Would be interested to hear your hypothesis on why Plato, a single individual, had such a profound and lasting effect on the world. He appears to be the ideological father of Bolshevism and his relevance and influence outlasted pretty much everything else. So how come one person is responsible for so much? Was he perhaps also a composite made-up character like Moses?
well there is so much more that needs to be said about him that intend to cover in my essays.
was plato a composite? well, if you really dig down into the proofs that we have of him and his existence, it is very alarming how little we know. there is also the problem of his "disappearance" for many centuries and him being "rediscovered". mostly, we have lots of people after him referencing him, and this is taken as the main proof. "look at all these people who thought he was real!" essentially.
idk, but using that logic, the fact that millions believe in Jesus now means he was a real historical and biblically-accurate character.
an interesting similar case study is Paul, who could also have been a fake character who was then duplicated several times in history (in the east). every 3 centuries, a new Paul enters the historical record as a travelling preacher who dies for his teachings in the byzantine histories. some scholars say that he was an alter ego of another writer. like josephus for example.
i dont know, but the complete dearth of old documents that we have from the past is shocking. pre-1000AD essentially, everything just falls off a cliff. there is practically nothing. what we do have was from the classical world and "rediscovered" during the renaissance. most of it is now acknowledged to be forgeries, but these forgeries informed Western thought for centuries. and it is possible that the non-forgeries are actually forgeries too.
something happened 1k years ago that totally wiped the record clean.
the archeological record seems to indicate a catatrophe - the 10th century collapse.
It took a long time to get used to Rurik's writing, but by this time, his essay on the Metaphysics Conspiracy read like a page-turner novel. I don't think he quite met his objective of keeping it shorter and less dense with information, but that's fine with me. It was all valuable, and I always have the option of reading (quickly) through it again to keep it sharp.
I have a coworker who is doing his best to make me Orthodox so it is interesting. I'm fine with speculation, but this is historical nihilism (i.e. the comment that "lack of hard evidence for the existence of the Pentateuch before the third century BCE") - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are literally no primary sources as we would consider authoritative. So this is hollow. The oldest bhagavad ghita dates from the time of Columbus. If you want to play that game there is no historical record worth anything, its just very incomplete at best.
I previously accused you of being a primitivist - "history as a decline from an erstwhile condition of excellence or holds that salvation lies in a return to the simple life." This is just Rousseau in drag. It is the spooge that created Gnosticism, just add a demiurge preventing it.
In a discussion the other day someone at work said that the American Indians were (peace-loving, orange-wearing, sun-worshipping- doesn't matter). I asked him how he possibly knows that as they had no written language until most of them were wiped out. Same with the treasured Russian Taiga shamans or whatever. This is just a Romantic history.
I'm totally OK with contemporaneous observation written down in near time. In the hierarchy of trustworthiness its up there. Theres very little of it. But you deride it in other essays . You don't accept Eusebius as an obvious example. Which is fine, its your prerogative. You have been steeped in negation (same with me in my quasieducation) but its not a viable strategy to seek truth. Or even consensus.
The question of authority or authenticity is always primary. At some point you have to pick a nidus of knowledge. Or at least a stratgy of knowledge. I've read quite a bit on here, and im trying to be fair about it, but how do you propose to transfer/proposeyour metaphysics without a shared ontology?
Maybe I just need to let you do your thing deriding the stupid proles for not agreeing with your essays, I'm not here to change your mind.
I really do like the contrarian , especially on the slavlands. Full points for it, I just can't live in negation all day. Sorry for typing on my crappy phone.
Eusebius is affectionately known as the father of lies or alternatively as the worst historian because of his blatant warping of the narrative in the name of a higher truth.
I don't live on negation. I just refuse to conform to a blatant social-engineering agenda. You want me to recommend a new Bible that you can blindly worship? OK, try the Kybalion.
Not at all, this is literally the Greek view of the world. It is the Vedic view. It is the Tolkien view.
You don't understand the difference between spiritual matters and nominalism if you are comparing Rousseau's tabula rasa to gnosticism and pre-Plato views of history and astrotheology.
Wow. There is a "Greek view of the world?" The vedic view? according to whom? I'm arguing ontology. What is your source of knowing? You like to talk down to people but you refuse to actually put down a marker.
yes, there is a Greek view of the world, just like there is a modern-day Chinese view of the world.
don't start throwing down with me in the comments only to then recoil and cry foul. i'm not talking down to you. if it sounds like that to you, its confusion on your part because what you are detecting is me speaking logically and authoritatively. ive also kept my discussion with you civil. stop whining and putting "things in quotation marks" where the quotation marks don't belong. Rousseau isnt a gnostic. He is a materialist, nominalist. He believes in the Demiurgic absentee craftsmen god. Your characterization was R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D.
I actually like the preplatonic world. Prefer it (my concept of it anyway) But its a different world and does not work on a strict philosophical basis. I actuallyemotionally enjoy it. But I'm saying you are using emotional prelogical arguments in a modernist world
it does work and I'm going to prove it before the week is out.
stop stating your opinions as if they are facts. people lived for thousands of years under metaphysical and political systems built on pre-platonism. they did so in some parts of the world until very recently. the world didn't end just because they didnt believe in your big book of fairy tales and social engineering.
You are correct IMO that Rurik is basically pushing historical nihilism but unlike philosophical nihilism I've been coming around to the idea that perhaps historical nihilism is somewhat justified. We really don't "know" sh1t about history that goes past like 2000 years...again IMO. Our host just moves that timeline much further forward than I'm ready to. Like I'm totally fine with accepting that the Ceasars existed, the middle ages really unfolded roughly as we think etc. But when we move into say biblical times and beyond we know almost nothing and when it comes to the origins of life etc we know less than nothing. So we are essentially left having to pick whatever paradigm seems the least retarded and fits our justified or perhaps unjustified prejudices.
We sincere truth seekers have no access to reliable information about these sorts of questions and those who force feed the peasantry narratives are not truth seekers but fancy themselves the arbiters of truth. Some of the more hardcore Orthodox Athonite and Valaam monks sincerely believe the world really is just a bit more than 6000 years old. To me that seems fantastic and absurd but in the past few years I've come to the point where I have to admit that their claims are no more stupid and fantastic than those claiming life arose from nothing on its own a million billion years ago. Like one really can find and selectively believe evidence that supports a young earth. And one can do the opposite. It's just that everyone does this because we don't have any secure anchor, everyone basically does the salad bar approach when it comes to the big questions. The sincere truth seeker just ought to acknowledge this.
I also don't accept 100% of Ruriks take when it comes to his history of philosophy and paradigms but at least he is keeping it interesting. These are the sorts conversations that are always the most fun IRL with everyone getting steadily more drunk as the conversation progresses. With the blog format people get more put off when their pressups are challenged and they can't immediately fire back. Like I would actually enjoy arguing with Rurik irl over a lot of this stuff he writes because I agree with a lot of the details but draw totally different conclusions. For example he is correct that the ancient Israelites baseline religion was basic bitch Semetic polytheism. That claim is supported by some sparse but real archeological evidence and even more so by the bible itself. To me that is a like a huge argument that Christian philosemitism is heretical, idolizing the ancient Israelites is ridiculous because it amounts to idolizing loan sharks who sacrifice kids to idols etc. Further more it means that a biblical case can be made that the Israelites were never in Gods favor in a general sense and salvation coming from the Jews (a word that's ancient meaning doesn't correspond to the modern) is speaking strictly about the prophets who were always murdered and suppressed by the Israelites own religious authorities who were against that very religion of the prophets. So again it's a case of picking how you want to make these details fit your own world view and that's always more fun to haggle over irl with lots of booze IMO.
"These are the sorts conversations that are always the most fun IRL with everyone getting steadily more drunk as the conversation progresses." This is a traditional Slavic approach to Right Thinking. Highly recommend the new book Wonder Confronts Certainty; its basically a literary/philosophical tour of Russian literature.
As it pertains to Christian philosemitism , I confess that I don't understand that at all. I think this is a relic of a particular strain of mostly American Protestantism from one seminary/bible version. Martin Luther did not have a particularly rosy view of Judaism, especially as it pertains to consistent polytheism. I am a recent Christian, in middle America, and it seems to be a boomer thing, maybe related to the whole Jews for Jesus/Godspell hippy thing. The millennials hate the Jews because they have been pickled in critical theory. I'm a proud GenXer. We don't generally commit to anything. Not my monkeys not my circus. I do kind of wonder how evangelicals look at Israel affectionately when they are a prime producer of porn, have abortions at roughly European rates, and prohibit, um, evangelizing.
Luther quite liked the Jews until he didn't. His life trajectory went from insisting that all their takes on OT scripture were more authoritative than the Catholic churches and genuinely believing they were older brothers in the faith to insisting they should all be killed. There is for sure some kind of lesson there but Protestant philosemitism didn't start with boomer Americans by any means. You have Cromwell for example. It would have been nice if Prots had adopted late Luther as their baseline attitude toward jewry but unfortunately his earlier attitude seems to be the more common.
Christ words in Matthew 23:15 here really has so many different meanings to it
That's not just referring to ancient converts to the than proto Talmudic kabbalah religion of the time and therefore of no relevance to today. Christs statement also implies that Philosemetic "Christians" today are twice the sons of hell as even the Jews. The modern Prot Zionist evangelical who has no time at all for any of the saints or even the Theotokos herself but is ready to burn down the world on behalf of Jews that spit on both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in Israel is honestly a spiritual Talmudist. That is a convert, a Golem that has a will.
Also given what we know about Jewish DNA, that's its mix of like middle eastern and Italian it appears that modern Jews are hybrids descended of coverts that married into the tribe and thus the direct descendants of these earlier sons of hell. So if the early converts to proto Talmudism were twice the sons of hell than these willing Golems are like 4 times I guess.
Well at least you acknowledge the turn in Luther's thinking. In particular unhinged Catholics who are in the process of having a mental breakdown due to the state of their organization like to screech about how he was a philosemite. This ignores the fact he spent the later years of his life trying to get the German Princes to take drastic action against the Jews(Which I disavow I am a staunch believer in brotherly socialist international relations and have no time for racist nazis) . Also the Catholics effectively secured a banking monopoly for them in early medieval Europe and E Michael Jones has some videos about the clergy directly funding them. I'm not really familiar with Orthodoxy's relationship with the jews over the years maybe its better.
Literally this morning I was reading Romans 9, its hard to argue that Paul the uberjew (who Rurik seems to hate) had any affection for the ethnic group over the truly seeking jew/gentile. "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." I'm not Catholic, so I have no idea what their position is/was. I suspect it is not uniform or consistent, humans rarely are. The thing Catholics/Orthodox don't understand about Protestantism is that there is no "heresy police", which has upsides and downsides. Some Protestants are basically pre-Nicean, some are barely modified Catholics. The pre-Nicean position I am familiar with. Personally I think Nicea/Constantine/Platonism was a mistake but I wasn't there. Seems like politics ruins everything.
So I don't understand the concept of an ethnostate (which is demonstrably diluted/mixed like Rurik's Slavs chock full of tatar and mongol DNA like the Shoigu) or the political entity (which is full-on Globohomo and run by the same oligarchs as RU and maxxxvaxxxed). Its all a fable. The same can be said for the "Palestinians", almost all of them were rejects from surrounding countries. Or the "Seminoles" who were probably >50% runaway African slaves and crackers.
Ethnic identity politics makes as much sense as sexual identity politics. Its selling a fable. This is why religious identity is more potent. Look at Islam, a bunch of camel-herders from a backwater have adherents predominantly in areas they militarily subjugated. I would posit that "Slavic Identity" is either Orthodox-based or some sort of neopagan cult like the Galicians.
This is the basis of Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington BTW, not something I came up with.
The problem for the Jews/Igbo/Ahmadians/Roma etc is that they exist outside of an ethnoreligious bloc, and consequently they get the ol shaft. My partner's family is from one of these groups, run out of Germany to Russia and then to the US. They value coherence over consistency, and I think thats why you see a communistic impulse in these groups (and it is undeniable- it's there).
So your contention is that he was the original "self-hating jew" kabbalah gnostic? His writings seem waaay less gnostic-adjacent than , say, John. But I can absolutely agree that Paul was a clean break from Judaism while Peter and the Jerusalem guys were pushing Diet Judaism with sprinkles. Hebrews could be seen as sort of gnostic, but as you are no doubt aware, it was not considered canonical until quite late, after Siniaticus for instance. And gnosticism was pretty much considered heretical by then (~180ish?).
Kind of why I find primitivism uncompelling, because its just camouflaged Orthodoxy, we are just arguing over provenance and timetables. Every choice is subjective, and religions are ultimately human because they are not logical, not despite their unproveability.
Really enjoyed this essay - very thought provoking. As much as I appreciate the SMO analysis and perspective, I think you particularly shine in this area. Without boring you (and others) with the why, I have recently been endeavoring to understand the underpinnings of Christianity and Judaism and associated eschatology, and find your writings very valuable.
Whatever works - my subscription to this blog is well worth the price, and I’d gladly pay for whatever clean break venture you might launch. Either way, my peasant brain enjoys the reads and podcasts.
Fun piece of analysis, Rurik. I never really considered the Hellenized Jews would be inspired by Plato. I found "The Republic" to be tedious and never touched anything by Plato again. I always found the teachings of Christ to be the good part but then again much of the same can be found from Marcus Aurelius. Right now my struggle is grokking Guyenot's First Millennium argument and a whole lot of cooked chronology.
I agree the Guyenot hypothesis is fascinating. But then he doesn't think Aurelius existed. He thinks he (and most other "Roman" characters") were later composites or useful archetypes. But then the host suggests that Aurelius became Christian teaching? It's self-defeating. There is no certainty in history. This reminds me of literally the first week of Philosophy class arguing over the Good or the Virtuous. There is no objective anchor, it is inherently a religious/subjective decision.
Smashing the "Everybody knows" paradigms are just fun. I always enjoy watching scholars and "scientists" fall all over themselves proving a timeline fabricated by the RCC to lord over the Orthodox Churches. Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock are good for this too.
Wow!! My head explodes! Great article. Please keep on writing abt the Bolsheviks and Plato. So nice to have my mind spinning. What’s your take on Reneé Guenón. Interested in hearing you out on this one.
Excellent read, once again Rurik. These topics are endlessly fascinating and it’s great to see the internal contradictions of these texts arranged in a way the coheres a very compelling argument for a very different set of motivations and origins of this mythology.
The mind virus analogy and the overall thesis of the synarchy weakening us with false spirituality is far more analytically useful tool for understanding our world today than any of the many silly narratives (and counter narratives) on offer.
Would love as much more of this and the occult stuff as you’re able to put together. Always needs time to digest but it never fails to intrigue
How did the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind begin? You never answer the origins question.
Metaphysics is like heroin to you, you just can't stop and this article is a waste of time. What's going on in Russia today? How are the ex-Wagner men getting along? In case you hadn't noticed the Russians are advancing all along the front and successfully operating the Slavic meat-grinder. Think this might have something to do with surrender terms and maybe even who is going to sue for peace and what might happen to Zelensky? Can Zelensky simply flee to one of his dachas around the world and retire without a bullet to the head?
I think the universe always existed as a material dimension. As a shadow of a higher dimension. But we higher beings getting trapped here came later. No i don’t have a concrete date but civilization is cyclical and gets reset periodically in a downward spiral. Checkmate, bibleman
i can tell you where i disagree with plato specifically
1) that there are eternal laws -- there are only habits that change over time
2) that polytheism is bad - it is effective and works, which is why it was banend
3) that a metaphysics needs to be constructed backwards to maintain a moral code - plato's stated purpose in Republic was to create "morality" as we know it now
4) plato is anti-occult and destroyed occult learning
5) math is indeed a higher principle that shines down into our world, like sacred geometry, but it is not the only one, it is one path of many
6) pythagorism isnt platonism; pythagorism is hyperborean and shamanic
Neopythagorean platonism (neoplatonism) was probably the dominant form of "Platonism" in the formative period 100BC-100AD as you must know. Classical Platonism, like classical Marxism, didn't much outlive its namesake. Its useless to argue over it like arguing over Hegelianism- it degraded almost immediately into Old and Young Hegelians just like Platonism. Platonism was a sterile unimplementable set of terms, implemented in praxis by the later guys, they used Platonic vocabulary and rhetorical structure. Ain't no one was a "Platonist" by the strict definition 2000 years ago. Neoplatonism had no problems with occultism, polytheism, or much of anything that was "practical".
Ref: John 18 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. - all praxis. retroactively redefined in platonic terms.
Excellent point, you will not believe this but I made this exact point when researching a paper in High School. I hate to tell you I am raised Roman Catholic. But my grandfather who was from Sicily had a a saying he always told me as a kid that roughly translates to "Wake Up" I am mot kidding. Thanks for your truly great research.
No checkmate, just evasion. "A shadow of a higher dimension." Where did that originate? "higher beings?" As I said, a waste of time. Even reporting on current events in Russia, like who is Putin screwing, or how is Shoigu's private Tuvan army successfully sucking funding out of the military budget would be better than that.
Why do origin stories matter? That's all they are: stories, myths, legends. Have you reached out and explored yourself?
Here, I'll give you a synopsis of Ukraine: the Red team and Blue team are currently engaged in trench warfare for yet another meaningless town. When advances are in meters and blocks, there ain't shit happening. What surrender terms? The best you're going to get is maybe "cessation of hostilities" right now creates the new border. Are you some Zanon type that thinks the Kremlin will dictate to Ukraine and create some landlocked neutral rump state? Zelensky can go snort coke in Miami while Putin gets another term to enact more Globalist reforms.
Origin "stories" are not what matters. What matters is the origin of the earth, the universe, living things and mankind because they were all created by a prime mover or there is no such thing as science. As far as Z-anons go, I have no use for them, that's why I read Rolo. But I could not care less about ancient cults and man-made religion. That gets old real fast, like being proselytized by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics.
Science, the application of the scientific method, presupposes cause and effect. The scientist (the curious) observes some phenomenon, hypothesizes the cause, tests his hypothesis to isolate the cause, and repeats the process to discover how the observable universe works. Ditto for origins, something caused the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind. Discovering the Prime Mover, that is God - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because he said that is who he is - is merely applied science. Someone outside of the universe made it all and it sure isn't Rolo's imagined wraiths and the fact of the creator renders all Rolo's effort spend on metaphysics a waste of time because he doesn't reach the inevitable conclusion that God made it all and God is exactly who he said he is, "I am."
Meat grinder for sure; but the DC neocons (the reportage of which has been largely accurate) say the "advances" have been minimal and at the cost of very high Russian KIA; and, same old same old -- welcome to WWI : "....currently conducting mass infantry-led assaults to capture Avdiivka in an apparent effort to conserve armored vehicles despite the risk of even greater manpower losses ..." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-7-2023
However, the effects of sun cycles and comet activity on religion and politics is yet another taboo Russian schizoteric topic that I promise to bring up another time.
-> I'm familiar with the younger dryas events, but have never heard of this theory. Recommend me some reading on this.
I may have an addiction to refined sugar and pornography now, but I am a good, moral person because I don’t do anything bad to other people.
-> I remember you said some time back that you were doing keto. Are you still doing this, and in what way do you find this beneficial? I tried it some years back, but quit due to declining athletic performance. Mentally it was great though.
"They want you to think like them while also not being them."
That's a pretty good description of Christianity: Judaism for the goyim. The Jews didn't want to covert everyone else -- apart from all the weird laws, in that case the Jews would cease to be an elite. Enter Christianity: think like a Jew-- worship YHVH, follow his Son the Messiah, etc. -- but don't become a Jew.
"Imagine a sheep thinking that it is a wolf! It might side with the wolves against its fellow sheep. It might think it is safe from wolf predation because it is one of the wolves. It might start trying to live like a wolf despite the fact that it is not adapted to do so. It might try to bite its enemies or gorge them with non-existent claws instead of growing horns and head-butting them as it should. It might start taking care of wolf cubs and agitating politically for wolf interests … well, the metaphor has its limits but you get the point by now, hopefully."
IOW, the Christian boast of being a "spiritual Jew."
I didn't run off. I just have jobs. I'm not a public intellectual. Just a prole.
I had a long conversation with my brother. Really similar conversation. He is a serial entrepreneur and fancies himself as a finance guy. I'm a farmer who listens to podcasts. There is a fine line between trying to educate and baffling with bullshit. He was using terms he clearly didn't understand (or at least couldn't enunciate) with respect to my main contention. I always go to basics- definitions, ontology, authority. He considers me R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D. Because we have different basics. In fact, I don't think most of us have any basics. I'm trying to develop them. He traffics in aphorisms, ad hominem, thought-terminating clichés.
I did the same with you. I'm happy to share any of these things. And you claim my characterization is R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D.
I literally have an hour or two before chasing some tasks. I think we have different definitions, authority, ontology. I'm going to go through one claim you made, about Rousseau being a materialist. This is how I regard a claim, it's a little spectrum-y I admit. I can't do this for all the unsupported claims back and forth but I'm picking this one because its literally the easiest to dissect. I have tried to look into your claims, to see if my basic understanding is incorrect. I did the same with my brother and it just pissed him off.
Materialism: "The claim is that only material things exist; this has, first, the positive aspect that material things exist, and second, the negative aspect that nothing else exists apart from material things." rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/his… . Is this your definition? If not then what is?
Authority: Can we agree that his attributed writings are his? That the translation is accurate? Is there a better authority?
Ontology: Are the meanings of his writing clear? Metaphorical? Some sort of self-contradictory musings?
So if we can agree on Authority and Definition, we move to Ontology. I don't understand your statement that you speak authoritatively BTW maybe you can explain it. I'm assuming this is a turn of phrase not a claim of authority. I don't accept your authority any more than you accept mine. Or are we doing some other claim to authority? Honest question.
Ontology: I have only read The Social Contract and a few of his other writings, and its been at least 25 years, so I reread some of it. I find Diderot and the French generally less interesting than the Hobbes/Locke direction. So I am not an expert on his oevre. I'm not able to find anyone who describes him as materialist. The Marxists sort of take a half-assed approach. Materialism was slightly later but the basic concept was more Diderot I contend, and Rousseau hated him by the time of his main contributions. Marxists agree marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/he…
I can find lots of others who share my opinion that Romanticism (which can we agree that is generally described as the school he founded?) is a rejection of the enlightenment and materialism, but of a different nature than the 'skeptics'. jottedlines.com/profession-of-faith-of-… I know this is an appeal to consensus but it helps definitionally.
Money quote: "Materialism is not an error. Rather, it is a fraud."
As to if he is a Nominalist? I take no position, I dislike nominalism. It strikes me as an early iteration of linguistic analysis used against Platonism. Materialism seems like a real question that affects metaphysics at its core.
Regarding the other contentions, that there is a "Greek view" or "Modern Chinese" view, I simply don't have time to return serve today. I have no idea about Chinese. I find in Greek philosophy several contradictory views, so it seems hard to rectify. In fact it seems that there are basically the same schools that were replicated in the Enlightenment. The attempt to systematize logic maybe? Plato was dominant, maybe that’s your contention? I listened to most of the Heraclites pod and I will give the rest a chance.
I like your podcasts, it definitely seems you give people a reasonable shake. It could be you are just bringing on people you agree with, but I think it is curiosity. So I'm trying to be fair on here.
Excellent work. Our highest aim should be to seek the truth. Once you start looking for the truth we find things that have been removed, hidden, veils put up to keep us from looking deeper, you have broken through some of the damnatio memoriae. I look forward to more on Marcion, I'm studying the first bible now.
What book do you recommend on Mme.Blavatsky? I’m learning russian. I buy many popular russian magazines and it surprises me how much they are dedicated to the OCCULT. I await your articles on the boksheviks and the OCCULT with impatience.
Would be interested to hear your hypothesis on why Plato, a single individual, had such a profound and lasting effect on the world. He appears to be the ideological father of Bolshevism and his relevance and influence outlasted pretty much everything else. So how come one person is responsible for so much? Was he perhaps also a composite made-up character like Moses?
well there is so much more that needs to be said about him that intend to cover in my essays.
was plato a composite? well, if you really dig down into the proofs that we have of him and his existence, it is very alarming how little we know. there is also the problem of his "disappearance" for many centuries and him being "rediscovered". mostly, we have lots of people after him referencing him, and this is taken as the main proof. "look at all these people who thought he was real!" essentially.
idk, but using that logic, the fact that millions believe in Jesus now means he was a real historical and biblically-accurate character.
an interesting similar case study is Paul, who could also have been a fake character who was then duplicated several times in history (in the east). every 3 centuries, a new Paul enters the historical record as a travelling preacher who dies for his teachings in the byzantine histories. some scholars say that he was an alter ego of another writer. like josephus for example.
i dont know, but the complete dearth of old documents that we have from the past is shocking. pre-1000AD essentially, everything just falls off a cliff. there is practically nothing. what we do have was from the classical world and "rediscovered" during the renaissance. most of it is now acknowledged to be forgeries, but these forgeries informed Western thought for centuries. and it is possible that the non-forgeries are actually forgeries too.
something happened 1k years ago that totally wiped the record clean.
the archeological record seems to indicate a catatrophe - the 10th century collapse.
Thank you! This makes sense to me.
I made it through the whole thing. Wow. My first teacher's name was Lyudmila Fedorovna.
You pass!
It took a long time to get used to Rurik's writing, but by this time, his essay on the Metaphysics Conspiracy read like a page-turner novel. I don't think he quite met his objective of keeping it shorter and less dense with information, but that's fine with me. It was all valuable, and I always have the option of reading (quickly) through it again to keep it sharp.
a great read. thanks
I have a coworker who is doing his best to make me Orthodox so it is interesting. I'm fine with speculation, but this is historical nihilism (i.e. the comment that "lack of hard evidence for the existence of the Pentateuch before the third century BCE") - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are literally no primary sources as we would consider authoritative. So this is hollow. The oldest bhagavad ghita dates from the time of Columbus. If you want to play that game there is no historical record worth anything, its just very incomplete at best.
I previously accused you of being a primitivist - "history as a decline from an erstwhile condition of excellence or holds that salvation lies in a return to the simple life." This is just Rousseau in drag. It is the spooge that created Gnosticism, just add a demiurge preventing it.
In a discussion the other day someone at work said that the American Indians were (peace-loving, orange-wearing, sun-worshipping- doesn't matter). I asked him how he possibly knows that as they had no written language until most of them were wiped out. Same with the treasured Russian Taiga shamans or whatever. This is just a Romantic history.
except we have writers and adventurers and travelers who met and recorded what these people did and believed.
how can you accuse me of historical nihilism while ignoring anthropological work when it doesn't suit you?
and yes they were brutal not pocahontas types. however there was a lot of variety too. not unlike among the various european tribes.
I'm totally OK with contemporaneous observation written down in near time. In the hierarchy of trustworthiness its up there. Theres very little of it. But you deride it in other essays . You don't accept Eusebius as an obvious example. Which is fine, its your prerogative. You have been steeped in negation (same with me in my quasieducation) but its not a viable strategy to seek truth. Or even consensus.
The question of authority or authenticity is always primary. At some point you have to pick a nidus of knowledge. Or at least a stratgy of knowledge. I've read quite a bit on here, and im trying to be fair about it, but how do you propose to transfer/proposeyour metaphysics without a shared ontology?
Maybe I just need to let you do your thing deriding the stupid proles for not agreeing with your essays, I'm not here to change your mind.
I really do like the contrarian , especially on the slavlands. Full points for it, I just can't live in negation all day. Sorry for typing on my crappy phone.
Eusebius is affectionately known as the father of lies or alternatively as the worst historian because of his blatant warping of the narrative in the name of a higher truth.
Sure. Who is more authoritative? Pick something. Negation.
j'accuse
I don't live on negation. I just refuse to conform to a blatant social-engineering agenda. You want me to recommend a new Bible that you can blindly worship? OK, try the Kybalion.
No. I'm saying if you don't believe someone who was recorded as there by other accounts, you owe a better source. Otherwise its just critical theory.
>This is just Rousseau in drag
Not at all, this is literally the Greek view of the world. It is the Vedic view. It is the Tolkien view.
You don't understand the difference between spiritual matters and nominalism if you are comparing Rousseau's tabula rasa to gnosticism and pre-Plato views of history and astrotheology.
Wow. There is a "Greek view of the world?" The vedic view? according to whom? I'm arguing ontology. What is your source of knowing? You like to talk down to people but you refuse to actually put down a marker.
yes, there is a Greek view of the world, just like there is a modern-day Chinese view of the world.
don't start throwing down with me in the comments only to then recoil and cry foul. i'm not talking down to you. if it sounds like that to you, its confusion on your part because what you are detecting is me speaking logically and authoritatively. ive also kept my discussion with you civil. stop whining and putting "things in quotation marks" where the quotation marks don't belong. Rousseau isnt a gnostic. He is a materialist, nominalist. He believes in the Demiurgic absentee craftsmen god. Your characterization was R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D.
I actually like the preplatonic world. Prefer it (my concept of it anyway) But its a different world and does not work on a strict philosophical basis. I actuallyemotionally enjoy it. But I'm saying you are using emotional prelogical arguments in a modernist world
it does work and I'm going to prove it before the week is out.
stop stating your opinions as if they are facts. people lived for thousands of years under metaphysical and political systems built on pre-platonism. they did so in some parts of the world until very recently. the world didn't end just because they didnt believe in your big book of fairy tales and social engineering.
You are correct IMO that Rurik is basically pushing historical nihilism but unlike philosophical nihilism I've been coming around to the idea that perhaps historical nihilism is somewhat justified. We really don't "know" sh1t about history that goes past like 2000 years...again IMO. Our host just moves that timeline much further forward than I'm ready to. Like I'm totally fine with accepting that the Ceasars existed, the middle ages really unfolded roughly as we think etc. But when we move into say biblical times and beyond we know almost nothing and when it comes to the origins of life etc we know less than nothing. So we are essentially left having to pick whatever paradigm seems the least retarded and fits our justified or perhaps unjustified prejudices.
We sincere truth seekers have no access to reliable information about these sorts of questions and those who force feed the peasantry narratives are not truth seekers but fancy themselves the arbiters of truth. Some of the more hardcore Orthodox Athonite and Valaam monks sincerely believe the world really is just a bit more than 6000 years old. To me that seems fantastic and absurd but in the past few years I've come to the point where I have to admit that their claims are no more stupid and fantastic than those claiming life arose from nothing on its own a million billion years ago. Like one really can find and selectively believe evidence that supports a young earth. And one can do the opposite. It's just that everyone does this because we don't have any secure anchor, everyone basically does the salad bar approach when it comes to the big questions. The sincere truth seeker just ought to acknowledge this.
I also don't accept 100% of Ruriks take when it comes to his history of philosophy and paradigms but at least he is keeping it interesting. These are the sorts conversations that are always the most fun IRL with everyone getting steadily more drunk as the conversation progresses. With the blog format people get more put off when their pressups are challenged and they can't immediately fire back. Like I would actually enjoy arguing with Rurik irl over a lot of this stuff he writes because I agree with a lot of the details but draw totally different conclusions. For example he is correct that the ancient Israelites baseline religion was basic bitch Semetic polytheism. That claim is supported by some sparse but real archeological evidence and even more so by the bible itself. To me that is a like a huge argument that Christian philosemitism is heretical, idolizing the ancient Israelites is ridiculous because it amounts to idolizing loan sharks who sacrifice kids to idols etc. Further more it means that a biblical case can be made that the Israelites were never in Gods favor in a general sense and salvation coming from the Jews (a word that's ancient meaning doesn't correspond to the modern) is speaking strictly about the prophets who were always murdered and suppressed by the Israelites own religious authorities who were against that very religion of the prophets. So again it's a case of picking how you want to make these details fit your own world view and that's always more fun to haggle over irl with lots of booze IMO.
"These are the sorts conversations that are always the most fun IRL with everyone getting steadily more drunk as the conversation progresses." This is a traditional Slavic approach to Right Thinking. Highly recommend the new book Wonder Confronts Certainty; its basically a literary/philosophical tour of Russian literature.
As it pertains to Christian philosemitism , I confess that I don't understand that at all. I think this is a relic of a particular strain of mostly American Protestantism from one seminary/bible version. Martin Luther did not have a particularly rosy view of Judaism, especially as it pertains to consistent polytheism. I am a recent Christian, in middle America, and it seems to be a boomer thing, maybe related to the whole Jews for Jesus/Godspell hippy thing. The millennials hate the Jews because they have been pickled in critical theory. I'm a proud GenXer. We don't generally commit to anything. Not my monkeys not my circus. I do kind of wonder how evangelicals look at Israel affectionately when they are a prime producer of porn, have abortions at roughly European rates, and prohibit, um, evangelizing.
Luther quite liked the Jews until he didn't. His life trajectory went from insisting that all their takes on OT scripture were more authoritative than the Catholic churches and genuinely believing they were older brothers in the faith to insisting they should all be killed. There is for sure some kind of lesson there but Protestant philosemitism didn't start with boomer Americans by any means. You have Cromwell for example. It would have been nice if Prots had adopted late Luther as their baseline attitude toward jewry but unfortunately his earlier attitude seems to be the more common.
Christ words in Matthew 23:15 here really has so many different meanings to it
"𝘞𝘰𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴! 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘸𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦
That's not just referring to ancient converts to the than proto Talmudic kabbalah religion of the time and therefore of no relevance to today. Christs statement also implies that Philosemetic "Christians" today are twice the sons of hell as even the Jews. The modern Prot Zionist evangelical who has no time at all for any of the saints or even the Theotokos herself but is ready to burn down the world on behalf of Jews that spit on both Orthodox and Catholic Christians in Israel is honestly a spiritual Talmudist. That is a convert, a Golem that has a will.
Also given what we know about Jewish DNA, that's its mix of like middle eastern and Italian it appears that modern Jews are hybrids descended of coverts that married into the tribe and thus the direct descendants of these earlier sons of hell. So if the early converts to proto Talmudism were twice the sons of hell than these willing Golems are like 4 times I guess.
Luther also read the Masoretic and this informed his early views. this doesnt get mentioned much.
Well at least you acknowledge the turn in Luther's thinking. In particular unhinged Catholics who are in the process of having a mental breakdown due to the state of their organization like to screech about how he was a philosemite. This ignores the fact he spent the later years of his life trying to get the German Princes to take drastic action against the Jews(Which I disavow I am a staunch believer in brotherly socialist international relations and have no time for racist nazis) . Also the Catholics effectively secured a banking monopoly for them in early medieval Europe and E Michael Jones has some videos about the clergy directly funding them. I'm not really familiar with Orthodoxy's relationship with the jews over the years maybe its better.
Literally this morning I was reading Romans 9, its hard to argue that Paul the uberjew (who Rurik seems to hate) had any affection for the ethnic group over the truly seeking jew/gentile. "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." I'm not Catholic, so I have no idea what their position is/was. I suspect it is not uniform or consistent, humans rarely are. The thing Catholics/Orthodox don't understand about Protestantism is that there is no "heresy police", which has upsides and downsides. Some Protestants are basically pre-Nicean, some are barely modified Catholics. The pre-Nicean position I am familiar with. Personally I think Nicea/Constantine/Platonism was a mistake but I wasn't there. Seems like politics ruins everything.
So I don't understand the concept of an ethnostate (which is demonstrably diluted/mixed like Rurik's Slavs chock full of tatar and mongol DNA like the Shoigu) or the political entity (which is full-on Globohomo and run by the same oligarchs as RU and maxxxvaxxxed). Its all a fable. The same can be said for the "Palestinians", almost all of them were rejects from surrounding countries. Or the "Seminoles" who were probably >50% runaway African slaves and crackers.
Ethnic identity politics makes as much sense as sexual identity politics. Its selling a fable. This is why religious identity is more potent. Look at Islam, a bunch of camel-herders from a backwater have adherents predominantly in areas they militarily subjugated. I would posit that "Slavic Identity" is either Orthodox-based or some sort of neopagan cult like the Galicians.
This is the basis of Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington BTW, not something I came up with.
The problem for the Jews/Igbo/Ahmadians/Roma etc is that they exist outside of an ethnoreligious bloc, and consequently they get the ol shaft. My partner's family is from one of these groups, run out of Germany to Russia and then to the US. They value coherence over consistency, and I think thats why you see a communistic impulse in these groups (and it is undeniable- it's there).
Rurik argues that Paul was a gnostic, fyi. just ask Dr. Livsi
So your contention is that he was the original "self-hating jew" kabbalah gnostic? His writings seem waaay less gnostic-adjacent than , say, John. But I can absolutely agree that Paul was a clean break from Judaism while Peter and the Jerusalem guys were pushing Diet Judaism with sprinkles. Hebrews could be seen as sort of gnostic, but as you are no doubt aware, it was not considered canonical until quite late, after Siniaticus for instance. And gnosticism was pretty much considered heretical by then (~180ish?).
Kind of why I find primitivism uncompelling, because its just camouflaged Orthodoxy, we are just arguing over provenance and timetables. Every choice is subjective, and religions are ultimately human because they are not logical, not despite their unproveability.
Really enjoyed this essay - very thought provoking. As much as I appreciate the SMO analysis and perspective, I think you particularly shine in this area. Without boring you (and others) with the why, I have recently been endeavoring to understand the underpinnings of Christianity and Judaism and associated eschatology, and find your writings very valuable.
Thanks, but I think my real calling is explaining occultism to ppl. I think I’ll do that on another blog though
If you start another one on that, I will subscribe.
Sadly I’d have to do a clean break because I can’t bring political baggage with me
Whatever works - my subscription to this blog is well worth the price, and I’d gladly pay for whatever clean break venture you might launch. Either way, my peasant brain enjoys the reads and podcasts.
I'm in!!
Fun piece of analysis, Rurik. I never really considered the Hellenized Jews would be inspired by Plato. I found "The Republic" to be tedious and never touched anything by Plato again. I always found the teachings of Christ to be the good part but then again much of the same can be found from Marcus Aurelius. Right now my struggle is grokking Guyenot's First Millennium argument and a whole lot of cooked chronology.
Plato's stuff is so boring the Republic might as well be called The Handbook for Abusing Hapless Peasants.
I agree the Guyenot hypothesis is fascinating. But then he doesn't think Aurelius existed. He thinks he (and most other "Roman" characters") were later composites or useful archetypes. But then the host suggests that Aurelius became Christian teaching? It's self-defeating. There is no certainty in history. This reminds me of literally the first week of Philosophy class arguing over the Good or the Virtuous. There is no objective anchor, it is inherently a religious/subjective decision.
Smashing the "Everybody knows" paradigms are just fun. I always enjoy watching scholars and "scientists" fall all over themselves proving a timeline fabricated by the RCC to lord over the Orthodox Churches. Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock are good for this too.
Great stuff.
Wow!! My head explodes! Great article. Please keep on writing abt the Bolsheviks and Plato. So nice to have my mind spinning. What’s your take on Reneé Guenón. Interested in hearing you out on this one.
i recommend his book on the Theosophists. he makes fun of blavatsky. fun intro to his thoughts.
Excellent read, once again Rurik. These topics are endlessly fascinating and it’s great to see the internal contradictions of these texts arranged in a way the coheres a very compelling argument for a very different set of motivations and origins of this mythology.
The mind virus analogy and the overall thesis of the synarchy weakening us with false spirituality is far more analytically useful tool for understanding our world today than any of the many silly narratives (and counter narratives) on offer.
Would love as much more of this and the occult stuff as you’re able to put together. Always needs time to digest but it never fails to intrigue
How did the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind begin? You never answer the origins question.
Metaphysics is like heroin to you, you just can't stop and this article is a waste of time. What's going on in Russia today? How are the ex-Wagner men getting along? In case you hadn't noticed the Russians are advancing all along the front and successfully operating the Slavic meat-grinder. Think this might have something to do with surrender terms and maybe even who is going to sue for peace and what might happen to Zelensky? Can Zelensky simply flee to one of his dachas around the world and retire without a bullet to the head?
I think the universe always existed as a material dimension. As a shadow of a higher dimension. But we higher beings getting trapped here came later. No i don’t have a concrete date but civilization is cyclical and gets reset periodically in a downward spiral. Checkmate, bibleman
So the origin of the universe is suffused in math/physics and is knowable through occult means? How is this not platonism again? Like literally neopythagorean platonism? From our resident anti-platonist? https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/neo-pythagoreanism/v-1
Nothing is new....
i can tell you where i disagree with plato specifically
1) that there are eternal laws -- there are only habits that change over time
2) that polytheism is bad - it is effective and works, which is why it was banend
3) that a metaphysics needs to be constructed backwards to maintain a moral code - plato's stated purpose in Republic was to create "morality" as we know it now
4) plato is anti-occult and destroyed occult learning
5) math is indeed a higher principle that shines down into our world, like sacred geometry, but it is not the only one, it is one path of many
6) pythagorism isnt platonism; pythagorism is hyperborean and shamanic
Neopythagorean platonism (neoplatonism) was probably the dominant form of "Platonism" in the formative period 100BC-100AD as you must know. Classical Platonism, like classical Marxism, didn't much outlive its namesake. Its useless to argue over it like arguing over Hegelianism- it degraded almost immediately into Old and Young Hegelians just like Platonism. Platonism was a sterile unimplementable set of terms, implemented in praxis by the later guys, they used Platonic vocabulary and rhetorical structure. Ain't no one was a "Platonist" by the strict definition 2000 years ago. Neoplatonism had no problems with occultism, polytheism, or much of anything that was "practical".
Ref: John 18 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. - all praxis. retroactively redefined in platonic terms.
what we know of pythagor is what plato told us mostly.
he literally travelled and collected all works that he could and destroyed all other copies to hoard occult knowledge.
Excellent point, you will not believe this but I made this exact point when researching a paper in High School. I hate to tell you I am raised Roman Catholic. But my grandfather who was from Sicily had a a saying he always told me as a kid that roughly translates to "Wake Up" I am mot kidding. Thanks for your truly great research.
No checkmate, just evasion. "A shadow of a higher dimension." Where did that originate? "higher beings?" As I said, a waste of time. Even reporting on current events in Russia, like who is Putin screwing, or how is Shoigu's private Tuvan army successfully sucking funding out of the military budget would be better than that.
You’re right, we live in a snow globe that Yahweh made out of his foreskin 6 thousand years ago. Makes more sense
Why do origin stories matter? That's all they are: stories, myths, legends. Have you reached out and explored yourself?
Here, I'll give you a synopsis of Ukraine: the Red team and Blue team are currently engaged in trench warfare for yet another meaningless town. When advances are in meters and blocks, there ain't shit happening. What surrender terms? The best you're going to get is maybe "cessation of hostilities" right now creates the new border. Are you some Zanon type that thinks the Kremlin will dictate to Ukraine and create some landlocked neutral rump state? Zelensky can go snort coke in Miami while Putin gets another term to enact more Globalist reforms.
Origin "stories" are not what matters. What matters is the origin of the earth, the universe, living things and mankind because they were all created by a prime mover or there is no such thing as science. As far as Z-anons go, I have no use for them, that's why I read Rolo. But I could not care less about ancient cults and man-made religion. That gets old real fast, like being proselytized by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics.
An interesting take on origins. I'm not sure that we'll ever really know. Layers of bullshit have been piled on that millennia deep.
Science, the application of the scientific method, presupposes cause and effect. The scientist (the curious) observes some phenomenon, hypothesizes the cause, tests his hypothesis to isolate the cause, and repeats the process to discover how the observable universe works. Ditto for origins, something caused the earth, the universe, living things, and mankind. Discovering the Prime Mover, that is God - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because he said that is who he is - is merely applied science. Someone outside of the universe made it all and it sure isn't Rolo's imagined wraiths and the fact of the creator renders all Rolo's effort spend on metaphysics a waste of time because he doesn't reach the inevitable conclusion that God made it all and God is exactly who he said he is, "I am."
Meat grinder for sure; but the DC neocons (the reportage of which has been largely accurate) say the "advances" have been minimal and at the cost of very high Russian KIA; and, same old same old -- welcome to WWI : "....currently conducting mass infantry-led assaults to capture Avdiivka in an apparent effort to conserve armored vehicles despite the risk of even greater manpower losses ..." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-7-2023
Great article, very thought-provoking.
However, the effects of sun cycles and comet activity on religion and politics is yet another taboo Russian schizoteric topic that I promise to bring up another time.
-> I'm familiar with the younger dryas events, but have never heard of this theory. Recommend me some reading on this.
I may have an addiction to refined sugar and pornography now, but I am a good, moral person because I don’t do anything bad to other people.
-> I remember you said some time back that you were doing keto. Are you still doing this, and in what way do you find this beneficial? I tried it some years back, but quit due to declining athletic performance. Mentally it was great though.
yeah you need carbs to do sports probably.
i am not on keto now because i have a hard time securing animal fat where i am now. in belarus id eat salo every day.
"They want you to think like them while also not being them."
That's a pretty good description of Christianity: Judaism for the goyim. The Jews didn't want to covert everyone else -- apart from all the weird laws, in that case the Jews would cease to be an elite. Enter Christianity: think like a Jew-- worship YHVH, follow his Son the Messiah, etc. -- but don't become a Jew.
"Imagine a sheep thinking that it is a wolf! It might side with the wolves against its fellow sheep. It might think it is safe from wolf predation because it is one of the wolves. It might start trying to live like a wolf despite the fact that it is not adapted to do so. It might try to bite its enemies or gorge them with non-existent claws instead of growing horns and head-butting them as it should. It might start taking care of wolf cubs and agitating politically for wolf interests … well, the metaphor has its limits but you get the point by now, hopefully."
IOW, the Christian boast of being a "spiritual Jew."
I didn't run off. I just have jobs. I'm not a public intellectual. Just a prole.
I had a long conversation with my brother. Really similar conversation. He is a serial entrepreneur and fancies himself as a finance guy. I'm a farmer who listens to podcasts. There is a fine line between trying to educate and baffling with bullshit. He was using terms he clearly didn't understand (or at least couldn't enunciate) with respect to my main contention. I always go to basics- definitions, ontology, authority. He considers me R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D. Because we have different basics. In fact, I don't think most of us have any basics. I'm trying to develop them. He traffics in aphorisms, ad hominem, thought-terminating clichés.
I did the same with you. I'm happy to share any of these things. And you claim my characterization is R - E - T - A - R - D -E -D.
I literally have an hour or two before chasing some tasks. I think we have different definitions, authority, ontology. I'm going to go through one claim you made, about Rousseau being a materialist. This is how I regard a claim, it's a little spectrum-y I admit. I can't do this for all the unsupported claims back and forth but I'm picking this one because its literally the easiest to dissect. I have tried to look into your claims, to see if my basic understanding is incorrect. I did the same with my brother and it just pissed him off.
Materialism: "The claim is that only material things exist; this has, first, the positive aspect that material things exist, and second, the negative aspect that nothing else exists apart from material things." rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/his… . Is this your definition? If not then what is?
Authority: Can we agree that his attributed writings are his? That the translation is accurate? Is there a better authority?
Ontology: Are the meanings of his writing clear? Metaphorical? Some sort of self-contradictory musings?
So if we can agree on Authority and Definition, we move to Ontology. I don't understand your statement that you speak authoritatively BTW maybe you can explain it. I'm assuming this is a turn of phrase not a claim of authority. I don't accept your authority any more than you accept mine. Or are we doing some other claim to authority? Honest question.
Ontology: I have only read The Social Contract and a few of his other writings, and its been at least 25 years, so I reread some of it. I find Diderot and the French generally less interesting than the Hobbes/Locke direction. So I am not an expert on his oevre. I'm not able to find anyone who describes him as materialist. The Marxists sort of take a half-assed approach. Materialism was slightly later but the basic concept was more Diderot I contend, and Rousseau hated him by the time of his main contributions. Marxists agree marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/he…
I can find lots of others who share my opinion that Romanticism (which can we agree that is generally described as the school he founded?) is a rejection of the enlightenment and materialism, but of a different nature than the 'skeptics'. jottedlines.com/profession-of-faith-of-… I know this is an appeal to consensus but it helps definitionally.
This is another article that I find compelling, putting Rousseau in opposition to the empiricism/materialism camp: hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02479772…
Money quote: "Materialism is not an error. Rather, it is a fraud."
As to if he is a Nominalist? I take no position, I dislike nominalism. It strikes me as an early iteration of linguistic analysis used against Platonism. Materialism seems like a real question that affects metaphysics at its core.
Regarding the other contentions, that there is a "Greek view" or "Modern Chinese" view, I simply don't have time to return serve today. I have no idea about Chinese. I find in Greek philosophy several contradictory views, so it seems hard to rectify. In fact it seems that there are basically the same schools that were replicated in the Enlightenment. The attempt to systematize logic maybe? Plato was dominant, maybe that’s your contention? I listened to most of the Heraclites pod and I will give the rest a chance.
I like your podcasts, it definitely seems you give people a reasonable shake. It could be you are just bringing on people you agree with, but I think it is curiosity. So I'm trying to be fair on here.
https://substack.com/profile/50161533-dieter-honboffer/note/c-46393064
Excellent work. Our highest aim should be to seek the truth. Once you start looking for the truth we find things that have been removed, hidden, veils put up to keep us from looking deeper, you have broken through some of the damnatio memoriae. I look forward to more on Marcion, I'm studying the first bible now.
All right! Found it.
https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1921-Theosophy-HistoryOfAPseudo-religion_text.pdf
THANKS!
What book do you recommend on Mme.Blavatsky? I’m learning russian. I buy many popular russian magazines and it surprises me how much they are dedicated to the OCCULT. I await your articles on the boksheviks and the OCCULT with impatience.
Always a great read.
Thank you.