"It’s perhaps instructive that we can see and describe their telos so clearly, while they remain fully blind to our own."
Indeed, a people so willfully blind to the people they think are stuck in the past, delusional and should be ruled over, are themselves the most vulnerable. Self assured in the evil they have embraced, is hubris, which means they are doomed, no matter how all powerful they may currently seem.
Hubris is the cancer of intellect, yeah. It also.puts you at a distinct disadvantage in all conflict with the humble. Perhaps that's what is truly meant by "the meek shall inherit the Earth." Not the weak, the shy or the cowardly, but those truth seekers who don't pretend to know what they obviously cannot. Those who use "faith" as a verb, as L.P. Koch recently advised.
Dueling singularities...what an extraordinary expression. Apt with incredible density of meaning.
The emerging forces are formed, I think, by our reactions to the wider world. There are those who wish to re-engage with the natural world and see its constituents (including humans) as ends in themselves and who accept the limitations inherent in applying the human will to nature and there are those who simply wish to control or exploit it. The latter are refining the mechanistic worldviews and tendencies inherent in our culture, which they use to license their sociopathy. They envisage a soulless world and through processes of autopoiesis they re-make themselves as cyborgs. The former cultivate a degree of empathy and reserve towards modernity. It is a very human dialogue. We are homo faber and we construct individual and social psychologies for ourselves...prosthetic psyches...masks (personae in Latin).
Mark you may be interested in this recent article by the incomparable Alastair Crooke. I have reservations about anyone who casually applies a dualistic take on anything (including myself), but it touches on the theme of dueling singularities.
Without dualism nothing can exist. All manifestations are a result of desire and will, and it's impossible to know what's wanted without first knowing what isn't wanted. The oscillation/vibration back and forth between those brings all of reality into being, expanding eternally.
There definitely appears to be a convergence happening on the side of Team Humanity going on. In addition to the 3 other stacks you mentioned and yourself, N.S Lyon’s stack had a fascinating article up today (which I could only read in part as I’m not a paid subscriber), but even that portion was enough to see similar themes about where and how humanity is breaking up into two distinct camps, diametrically opposed to one another along lines that become clearer each day. It’s tied into the works of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. Good stuff!
I only just started reading this, but already sense the author is correct. In the line of 20th century prophets, the doomsayers like Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury have proven out, but their collective vision is a thimble of worth compared to Tolkein. They saw the enemy in all its horror, but failed to account for the other side.
Yes! I saw an abbreviated version of Sharine’s story about her harrowing encounter with a missed bus in one of the comments your blog. It had the same arresting impact on my sensibilities as it did yours. Beautiful, Sharine!
Seeing her handle here and there, I too was suspicious, since sir isO is a simple anagram for Osiris, the Egyptian judge of life and death.
It is not an anagram at all, but a palindrome. The former applies transposition, the latter reversal. The terminal capital gives it away. Given the cosmology angle, it is very unsubtle. From Mark's comment, I am guessing that he is aware of all this.
A palindrome is a word, phrase, number, or sequence of words that reads the same backward as forward. An anagram is a word or phrase made by transposing the letters of another word or phrase. I called it a simple anagram because the letters are merely reversed, but they do not read the same backward as forward. As you say the allusion is quite obvious.
Mark, I apologize for the oldster reference and the shouting, but I CAN'T EVEN!
You are such a good writer that — until your little labyrinth lead to the acknowledgment — I had NO idea that your article had anything to do with moi. When I "got there," tears actually spouted from my eyes (I had to clean the lenses of my reading glasses twice).
Since I'm not a full-time writer and currently wear a few different hats in my life (thankfully "creative" hats), I will do my best to read your other recommendations. But frankly, reading your posts is enough to inspire my spiritual warrior by day and in the dreamtime!
Personally, I'm on Team Human with technological advantages. Science is a method, and doesn't preclude the existence of a soul, higher beings, a supreme deity (although I think it more a universal generative force). In fact, the scientific method is of great benefit in exploring and understanding these phenomena to help humanity better actualize individually and collectively.
I suspect the technocratic transhumanists really everybody who thinks that way. That makes me feel happy. : )
"In fact, the scientific method is of great benefit in exploring and understanding these phenomena to help humanity better actualize individually and collectively."
Yes. We are not Luddites. I myself have been regularly employed in "tech" fields throughout my adult life. Our discussion right now is powered by digital technology. That is why the need for useful language generation is so critical. Some people will read/hear "the Technology Singularity" or "the Machine Singularity" and assume it's something like The Borg versus The Amish, when that's not the case.
"The Machine" doesn't refer to particular tools. At most, it may refers to certain of their design and usages. But what it mainly refers to is the mechanistic perception of humanity, and of the wider reality we engage with. Constructed tools carry no moral information, but tool users do. And when those users explain human beings themselves in tool-terms, that is evidence of them being drawn down the Machine's black throat.
I will check it out, thanks. I'm planning to go down the rabbit hole with telic recursion (and Langan in general) this weekend. I'm definitely no a first-class brain either, so wish me luck!
I started reading the CTMU and stopped after a couple pages, as I was having to look up every 5th or 6th word. He uses a great many philosophical terms, it's the highest level of writing I've ever tried to understand.
I thought about taking a year or so to parse it out and break out the dense philosophical language to create a "CTMU for midwits", but I have to pay this thing called rent, so... Looking forward to reading what you glean.
I shall try my best, Dave. It's sometimes necessarily to invent new words (and even new languages) to account for broader investigations on the nature of reality. This is especially true if you're trying to reach a specific audience that seems resistant to all other linguistic methods (e.g. artistic, religious, mathematical, etc.)
"It’s perhaps instructive that we can see and describe their telos so clearly, while they remain fully blind to our own."
Indeed, a people so willfully blind to the people they think are stuck in the past, delusional and should be ruled over, are themselves the most vulnerable. Self assured in the evil they have embraced, is hubris, which means they are doomed, no matter how all powerful they may currently seem.
Hubris is the cancer of intellect, yeah. It also.puts you at a distinct disadvantage in all conflict with the humble. Perhaps that's what is truly meant by "the meek shall inherit the Earth." Not the weak, the shy or the cowardly, but those truth seekers who don't pretend to know what they obviously cannot. Those who use "faith" as a verb, as L.P. Koch recently advised.
Dueling singularities...what an extraordinary expression. Apt with incredible density of meaning.
The emerging forces are formed, I think, by our reactions to the wider world. There are those who wish to re-engage with the natural world and see its constituents (including humans) as ends in themselves and who accept the limitations inherent in applying the human will to nature and there are those who simply wish to control or exploit it. The latter are refining the mechanistic worldviews and tendencies inherent in our culture, which they use to license their sociopathy. They envisage a soulless world and through processes of autopoiesis they re-make themselves as cyborgs. The former cultivate a degree of empathy and reserve towards modernity. It is a very human dialogue. We are homo faber and we construct individual and social psychologies for ourselves...prosthetic psyches...masks (personae in Latin).
Mark you may be interested in this recent article by the incomparable Alastair Crooke. I have reservations about anyone who casually applies a dualistic take on anything (including myself), but it touches on the theme of dueling singularities.
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2022/11/11/de-conflicting-with-the-west-will-the-valdai-blueprint-work/
Very interesting article indeed (and well sold by you, I must say).
One of a kind Alastair Crooke indeed 👌
While the scorned upon dualistic takes strike me as rooted in reductionist reading of one of 7 Hermetic principles, ie that of polarity 😉
Dualism is great for thought experiments and for rhetoric, but I'll always defer to infinite complexity.
Without dualism nothing can exist. All manifestations are a result of desire and will, and it's impossible to know what's wanted without first knowing what isn't wanted. The oscillation/vibration back and forth between those brings all of reality into being, expanding eternally.
There definitely appears to be a convergence happening on the side of Team Humanity going on. In addition to the 3 other stacks you mentioned and yourself, N.S Lyon’s stack had a fascinating article up today (which I could only read in part as I’m not a paid subscriber), but even that portion was enough to see similar themes about where and how humanity is breaking up into two distinct camps, diametrically opposed to one another along lines that become clearer each day. It’s tied into the works of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. Good stuff!
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/a-prophecy-of-evil-tolkien-lewis
I only just started reading this, but already sense the author is correct. In the line of 20th century prophets, the doomsayers like Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury have proven out, but their collective vision is a thimble of worth compared to Tolkein. They saw the enemy in all its horror, but failed to account for the other side.
Yes! I saw an abbreviated version of Sharine’s story about her harrowing encounter with a missed bus in one of the comments your blog. It had the same arresting impact on my sensibilities as it did yours. Beautiful, Sharine!
Seeing her handle here and there, I too was suspicious, since sir isO is a simple anagram for Osiris, the Egyptian judge of life and death.
Yeah, isO was a nasty piece of work. I saved screenshots before the account was retired, which I found to be quite demonstrative.
It is not an anagram at all, but a palindrome. The former applies transposition, the latter reversal. The terminal capital gives it away. Given the cosmology angle, it is very unsubtle. From Mark's comment, I am guessing that he is aware of all this.
A palindrome is a word, phrase, number, or sequence of words that reads the same backward as forward. An anagram is a word or phrase made by transposing the letters of another word or phrase. I called it a simple anagram because the letters are merely reversed, but they do not read the same backward as forward. As you say the allusion is quite obvious.
You are right, got confused. Apologies (it's been a long day). But the reversal is the sinister thing.
No need to apologize! I had to check the definition of an anagram beforehand to make sure I was using it correctly. No hubris of the intellect here 😉
Mark, I apologize for the oldster reference and the shouting, but I CAN'T EVEN!
You are such a good writer that — until your little labyrinth lead to the acknowledgment — I had NO idea that your article had anything to do with moi. When I "got there," tears actually spouted from my eyes (I had to clean the lenses of my reading glasses twice).
Since I'm not a full-time writer and currently wear a few different hats in my life (thankfully "creative" hats), I will do my best to read your other recommendations. But frankly, reading your posts is enough to inspire my spiritual warrior by day and in the dreamtime!
Wishing you well in body, mind, and spirit.
Personally, I'm on Team Human with technological advantages. Science is a method, and doesn't preclude the existence of a soul, higher beings, a supreme deity (although I think it more a universal generative force). In fact, the scientific method is of great benefit in exploring and understanding these phenomena to help humanity better actualize individually and collectively.
I suspect the technocratic transhumanists really everybody who thinks that way. That makes me feel happy. : )
"In fact, the scientific method is of great benefit in exploring and understanding these phenomena to help humanity better actualize individually and collectively."
Yes. We are not Luddites. I myself have been regularly employed in "tech" fields throughout my adult life. Our discussion right now is powered by digital technology. That is why the need for useful language generation is so critical. Some people will read/hear "the Technology Singularity" or "the Machine Singularity" and assume it's something like The Borg versus The Amish, when that's not the case.
"The Machine" doesn't refer to particular tools. At most, it may refers to certain of their design and usages. But what it mainly refers to is the mechanistic perception of humanity, and of the wider reality we engage with. Constructed tools carry no moral information, but tool users do. And when those users explain human beings themselves in tool-terms, that is evidence of them being drawn down the Machine's black throat.
I will check it out, thanks. I'm planning to go down the rabbit hole with telic recursion (and Langan in general) this weekend. I'm definitely no a first-class brain either, so wish me luck!
I started reading the CTMU and stopped after a couple pages, as I was having to look up every 5th or 6th word. He uses a great many philosophical terms, it's the highest level of writing I've ever tried to understand.
I thought about taking a year or so to parse it out and break out the dense philosophical language to create a "CTMU for midwits", but I have to pay this thing called rent, so... Looking forward to reading what you glean.
I shall try my best, Dave. It's sometimes necessarily to invent new words (and even new languages) to account for broader investigations on the nature of reality. This is especially true if you're trying to reach a specific audience that seems resistant to all other linguistic methods (e.g. artistic, religious, mathematical, etc.)
If you're going to take a stab at it, be sure to reach out to Langan. I'm sure he'll be happy to offer corrections on misinterpretations.