Of Toilets and Tenure

As promised, this post will very likely end at the beginning, since we're short on that precious commodity known as time.  The subject is infinite, the window of uppertunity finite.  We can only lay a foundation. 

Or begin to, anyway.  Problem is, on this blog we never lay the foundation and then build the house, in that order. Rather, we do both at the same time, which is what gives it that edge-of-the-seat tension.  Will this make sense?  Keep reading to find out!

More generally, I'm not the kind of guy who starts with a plan and then executes it.  Come to think of it, I've never been that kind of guy with respect to anything in life, even Life Itself.  There is no plan. In case you haven't gnosissed.

For example, yesterday I went to the hardware store in search of a part for the toilet.  You'd think I'd know the name or number of the part, or would ask for help.  No.  Not that kind of guy.  

In my mind, a truly sincere and egoless quest will be fruitful, whether we are talking about philosophy or about a ballcock. Yes, it turns out the part had a name: ballcock.   Moreover, -- and this must be part of The Plan -- "The modern ballcock was invented by José Antonio de Alzate y Ramírez, a Mexican priest and scientist."       

Speaking of multispecialistas, in the previous post I made the pompous claim that Gagdad is a theologian, philosopher, and psychologist, in that order.  To be clear, the first two are avocations, while the last is only my vocation, i.e., how I hustle a buck.  Being that I'm not a professional, I have much more latitude in the avocations than I do the vocation.

Being an unprofessional philosopher is what helps me to ask so many critically important stupid questions.  Analogously, it is what makes unprofessional journalists so superior to the professionals. If the news is far too important a subject to be left to journalists, then God is... you know the rest. 

Besides, to amplify what Dávila says, while a diploma in philosophy is merely grotesque, a certified theologian is a liar and probably a thief.  Unless, of course, he is certified by God.  But a theologian who is certified only by man does not and cannot know what theology is.  He is a joke, or worse, a Deepak.

He doesn't know what theology is because one can only have logos of the theos on condition that the latter discloses the former to man, and in a manner which man can comprehend and assimilate.  How does infinitude communicate to finitude?   Well, for one thing, it takes one to know One; or better, it requires oneness to know and be one.  If thine eye be single...

Yes, we have two eyes, which redounds to stereoscopy.  In the absence of the latter we would be unaware of the dimension of depth.  To be sure, it would still be there. We just wouldn't register it.  True, our common sense (which I mean in the technical sense) would still disclose it to us, but it wouldn't have the same spontaneous presence we experience with our own two eyes.

In classical philosophy common sense refers to our immaterial ability to unify data from our diverse senses into a single perception.  It is what allows us to see the feathers and hear the chirping, and understand that a single bird is the source of each.  

The important point is that we do not "sense" the bird;  there is no knowledge at the level of the senses.  There is sight and there are sounds, but our minds bring them together. In short, perception is a level above sensation.  It is our first clue that this here is a vertical cosmos, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it short of denial, up to and including tenure.  

Here's how a professional theologian, philosopher, and psychologist describes it: 

In vision, only colors are sensed; in hearing, only sounds; in smells, only odors; in taste, only flavors; in touch, only body qualities. Common sense enables us to bring several or all of these proper sensibles together, and, by a single perceptual act, to recognize their simultaneous existence in one and the same object (Brennan).

Many of us can do this most of the time; most can do it some of the time;  some can't do it much of the time; and a few can scarcely do it at all.   I will avoid the temptation to make a cheap political insult. Yes, I am that magnanimous.

Here we touch on the large subject of "psychopathology," but this is an example of where psychology shades off into philosophy and theology, because this level of dysfunction is as much pneumapathology.  

"Psychology" would be a fine word, but it has of course been hijacked by tenured barbarians who deny the existence of the soul as such, and all this implies.  In other words, very much unlike your Gagdad, they pretend it is possible to speak coherently of  the mind while maintaining silence about, or even hostility to, its vertical source.

In short, they lack all common sense.  And that is all we have time for.  

Of Toilets and Tenure

As promised, this post will very likely end at the beginning, since we're short on that precious commodity known as time.  The subject is infinite, the window of uppertunity finite.  We can only lay a foundation. 

Or begin to, anyway.  Problem is, on this blog we never lay the foundation and then build the house, in that order. Rather, we do both at the same time, which is what gives it that edge-of-the-seat tension.  Will this make sense?  Keep reading to find out!

More generally, I'm not the kind of guy who starts with a plan and then executes it.  Come to think of it, I've never been that kind of guy with respect to anything in life, even Life Itself.  There is no plan. In case you haven't gnosissed.

For example, yesterday I went to the hardware store in search of a part for the toilet.  You'd think I'd know the name or number of the part, or would ask for help.  No.  Not that kind of guy.  

In my mind, a truly sincere and egoless quest will be fruitful, whether we are talking about philosophy or about a ballcock. Yes, it turns out the part had a name: ballcock.   Moreover, -- and this must be part of The Plan -- "The modern ballcock was invented by José Antonio de Alzate y Ramírez, a Mexican priest and scientist."       

Speaking of multispecialistas, in the previous post I made the pompous claim that Gagdad is a theologian, philosopher, and psychologist, in that order.  To be clear, the first two are avocations, while the last is only my vocation, i.e., how I hustle a buck.  Being that I'm not a professional, I have much more latitude in the avocations than I do the vocation.

Being an unprofessional philosopher is what helps me to ask so many critically important stupid questions.  Analogously, it is what makes unprofessional journalists so superior to the professionals. If the news is far too important a subject to be left to journalists, then God is... you know the rest. 

Besides, to amplify what Dávila says, while a diploma in philosophy is merely grotesque, a certified theologian is a liar and probably a thief.  Unless, of course, he is certified by God.  But a theologian who is certified only by man does not and cannot know what theology is.  He is a joke, or worse, a Deepak.

He doesn't know what theology is because one can only have logos of the theos on condition that the latter discloses the former to man, and in a manner which man can comprehend and assimilate.  How does infinitude communicate to finitude?   Well, for one thing, it takes one to know One; or better, it requires oneness to know and be one.  If thine eye be single...

Yes, we have two eyes, which redounds to stereoscopy.  In the absence of the latter we would be unaware of the dimension of depth.  To be sure, it would still be there. We just wouldn't register it.  True, our common sense (which I mean in the technical sense) would still disclose it to us, but it wouldn't have the same spontaneous presence we experience with our own two eyes.

In classical philosophy common sense refers to our immaterial ability to unify data from our diverse senses into a single perception.  It is what allows us to see the feathers and hear the chirping, and understand that a single bird is the source of each.  

The important point is that we do not "sense" the bird;  there is no knowledge at the level of the senses.  There is sight and there are sounds, but our minds bring them together. In short, perception is a level above sensation.  It is our first clue that this here is a vertical cosmos, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it short of denial, up to and including tenure.  

Here's how a professional theologian, philosopher, and psychologist describes it: 

In vision, only colors are sensed; in hearing, only sounds; in smells, only odors; in taste, only flavors; in touch, only body qualities. Common sense enables us to bring several or all of these proper sensibles together, and, by a single perceptual act, to recognize their simultaneous existence in one and the same object (Brennan).

Many of us can do this most of the time; most can do it some of the time;  some can't do it much of the time; and a few can scarcely do it at all.   I will avoid the temptation to make a cheap political insult. Yes, I am that magnanimous.

Here we touch on the large subject of "psychopathology," but this is an example of where psychology shades off into philosophy and theology, because this level of dysfunction is as much pneumapathology.  

"Psychology" would be a fine word, but it has of course been hijacked by tenured barbarians who deny the existence of the soul as such, and all this implies.  In other words, very much unlike your Gagdad, they pretend it is possible to speak coherently of  the mind while maintaining silence about, or even hostility to, its vertical source.

In short, they lack all common sense.  And that is all we have time for.  

Serenity NOW!, with a Side of Wisdom

This post is all over the place, partly because I started it yesterday and pretended to finish it today (one can never enter the same creative instant twice), but also because of our "new look," which will, for the foreseeable future, involve one continuous stream -- or spontaneous rant -- of consciousness: lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's, & a whole lotta loose ends scurrying around in old Gagdad's head.   

Nor will posts necessarily begin and end in the usual way; rather we might just start in the middle and end at the beginning.  We -- boo! -- will stop making sense in search of more of it, guided only by the Divine Attractor that blows where it will.

In short, we will attempt to keep ourself amused by surprising oursoph. These are trying times. Good! Ideal absurcumstances for the daily and even moment-to-moment practice of transcendence.  Over the past four years (okay, centuries), leftists have taught us how not to do it.  But we say:

Let us not give stupid opinions the pleasure of upsetting us (Dávila).

 Serenity NOW! With a side of wisdom, preferably the foolish kind the world has always detested.

I mentioned something in a comment the other day: that the less important the subject, the harder it is to fake, whereas the more difficult the subject, the easier to be an expert fraud at it.  

I can't have been the first to think of this; it sounds like one of those informal laws -- e.g., Murphy's Law or the Peter Principle. It also has some overlap with Dunning-Kruger, since it allows idiots to imagine they are deep thinkers;  think of a Thomas Friedman, or Paul Krugman, or Howard Zinn -- people who are wrong about everything but never stop falling up.

Which adverts to a related point: easier subjects are not only harder to fake, but there is a penalty for getting them wrong.  If a medical doctor makes the wrong diagnosis or an engineer designs a bridge too weak to bear the traffic, they're going to find out about the error sooner or later.

But if a political pundit gets things wrong, he just moves on to the next error.  He learns nothing, nor can he learn anything on pain of no longer being a know-it-all Pundit.  

The greater the importance of an intellectual activity, the more ridiculous the certification of competence in those who exercise it. A diploma of dentistry is respectable, but one of philosophy is grotesque (ibid.).

At the same time, the more fundamental the reality, the more surely it can be known.  Precisely because it is fundamental it is accessible to all.  Anyone with an average IQ can learn and comprehend math, physics, or chemistry, even if they'll never be trailblazers or innovators in the field, rather, just drones, like the cloud-hidden Silicon Valley ciphers who presume to control what we are permitted to think and say:

The technician believes he is a superior being because he knows what, by definition, anyone can learn.

I could code. I just don't want to.

I never thought I'd say this, but I spotted an error by the Master. For there is definitely something "more alarming than science in the ignorant."  It is Tech Giants run by the ignorant.  

Ironically, certain qualities are necessary to be unusually gifted at messing round with quantities.  But these qualities do not include wisdom, of course, or we would all recognize that scientists and accountants should be our leaders.    

Instead, we understand that while certain disciplines are fundamental, they are also of necessity quite narrow and shallow.  If we want to learn about human nature we consult Shakespeare, not Einstein.  When it comes to important subjects outside his own narrow specialty, Albert was no Einstein.  In many ways he was an imbecile (which I mean literally, not as an insult).

Example?  Well, for starters, he was a committed socialist.  Conversely, someone like Hayek shows that socialism isn't just a stupid idea, but impossible in principle (and if you do not understand why socialism is impossible, by all means keep thinking. You'll get there, I promise).  It might be possible to implement socialism.  Just not with our species.  

Does math or physics tell us anything of importance about the nature of our species? Of course not. Unless one proceeds one or two levels up, and asks the question: in what sort of cosmos is it possible for a being to comprehend its mathematical structure?  By virtue of what principle?   

In other words, if something actually happens, then it it must have been possible for it to happen.  But a mathematician lives in a world of necessity, so he will have to exit math in order to comprehend its principle.

According to Prof Wiki (who is often himself an idiot) Einstein said that 

In Lenin I honor a man, who in total sacrifice of his own person has committed his entire energy to realizing social justice. I do not find his methods advisable. One thing is certain, however: men like him are the guardians and renewers of mankind's conscience.

He says this despite the fact that there is no such thing as "social justice," nor would Lenin have hesitated to liquidate Einstein as a class enemy for positing the existence of a "conscience."  

Rather, Lenin knew that good and evil were defined by what is good for the Party.  Lenin's morality resembles that of our progressive Dems: declining to accept the results of an election is only bad if Republicans do it.

Einstein also "strongly advocated the idea of a democratic global government that would check the power of nation-states in the framework of a world federation." So he was a natural born Trump hater before Trump was born.

Einstein "served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York and was an honorary associate of the Rationalist Association." To which we will respond with a few pointy aphorisms that dispense with such metacosmic stupidity, now and forever: regarding "humanism,"

Man is the most contemptible refuge of men.

To believe in the redemption of man by man is more than an error; it is an idiocy.

“To have faith in man” does not reach the level of blasphemy; it is just one more bit of nonsense.

Humanity is the only totally false god.

And regarding "rationalism" (which is never actually rational), first of all, Gödel, QED. But one needn't be a certifiable logician to understand that  

“Irrationalist” is shouted at the reason that does not keep quiet about the vices of rationalism.

Perhaps we'll circle back around to that one later, because it is quite important in the overall scheme of things.  For if you don't understand and appreciate the limits of (lower case r) reason, you thereby plunge yourself into a realm of un- and anti-reason.

Let's leave Albert with a truism to ponder, that Nothing proves more the limits of science than the scientist’s opinions about any topic that is not strictly related to his profession.

We've mentioned before how entire academic disciplines had to be invented in order for certain genders and ethnic groups to be awarded pretend doctorates.  I read somewhere that the annual number of black PhDs in math and physics approaches... zero.   In order to make up for the absence, PhDs in the humanities (or worse) must be handed out like participation trophies.

Anyone with an IQ of 85 or above (maybe even lower) can be an expert in journalism, political science, or in one of the cornucrapia of grievance studies from Women's to Queer to African American. Just in my professional laughtime I've seen the field of psychology deteriorate from being  relatively respectable to absolutely farcical.  Consider the Mental Health Expert Bandy Lee, who tells us that President Trump is worse than Hitler.  

Here again, in order to believe this, one must be a complete idiot in at least three fields, psychology, history, and political science. But "idiot" doesn't really cover it.  Rather, one must be mentally ill in order to believe such a thing. Analogously, Keith Olbernann is a surely a journalist, but more importantly, he is psychotic.

It reminds me of that film about the schizophrenic mathematician.  The reason why his story made for an interesting film is precisely because he still had access to truth despite the mental illness, but only because math provides objective answers.  No one would care if he were a journalist or political scientist raving about the fascist orange man.  

Here is the irony:  the more important the subject, the easier it is to fake.  For example, anyone, even me, can be a theologian, philosopher, and psychologist. I am all three, in that order. But that is a critical point: In. That. Order.

It wasn't always this way, my trolls.  I used to think it was possible to be a psychologist, but without being a philosopher or theologian.  This is foolish, irrespective of how intelligent I imagined myself to be, for one can't help being a (usually bad) metaphysician.  I suppose I've been doing penance ever since I realized that the true order of things flows from metaphysics to metapsychology to psychology.   

A few jabs from the Aphorist and I'm out:

The specialist baffles and amuses us with the contrast between the intellectual maturity of his concepts and the spiritual immaturity of his ideas

The senile sclerosis of intelligence does not consist in the inability to change ideas, but in the inability to change the level for those that we have.

Anyone can learn what it is possible to know, but knowing it intelligently is within the reach of few.

Serenity NOW!, with a Side of Wisdom

This post is all over the place, partly because I started it yesterday and pretended to finish it today (one can never enter the same creative instant twice), but also because of our "new look," which will, for the foreseeable future, involve one continuous stream -- or spontaneous rant -- of consciousness: lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's, & a whole lotta loose ends scurrying around in old Gagdad's head.   

Nor will posts necessarily begin and end in the usual way; rather we might just start in the middle and end at the beginning.  We -- boo! -- will stop making sense in search of more of it, guided only by the Divine Attractor that blows where it will.

In short, we will attempt to keep ourself amused by surprising oursoph. These are trying times. Good! Ideal absurcumstances for the daily and even moment-to-moment practice of transcendence.  Over the past four years (okay, centuries), leftists have taught us how not to do it.  But we say:

Let us not give stupid opinions the pleasure of upsetting us (Dávila).

 Serenity NOW! With a side of wisdom, preferably the foolish kind the world has always detested.

I mentioned something in a comment the other day: that the less important the subject, the harder it is to fake, whereas the more difficult the subject, the easier to be an expert fraud at it.  

I can't have been the first to think of this; it sounds like one of those informal laws -- e.g., Murphy's Law or the Peter Principle. It also has some overlap with Dunning-Kruger, since it allows idiots to imagine they are deep thinkers;  think of a Thomas Friedman, or Paul Krugman, or Howard Zinn -- people who are wrong about everything but never stop falling up.

Which adverts to a related point: easier subjects are not only harder to fake, but there is a penalty for getting them wrong.  If a medical doctor makes the wrong diagnosis or an engineer designs a bridge too weak to bear the traffic, they're going to find out about the error sooner or later.

But if a political pundit gets things wrong, he just moves on to the next error.  He learns nothing, nor can he learn anything on pain of no longer being a know-it-all Pundit.  

The greater the importance of an intellectual activity, the more ridiculous the certification of competence in those who exercise it. A diploma of dentistry is respectable, but one of philosophy is grotesque (ibid.).

At the same time, the more fundamental the reality, the more surely it can be known.  Precisely because it is fundamental it is accessible to all.  Anyone with an average IQ can learn and comprehend math, physics, or chemistry, even if they'll never be trailblazers or innovators in the field, rather, just drones, like the cloud-hidden Silicon Valley ciphers who presume to control what we are permitted to think and say:

The technician believes he is a superior being because he knows what, by definition, anyone can learn.

I could code. I just don't want to.

I never thought I'd say this, but I spotted an error by the Master. For there is definitely something "more alarming than science in the ignorant."  It is Tech Giants run by the ignorant.  

Ironically, certain qualities are necessary to be unusually gifted at messing round with quantities.  But these qualities do not include wisdom, of course, or we would all recognize that scientists and accountants should be our leaders.    

Instead, we understand that while certain disciplines are fundamental, they are also of necessity quite narrow and shallow.  If we want to learn about human nature we consult Shakespeare, not Einstein.  When it comes to important subjects outside his own narrow specialty, Albert was no Einstein.  In many ways he was an imbecile (which I mean literally, not as an insult).

Example?  Well, for starters, he was a committed socialist.  Conversely, someone like Hayek shows that socialism isn't just a stupid idea, but impossible in principle (and if you do not understand why socialism is impossible, by all means keep thinking. You'll get there, I promise).  It might be possible to implement socialism.  Just not with our species.  

Does math or physics tell us anything of importance about the nature of our species? Of course not. Unless one proceeds one or two levels up, and asks the question: in what sort of cosmos is it possible for a being to comprehend its mathematical structure?  By virtue of what principle?   

In other words, if something actually happens, then it it must have been possible for it to happen.  But a mathematician lives in a world of necessity, so he will have to exit math in order to comprehend its principle.

According to Prof Wiki (who is often himself an idiot) Einstein said that 

In Lenin I honor a man, who in total sacrifice of his own person has committed his entire energy to realizing social justice. I do not find his methods advisable. One thing is certain, however: men like him are the guardians and renewers of mankind's conscience.

He says this despite the fact that there is no such thing as "social justice," nor would Lenin have hesitated to liquidate Einstein as a class enemy for positing the existence of a "conscience."  

Rather, Lenin knew that good and evil were defined by what is good for the Party.  Lenin's morality resembles that of our progressive Dems: declining to accept the results of an election is only bad if Republicans do it.

Einstein also "strongly advocated the idea of a democratic global government that would check the power of nation-states in the framework of a world federation." So he was a natural born Trump hater before Trump was born.

Einstein "served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York and was an honorary associate of the Rationalist Association." To which we will respond with a few pointy aphorisms that dispense with such metacosmic stupidity, now and forever: regarding "humanism,"

Man is the most contemptible refuge of men.

To believe in the redemption of man by man is more than an error; it is an idiocy.

“To have faith in man” does not reach the level of blasphemy; it is just one more bit of nonsense.

Humanity is the only totally false god.

And regarding "rationalism" (which is never actually rational), first of all, Gödel, QED. But one needn't be a certifiable logician to understand that  

“Irrationalist” is shouted at the reason that does not keep quiet about the vices of rationalism.

Perhaps we'll circle back around to that one later, because it is quite important in the overall scheme of things.  For if you don't understand and appreciate the limits of (lower case r) reason, you thereby plunge yourself into a realm of un- and anti-reason.

Let's leave Albert with a truism to ponder, that Nothing proves more the limits of science than the scientist’s opinions about any topic that is not strictly related to his profession.

We've mentioned before how entire academic disciplines had to be invented in order for certain genders and ethnic groups to be awarded pretend doctorates.  I read somewhere that the annual number of black PhDs in math and physics approaches... zero.   In order to make up for the absence, PhDs in the humanities (or worse) must be handed out like participation trophies.

Anyone with an IQ of 85 or above (maybe even lower) can be an expert in journalism, political science, or in one of the cornucrapia of grievance studies from Women's to Queer to African American. Just in my professional laughtime I've seen the field of psychology deteriorate from being  relatively respectable to absolutely farcical.  Consider the Mental Health Expert Bandy Lee, who tells us that President Trump is worse than Hitler.  

Here again, in order to believe this, one must be a complete idiot in at least three fields, psychology, history, and political science. But "idiot" doesn't really cover it.  Rather, one must be mentally ill in order to believe such a thing. Analogously, Keith Olbernann is a surely a journalist, but more importantly, he is psychotic.

It reminds me of that film about the schizophrenic mathematician.  The reason why his story made for an interesting film is precisely because he still had access to truth despite the mental illness, but only because math provides objective answers.  No one would care if he were a journalist or political scientist raving about the fascist orange man.  

Here is the irony:  the more important the subject, the easier it is to fake.  For example, anyone, even me, can be a theologian, philosopher, and psychologist. I am all three, in that order. But that is a critical point: In. That. Order.

It wasn't always this way, my trolls.  I used to think it was possible to be a psychologist, but without being a philosopher or theologian.  This is foolish, irrespective of how intelligent I imagined myself to be, for one can't help being a (usually bad) metaphysician.  I suppose I've been doing penance ever since I realized that the true order of things flows from metaphysics to metapsychology to psychology.   

A few jabs from the Aphorist and I'm out:

The specialist baffles and amuses us with the contrast between the intellectual maturity of his concepts and the spiritual immaturity of his ideas

The senile sclerosis of intelligence does not consist in the inability to change ideas, but in the inability to change the level for those that we have.

Anyone can learn what it is possible to know, but knowing it intelligently is within the reach of few.

Life in the Delta

 This morning perhaps we will try to dig a little deeper and pull out some aphorisms we haven't re-repeated on multiple occasions. 

Then again, why do we repeat them? You can't criticize someone for insisting that 2 + 2 = 4, so long as there are people -- especially people who want to run your life! -- who argue otherwise:  "Okay, we get it. Now say something more novel and interesting, like 2 + 2 = 5, or 17, or pi, or black lives matter, or Biden wins, ANYTHING BUT FOUR!!!"

Well, first of all,

He who does not doubt does not shout.

But if we repeat ourselves, it is for a number of sound reasons, such as

Truth is never a definitive conquest. It is always a position that has to be defended.

Man soon releases the truths that he catches, as if they were burning his hand.

Strictly speaking, it is in reiterating the old commonplaces that the work of civilization consists.

Moreover In certain eras, -- especially the present era -- the intelligence has to devote itself merely to restoring definitions.  Why "especially"? Well, was there ever a previous era that not only pretended 2 + 2 ≠ 4, but that believing in the correct answer makes one a fascist? Or fourscist?  

Even the sophists with whom Socrates socratized weren't fascists, just nihilists.  Even they weren't so bold as to say, as does the contemporary left, that THERE IS NO TRUTH, AND WE POSSESS IT!  Or they say, "hands off my body!"  But you never hear them say "hands out of my mind!"  

Why is that?  Well, for a materialist, only matter is real.  Which is of course a nonsense statement, being that any statement is immaterial.  Nevertheless, never, ever, expect a leftist to be intellectually consistent, or you are entering a world of pain.  Come to think of it,

Intelligent discussion should be reduced to clarifying divergences.

Calmly, openly, dispassionately, disinterestedly.  In other words, not in a newsroom or a university campus, of all places!

Back to those good ol' truths:  

Nothing is more outdated at any moment than yesterday’s novelty.

Common sense is the father’s house to which philosophy returns, every so often, feeble and emaciated.

Four or five invulnerable philosophical propositions allow us to make fun of the rest.

Are we opposing novelty to common sense?  NO!  Didn't mean to shout, but education of the soul consists precisely in a kind of battle, in which ground is occupied, settled, and consolidated, and from which one launches new vertical adventures and conquests.   The new world can't be discovered until the old world is reduced to civilization.  There's a reason why Indians didn't discover Europe.  

Here again, postmodernity is the doctrine that claims there is no solid ground under our feet, and that we have only to push off from there, toward endless progress-unto-utopia.  I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence to explain why this is so totally stupid -- or even the very substance of stupid.  Moreover, this form of invincible stupidity is an intellectual sin, perhaps the second worst.  It's not just an elementary error, it's a primordial catastrophe.

Here is the deal, and it is a big one:

Intelligence has the capacity to discover new truths by rediscovering old truths.

Do you see why? Of course you see why.  The wheel is a real invention.  It's permanent. You don't need to reinvent it, but nor do you just move on to the next discovery without taking cognizance of the old.  A wheel will take you lots of places.  It makes no difference that it was discovered 5,500 years ago.  

Another common error is the belief -- or imputation -- that we conservatives are somehow anti-novelty or anti-progress, when it is the precise opposite.  The point is... how to put it... What we call progress isn't just anything.  Rather, it presupposes a ground and destiny, or origin and end.  Progress takes place -- and can only take place -- in the space between these two.  But it is by no means an "empty" space, but rather, filled with archetypes, structures, cathedrals, mansions, legends... you name it.  

We'll be getting more deeply into Percy's Message in the Bottle as I get more deeply into his message, but he posits a useful schematic involving the symbols for Alpha, Omega, and Delta (α, Ω, and Δ), which I will immediately purloin in order to say that you and I are here, i.e., in the delta: α <-->>> Δ <<<-->  Ω. 

On and in which we will continue flowing in the next post...

Life in the Delta

 This morning perhaps we will try to dig a little deeper and pull out some aphorisms we haven't re-repeated on multiple occasions. 

Then again, why do we repeat them? You can't criticize someone for insisting that 2 + 2 = 4, so long as there are people -- especially people who want to run your life! -- who argue otherwise:  "Okay, we get it. Now say something more novel and interesting, like 2 + 2 = 5, or 17, or pi, or black lives matter, or Biden wins, ANYTHING BUT FOUR!!!"

Well, first of all,

He who does not doubt does not shout.

But if we repeat ourselves, it is for a number of sound reasons, such as

Truth is never a definitive conquest. It is always a position that has to be defended.

Man soon releases the truths that he catches, as if they were burning his hand.

Strictly speaking, it is in reiterating the old commonplaces that the work of civilization consists.

Moreover In certain eras, -- especially the present era -- the intelligence has to devote itself merely to restoring definitions.  Why "especially"? Well, was there ever a previous era that not only pretended 2 + 2 ≠ 4, but that believing in the correct answer makes one a fascist? Or fourscist?  

Even the sophists with whom Socrates socratized weren't fascists, just nihilists.  Even they weren't so bold as to say, as does the contemporary left, that THERE IS NO TRUTH, AND WE POSSESS IT!  Or they say, "hands off my body!"  But you never hear them say "hands out of my mind!"  

Why is that?  Well, for a materialist, only matter is real.  Which is of course a nonsense statement, being that any statement is immaterial.  Nevertheless, never, ever, expect a leftist to be intellectually consistent, or you are entering a world of pain.  Come to think of it,

Intelligent discussion should be reduced to clarifying divergences.

Calmly, openly, dispassionately, disinterestedly.  In other words, not in a newsroom or a university campus, of all places!

Back to those good ol' truths:  

Nothing is more outdated at any moment than yesterday’s novelty.

Common sense is the father’s house to which philosophy returns, every so often, feeble and emaciated.

Four or five invulnerable philosophical propositions allow us to make fun of the rest.

Are we opposing novelty to common sense?  NO!  Didn't mean to shout, but education of the soul consists precisely in a kind of battle, in which ground is occupied, settled, and consolidated, and from which one launches new vertical adventures and conquests.   The new world can't be discovered until the old world is reduced to civilization.  There's a reason why Indians didn't discover Europe.  

Here again, postmodernity is the doctrine that claims there is no solid ground under our feet, and that we have only to push off from there, toward endless progress-unto-utopia.  I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence to explain why this is so totally stupid -- or even the very substance of stupid.  Moreover, this form of invincible stupidity is an intellectual sin, perhaps the second worst.  It's not just an elementary error, it's a primordial catastrophe.

Here is the deal, and it is a big one:

Intelligence has the capacity to discover new truths by rediscovering old truths.

Do you see why? Of course you see why.  The wheel is a real invention.  It's permanent. You don't need to reinvent it, but nor do you just move on to the next discovery without taking cognizance of the old.  A wheel will take you lots of places.  It makes no difference that it was discovered 5,500 years ago.  

Another common error is the belief -- or imputation -- that we conservatives are somehow anti-novelty or anti-progress, when it is the precise opposite.  The point is... how to put it... What we call progress isn't just anything.  Rather, it presupposes a ground and destiny, or origin and end.  Progress takes place -- and can only take place -- in the space between these two.  But it is by no means an "empty" space, but rather, filled with archetypes, structures, cathedrals, mansions, legends... you name it.  

We'll be getting more deeply into Percy's Message in the Bottle as I get more deeply into his message, but he posits a useful schematic involving the symbols for Alpha, Omega, and Delta (α, Ω, and Δ), which I will immediately purloin in order to say that you and I are here, i.e., in the delta: α <-->>> Δ <<<-->  Ω. 

On and in which we will continue flowing in the next post...

There's an Aphorism for Everything, Including This

Well, we believed all along the president would have to exceed the margin of fraud. We just didn't realize there's no such thing.  Any lead, no matter how great, falls within the margin of Democrat fraud.  

Nevertheless,

Defeats are never definitive when they are accepted with good humor.

Moreover,

With good humor and pessimism it is possible to be neither wrong nor bored.

Humor and (terrestrial) pessimism, to which I would add dignity. For 

Today the conservative is merely a passenger who suffers shipwreck with dignity.

Let us extend our hand across the aisle, and in a magnanimous gesture of good will, assure our Democrat friend that

we do not share his ideas because we understand them and that he does not share ours because he does not understand them.

Technically his ideas aren't even real anyway, for

Evil only has the reality of the good that it annuls.

Moreover,

Evil promises what it cannot deliver. Good delivers what it does not know how to promise.

Which is why the leftist can never be truly happy, for

In the intelligent man, faith is the only remedy for anguish. The fool is cured by “reason,” “progress,” alcohol, and work.

As we all know by now,  the Raccoon is never at home in this world, since this world is merely the stage of a journey. In this coontext,

The Church’s function is not to adapt Christianity to the world, nor even to adapt the world to Christianity; her function is to maintain a counterworld in the world

Here's one that even -- okay, especially -- I must remember, being that I tend toward stoicism, disillusionment, cynicism, and frivolous wisenheimerism -- to 

live the militancy of Christianity with the good humor of the guerrilla fighter, not with the glumness of the entrenched garrison.

 We all have televisions. We see with our own eyes that

Our civilization is a baroque palace invaded by a disheveled mob.

Between us and this mob -- besides our weapons -- is none other than Cocaine Mitch, who must remember that

Politics is not the art of imposing the best solutions, but of blocking the worst.

This doesn't mean we can't be disgusted, for indeed

 

God is the transcendental condition of our disgust.

I want to say this is "literally" true, but that's redundant.  Dis-gust is simply the recognition that something is present that shouldn't be present (or absent that shouldn't be absent).   For example, that pineapple should not be on a pizza, but pepperoni should be.  Simple teleology, really.

Now, as we've discussed before, there are trials and there are chastisements, and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.  Which is this?  Are we being chastised?  Or is this an opportunity for... growth, or something? Well, 

God sometimes prunes our branches like an impatient gardener.

And in fact,

Souls that Christianity does not prune never mature.

C'mon, man! Who is as worthless as a man who hasn't suffered for the sake of truth and virtue?  Without the trial there would be no heroes, only metrosexual soy boys and other Biden voters.

Yes, the left is absurd. How does one respond to absurdity?  Surely not with reason. You'll both get dirty, except the pig will like it.  Instead, bear in mind that

The opposite of the absurd is not the reasonable, but the happy.

Remember too that

Nothing that satisfies our expectations fulfills our hopes.

To not recognize this is to set oneself up for a spectacularly undignified collapse -- as we saw every day with the spectacularly undignified left over the past four years.   If you feel as they do, you will behave as they do, and they behave as they do because of misplaced and displaced hope which they imagine will solve their personal problems.  Eight year olds, Dude.

I'm not saying to stop fighting.  Rather, to just do so in the spirit of Karma Yoga, which is to say, for its own sake -- for the sake of truth, love, beauty, and all the rest.  Not only is this enough, it is a freaking privilege.  For most of history and in most nations even today, doing so is asking for the hemlock.

Here are a couple of important meta-historical considerations: that 

Everything in history begins before where we think it begins and ends after where we think it ends.

And

Determining what is the cause and what is the effect tends to be an insoluble problem in history.

Don't be fooled by that dissolute and pathological liar, Time, first cousin of that bald old cheater, Death.   According to Petey, things are already conceived and quickening in the womb of being that won't become manifest for years and decades.  

One must live for the moment and for eternity. Not for the disloyalty of time.

Forest and trees. Temporal succession is a lot of trees.  The forest can never be seen from within time, only from outside and above.  (Let's not even talk about those fake forests that fall under the heading of "ideology.")

More generally, God is the supreme ironist.  He does not play dice with the cosmos; rather, with your expectations and presumptions. Irony, as in, for example, sin and redemption, or death and resurrection.  As Joyce put it, Phall if you but will, rise you must:

Such is the complexity of every historical event that we can always fear that from a good an evil might be born and always hope that from an evil a good might be born.

Yes, those four years were filled with joyful vengeance and precious liberal tears, but were just a passing day in the larger scheming of things. For 

History is a succession of nights and days. Of short days and long nights.

Today's bottom line -- well, frankly, there is no bottom line because each of the above could qualify as one -- but above all else, remember that

The truth does not share the defeat of its defenders.

Come to think of it, I believe this is one of the lessons of spiritual crucifixion and cross-bearing more generally.  No, not some masochistic notion of martyrdom, but rather, that 

Resignation must not be an exercise in stoicism but a surrender into divine hands.

We're not done.  More of the same tomorrow.  (Aphorisms courtesy of Sr. Nicolás Gómez Dávila.)