At least 129 dead in Paris attacks
Author Message
Osweo
Offline
Member



England

Posts: 2.883
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 904
Post: #81
RE: At least 129 dead in Paris attacks
(2016 Jul 16 23:54)Torrecerréu Wrote:  But Osweo, I'm not the one who said we should go back to the Ancien Regime.
Okay, okay, but this is what you get when you deliver ambiguous oneliners! I'm a historian, and when I see references to 1789 and the word "back", I make certain conclusions.
(2016 Jul 16 23:54)Torrecerréu Wrote:  The Revolution was evil.
It wasn't wholly evil. It was human, and humanity is always moved by a complex array of different and often conflicting motivations and urges. Much of the evil was the product of earlier evil, that much is clear to me. Much of the rest of it was the usual result of ambition, greed and just regular spitefulness. My main problem when dealing with reactionaries (and yes, you ARE one! Big Grin ) is that you focus on certain strands in the history of the ideologies concerned, forgetting all the masses of other people in other places whose overlapping desires to fix society are now tarnished with connection to all this Jacobin nonsense. My own political prehistory is that of Robin Hood, John Ball, the Levellers, Ned Ludd and the Chartists - a world away from France's peculiar chronology! And doubtless their were many in France even, who were motivated by a sense of justice that had nothing in common with jacobinism. Ultimately they were betrayed, but this almost always happens in revolutions: those with the better organised and elaborated theoretical basis (no matter whether WRONG or not!) tend to win out over those with more generalised notions informing their actions. Jacobinism had an edge over general desires for justice and fairness, as it had a programme. Marxism likewise was able to shove many other socialisms into the shade. You can see this in religion too - Christianity triumphed over Stoicism and Neoplatonism and the like, just as simple Islam was able to defeat Christianity in large expanses of its former range.
(2016 Jul 16 23:54)Torrecerréu Wrote:  What you see today in France is a direct product of that Revolution. The immorality, the secularism, the horrific state of French demographics, what has occurred in Nice this week, and what will occur also in the coming years.
There's a lot of correlation versus causation here. A lot of our problems have as much to do with the economics, technology, medicinal knowledge and para-political history that informs our current condition. The Great French Revolution shared many causes with current tendencies, rather than producing them. This is the main error of reactionaries. Certain things cannot be reversed. They simply have to play out to their natural conclusion. There are cycles and processes at work that cannot be halted or altered. Musty has Spengler above, in his avatar, whose notions have to be faced up to by anybody with grand ambitions for pushing civilisation in one way or another. The options before us are not unlimited.
(2016 Jul 16 23:54)Torrecerréu Wrote:  What is this, voodoo?
Happily, Artturi responded to this in a much more constructive way. Be aware that, to the outsider, stepping into a Roman Mass is MUCH like wandering into some mumbo-jumbo Santería chicken-slaughtering rite!
(2016 Jul 16 23:54)Torrecerréu Wrote:  I am Ionas in the bowels of Nineveh
Thought he was in the bowels of the whale?!

Anyway, here's my issue with it all:
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  God need not to contact you on the Facebook because the saints and evangelists are supposed be the living examples on how He and His way are the keys for personal salvation.
- it simply doesn't WORK! I know virtuous Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, too. AND Marxists! No, the idea has to stand on more than the behaviour of its adherents, it has to have internal consistency and ring true on its own merits.
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  I think the Roman teaching may have emphasized too much on the subservience and obedience to God as a matter of authority and sign of true faith, instead of illuminating the way up to God and showing that adherence to the word of dogma is not nearly enough for our salvation. This goes hand in hand with the observation (by many people) on how the impact of Germanics on the Christianity altered it in a subtle way, which can be seen how the Church in the West became a tool of politics unlike in the East.
This is interesting and worthy of examination, yes. I similarly find the likes of Sergii Radonezhsky or Serafim Sarovsky rather more impressive than many Roman Catholic saints. Then again, I find their parallels in our OLDER English/British Christianity, to which Cuthbert, Chad, Patrick and Columba belonged. In reading English history, a whole new "flavour" comes along with Wilfrith and his romanising ways, and frankly it's a massive turn off to me. And in 1066, the Normans finished the job of stamping out most of what remained from the older tradition, which might well have ended up becoming a Western Orthodoxy, had it survived.

Your germanicising idea is interesting, but I see more of old Rome itself in it. The Germanics were a bit more of a blank slate, providing energy rather than form at the relevant point in time. The Western Empire fell, but was reborn in the Roman Church, which kept a lot of the "feel" of the old order, with all its hierarchies, legal particularism, elaborate ceremonial and deeply civilised nature.
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  It is certainly true that harboring good will is better than ill will.
Thank you! And I don't see how notions of influencing the external world are quite worthy of the scorn Torre has for them. I'm not saying I believe it, but I could imagine how it might be the case. Seems Torre is more materialist than I am on this score, wanting to deny any "supernatural" agency to anyone but certain select figures in his cosmology!
Quote:However, inventing the wheel by yourself is surely not a sign of genius in this time and society we now live in, but almost surely an indication of being either proud or stubbornly self-reliant.
Now, this makes sense on the face of it, but can you state with confidence that prayer lacking an intended recipient IS so new? It often strikes me that the modern Christians have a strange view of the mediaeval common man, as though he was completely and utterly orthodox and Christian in all his spiritual endeavours. Being a bit of a folklorist, it seems to me that there are FAR older currents at play, then and now. Not having had the Christian stuff imposed on me in my own upbringing, I nevertheless am a conduit for the pre- and para-Christian attitudes inherited from those times. This is where magic and prayer have a fuzzy overlap, of course, and magic is as old as the hills.

Hmm, even JHWH offers an example, from a very early point in time: "Let there be x!" Who was HE talking to?! Tongue
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  Lukewarm spiritual commitments, mystified over-empathy and sentimentality, and reactionary dilettante appeals to pseudo-spirituality are not going to be sincere or effective, I am afraid.
Again, this sounds very good rhetoric, but can you really be so sure of it? Very specific novelties like crystals and shit like that, or older esoterica like tarot, these are ONE thing, but there is another more formless kind of spirituality that is more innate and widespread. It's odd to see advocates of organised religion mocking this, when it is the very raw material from which their codifications were constructed!

"And now if a whole nation fell into that? In such a case, I answer, infallibly they will return out of it. For life is no cunningly-devised deception or self deception, it is a great truth that thou art alive, that thou hast desires, necessities: neither can these subsist and satisfy themselves on delusions, but on fact. To fact, depend on it, we shall come back: to such fact, blessed or cursed, as we have wisdom for."
Thomas Carlyle
2016 Jul 17 16:38
Like PostLIKE REPLY
The following 2 users Like Osweo's post:
Aptrgangr (17-07-2016), Artturi (17-07-2016)
Torrecerréu
Offline
Member



Portugal

Posts: 111
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 11
Post: #82
RE: At least 129 dead in Paris attacks
(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  It wasn't wholly evil...

You and I view things differently. Whereas you are an historian who cares about the "overlapping desires" and the endless webs of "conflicting motivations and urges," I am an absolutist and my world is very black and white. Either the fruit of the tree is good, or it is rotten. Whether there are more worms in this piece of fruit than there are in that is an irrelevance to me. Thus, the tree of the French Revolution must be judged by its fruit, and its fruit I deem rotten. It must be plucked from the soil and burned or else poison all who eat thereof.

(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  The options before us are not unlimited.

No indeed. They are very limited. They are two, in fact: repent and turn the heart to Christ, or stay the course. One path leads to life, the other to suffering and death. The French will suffer and die until they turn back, and no amount of waiting for things to run their course nor examination of history will change this. You need not believe me, but you will nonetheless watch and see it happen.

(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  Happily, Artturi responded to this in a much more constructive way. Be aware that, to the outsider, stepping into a Roman Mass is MUCH like wandering into some mumbo-jumbo Santería chicken-slaughtering rite!

You say that because you are English, and have long since abandoned connection the True Faith; as such you are an outsider. But France is Catholic, and Catholicism is French, despite the lengths to which the revolutionaries went to stamp out this truth. It is no more alien to them than speaking the French language.

(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  Thought he was in the bowels of the whale?!

Same Ionas. Ionas was swallowed by the fish because he refused to obey God's command to go to Nineveh and preach against the wickedness of the people of that city. When he repented of this, he was delivered from the belly of the fish and went to the city to preach. The Ninevites repented and were spared their just desserts.
2016 Jul 17 17:16
Like PostLIKE REPLY
The following 2 users Like Torrecerréu's post:
Artturi (17-07-2016), Osweo (17-07-2016)
Artturi
Offline
Illiberal Arts Professor



Suomi

Posts: 557
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 173
Post: #83
RE: At least 129 dead in Paris attacks
(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  God need not to contact you on the Facebook because the saints and evangelists are supposed be the living examples on how He and His way are the keys for personal salvation.
- it simply doesn't WORK! I know virtuous Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, too. AND Marxists! No, the idea has to stand on more than the behaviour of its adherents, it has to have internal consistency and ring true on its own merits.

I think you might have misunderstood me, so I will quote another of my sentence's right before your quotation:

(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  The function of the Church of the is to provide basic spiritual hygiene to keep people out of falling to sin and offer an effective way for theosis, i.e. the production saints and holy miracles that are (here in a narrow sense) the supernatural proofs that confirm and justify faith.

I emphasized on the supernatural proof, but nevertheless I see that it still was not enough. True spiritual cultivation goes beyond words and dogma: it is no longer dialectic or subject to debate if you have direct experience how supposed miracles actually exist and many marvellous feats that clearly violate the presumptions of scientific materialism can be valid and true.

If evangelists and "saints" are only producing the first article of basic spiritual hygiene, this is not enough to keep people happy in the long run because it lacks a doctrine of healing. We need more than just keep the spiritual status quo. Genuine religion and spiritual authority is always verified by the encounter with the supernatural that transcends the limitations of worldliness. However, it is useless to discuss it because it is not a rational relation or argument to pursue something like that, hence I very emphatically say that it must be first witnessed directly before it is of any semblance of proof.

However, all of you have been given signs and exhortations to make a detailed examination. Jesus said, "Come and see." Then even Buddha said: O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me. My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience... You are doing yourself a disservice if you do not actively look for the delights that any righteous religion claims as your rightful destiny for cultivating yourself to perfection.

(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  This is interesting and worthy of examination, yes. I similarly find the likes of Sergii Radonezhsky or Serafim Sarovsky rather more impressive than many Roman Catholic saints. Then again, I find their parallels in our OLDER English/British Christianity, to which Cuthbert, Chad, Patrick and Columba belonged. In reading English history, a whole new "flavour" comes along with Wilfrith and his romanising ways, and frankly it's a massive turn off to me. And in 1066, the Normans finished the job of stamping out most of what remained from the older tradition, which might well have ended up becoming a Western Orthodoxy, had it survived.

Your germanicising idea is interesting, but I see more of old Rome itself in it. The Germanics were a bit more of a blank slate, providing energy rather than form at the relevant point in time. The Western Empire fell, but was reborn in the Roman Church, which kept a lot of the "feel" of the old order, with all its hierarchies, legal particularism, elaborate ceremonial and deeply civilised nature.

You are making very good observations, Osweo. Many Eastern Orthodox theologians and historians share this perspective. I should make a thread about the Eastern Orthodox perspective on Christian history sometime soon.

(2016 Jul 17 16:38)Osweo Wrote:  
(2016 Jul 17 06:52)Artturi Wrote:  Lukewarm spiritual commitments, mystified over-empathy and sentimentality, and reactionary dilettante appeals to pseudo-spirituality are not going to be sincere or effective, I am afraid.
Again, this sounds very good rhetoric, but can you really be so sure of it? Very specific novelties like crystals and shit like that, or older esoterica like tarot, these are ONE thing, but there is another more formless kind of spirituality that is more innate and widespread. It's odd to see advocates of organised religion mocking this, when it is the very raw material from which their codifications were constructed!

I get what you are saying, but please consider:

Correct practice will always produce good fruit. As Torrecerréu implied, the tree shall be judged by its fruits, and a strong tree will need good foundation and soil to grow on. In this case the appeals for prayer categorically fall under mystified over-empathy and reactionary dilettantism. Could you reasonably attribute them any other foundation than raving sentimentality? Do you really think it could produce good fruit?
2016 Jul 17 17:42
Like PostLIKE REPLY
The following 2 users Like Artturi's post:
Osweo (17-07-2016), Torrecerréu (17-07-2016)


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)