Myth, History, Mytho-History, and Whitewash

Now, here’s a bit of a representative story of our corrosive “post-Enlightenment” condition.  And for a change, I get to say something this time about Australia and the so-called “Anglosphere”.

ABC may lose Australia Network” is the headline for a story that appears in The Guardian. Again, as with other jurisdictions in the Anglosphere, the role of a public broadcaster is coming under pressure from so-called (euphemistically so-called) “conservative” factions, whether it’s the CBC in Canada, the BBC in Britain, or apparently ABC in Australia.

“Another signal has emerged that the Abbott government intends to strip the ABC of its international broadcasting service – the Australia Network – in a significant concession to Rupert Murdoch and to conservative commentators critical of public broadcasting.”

Something of the real rationale for these attacks on public broadcasting — a rationale typically buried behind public pretensions of deficit fighting — is given in the article. The Aussie foreign minister, Julie Bishop, who apparently also has a bee in her bonnet about the very idea of a public broadcaster, complains that the Australia Network is not doing its proper job of serving as “a tool of public diplomacy”.

“Public diplomacy” is a euphemism for propaganda.

A little later on in the article, current Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott makes what is meant by “public diplomacy” a little more explicit. The Australia Network is insufficiently “patriotic”, or even negligent (as reactionaries understand “negligence”) in broadcasting anything at all that might “cast doubt on Australia’s reputation”.

“Patriotism” is a euphemism for conservative ideology. “Reputation” is a euphemism for “the brand”. And any “doubt” about the truthfulness or adequacy of our beliefs and perceptions is very bad.

Apparently, a commercial broadcaster like Rupert Murdoch of News Corp better understands the requirements of “public diplomacy” (that is to say, propaganda) which in our Brave New World is to be conservative, “patriotic”, and understand how to manage the news in such a way as to protect and project “the brand”, and to extinguish doubts,  regardless of whether it is true or not, or whether it conforms to reason at all.

In other words, for Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop, social communication (that is to say, “public diplomacy”) is all about perception management and manipulating the optics and national cheerleading. And the ruling parties in the UK, in Canada, and in Australia aren’t happy that their public broadcasters just don’t get “the new normal” and aren’t “staying on message”, as they say.

So, what’s the “new normal” and the new message the public broadcasters just don’t get about the Anglosphere?

The reactionaries (euphemistically called “conservatives” or “Tories” these days) aren’t very happy about “history”. It is said, truly, that those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. James Joyce’s literary alter ego, Stephen Daedalus, exclaims that “history is a nightmare from which I’m trying to awake”.

“History”, as it turns out, reveals some quite uncomfortable truths about ourselves, truths that contradict our carefully constructed (but fragile) self-image and our tendency to self-aggrandising narcissism, self-righteousness, and attendant ego-inflation (or Wego-inflation, to employ David Loy’s appropriate term). “History”, rather than being educational or illuminating, has become threatening.

So, away with history. History only teaches self-loathing.

History is to be forgotten. Away with history. Let’s put an end to history. History is to be dumped in favour of mythology and fable. This is the essential requirement for a broadcaster who must come to understand the meaning of “patriotism”, “public diplomacy”, “the brand” and “the new normal”.  This, too, is part of “post-truth politics” and the post-Enlightenment reaction.

Reactionaries from Edmund Burke onwards have always hated the Enlightenment anyway, which they blame for the French Revolution and, consequently also, for the ideals of “liberty, equality, fraternity” and their appeal to universality.  They keep trying to roll back history, even, if possible, to roll it back as far as the Roman Empire (which was the essential meaning of Robert Kaplan’s Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos to rationalise neo-conservatism and legitimise the Bush Administration).

A new kind of “history” is to be taught — a hybrid kind of mytho-history which actually ends up as a whitewash of history — a mytho-history, nonetheless, that confirms and approves of the reactionary as an elect human type — as being himself or herself “the new normal”.

Advertisement

16 responses to “Myth, History, Mytho-History, and Whitewash”

  1. alex jay says :

    “The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.” — Mark Twain

    Cheer up Scott! Whether it is public broadcasting or corporate controlled – neither of which satisfy the purpose of the fourth estate – it is becoming more evident that both have reached their enantiodromia phase. The “alternative media”, despite experiencing teething pains, is the future … that is why there is such a paranoid reaction from the global establishment to control it.

    Paraphrasing our old mucker Zbiggy Brez: It has become infinitely easier to kill a millon people, than to control a million people. You can thank the currently open internet for that. But …for how much longer?

    That’s the real issue … the ABC (BBC) and Murdochs can go the way of the dinosuar – two sides of propaganda on the same coin.

    • Scott Preston says :

      One can certainly take issue with the craft of history as it has been practiced, even when it has tried to be as clean-handed — as “objective” and “disinterested” — as possible.

      Unfortunately, that “disinterestedness” can become deracination if it is not handled properly. At its worst, it becomes dry, meaningless lists of chronologies not unlike the seemingless endless “begats” of the Old Testament.

      On the other hand, you have monstrosities like Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century which deliberately replaced history with mythology and the mystique of blood, showing how disastrous it is to equate the mythical with the historical.

      Both are needed, but in their proper sphere. The mythical can illuminate history in very meaningful ways, but isn’t a substitute for it. Blake was masterful at perceiving the mythical within the historical movement, but he never confused the two into “single vision”.

      “Single Vision” is Dark Age and, as far as Blake was concerned, barbarism by any other name — Dark Age is to become be-nighted. Fourfold vision is luminous or radiant awareness, on the other hand, in which the Poetic and Prophetic, the Philosophic and the Scientific, are integrated yet without losing their distinctive structures and characteristics.

      The Poetic, the Prophetic, the Philosophic, and the Scientific are four, and they correspond to Rosenstock-Huessy’s lyrical, dramatical, epical, and analytical modes of speech (or optatives, imperatives, narratives, and indicatives) as he mapped their articulations and interactions in The Origin of Speech. When one mode attempts to imperialise and colonise the others, social disaster is shortly to follow.

      I should actually post something about that correspondence between Blake’s Zoas and the grammatical forms.

      • Scott Preston says :

        Might point out, too, that this is why Rosenstock’s approach to history is so interesting, because he treats history as “autobiography”, which is even the subtitle of his book Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man, and corresponding to his attack on Cartesianism in biological and social science in his I Am an Impure Thinker.

  2. Heraclitus says :

    I clearly can’t partake on your level as I’m not as well read on most of these subjects. But I continually read a few of your posts here and there and have a few thoughts on this one… although I’m entirely off topic…

    This post seems a little myopic. Do you really think that presently “the new normal” as defined as the “reactionary” or “conservatives” are pivoted against the “liberal” or “progressive”?

    I find the whole perspective that these two “camps” are “at odds” is myth itself. It’s a perspective that we want to still exist because it helps us navigate what’s taking place. It’s like the Id and Ego… good terms to describe a phenomenon but not things in and of themselves. I don’t think humans like to shake these “lenses” we’ve inherited as we need them to make sense of life. But the whole liberal vs conservative fight for history (or whatever else) feels outdated. Maybe it’s a reality of a past paradigm (like Freud), but at present the political paradigms of the west seems more like smoke and mirrors for what is really vying for power.

    Movies are a profound tool to see the collective fears/fantasies of humanity reflected and surfaced. The Matrix, as cliche as it as, really does expose (albiet I don’t think the filmmakers understood the narratives depth of insight) the real struggle of humanity.

    The struggle is man vs machine. Or more accurately man vs those who create and control the machine. And I mean literal machine (tech), figuratively machines (governments/systems/institutions/corps) and virtual machine (Baudrillard’s similacrum/cinema itself/VR)… gods to the machine vs man.

    And finally I get to my point: the machine(s) don’t care about history. It can be objective history or mytho-history or whitewash history or no-history, as long as we do what the system needs, as long as us batteries keep going and going and going…

    but we love talking about it and getting emotional about all this… makes us feel like we are fighting… it’s almost like it’s a simulation, right? Ah that felt good, I let the internet know how much I disagree with this person or hate this idea, etc, etc… nb, the industrialized world doesn’t have the guts to Revolt against the machine, against the status quo. We are too crippled by our own history and frankly we now prefer our simulated existence. Flexing brain neurons yet doing nothing.

    stasis.

    my question: will our essence change/follow our existence?

    • Scott Preston says :

      Hello. Thanks for dropping by and commenting.

      This post seems a little myopic. Do you really think that presently “the new normal” as defined as the “reactionary” or “conservatives” are pivoted against the “liberal” or “progressive”?

      I actually don’t put it in those terms, and didn’t mention “liberal” or “progressive” in the post because I don’t consider it relevant. What is called “illiberal liberalism” is as much about “the new normal” as “new right” conservatism.

      I don’t describe myself in such terms. My political position can be summed up in one word — “counter-reactionary.” That leaves me a great deal of latitude for appreciating what is credible and vital in many different political positions, as well as recognising in them also the symptoms of degeneration and decay.

      The “new normal” wasn’t defined by me. It was defined by former Bush Admin V-P Dick Cheney (who relished being compared to Darth Vader). Cheney’s “new normal” comprised everything in the neo-conservative toolkit — Kaplan’s “pagan ethos”, Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Rove’s disdain for “the reality-based community”, in the infamous remark he made to Ron Suskind in which he pretty much dismissed the reasonable from relevance. The “new normal” is a constellation of those things as well as a tolerance for duplicity — for double-talk, double-standard, and double-think — especially for what was called “the normalisation of the double-standard” for an ostensibly “unipolar” world.

      The machine isn’t really the issue. The issue is the mind that imagined and then projected the machine outwards from itself as an image of itself. That is what we call here “the mental-rational structure of consciousness” functioning in deficient mode, that is, no longer identified with the life process. A different consciousness will imagine different machines, which will be less deadening and less a caricature of the living, in which the very meaning of the word “machine” will change.

      my question: will our essence change/follow our existence?

      Not sure what is meant here by “essence”, unless it means “human nature”, and what is meant by “human” and by “nature” changes all the time — practically, now, from generation to generation. Otherwise, “essence” does not change, only its expressions or articulations or mode of existence changes. The word “exist” means “to stand out”. What is out-standing? And what is it from which it stands out?

      (Hint: the Greek word for Latin ex-stare is ek-stase, ie, our “ecstasy”)

      • heraclitus says :

        Scott, your immediate response definitely clears things up for me and I see that I brought the “liberal” idea into it, when you didn’t. sry.

        I am particularly keen on your political position as “counter-reactionary”. In a different sphere of life, this position is important to me. I’m an aspiring movie writer/director and during my one semester of film school I was tasked by this eccentric french teacher to write my philosophy of filmmaking. My position was summed up as “anti-reactionary”, ie, being vigilant to not conform to the new norm, group think, etc… A few weeks ago Scorsese published a letter to his daughter explaining that the great challenge of the next generation of filmmakers is to have a voice and protect it.

        Additionally, I acknowledged your more intelligent and correct description of what I am trying to vent. “The machine isn’t really the issue. The issue is the mind that imagined and then projected the machine outwards from itself as an image of itself. ” That is exactly what I think to be the case. I’m fond of Jung and find “image” talk very accurate to my understanding of life.

        By “essence” I did mean “human nature”. I’m not entirely convinced it’s unchangeable. I often play a thought experiment questioning if “human nature” can change. For example if humans can overcome death. I think death is necessary to define and give meaning to life, our finite experience, so what would happen to our “nature” if death vanished?

        Alex Jay, what you shared (Kurzweill) is exactly the impetus of my thought experiments on humanity overcoming death. I shouldn’t even call them thought experiments. It’s a sci-fi script I’ve been developing 🙂

        Scott, can you elaborate and explain what you mean related to “ecstasy”. That last paragraph on your first comment back to me is going over my head, but I’m a big Herzog fan and therefore tantalized by “ecstasy” talk.

        Related to your Eisenstein comments, where does human “essence” reside?

        Aw man, I can’t even partake about Blake, I’ve been ignoring him for far to long (I never read him) 😦

        I want to know more about “materialist superstition”…. And if the “materialist” approach is so wrong… what position is right… Hegel?

        • Scott Preston says :

          A “reactionary” to me is someone who believes (consciously or unconsciously) that old answers and responses given to events or crises in the past are eternally valid and not temporary answers, even if it is patently clear they are not valid in present circumstances. It’s characterised by a certain nostalgia — a nostalgia for the “absolute” — “absolute morality”, for example. Thus, even a liberal or socialist can become reactionary in that sense (usually because they confuse “universal” with “absolute”. That’s another case in which our “end of history” seems quite evident — the Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum of “absolute morality” or “universal reason” seemingly irreconcilable opposites, have become in fact identical postures).

          Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, neo-socialism, neo-imperialism — these are reactionary responses to the changed circumstances of our social existence. The “neo-” is pretense and propaganda, since they all reach backwards for classical models — that is, answers given and values declared and proclaimed in earlier times to crises which were of a different character than today’s. Kaplan’s “warrior politics” or Fukuyama’s “end of history” or Niall Ferguson’s “neo-imperialism” etc all belong to reactionary nostalgia for earlier models, even reaching as far back as the Roman Empire for precedents. The precedents of the past justify the present.

          That’s another feature of the reactionary as I understand it — “whipping dead horses”. In the context of contemporary globalism, “nationalism” or “nativism” is reactionary (at one time, they were revolutionary). The belief that all our social and political problems arose as consequences from the French Revolution and the Enlightenment is reactionary (along with a nostalgia for a supposed Medieval idyll of pre-modernity much as expressed by the Norwegian ultra-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik).

          “The worst are full of passionate intensity, while the best lack all conviction” as Yeats’ put it in The Second Coming is something I associate with the reactionary mood. Likewise, Blake’s remark,
          “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, & breeds reptiles of the mind.”

          The reactionary ends up living a double life, a divided self — one in which the belief system does not accord with the reality he or she actually lives, so the reality is either denied or is coerced into conforming to the authority of the belief system. This is typical of fascism, for example (but not exclusively so). The walk and the talk become dissonant. Identity is invested in models and myths which are no longer valid, which leads to anxiety, and, in turn, typically a resort to violence or repression against the new condition as a response. Old growth attempts to smother and suffocate new growth, as it were.

          That’s just some of the features I understand by the word “reactionary”. Nostalgia, resenttiment, repressive “law & order” reactions… the reactionary doesn’t really respond so much as react.

          That was something of the comical theme of a cartoon I once saw, which depicted two amoebas, with one berating the other “stimulus-response, stimulus-response! Don’t you ever think?” There is a kind of automatism in the reaction. Between the stimulus and the response, real consciousness never inserts itself. One’s own beliefs, loyalties, etc are never interrogated for their validity. In fact, there is no attempt to become conscious at all. A kind of automatism in thought and behaviour is considered the norm — formula, cliche, cant are typical.

          The teachings of the New Testament are quite counter-reactionary, for example. When Jesus took on the Pharisees and the scribes, “God’s ways are not man’s ways” and “the Spirit bloweth where it listeth” where man’s “sin” (waywardness, as it were) is to presume to pin it down with his thoughts and expectations as to how the spirit should and must act; “the law is made for man, not man for the law” and Jesus’ casual attitude toward the Mosaic Law in favour of “the new dispensation” — These are all counter-reactionary.

          I would say our distaste for the reactionary comes from authentic Christian teaching, not vice versa (which is why I think militant atheists have got it all wrong). Jesus’ teaching had nothing to do with “law & order” or accusations against the flesh. The “new dispensation” was essentially this: “not your “sins” define you. You’re guilt limits you”. So, away with the guilt — essential meaning of the doctrine of “forgiveness”. Against reactionary nostalgia, against resenttiment, against the belief that there was a “final form” to the spirit, etc — these were what Jesus taught. “Conversion” was metanoia or “new mind”. Without that “new mind”, it was just posture and pretense.

          Well… I seem to have touched upon only one aspect of your comment. I’ll use another comment to address the other issues you raise.

        • Scott Preston says :

          I’m fond of Jung and find “image” talk very accurate to my understanding of life.

          Jung’s practice of “active imagination” should prepare you, then, for understanding what Blake means by “Imagination” as the “true man” also, as well as for understanding Heraclitus.

          The roots of the philosophy of over two millennia are found in the controversy and conflict between Parmenides and Heraclitus. It is presumed by many that these philosophies concerned the nature of physical reality or observations of “nature” — ie Being or Becoming, permanence or flux. Nothing of the kind, really. They were about consciousness. Heraclitus always insisted that his philosophy was the result of introspection — of direct experience against abstraction. Parmenides, long before Descartes, was the first to declare that “thinking and being are the same”. This is what Heraclitus attacked as delusional — that thinking proved existence. The “river” that one cannot put one’s foot into twice is the stream of consciousness. Heraclitus’ objection to Parmenides was that “thinking” had, in fact, distorted real experience and perception and had given to reality the impression of solidity and permanence (Being) it did not have. Parmenides “Being” was merely “ideal”, reified by the act of conceptualisation and abstraction itself.

          In other words, it was a controversy over whether thinking or perception were primary functions of consciousness.

          Heraclitus was known as “the Dark”, “the Obscure” to his contemporaries and successors. Parmenides won the day, and we have lived with over two millennia of the dominance of Paremindes ever since. Only since the 19th century (with Marx and Nietzsche, perhaps) has this “Parmenidean Era” begun to unravel, along with its erosion by the paradoxes of quantum mechanics or the influence of theories of thermo-dynamics, “Chaos Theory”, etc.

          We are now well into “the Heraclitean Era”, which is the essential meaning of Bauman’s “Liquid Modernity” — the flux. This is essentially a crisis of philosophy, which is another way of saying — a crisis of consciousness. It really has nothing much to do with the dualism of “idealism” or “materialism”.

          Idealism and materialism, Hegel or Marx, with their contemporary roots in attempts to resolve the dichotomy of Cartesian metaphysical dualism in terms of “mind” or “matter”, were the wreckage that washed up on the shores of history after the turbulent and violent period 1914-1945. We aren’t in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Ideology is not a sound guide to, or reliable interpreter of, experience any more. It has no “solidity”, as it were.

          Unfortunately, our consciousness has not caught up with our reality.
          Consequently, we lurch from crisis to crisis in perplexity and bewilderment and confusion. This is best exemplified by the utter confusion that attends our attempts to understand the “fourth dimension” — time. Time has become a huge problem for us, not just at the theoretical level, but in daily life.

          And it is in grappling with this problem of “time” that the new consciousness — the new “metanoia” — will crystallise. That’s the secret of Heraclitus, not Parmenides.

          As to your question about “essence” and “ecstasy”, you could do no better than to meditate on the great Zen koan, “Show me your face before you were born”. This koan has the same meaning as Nietzsche’s “Become what you are!”. And “what you are” is essentially the entire meaning of Blake’s poetry and prose.

          Nonetheless, these still have meanings related to the Christian practice of “dying to oneself daily” (would that it were actually “practice” and not mere lip-service).

  3. abdulmonem says :

    When euphemism is misused to mask dishonesty, human disaster is expected. Ibn Arabi said the human is a two-side mirror, one to the world, the seen and the other is to the divine the unseen. when the human image is colonized by the world mirror, the pagan ethos is demanded to smash the other mirror and to avoid its reminding character to those who are sensetive to it. This is the situation of our world where its leadership everywhere is embroidered by that pagan ethos. It is true that our history is our autobiography, but what is unfortunate is that we are not learning from history. We talk about enantiodromia and forget the Who, who puts it into action. I do not know to how long the ghaffla will persist.

  4. alex jay says :

    Interesting question from Hercalitus: “will our essence change/follow our existence?” To which Scott replied: “Not sure what is meant here by “essence”, unless it means “human nature”, and what is meant by “human” and by “nature” changes all the time…”

    The reason it’s interesting is that leaps and bounds are being made in the technosphere that suggest the possibility of achieving Ray Kurzweill’s wetdream of a transhumanist – i.e. post-human (post-homo sapiens) – age. Having recently joined Google, I don’t think you have be all that perceptive to notice where all this is going. The question therefore arises: can a mechanical body – replacing most of the biological functions – with an enhanced computerised chipped brain, estimated to be thousands (some suggest billions) times more efficient in computational capacity – a semi-biological super computer – be even considered “human”? Or, will the metamorphesis lead the way to a dominant new species in the same way that modern homo-sapiens replaced the Neanderthals? By that I mean that only a few (“the 1%” if you like) would have the hubris and means of acquiring this technology and the rest would be superflous to the point of extinction.

    • Scott Preston says :

      As I posted earlier in a series on this subject of the cyborg and “artificial intelligence” — any attempt to model “intelligence”, as this is characteristically understood today, will succeed only in modelling artificial insanity.

      The assumption behind current concepts of “artificial intelligence” is akin to the superstition that resulted in the pickling of Einstein’s brain for intensive study and analysis — the assumption that the “essence” of Einstein’s genius — even the secret of his life — would be revealed in the dead matter of his pickled brain.

      This is a materialist superstition. It would make you howl with laughter if it wasn’t so tragically foolish. It belongs to the same ignorance that mistakes Blake’s portrait of Urizen, “Ancient of Days”, as being Blake’s homage to the Divine, and not as Blake intended to portray — the demonic “Jehovah” or Mara, ruler of the Ulro, the “Prince of Lies” and ruler of “this world”.

      “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise”, to quote Blake again. And maybe enough prodding and probing of Einstein’s pickled graymatter will finally lead to the conclusion that, gee, the essence of Einstein’s intelligence and the genius of his life can’t be found in his pickled brain — not even a hint of it.

      Until then, though, the symbol of “Einstein’s brain” will constellate a host of aberrant and demented materialistic superstitions (and magical thinking) about the meaning of “intelligence” and “IQ”, etc. It really is demented.

      And “demented” (or “deranged”) is the most appropriate word to finally summarise what Gebser means by “the mental-rational consciousness” functioning in deficient mode, which is why we sense that it is, indeed, “a mad, mad world”.

      So, if it is indeed a “mad, mad world”, what will this artificial intelligence model except this same madness, and not only model it, but enhance its madness a million-fold?

      • Scott Preston says :

        So, if it is indeed a “mad, mad world”, what will this artificial intelligence model except this same madness, and not only model it, but enhance its madness a million-fold?

        I should add, here, that it is already doing so, if you do a survey of the kinds of AI projects being conducted by universities and research facilities on behalf of DARPA and the Pentagon, for example — a survey of which is included in Jensen and Draffan’s book Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control. The products of that mentality and imagination are terrifying enough that it even persuaded the authors that we would be better off reverting to the ape-state than to continue on the present course.

        • alex jay says :

          Of course it’s insane. All that is necessary to fry Frankenstein’s monster is a giant coronal emission (a huge EMP) like the “Carrington Effect” that blew out the entire telegraph system back in the 1850s. All the wires and the chips on the planet will melt and with it the chip implanted brains of homo androidicus. : )

  5. heraclitus says :

    I wish I saw all these comments yesterday, the email forwarding failed 😦

    Scott, your immediate response definitely clears things up for me and I see that I brought the “liberal” idea into it, when you didn’t.

    I am particularly keen on your political position as “counter-reactionary”. In a different sphere of life, this position is important to me. I’m an aspiring movie writer/director and during my one semester of film school I was tasked by this eccentric french teacher to write my philosophy of filmmaking. My position was summed up as “anti-reactionary”, ie, being vigilant to not conform to the new norm, group think, etc… A few weeks ago Scorsese published a letter to his daughter explaining that the great challenge of the next generation of filmmakers is to have a voice and protect it.

    Additionally, I acknowledged your more intelligent and correct description of what I am trying to vent. “The machine isn’t really the issue. The issue is the mind that imagined and then projected the machine outwards from itself as an image of itself. ” That is exactly what I think to be the case. I’m fond of Jung and find “image” talk very accurate to my understanding of life.

    By “essence” I did mean “human nature”. I’m not entirely convinced it’s unchangeable. I often play a thought experiment questioning if “human nature” can change. For example if humans can overcome death. I think death is necessary to define and give meaning to life, our finite experience, so what would happen to our “nature” if death vanished?

    Alex Jay, what you where sharing related to Kurzweill is the impetus of my thought experiments on humanity overcoming death. I shouldn’t even call them thought experiments. It’s a sci-fi script I’ve been developing 🙂

    Scott, can you elaborate and explain what you mean related to “ecstasy”. That last paragraph on your first comment back to me is going over my head, but I’m a big Herzog fan and therefore tantalized by “ecstasy” talk.

    Related to your Eisenstein comments, where does human “essence” reside?

    I want to know more about “materialist superstition”…. And if the “materialist” is so wrong… what position is right… Hegel?

  6. LittleBigMan says :

    “The “new dispensation” was essentially this: “not your “sins” define you. You’re guilt limits you”. So, away with the guilt — essential meaning of the doctrine of “forgiveness”.”

    Profoundly meaningful.

    A very illuminating and one of a kind capture of the state of the “reactionary” mind, too.

    There’s so much corruption in historical records that I could easily be convinced that all history is “mytho-history.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: