/lit/ - Literature

>Simondon holds a similar view on the relation between human being and the outer world as figure and ground— a functioning model of cosmotechnics, since the ground is limited by the figure, and the figure is empowered by the ground. Owing to their detachment, in religion the ground is no longer limited by the figure, and therefore the unlimited ground is conceived as a godlike power; whereas inversely, in technics, the figure overtakes the ground and leads to the subversion of their relation. Simondon therefore proposes a task for philosophical thinking: to produce a convergence that reaffirms the unity of figure and ground, something that could be understood as the search for a cosmotechnics.

>The cosmotechnics of ancient China and the philosophical thought developed throughout its history seem to me to reflect a constant effort to bring about precisely such a unification of ground and figure. In Chinese cosmology, one finds a sense other than vision, hearing, and touch. It is called Ganying, literally meaning 'feeling' and ‘response’, and is often (as in the work of sinologists such as Marcel Granet and Angus Graham) understood as‘correlative thinking’; I prefer to call it resonance, following Joseph Needham. It yields a ‘moral sentiment’ and further, a 'moral obligation’ (in social and political terms) which is not solely the product of subjective contemplation, but rather emerges from the resonance between the Heaven and the human, since the Heaven is the ground of the moral.

perhaps you are thinking here: isn’t this exactly what leads to postmodern hysteria? and the answer is, yes, of course, it can be, just as it lies within the possibility of any morality to be abused. and certainly we have a surfeit of moral sentiment today and not an absence. and yet it is also a surfeit of a particular form of morality, but i don't think we have to take nietzsche all the way here. not *every* form of morality is necessarily bad, i would argue. a moral equilibrium might be a good thing. even in minimal trust assumptions scenarios i might prefer you to be moral.

but the question, of course, is what such a ‘moral relation’ would look like. because obviously this is in a sense nothing new: the culture of Internet Shaming in which we live tells us that such a relation already exists. we might also distinguish between the morality set forward by confucian or taoist thinking and what presently dominates academic leftism, which isn’t that. of course, confucian thought can also be used in a domineering and imperialist fashion, it’s true - but that doesn’t mean a) that it is what it was meant to do or that b) this is required by us. the confucian ideal is a beautiful one, as are taoist teachings. as are *Christian* and Traditionalist teachings, buddhist teachings, and so on. i feel the need to say this.

are there any philosophers/thinkers who advocated for rehabilitating traditionalism from a socially progressive perspective?
not in a 'feminism makes women unhappy' nrx angle but 'without patriarchy arranged marriage is a good idea' kinda jive