Views : 8,040
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Nov 19, 2023 ^^
Rating : 4.785 (28/494 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-04-28T01:04:29.154208Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
I was looking at old texts when the Europeans met with First Nations.
Those two things communas and structure is pretty good at showing the difference between the two cultures.
There is some issues on the sex part. I don't think the communas were continent, quite the contrary, but they were not as obsessed with it because it was not their goal to grow the tribe to take over the world. So for Europeans, it was a duty and an economic need to have children. Not so with the natives, but it does not mean continence either.
One thing I found interesting is the way of thinking which was reported as really different. Europeans thought linearly, start to conclusion. The natives thought circularly, wanting to see all sides, just like their political system seemed based on consensus and not something like majority rule or authority rule. It's why the left always comes back to structure, since they are never really commutas, only it's a wish they have, values they derive from negating the structure, but in doing so, they are still thinking linearly.
The more I look at this, the more I see it's a thought structure that people can't get over with. If people got rid of those values and the black and white thinking that comes with it, they might progress to something like communas. In real communas, people were just living on the Earth, not trying to have values to impose on others. It does not mean it was free for all, there are other ways to deal with problems, but values is quite impersonal and something you need when you don't know people you live with.
7 |
The problem is this state doesn't really feel liminal. It just feels like we're stuck in a structure that is determined to strangle and end the human race. Even as things get worse, the structure doesn't improve. Rather than giving way to a transitional space where possibilities open up, our options only seem to grow more restricted.
I understand that this hypothesis is intended to explain nihilism of all things, but it's still difficult to shake the impression that structure isn't dying and, more importantly, letting things go.
The deaht fo Jesus was intended as a symbol of letting go: the old ways fo Judaism demanded that every infraction of God's covenant be punished. But, at the same time, the covenant had become a trap with the Pharisees exploting Gods laws to tyrannize the people.
So, as a kind of compromise, Jesus' death was, socio-politically and historically, meant to accomplish two things
1. Jesus would die in the place of any and all people suffering their iniquity. None who come to Jesus are turned away. none are "cut off," as the Torah sayes. So criminals, harlots, and the disenfranchised are welcomed back into the fold.
2. Void the laws themselves and establish a new mode of being based on the spirit instead of materiality: a person's actions and character are to be the measure of their worth, not their possessions. The old Jewish understanding was that nothing bad could happen to a pious man, so if bad things happen to a person, it must necessarily be his own fault even in situations where it is cruel and makes no rational sense for the law to be based upon such presumptions. Like if he was struck by lightning or born a cripple.
It didn't work in Jesus' time (in many ways we're better off that it didn't) and we're not getting that now. The more capitalism fails, the more the demons of avarice dig in their heels.
Nietzsche's saying, "There was one Christian and he died on the cross," is surely right (though he was more concerned with Christ's manifestation of the ascetic ideal than the socio-political implicatiosn of the gospels and their teachings.)
26 |
What are your thoughts on Camus' observation of rebellion needing clear endpoints in order to be justified? It seems like liminality would be cut of the same cloth he was trying to weave. In other words, why does leftism tend to go beyond the injustices it was originally attempting to overcome and cascades into totalitarianism? Its like that old saying, "it looks better on paper". Are these type of societies that tend to pursue this path so entrenched in repression to the point of not seeing that they themselves become the very aberration they were trying to dispel? Who gets to say when enough is enough. Are hierarchical paradigms not specifically created from this viewpoint? When the village elders were seen with respect from their years of experience no longer have a relevancy in their society, it tends to be doomed to the perspicacity of that society's past.
5 |
4:49 I just watched The Babadook for the first time on Halloween, and it's so captivating I've watched it several times since. I've read into some theoretical interpretations and subscribe most to one on the monster representing trauma and depression, but I'm aware of some LGBT ones. Otherwise the context in this video would've gone right over my head.
I'm mostly here to say I thought I was seeing things and needed to give the film a rest until I went back to see. Fortunately for me the monster was placed with great social sensitivity/awareness (which I am not surprised by when it comes to The Living Philosophy) and I'm not seeing things...
2 |
According to WhatIsPolitics? Left is the absence of hierarchy while Righ is total hierarchy. (Those are the extremes, of course). The dude who makes the videos is very good and though he could disagree with you he would applaud you care to define the terms.
It's important to note that "leftist economics" is widely understood to be centrally commanded economy. I don't think it's ok to mix politics and economics under the Left/Right lables. The nazi regime, politically on the extreme right, was center-left in the economic sense.
BTW, Noam Chomsky calls the Russian Revolution a "right wing millitary coup". I noticed that, beyond liking Jung (I also do) you have attributed some characteristics to "the left" that are peculiarly American - a country that has no party that is the slightest in the left. What you attributed to the left is actually wokeism - something that not all in the left. Zizek and Finkelstein, for instance, nurture a slight dislike for wokeism - euphemistically speaking. I, myself, hate it - and I have always voted center-left. Oh yeah! There's a left where I live - two Communist party and some 4 worker's party.
1 |
I'm interested in hearing what is it you define as "Nietzschean Existentialist" and "Far-Right Populist" and what exactly they have to do with each other. 1:12
3 |
I’ve always seen the left and right political spectrum as a circle instead of a line, where the ideals of the right and left circle into each other eventually reaching their most authoritarian and oppressive forms. At that point they reach a state so similar, they are ALMOST indistinguishable from each other.
6 |
@patrickclerkin56
5 months ago
The sentence about nihilism not being the bottom of the well but another spoke in the wheel of time is a beautiful one.
19 |