fist of the Dark Ages has nothing on the femaled fist of our darker age.

You know the old saying, No facts, just Bragg.