/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16550235]

How to reject modernism and return to tradition?

[Anonymous No.16550243]

Get off your phone

[Anonymous No.16550262]

You can't.

By "rejecting modernity", you open yourself as a new niche that can be marketed to: the "traditonalist", who will consume books and content on his favorite subject, buy supplies that fit his project and so on, all while offering no real threat to the modern paradigm.

Modernity can only be destroyed via self-implosion. It can't be "rejected" or otherwise affected from outside.

[Anonymous No.16550266]

>>16550235
Religious thinking. In addition to modern thinking.

[Anonymous No.16550276]

>>16550262
OP is a human being first and consumer second, not vice versa. That return to tradition can be reflected by market supplies in no way sabotages his idea.

[Anonymous No.16550280]

>>16550235

[Anonymous No.16550300]

>>16550276
>OP is a human being first and consumer second, not vice versa.

This is not true for any of us who are inserted in the modern paradigm. 90% of our actions will by necessity involve us partaking in consumption and thus in moving the wheel. About the only thing that could really be disruptive to that framework would be violence (which the system is perfectly capable of suppressing) and an ascetic life (which most of us aren't adapted to or couldn't even find literal land to practice it).

[Anonymous No.16550305]

>return to tradition

[Anonymous No.16550317]

>>16550300
>90% of our actions will by necessity involve us partaking in consumption
Sure! And that extra 10% puts it in second place. Since 100% of our actions are human experience. Making us human first and consumers second.

[Anonymous No.16550364]

>>16550235
To pick, choose or reject is at the very essence of modernity.

[Anonymous No.16550378]

Whcih tradition? There wasn't an endless pre-modernity and then a modernity. Change is a constant.

[Anonymous No.16550394]

>>16550364
This, too. The rejection of modernity is just another facet of the individual's emancipation which is at the heart of the modern project.

[Anonymous No.16550406]

>>16550364
>>16550394
>there's no escape
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.16550407]

>>16550235
If you want to reject modernity, you have to reject the possibility of a return to tradition first. The very idea that there is something old that progress has done away with is a modernist idea.

[Anonymous No.16550436]

>>16550262
>"you can't!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.16550454]

>>16550235
There are groups like the Amish that maintain a sort of archaic tradition, you could join(?) one of those groups. This is not really a return to tradition, because that is impossible, all the rest of the world is still moving on, but you can sort of create a bubble for yourself or join an already existing one.

[Anonymous No.16550469]

>>16550407
>you have to reject the possibility of a return to tradition first.
I second this, but for slightly different reasons. The idea of progress isn't new, though attitudes towards progress might be. But there is simply no return. Ever. Imagine someone trying to return to Chaplin-era films. You can do everything 100% authentically, but it will no longer be a silent film in and of itself. It will be a reference to silent films.
I don't want to start all the "you never step into the same river twice" bullshit, but it really seems to be the case that 'returns' just don't exist. Not in personal relationships, not in cultural paradigms, not in development of life in general, not ever. The best thing you can do is transcend modernity, take a step forward, where I think you'll find what you were looking for in stepping backwards. Phenomenology. Narratives. Human experience. God.

[Anonymous No.16550470]

>>16550300
>This is not true for any of us who are inserted in the modern paradigm. 90% of our actions will by necessity involve us partaking in consumption and thus in moving the wheel
holy fucking bugman

[Anonymous No.16550483]

>>16550235
meant to tag you, OP, in >>16550469

[Anonymous No.16550508]

>>16550394
>>16550364
>there were no hermits who chose to leave society before modernity
This thread is retarded

[Anonymous No.16550513]

>niggers still think Returning to Tradition is some public fad instead of a process of inner transformation that one must undertake alone

Holy fuck this board

[Anonymous No.16550593]

>>16550513
What? People are saying that doing this within the context of modernity is still partaking in modernity.

[Anonymous No.16550605]

>>16550235

You take it in the butt

[Anonymous No.16550613]

>>16550593
They're full of shit.

Did Christ not compel us to be among the world but not of it, wise as serpents but gentle as doves? The only true rebellion left in this world is the inner one of detachment and striving to see clearly, which ultimately grants more power than any riot or protest.

[Anonymous No.16550640]

>>16550407
>>16550469
A "return" to Tradition doesn't at all imply a temporal shift back. Loyalty to Tradition is something that occurs in the present and opposes both backwardness and "progress".
>>16550593
That's because they're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.16550669]

Start a survivalist homestead in remote Montana

[Anonymous No.16550674]

>>16550640
>doesn't at all imply a temporal shift back
That seems like a semantic point. I maintain that 'returns' are impossible, and since we've as a society mostly devalued tradition, the return to simply valuing it through loyalty is borderline impossible.

[Anonymous No.16550696]

>>16550613
Based and reality-pilled

[Anonymous No.16550699]

>>16550235
Stop being a spiritual atheist.
''B-but I am relijius!!!''
No, you are not. You act and think just like every materialist/atheist/redditor/sciencefag out there. Don't be a product of your time, be different, surpass our reality and focus on the transcendent

[Anonymous No.16550708]

>>16550674
You don't know what Tradition is, that's why you're so confused.

Tradition is beyond time. Adherence to Tradition is adherence to the principles that come from above - the spirit, the eternal, the supersensible - in contrast to that which is below - fleeting, material, involuted and subject to endless privation.

[Anonymous No.16550715]

>>16550235
Embrace Lindy.

[Anonymous No.16550735]

>>16550708
To re-cycle C.S.Lewis' quote: Some people who say that God is Tradition really mean that Tradition is their God.
Do as you like. The validity of my post remains in-tact.

[Anonymous No.16550762]

>>16550735
It doesn't, since you don't even know the terms you're arguing against. Why else would you have to resort to a quote from someone who wasn't even familiar with Traditionalism as we discuss it, and was certainly using that word under different context? Engage in the relevant texts yourself then try again in some other thread.

[Anonymous No.16550770]

>>16550235
>tradition
The first mistake was getting down from the trees, anon. Get back up there, and stay there

[Anonymous No.16550792]

>>16550762
He actually wasn't using this word, I [re-cycled] his quote about idolizing partiuclar things as "beyond time, eternal, spiritual" etc. It works because idols are ultimately the same: you believe they're eternal and redemptive and who knows what, but they aren't.But I'm glad you have found a way to make even non-existent quotes less threatening to your argument. Speaking of which, if all you have to share is "you don't even know!", I thank you for your contribution, I again offer you a chance to reflect on your cartoon exaggeration of terms and I wish you good luck in your future argumentation.

[Anonymous No.16550812]

>>16550470
he's right, you can larp as an ubermensch all you like but in posthistory, you are either reanimalized or become the japanese snob of form-for-its-own-sake, and when you use buzzwords like "bugman" I'd wager you're the former

[Anonymous No.16550814]

>>16550262
By this logic communism was ruined by the first Che shirt. No, lefties, just because your sacred icons have been "co-opted" by capitalism, doesn't give you an excuse to do nothing.

[Anonymous No.16550820]

>>16550812
He's a bugman because he thinks of everything in economic terms and lives to consume

[Anonymous No.16550822]

>>16550820
he doesn't do that, neoliberalism does. And guess what, you're living under it.

[Anonymous No.16550837]

>>16550822
You're one too, literally the only thing you can think about in the current world is its economics, 'neoliberalism'. have fun with that

[Anonymous No.16550845]

>>16550792
The term was established well before you were even born, anon, it's not an exaggeration. People like you are just confusing the idea of hollow rituals, aesthetics and conventions with Tradition, when that's the exact opposite of the reality and origin of the concept. But unless you've bothered to educate yourself on the topic, you're just going to be grinding fruitlessly against anyone who has a clue. You do you.

[Anonymous No.16550856]

>>16550235
Modernism is tradition at this point.

[Anonymous No.16550874]

>>16550837
The problem is that your "return to tradition" involves going back to the very environment that ushered in "modernity" as an eventuality. Unless of course you think it "all went wrong" somewhere along the line. So how far back do we have to go then? The aristocratic age? Prehistory? The fact that you can even conceive of "returning" is afforded to you by modernity, it is literally an incomprehensible concept outside of modernity. History is over, and you can pound the ground all you want, but nothing is going to change that and your instrumentalisation by global hegemonic powers (neoliberalism and capital).

[Anonymous No.16550880]

>>16550845
Nobody argued that the term is new. What's argued is that your worship of tradition as a timeless eternal spiritual entity is ridiculous at best and downright alienating to people like OP at worst. But yet again, all you offer is "you don't even know!", thank you for this insightful and (since your tradition is sophistry) traditional response. You do you.

[Anonymous No.16550899]

>>16550874
I don't want to return to tradition at all, I just don't see life in economic terms primarily. I read people who lived in societies with wildly different economics than our own and I relate to them, I see the fundamental human condition reflected back at me, regardless of what economic system they live in.

As to history being over, what an absurdly naive and short-sighted, even arrogant thing to proclaim. you don't have a fucking clue what is coming in the future.

[Anonymous No.16550950]

>>16550880
>What's argued is that your worship of tradition as a timeless eternal spiritual entity is ridiculous at best and downright alienating to people like OP at worst.
Nope. The OP is free to educate himself on what constitutes a "return to Tradition" by reading the relevant texts and building his journey from there. He'd have a much better time there than fumbling with people who have such a warped perspective on the concept to confuse it with mere cultural items, or remain self-satisfied in their intellectual laziness with "it's all sophistry".

[Anonymous No.16550962]

>>16550792
>>16550880
>It works because idols are ultimately the same: you believe they're eternal and redemptive and who knows what, but they aren't.
You're still thinking of Tradition as a "thing" to be possessed or used - it is not even remotely that, it is a way of life that is accessible at all eras and available to all people who truly seek it. Things, idols, ideas - all of these are material and fleeting as that other anon pointed out on my behalf. Tradition is pure spirit, it has nothing to do with things that change and are subject to the forces of nature and life. It's an inner orientation. The other anon told you that you have no idea what you're talking about because you've clearly not engaged with the (capital T) Traditionalist school, who advanced this position. In fact, the Traditionalists call for the rejection of every idol, every crutch and every value, precisely because Tradition is most easily accessed through detachment from the material and transient.

[Anonymous No.16550964]

>>16550874
>The fact that you can even conceive of "returning" is afforded to you by modernity, it is literally an incomprehensible concept outside of modernity.
I love seeing you fucking retards repeating this as though the desire to go back to a golden age isn't as old as recorded history

[Anonymous No.16550966]

>>16550899
You don't even understand what the conversation is about man. We're talking about the ACTUAL EXTANT POWERS that GOVERN things in MODERNITY. You are not a human being in the same way that someone in the homeric world or athenian world is a human being. Human beings are historical beings and what it means to be human evolved in time. "Fundamental conditions" is what animals have. If you want to be reanimalized then be my guest. I will remain a sage in posthistory.

>As to history being over, what an absurdly naive and short-sighted, even arrogant thing to proclaim.
god go read hegel you fucking retard, things are more complicated than you have the capacity to know

[Anonymous No.16550980]

>>16550966
>You are not a human being in the same way that someone in the homeric world or athenian world is a human being.
We'll just agree to disagree, I think human nature is consistent, malleable to a degree sure, but we are the same humans that lived in Homer's time.

I have absolutely no interest in reading Hegel's harebrained ramblings about the world spirit evolving into perfection, but you enjoy yourself.

[Anonymous No.16550984]

>>16550964
admiration for the great men of the past is old, how many times in homer do we read "[x feat] could not be achieved, weak as men are now". Pretending this is the same thing as a desire to GO BACK is retarded whig history.

[Anonymous No.16551000]

>>16550966
>I will remain a sage in posthistory.
Cope lol
>god go read hegel you fucking retard, things are more complicated than you have the capacity to know
Not that anon, but you yourself are quite silly if you think that history is "over". Remember what was happening all over America just a short while ago? Liberalism is a dead ideology, it is completely moribund. It may be fully capable of strangling every constructive effort to change it, but it will still collapse, because the liberal elite today is vapid, combative and divided, while the youth is more nihilistic and jaded than ever.

[Anonymous No.16551008]

>>16550984
It's the exact same thing, you're so fucking spooked about le modernity it's hilarious. You think humans were aliens a couple thousand years ago

[Anonymous No.16551010]

>>16550950
>You don't know
>you're so confused
>you don't even know
>wasn't even familiar
>try again
>you are just confusing
>unless you've bothered to educate yourself
>intellectual laziness
Is it possible to reach these levels of ego inflation by using niche definition of any word or does one have to worship {T}radition in particular? I bet if we try we can imagine Modernity as eternal, spiritual, super-ultra-metaphysical as well. Can we then, too, pretend that everyone who doesn't follow our exaggerated idols is simply ignorant, uninformed and confused?

You have nothing to offer, Anon. You've come here with your mind set to conceit, with pre-made strawman about 'hollow rituals' that were never even mentioned in the entire thread and with nothing that would contribute to OP's problem except this: that some traditionalists aren't worth asking about tradition.

God bless your soul

[Anonymous No.16551023]

>>16551000
very cute romantic ideas of collapse, but history is a bit more complicated than "things happening"

>>16551008
No I think humans are aliens now.

[Anonymous No.16551027]

>>16550962
see >>16550735. You are free to follow any exaggeration you find dear to your heart and so is OP, don't pull me into it.

[Anonymous No.16551053]

>>16551010
It's not my fault you can't accept the simple answers you were given, and just want to double down after being called out for not knowing shit about the topic at hand.

>niche definition of any word
case in point

[Anonymous No.16551060]

>>16550235
Just realise there is no modernism or tradition, just thousands of different modes of being, you choose on which appears the best.

[Anonymous No.16551063]

>>16551053
I generally don't accept strawman arguments, thank you very much.
PS: You can't reject Modernity, bruh, it's eternal and omnipresent, man, educate yourself!1!!

[Anonymous No.16551071]

question, what do you think tradition is?
protip: the nuclear family isn't tradition shit ain't even 100 years old lel

[Anonymous No.16551074]

>>16550966
Hegel didn't really say that history had ended, he said America was the country of the future although he also forbade philosophers from trying prophecy. That's a meme that was tacked on to him by French retards, parroted by the pomo pseuds who attended their lectures and didn't read a word of the primary text, and now by you who hasn't read him either.

[Anonymous No.16551081]

>>16551063
>stawman
lmao, keep going

[Anonymous No.16551084]

>>16550708
>Tradition is beyond time.
Claiming something is beyond reality and therefor true is the most bunk argument ever made. You arent being timeless, just embracing a fad.

[Anonymous No.16551087]

>>16551071
Haven't you heard? Tradition is an eternal spirit penetrating all humanity and human modes of being, after you die it will judge you and you may go into heaven, where everyone tells each other to get educated for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.16551089]

>>16550276
OP comes from tradition of consumerism, so he should choose something compatible, like Scientology or Californian Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.16551097]

>>16551023
I bet you're feeling real smug typing shit like this, but that's really all you've got. I myself feel rather smug trying to picture your face in 20-30 years when the international order has totally collapsed and America has become an unstable, schizophrenic one party state.
Anarkiddies won't be able to revolutionise anything, ever. The fact that they get to do whatever the fuck they want and even get support from the ivory tower of liberalism, however, is symptomatic of a very, very deadly sickness. Liberalism is dead. It won't be replaced by a coherent ideology, but history won't end with liberalism. It will just end.
>>16551027
Don't pull you into this? Aren't you the moron who made a unilateral declaration about the nature of Tradition and was then btfo'd like a bitch - in all likelihood because you've never actually tried to acquaint yourself with the work of any traditionalist thinker, ever?

[Anonymous No.16551096]

>>16551081
Weird cope.

[Anonymous No.16551098]

>>16551084
Since when does time = reality instead of being one particular dimension of it?

[Anonymous No.16551101]

>>16551074
Yes Kojeve expanded on Hegel's thought. Your refutation of "french retard" and "pomo pseud" is not at all convincing I must say.

[Anonymous No.16551107]

>>16551081
Seriously though, what do you hope to achieve by seperating everything in the world in two categories and then claiming that one of these categories is more real then the other category, but that it literally does not exist in reality.

I mean, what kind of logic is that,

[Anonymous No.16551109]

>>16550235
modernism is neo-traditionism, are you SURE thats what you want

to search for beginnings you turn into a crab

[Anonymous No.16551110]

>>16551097
>he thinks I'm talking about fukuyama when I say "end of history"
history is still over whether america collapses or not retard, that's not the definition of it.

[Anonymous No.16551113]

>>16551084
You're legit such a retard, I bet you would even tell this shit to Plato in regards to the One and the theory of forms if you could. Absolute fucking state of you.

[Anonymous No.16551117]

>>16551098
>Since when does time = reality instead of being one particular dimension of it?
So tradition in your mind is timeless material objects?

[Anonymous No.16551118]

>>16551084
based correct poster

[Anonymous No.16551125]

>>16551097
>Aren't you the moron who made a unilateral declaration about the nature of Tradition
That would be the other Anon who has now resorted to posting cat with "lmao" caption. I made a declaration about 'returns' as such, to which he replied with idolization of Tradition. I mean, we've all been there, we each have an interest in an area that's so profound that we really see it as integral to human functioning. But it's just not gonna cut it like that.

[Anonymous No.16551126]

>>16551113
>You're legit such a retard, I bet you would even tell this shit to Plato in regards to the One and the theory of forms if you could. Absolute fucking state of you.
What kind of argument is that?

I am not the one claiming that something outside of reality is somehow more real then reality and I am pretty sure Plato didnt claim that either, since thats a concept you find only in Abrahamic faiths.

[Anonymous No.16551133]

>>16551107
Tradition doesn't imply the negation of life. You use both. To use only one is like pretending your blind and living without ever using your sight again.
>>16551110
Educate me anon. I'll listen, I promise.

[Anonymous No.16551140]

>>16551101
Kojeve just injected his own highly idiosyncratic interpretation based primarily around "master-slave", and the definition of a pseud is someone who name drops without knowing the author themselves, which the pomo's did, hell even Derrida later admitted it.

[Anonymous No.16551146]

>>16551133
>Tradition doesn't imply the negation of life. You use both. To use only one is like pretending your blind and living without ever using your sight again.
What the hell are you even trying to say here, when did I claim tradition is the negation of life, or that I even belief in tradition.

[Anonymous No.16551148]

>>16551087
Anon is an idiot just ignore him
It could better be explained as a thread of influence through the cultures and civilizations

[Anonymous No.16551170]

>>16551107
Establishing polarities for the sake of clarity and ease-of-navigation is a technique as old as eternity, and a principle that reality itself operates from.

North and South. Hot and Cold. Male and Female. Polarities of direction, temperature, gender, an so on.

Tradition and Modernity is a polarity established to clear the air as to what paths are available for a man (of this current time) to live a more real and capable life in this period of spiritual desolation, and as to what things constitute his enslavement.

The reference points for Tradition are practices and concepts that have their validity in the results achieved through application, demonstrated in many different periods across the glob, hence why someone can rightly say Tradition is "beyond time". It's valid no matter when and where it is approached.

And before you freak the fuck out, yes, things do exist between the poles.

[Anonymous No.16551171]

>>16551133
>Educate me anon. I'll listen, I promise.
history ends with the sublimation of the master/slave dialectic

>>16551140
>highly idiosyncratic interpretation
he based it off of the existentialists reaction to hegel and marx's incomplete materialism, and some media ecology. The "bourgeois class" became slaves to capital.

[Anonymous No.16551183]

>>16551125
No, you're just pretending to be retarded now. You made a claim that a return to tradition is impossible, because modernity conditions everything in the modern age with its own character. This would be a reasonable observation to make, if you didn't try to unilaterally assert it as an absolute and unshakeable truth, without even engaging with any traditionalist thought. If you had bothered to do that, you would sooner or later discover the meaning of the words "immanence" and "transcendence" and how they relate to your argument and to Tradition.
>>16551126
>I am not the one claiming that something outside of reality is somehow more real then reality
That's not the Traditionalist claim.
>I am pretty sure Plato didnt claim that either
Familiarity with the One and the theory of forms would have disabused you of your misconceived notions desu.
>since thats a concept you find only in Abrahamic faiths.
Don't say shit like this, ever. You have no idea how overambitious this claim is.

[Anonymous No.16551193]

>>16551170
I have a question, why treat reality as a polarity when it clearly is not. I mean hot and cold and male and female are polarities, but obviously broad and vague concepts, which contain many such concepts are not just polarities.

I mean, what is more traditional: Sumer or Scythia?

What is more modern: Soviet Russia or Liberal America?

[Anonymous No.16551198]

>>16551183
>That's not the Traditionalist claim.
So, tradition can be found in this reality as what exactly?

[Anonymous No.16551199]

>>16551146
Tradition doesn't "separate things into two categories". That's my point.
>>16551171
>history ends when history ends
Brilliant observation, I guess.

[Anonymous No.16551202]

>>16550735
It doesnt, now go read a book then come back.

[Anonymous No.16551203]

>>16551183
>No, you're just pretending to be retarded now.
He's gonna go down with the ship, anon. He's not worth anymore effort and attention beyond memes.

[Anonymous No.16551213]

Be honest, how many of you read Art of Manliness?

[Anonymous No.16551214]

>>16551193
>I have a question, why treat reality as a polarity when it clearly is not. I mean hot and cold and male and female are polarities, but obviously broad and vague concepts, which contain many such concepts are not just polarities.
Like I said, there are points that exist between the two extremes. The extremes have to be established so we know what sort of forces we are dealing with and to what degree. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16551218]

>>16551199
>Tradition doesn't "separate things into two categories". That's my point.
So modernity is part of tradition?

[Anonymous No.16551220]

>>16551183
>You made a claim that a return to tradition is impossible...
Yes. Because mere 'returns' are not a thing.
>...because modernity conditions everything in the modern age
The point is still that 'return' is not possible, one has to transcend the way which he wants to reject, not regress from it.

Again, it's a declaration about returns as such, not about traditions, Tradition or whatever else makes Anons around here coom.

[Anonymous No.16551221]

read J. Bowden's work on modernism and its significance in the transvaluation of cultural mores please

[Anonymous No.16551226]

>>16551214
>Like I said, there are points that exist between the two extremes. The extremes have to be established so we know what sort of forces we are dealing with and to what degree. Simple as.
You arent answering my question, so i will repeat it:

I have a question, why treat reality as a polarity when it clearly is not. I mean hot and cold and male and female are polarities, but obviously broad and vague concepts, which contain many such concepts are not just polarities.

I mean, what is more traditional: Sumer or Scythia?

What is more modern: Soviet Russia or Liberal America?

[Anonymous No.16551228]

>>16551199
>Brilliant observation, I guess.
glad we can finally see eye to eye

[Anonymous No.16551262]

>>16551226
Your last two questions aren't worth answering and I just restated the very purpose of establishing polarities at all, which is essentially what you were asking me. Ultimate, reality-defining polarities as such have always existed: light and dark; knowledge and ignorance; spirit and matter.

Try to operate without a sense of polarity and you end up in a world of chaos and disorder where nothing is distinguished from the other in any meaningful way. Ironically that's one of the characteristics of modernity.

[Anonymous No.16551268]

>>16551198
>So, tradition can be found in this reality as what exactly?
It can be found as an inner orientation, but its formulation depends on your personal situation and qualities. For the typical "return to tradition" poster, this means the affirmation of higher values, some form of asceticism and most notably internal independence from the conditioned world. There are other possible formulations as well.

[Anonymous No.16551288]

>>16551198
Tradition comprises of both an esoteric and an exoteric component, the latter being what is observed in reality.

[Anonymous No.16551291]

Most retarded thread I've seen on /lit/ in a while.

Anons around here read two Traditionalist essays and then start shooting cum at each other because now they can pretend the religious level of abstraction is useful in any way.

It's like someone making a thread "can we pls end the caste system" and a chinless dweeb replying:
>huh educate yourself, the caste system is a manifestation of anthropologically valid categories you use daily... don't you differentiate clean and dirty? don't you differentiate wild and domesticated?
... as if that's really an answer to the question asked. Nobody has asked this. It doesn't help anyone. You're writing this to flatter your ego. Reflect. For tRaDiTiOn's sake.

[Anonymous No.16551292]

>>16551262
>Try to operate without a sense of polarity and you end up in a world of chaos and disorder where nothing is distinguished from the other in any meaningful way.
Thats an insane statement, I could see reality as a three dimensional spiderweb like structure, with nodes being connected to anything from one to a dozen other nodes.

You fixation on duality, is clearly the result of a low intelligence.

Dualities exist, but reality is not primarily dualities.

Again:

I mean, what is more traditional: Sumer or Scythia?

What is more modern: Soviet Russia or Liberal America?

[Anonymous No.16551298]

>>16551268
>It can be found as an inner orientation, but its formulation depends on your personal situation and qualities. For the typical "return to tradition" poster, this means the affirmation of higher values, some form of asceticism and most notably internal independence from the conditioned world. There are other possible formulations as well.

Now formulate it in such a way as to make it concrete, saying tradition is like some inner orientation doest make it real, you literally say tradition is like your opinion or fantasy.

[Anonymous No.16551304]

>>16551218
If you are a Traditional man, you will experience modernity in a Traditional way too. There is no necessary opposition between Tradition and modernity, just like there is no necessary opposition between Samsara and Nirvana. It's not about a binary choice between the two of them - it's the achievement of more than just one of them that is important.
>>16551220
>Yes. Because mere 'returns' are not a thing.
Oh yeah? Why not?
>The point is still that 'return' is not possible, one has to transcend the way which he wants to reject, not regress from it.
That's literally the point of the Traditionalist school, anon. Your message is better addressed at SSPX TradCaths than "Traditionalists" full stop.

[Anonymous No.16551309]

>>16551288
>Tradition comprises of both an esoteric and an exoteric component, the latter being what is observed in reality.
Now something more concrete.

[Anonymous No.16551315]

>>16551304
>If you are a Traditional man, you will experience modernity in a Traditional way too. There is no necessary opposition between Tradition and modernity, just like there is no necessary opposition between Samsara and Nirvana. It's not about a binary choice between the two of them - it's the achievement of more than just one of them that is important.
So now what is tradition exactly? Just a state of being, independent of reality, again, what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.16551336]

>>16551309
What do you mean by concrete? I am speaking of certain acts or modes of behavior that are exhibited in the world by various religious sects that are un-particular and universal.

[Anonymous No.16551343]

Leftists love saying going back is not possible but they're basing that entirely on their nigh contentless "theory" of advancing material conditions, so nothing substantial. Just look at their favorite illustration of it, what the hell does "moves in a spiral pattern" even mean here?

[Anonymous No.16551346]

>>16551292
>Thats an insane statement, I could see reality as a three dimensional spiderweb like structure, with nodes being connected to anything from one to a dozen other nodes.

And eventually you would begin to see the defining qualities of those nodes which allow them to interact in a meaningful way, and ultimately the inherent unity behind them. Multiplicity flows from duality, which flows from unity. They all imply each other. It's something worth reflecting on.

[Anonymous No.16551349]

>>16551336
>What do you mean by concrete? I am speaking of certain acts or modes of behavior that are exhibited in the world by various religious sects that are un-particular and universal.
How do these modes of behaviour express themselves in society, what forms do they take?

Because modes of behaviour = your opinion, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.16551356]

>>16551346
>And eventually you would begin to see the defining qualities of those nodes which allow them to interact in a meaningful way, and ultimately the inherent unity behind them. Multiplicity flows from duality, which flows from unity. They all imply each other. It's something worth reflecting on
I literally gave you an alternative too duality. You fail to see it and try to make it about dualities again.

Again, if I have millions of nodes, some are connected to other nodes, while others to multiple nodes, then there is no longer duality present, just connection, which implies order.

[Anonymous No.16551364]

>>16551343
So you think we can de-evolve ourselves and the earth back into the Permian period?

[Anonymous No.16551372]

>>16551356
Order implies a unifying structure, and you can only unify qualities that are disparate, which implies factors of twos, threes, fours and so on..

So you're not wrong in saying you could perceive by way of three-dimensional nodes, but really those are just degrees that exists between two definite qualities, which ultimately are one. Ask yourself where three could come from if not two?

[Anonymous No.16551377]

>>16551364
You can't run biological evolution backwards, but culture can certainly revert as it did in the Iranian revolution.

[Anonymous No.16551386]

>>16551372
You arent getting this arent you, if I have nodes and some are connected to other nodes and others too three or four or a hundred other notes, duality ends right there, something could lead to a dozen different outcomes.

[Anonymous No.16551395]

>>16551377
>You can't run biological evolution backwards, but culture can certainly revert as it did in the Iranian revolution.
No, the Iranian Revolution did not create Iran in the past. Just something new.

[Anonymous No.16551402]

>>16551349
Not really my opinion, its what can be observed objectively that is expressed through a variety of cultures and religions.Concepts such as prayer, initiation, hierarchy are more or less universal, you can scrutinize to a degree, but for the majority these themes are prevalent and well known practices under what would be considered traditionalist.

[Anonymous No.16551410]

>>16551386
Oh I get it, I'm just telling you that to get the most realistic picture of all your endless qualities, it will inevitably come back to two definite qualities which are just two extreme degrees of one experience. That's the entire basis on nonduality.

[Anonymous No.16551416]

>>16551402
>Not really my opinion, its what can be observed objectively that is expressed through a variety of cultures and religions.Concepts such as prayer, initiation, hierarchy are more or less universal, you can scrutinize to a degree, but for the majority these themes are prevalent and well known practices under what would be considered traditionalist.
Now, why wouldnt modernity allow for prayer, initiation or hierarchy?

[Anonymous No.16551428]

>>16551410
>Oh I get it, I'm just telling you that to get the most realistic picture of all your endless qualities, it will inevitably come back to two definite qualities which are just two extreme degrees of one experience. That's the entire basis on nonduality.
My God, you really cant get this can you.

Are you able to visualize images in your head, because that might explain the problem.

If one note leads to another node, thats a duality, if one node leads to a hundred different nodes and those hundred to a hundred new ones, duality ends.

[Anonymous No.16551447]

>>16551428
Everything you could possibly tell me I already addressed in my previous post. The funny part is that you're not even wrong. So I don't even know what you're trying to get out of this.

[Anonymous No.16551453]

>>16551447
>The funny part is that you're not even wrong.
lol not buying it, you had to end it when I asked you to visualize the problem, made you realise your inferiority.

[Anonymous No.16551466]

>>16550243
this
>>16550262
this
>>16550266
this, but you are incapable of believing in such a way that it alters your ontic sense. Read Eliade's sacred and profane to get better insight
>>16550378
this
>>16550407
>The very idea that there is something old that progress has done away with is a modernist idea
based
>>16550469
> take a step forward, where I think you'll find what you were looking for in stepping backwards. Phenomenology. Narratives. Human experience. God.
someone with a brain. nice.
>>16550770
this but unironically
>>16551377
>evolution = good progress
I had some hope that there was some intelligence in this thread and then a dumb motherfucker like you comes along and says some egregiously stupid shit. Evolution just adapts us. It doesn't have to be good or bad, it just is. Mother nature doesn't give value judgments. The only thing that seperates man from beast is his ability to think in terms of abstract symbols, and even that isn't limited to mankind. We're just the best at it so far.

OP, cut yourself off from electronics for a month. Go outside. No, really. Go the fuck outside. Go find a lake with a trail and walk on that trail. Learn how to fish. Fuck it, listen to an audio book while you fish. But get away from social media, 4chan, tv, etc. I walked away from everything for 4 months and it changed my life. "Trad" living is a meme. You have to figure out how to live before you live a certain way. Get rid of those mental theme parks and go enjoy life. You'll find what you're looking for right in front of you. You're just too distracted to see any of it right now.

[Anonymous No.16551483]

>>16551453
I'm not selling, so you don't need to buy. If anything what I describe is the upward process (clarifying and unifying) and yours the downward (endless fracturing into multiplicity).

Read Guenon's "Reign of Quantity", I think you'll get something out of it.

[Anonymous No.16551484]

>>16551416
It does allow for these things, the issue is that there world is antagonistic to such practices.

[Anonymous No.16551512]

>>16551298
Tradition is all-permeating, it's a form of metaphysics, so you're essentially asking me to formulate metaphysics in its entirety. That's not how this works. There are certain formulations and manifestation that can be observed, pursued and interacted with. To grasp the whole thing as if it were a glass of milk or a hammer is inconceivable. Tradition isn't an object like a thought or a fantasy, it is a way of being. It's a quality that is felt on the subjective level, but is nevertheless really there and is distinctly felt or perhaps more accurately, willed. Ask yourself this - why do some people risk their lives for the sake of preserving the dignity of a flag? Is it because of the flag itself? It's a rag, a piece of cloth. Surely this has something to do not with the item itself, but rather with what it symbolises and with what value people assign to that symbolism. That's an example Tradition in action.
>>16551315
You know it when you see it. If you want to "return" to it, you already have an inkling in what it consists.
>>16551386
No, he definitely gets what you're saying.
>>16551428
>>16551453
You could have ten trillion to the power of ten trillion things and those too could be reduced to a duality if you're not 65 IQ. Why else are concepts like "good" and "bad" so fucking ubiquitous if everything is indescribably fragmented, open-ended and nonsensical? Because you have the world as it is (in its metaphysical unity), then an observer introduces a duality by acknowledging things as distinct. What and how many things you acknowledge is up to the observer.

[Anonymous No.16551546]

>>16550235
Accept that the "secular" values are infact religious in nature and stand by them unapologetically. Have the courage to say that your tradition is better for its value of truth and reason, and call out the bullshit where ever you see it. Don't sacrifice what is you know is right when muh feels are brought against you. The value of truth is not rational but ultimately a religious conviction, and at some point that conviction must be found again, or the western culture with its apathy continues to a complete disintegration.

[Anonymous No.16551616]

bump

[Anonymous No.16551661]

>>16550262
Agree. That's why tradcucks are... cucks.
>>16550814
Only thing to do is to abolish the Capital. Not do an umpteenth reform.

[Anonymous No.16551663]

>>16550364
>To pick, choose or reject is at the very essence of modernity.
You think OP was free to make this thread? To feel as he feels, othered and incongruous? The fact of the matter is he's already rejected modernity in the most important way.

[Anonymous No.16551678]

>>16551661
>to abolish the Capital.
yeah and how does that work again specifically?

[Anonymous No.16551682]

>>16551661
tranny hands typed this post

[Anonymous No.16551686]

>>16551661
And what concrete steps have you taken towards that goal? You're a lifestylist at best and probably not even that because you're here on a weekend and so your life's likely even more depressing than mine haha.

[Anonymous No.16551708]

>>16551377
Culture is an emanation of the social relationship of production. If Capitalism develops, cutlure develops according to it. This means alienation, atomization, commodity fetischizm.
>culture can certainly revert as it did in the Iranian revolution.
Also, Divorces in Iran growing at alarming rate, officials say (search engine this).

[Anonymous No.16551739]

>>16551686
>And what concrete steps have you taken towards that goal?
Capitalism died around 2012-2013. You just don't know it yet. It's maintained artificially alive throught quantitative easing aka false profit, false capital accumulation.

[Anonymous No.16551759]

>>16551739
Central banks printing money literally has nothing to do with capitalism

[Anonymous No.16551792]

>>16551708
Yeah I know the party line but you've yet to explain what's meant by the spiral motion of the base and superstructure, let alone anything else about how that works, instead just firing off the typical buzzwords. It's just a bald assertion for you people that you never elaborate upon, and even your leading theoreticians can only expel a dense fog of Lacanian/whatever mumbo jumbo when pressed on it.

[Anonymous No.16552024]

>>16551395
>>16551377
Iran's revolution was mix of political issues and rapid social changes that was occurring during shah's era which people couldn't really adopt also foreign interference was key in overthrowing the shah, oddly enough many Iranians today misses him.

[Anonymous No.16552212]

>>16551759
It has everything to do with Capitalism. Reminder that the bank of England which, is it's core principles, is the same as todays Fed, BCE, and modern bank of England, exist since 1694. Traditionalists fantazize a dream era, which was supposed to be the 1950s, or for others, the old west, or for others, the victorian era, but what traditionalists fail to realize, is that all those era where already Capitalists, and where already subjegated to a private central bank (a trio of 3 banks, Chicago, Saint louis and new york, from 1865 to 1913).
>Central banks printing money literally has nothing to do with capitalism
It has everything to do with Capitalism. Because without money printing, Capitalism would totally collapse whiting a few months. The mass ponzi is not new, and started more than 150 years ago. Your whole modern world is based upon it, and is mandatory to make modern production work. Modern production couldn't function without it. You project an era, 200 years ago, which possibly could have worked without money printing, but slower, in the modern world. Modern Capitalism need money printing. It is not a choice. But i know you think it is a plot done by the jews, not understanding that the jews are just the name of the vanguard of the Capital, which is perfectly interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.16552220]

>>16552212
>Because without money printing, Capitalism would totally collapse whiting a few months.
literally the exact opposite, it's the money printing that causes the problems.

[Anonymous No.16552223]

>>16550262
Good analysis

[Jesus No.16552290]

just make a choice.

[Anonymous No.16552308]

Anons ITT talking as if modernity is a real and possibly irreversible rupture and not just an ill defined myth.

[Anonymous No.16552364]

>>16552220
Nop. Without money printing to compensate the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, Capitalism couldn't renew itself since 2008. You only see part of the picture: the evil fed with it's evil jew ownership. You do not integrate in your reasoning the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, because in your mind, since it comes (mostly) from Marx, it is false. But it isn't.
Natsoc have integrated in their mind the Fed mechanism, because since it is managed by jews, it interest them. However, since the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not something jewish, but rather an internal contradiction of Capitalism, they don't get interested by it. What's more, it has been written by an evil commie, Marx, so no need to study it, it is necessarily false.

[Anonymous No.16552369]

>>16552364
You're falling for propaganda from the Fed, they're doing nothing but counterfeiting money and dealing it out to their friends.

[Anonymous No.16552418]

>>16552369
So Marx is propaganda from the Fed, although he criticized heavily the bank of England, and the principle of private bank with debt money system in Kapital volume 1 (1867).
> the Fed, they're doing nothing but counterfeiting money and dealing it out to their friends.
They do not only give money to their friends because they are evil, they do it so because they cannot invest in productive areas, because markets are saturated. They also have friends in productive sectors, but the markets are saturated, so no possibility to invest in them. So they give printed money to speculative sectors, company shares and real estate. Like they did already in 2008-2013.

[Anonymous No.16552426]

>>16552418
>they do it so because they cannot invest in productive areas, because markets are saturated.
This is the line they give you, it's not true, they're literally just thieves.

Absolutely none of it is about 'helping capitalism stay afloat', it's a gigantic lie, they're obstructing the markets.

[Anonymous No.16552465]

>>16552426
At one point, market necessary get saturated, because nobody need 15 toothbruses, 5 cars, 20 pair of shoes etc... Very basically, the value of products decrease thought productivity enhancement, but market get saturated at the same time. If people coosumed indefinitely, it could would, but it is not the case. You cannot force people to buy things they don't need. Planned obsolescence and marketing only go so far.

[Anonymous No.16552470]

(...) edit: it could work

[Anonymous No.16552476]

>>16552465
>market necessary get saturated, because nobody need 15 toothbruses, 5 cars, 20 pair of shoes etc.
Then they stop producing them, they respond to demand. The Fed printing money does not solve this, it has nothing to do with this, all it does is redistribute wealth into the hands of the few and obscure market signals.

[Anonymous No.16552481]

>>16550235
read the greeks

[Anonymous No.16552536]

>>16550262
By "rejecting capitalism", you open yourself as a new niche that can be marketed to: the "marxist", who will consume books and content on his favorite subject, buy supplies that fit his project and so on, all while offering no real threat to the capitalist paradigm.

Capitalism can only be destroyed via self-implosion. It can't be "rejected" or otherwise affected from outside.

[Anonymous No.16552554]

>>16551291
Most retarded thread I've seen on /lit/ in a while.

Anons around here read two Marxist essays and then start shooting cum at each other because now they can pretend the marxist level of abstraction is useful in any way.