/lit/ - Literature

The abject dishonourable tyranny of the modern industrialized world – of the modern West – has been manufactured by the Magian, and by the Magian ethos.

The Magian ethos is represented in the victory of consumerism over genuine, numinous, culture. It is represented in the triumph of abstract “cleverness” – particularly abstract “law” – over the noble instincts of the man, or woman, of honour. It is represented in the triumph of vulgar mass entertainment over spontaneous family and small community events. It is manifest by the triumph of urban haste and impoliteness over the possession of rural manners. It is manifest in the triumph of loans and usurious debt over thrift. It is represented in the triumph of indecency and profanity over modesty. But, perhaps most of all, it is represented in the destruction of the slow, rural, way of life – work involving manual labour and/or the labour of animals – and its replacement by the industry and machines of Homo Hubris, made possible by a rampant capitalism and the abject and large-scale exploitation of people and natural resources by modern States and their privileged oligarchies. (2)

For the industrialized nations of the West are the original abode of Homo Hubris: that new sub-species of the genus, Homo, which new sub-species has evolved out of the industrial revolution and the imposition of both capitalism and what is called democracy. This new rapacious denizen – this creation of the modern West – is distinguished by their profane “lack of numinous balance”, by a lack of knowing of and feeling for the numinous; by a personal arrogance, by a lack of manners, and by that lack of respect for anything other than strength/power and/or their own gratification. And it was to satiate and satisfy and to use and control Homo Hubris that the Magian and their acolytes manufactured the vacuous, profane, vulgar mass entertainment industry – and mass “culture” – of the modern West, just as it is the Magian-controlled Media, and the “spin”, the propaganda, of politicians who have been assessed and accepted by the Magian cabal, which keeps Homo Hubris almost totally unaware, and uncaring, of the reality of the modern world and of the sordid dishonourable deeds of the multitude of Magian minions.

The average Homo Hubris is obsessed with “power and speed” and with gratifying themselves: thus do they love their hubrismobiles; and thus do they love to indulge themselves with “Khamr” – with that which, with anything, which can intoxicate them and which may or which can free them from either the dull routine of their working, tax-paying, menial, wage-slave, debt-ridden, lives, or from their seemingly pointless life living “on welfare” or on State-benefits.

>>12740966

>>12644299
ok, i just wanted to share some other stuff tho. because a certain amount of philosophical dynamite is warranted in times of cynicism and boredom and malaise, the kinds of things that so quickly turn to rage and anger. the very based Herr Kafka says:
>A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.
it is mine as well.

the thing that attracts me to Hegel is that very sense in which there is a kind of deep relation between people under the hood. Lacan is good for this too, he basically sees ressentiment and cynicism the way a hawk looks at a lamb. Nietzsche does this too, but Lacan does Nietzsche in a kind of clinical way that is far better for sanity and civilization (tho arguably worse for Nietzsche, i suppose).

there really are no absolutely Lemming-free beings in the world either. as Zizek says, it's more like a choice between idiots and morons, the one repeating the same dumb thing over and over again and the other doing something so incredibly original (and stupid) that it cannot be explained, and Zizek argues for the latter. it's a kind of hilarious conundrum like that: originality, in a certain sense, just means an inexplicable break from stupidity that is nevertheless not any less stupid than what it breaks from, but it is *different.*

and then, when you come at things the other way, you wind up perhaps where i would like to be today: saying that we have to take the reign of difference and simulation for what it is, and perhaps going back to imitating or simulating in good faith in such a way that we don't put the other guy in a position where they have to explain their novelty in ways guaranteed to make them self-destruct. postmodernity in its worst aspects today kind of does this, in a sense, but ofc i am imagining something much better, the sense in which we say we may very well be all trapped in a kind of collective hallucination, and given that that is the case, we might encounter each other in good faith. the appeal of communism is that idea of a conjoined and collective mutual laboring for the greater good, which obviously can be lampooned by Nietzsche and others to the moon and back. but in the absence of this we get something like what we have today, the Laughter Unto Death.

becoming-computer in a way might be a way of learning how and why to debug each other as necessary, in other words. and also such that we could share information, or memories, in ways that enrich and enlighten us. i have likened my own experience of reading philosophy as being like being a Gameboy trying to run PS2 software. i think it holds up. there is no absolute difference between mind and machine, but perhaps there is something to be gained from psychoanalytic transference yet...

>>12452458
>Wintermutes and Neuromancers duking it out to see who gets to govern humanity as the rest of us watch as powerless spectators.
it honestly doesn't seem all that crazy to me. what i wind up thinking is how the view from the rest of the world must have looked to those nations and states who weren't bound to Washington or Moscow. we already have versions of AI running the show, in that sense: they're just ideologies, the scripting programs in our heads that make us do things, because we are being watched on camera, and we benefit from selecting for political affiliation. but it makes us say, and do, crazy things.

>Or maybe instead of having these abstract societal constructs which we call nations running the show, they will each invent an A.I to run things for them
nations i would be okay with, if they actually functioned the way that nations are supposed to. Singapore functioned as a nation. nations that actually understand what the concept of a nation is would be great. i'm not opposed to nations. but uniquely we have today at least two actors, more like states within a state than states themselves. the Democrats think everybody to the right of them is just another emissary of The Patriarchy, and Trump Era Republicans have learned how to trigger them: Fake News.

a nation would be fine. but political parties that insist that they, and only they, have the official OS for everybody else is the issue. totalitarian states work because There Can Only Be One: this much the Jacobins, Soviets, Nazis, CCP and modern Wokists have in common. but this is exactly what caused, incredibly, the Clinton campaign to explode in mid-air in 2016.

the thing about the wisdom traditions - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity - is that ultimately they aren't reducible to ideology, i don't think. that's what makes them useful. like Rorschach pictures, you will only see in them whatever you look with - and that is exactly the point. that is real universality. Jung said it too, about the mandala, that it was an essential symbol of the self, and the thing he had been looking for all his life. i think he was right. that is what sacred art shows you, the mirror of the self. it can't be deconstructed, because all you are doing is deconstructing *yourself.*