The Good

January 30th, 2016 § 3 comments § permalink

On the issue of God, imagine if a new dark age in which people assumed that Marianne, Columbia, or Uncle Sam were literal supernatural deities that could answer prayers. That’s basically what happened. God is the symbolic personification of an idea which was confused with its representation in the same way that people might confuse allegories with literal histories.

God is an “abstract object,” not simply a concept or idea, but a potential mode of being, an idea that we as a civilization attempt to embody or become, to whatever degree we’re able. He isn’t just an idea, since he’s a potential reality, a potential conclusion to our process of historical transformation.

It’s the same way that the idea of a fully grown tree isn’t just an idea if only the acorn exists. The acorn may become the tree. The conceptual tree which doesn’t yet exist is like the destination where the acorn’s compass points. Wherever the acorn is in its process of transformation as it becomes the tree, the abstract object of treehood, or “the tree itself,” tells us where the acorn’s becoming will lead.

If men fought a war or built a temple for Zeus, Allah, or Vishnu, or if they fought it for Democracy, Capitalism, Freedom, or Nation, what is the practical difference? The question of God’s literal existence becomes irrelevant, since we approach the form of the idea through transformation. For all practical purposes, if we believe in the idea and act on our belief in it, it is as good as real, the abstract object becomes both the origin and destination of whatever history we create. God is the “alpha and omega.”

God isn’t just an abstract object, he’s the abstract object, the master concept or foundation for every other concept. Plato calls this “the Good.” We can give the Good a million different names, symbols, or personifications, but the Good itself doesn’t change. Unlike us and everything around us which is impermanent and always in transformation, growing or dying, the Good itself never changes, it never becomes. Each person, family, tribe, or nation approximates it imperfectly to one degree or another then passes away but the form of the Good which they approximate transcends them. The evidence is the continual reappearance of the universal that emerges from the transformation of particulars. The form of the Good is, as Socrates said, “eternal.”

It’s a master concept, or ideal, an abstract object which Plato symbolized in an allegory with the sun, the literal giver of life whose energy animates our bodies, its light symbolizes the power to recognize truth just as surely the sun’s literal electrical energy in our brains produces consciousness.

The Promethean, or the one who steals the fire from Zeus and gives it to the prisoners in the cave, can be a person in the form of a revolutionary leader, or a revolutionary people. They’re the “light bringers,” Luciferians, the people of the sun. Take whatever symbol they use for the sun, or the Good, and put it on a flag. They’re the ones who act in the name of the Good.

The form of the Good can only be known by “philosophy,” our analytical faculty, but it can only be actualized through what Plato called “poetry,” or what you guys might call “spirituality.”

That’s a Platonic spin on it, at any rate.

Objectification

January 29th, 2016 § 0 comments § permalink

awecabinet

Identity Politics Again

January 28th, 2016 § 0 comments § permalink

I’m happy to see this conversation happening, for what it’s worth, but none of the panelists seems to appreciate how deep this rabbit hole goes. Here they are, confronted with a 3rd wave feminism that has become a parody of itself but they can’t explain how and why this happened.

Bindel attempts to pin it on Judith Butler and her gender-is-performative thesis, and while I’m sure there’s something to this, she fails to recognize that identity politics in general was a means for Cold War social science to avoid structural theories of racism and sexism which would call the efficacy of capitalism into question.

21st century identity politics is a radicalization of a liberal feminism which attempted to locate the origin of racism and sexism in culture or psychology, rather than in the structures of institutions or our material condition. It originated in 20th century bourgeois white women’s prejudices, themselves a secularized form of protestant persecution politics. It is a form of historical idealism like any bigoted, lunatic religious ideology you’ll find on the political right. All that has changed is that we now extend to all men the demonization and persecution we previously extended to only men this or that race, class, or nationality.

What is wrong with identity politics and that brand of feminism isn’t what is left wing about it, but what it shares in common with the right. It is its own form of reactionary politics.

Also, Bindel misunderstands critics of social constructivism. Would she also argue that sexuality is socially constructed? Surely if sexuality is socially constructed, then it can be deconstructed and is therefore chosen. This would put Bindel and homophobic religious conservatives on the same side of the debate. Does Bindel believe homosexuals can pray the gay away at Jesus camp?

If sexuality isn’t chosen but has a biological root, then socially-constructed gender identities would reflect those biologically-rooted sexual preferences. The origin of a socially constructed masculinity would be in a biologically-rooted female heterosexuality and vice versa.

Do feminists seriously believe that men get to decide what women want and expect of them? To what degree is the very same masculinity that so many feminists identify as the root of women’s oppression shaped, limited and determined by female heterosexuality? Why do we believe that men and masculinity exist in a social vacuum? Are we to believe that there would be any masculine social norm which could persist even if it actually made men unacceptable to women and therefore excluded socially and sexually?

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for January, 2016 at dividedline.org.