I haven't been here for a while. A lot has changed in my own life and in my perspective on life in general. I don't disclaim anything I've said here in the past -- far from it in fact -- but I don't plan to continue the line of thought. It's taken me to this point, and I'm ready to move on.
So, if anybody is reading -- I don't really have a readership anymore, but that makes me bolder and more interesting -- I have a new project. Yes, we are still rebelling. Don't worry about that. But, we have to define our rebellion much more carefully and tangibly.
If you need a coach in life, stop by here from time to time. It may not be what you're looking for, but you might be surprised. I might also start a new blog or two, the names of which are more appropriate. But I'm pretty attached to this old thing at this point.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Have you ever watched followers? Look at them. How serious they are! Can you see them reading their magazines and watching TV? Do you hear them all saying the exact same things and waiting for the applause. Nietzsche called them flies. I love Nietzsche. But they seem to me more like fleas.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
The target of this rebellion is not idealism but universal morality. There is a difference. Idealism cannot claim to exist without universalism, but the latter can claim, albeit falsely, to exist without the former. The many who have abandoned idealism in theory would never think to give up universalism. The universal has been leading a charmed and inviolate life.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The lack of a universal standard is exactly why the various local customs, despite their stark contrasts with each other, ask to be respected in absolute terms, not the reason why they ought to be ignored and destroyed. What do we plan to replace them with? Reason, empire, Christ, the Church, communism, fascism, capitalism, liberalism, selfishness, chaos, equilibrium, heat-death?
The reality of the modern human perspective is that it has been subjected to a rational development of ideas founded upon a dubious but now unconsciously accepted premise. A belief in universal morality as a concept or form leads by logical necessity to the commitment both to equality and to the interests of the individual (see “Selfishly Inevitable” on 1/1/06). I pose to myself a series of questions at this stage. Do equality and the interests of the individual define the moral paradigm of our age? Is the modern moral condition healthy, or are we in trouble? Is this chaos? If so, are we prepared to give up the spirits to which we are so addicted and to find out once again what mere water tastes like? We have put our faith into intoxicants, whether we call them gods or godless patterns of perfection. Anyone who refuses to gulp them inevitably suffers the moral criticism of the tipsy. I myself do not particularly enjoy condemnation, but I can no longer tolerate having to hold my nose in order to drink the false ideals of a foolishly inebriated society.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
I believe in evolution, I do not believe in God, and I prefer Christian to liberal morality. Liberal morality has no more claim to evolution than Christianity does, and to me Christianity seems more life preserving. But evolution puts an undeniable block on the authority of Christianity. So where are we? I go back to my first statement. I am unwilling to finish it with "and I embrace liberalism." Here is where I break from the evolutionists that I admire, and here is where I am ready to lead into an unknown.
Most of us acclimatize ourselves regardless of the environment. The true exception, by contrast, does not adapt and leaves himself vulnerable to the elements as a result. Is he under-evolved biologically speaking? Is the thoughtless follower the real hero of Darwinian theory? He is certainly one of them.