1. 0

    Add a comment

  2. Comments - YouTube



    I would like to know your thoughts on something.
    I also don't like 'western culture' as it seems to point to a geological category which in a lot of ways is quite resent and much more to do with a particular religious grouping(even then... loosely).
    Like I'v been following a lot of right wing intellectuals who seem thoroughly convinced of pre-christian European religion and cultural will set Europe right... but Europe wasn't Europe in a sense, a lot of them would have had more culturally connections with modern day Africa, the 'middle east'(very orientalist category but for the sake of ease), or that the groupings would have been sort of on there own and constantly changing. Its seems like a waste of time to return to a 'west' which didn't have a shared identity to begin with.
    Also the main cultural identity europe actually did have historically was that of Catholicism, and yet this is what this new right wing rally against as well, but I think I know why! and this is what I'd like to hear your opinion on.
    I think Catholicism is to wide in its scope, and this new set of right wing historians are put off my the universalism which Catholicism brings with it. How can they be proud westerners if the majority of catholics are in south america? how can they use this shared 'western' identity this includes the non-latin churches...
    also Catholicism over the last 2 centuries has begun to come even more universal in its implications(for good or for bad), but I think that it is the fact that catholicism messes with 'cultural west' identity therefore they must invent a fiction of history and reject the turth of what there identity actually is.
    Do you think I am accurate?
    I feel this also applies to the secular left by the way, but its contradictions are more pronounced in the right wing.
    I like your self am also leftwing, but I like you have a sense communication and what I like to call 'mystical' life. I love your videos although new to the channel :)
    Oh, I see. Interesting.
    Well, I understand what you are saying, but I can't speak to the motivations of people, especially on a large scale and why they may be inventing another foundational myth for "Western civilisation".
    What I do notice is something that I experience more as a phenomenon, whereby there seem to be two types of cultural logic and I find myself on the outside of the contemporary Western cultural logic.
    The current mode of relating to others has been, maybe since the 70s, narcissistic. That logic is very strange to me. For instance, take its basic premise that one only speaks in order to dominate others. In terms of this logic, one does not speak to communicate something new, or to create intimacy, but to manipulate perceptions and take control.
    This is the quandary I have been experiencing ever since migration from Africa. I haven't known how to survive in such a situation, and I haven't known how to relate.
    According to the cultural logic which is no doubt much more akin to Catholicism's, one has an inner being, which is the intimate self, and is reluctant to communicate -- even, in a sense, incommunicable. Modernity dispenses with this, and hence I don't know how to relate to it, or within it.
    So, it is the modern form of Western culture that is narcissistic, but the older style of it, including the Catholic style, is roughly speaking "schiozoid" in its logic, due to the hidden and bashful nature of this inner self.
    One might ask a different sort of question then, which is are these right wing intellectuals trying to create a version of things that is narcissistic, or more aligned with the schizoid pattern? Are they intent on creating something modern or traditionalist?
    In fact, it has to be one or the other, or perhaps a third option, but there is no overlap between schizoid reasoning and narcissistic reasoning: they are most unalike.
    Perhaps, if the new identity for the West is based on implicit narcissism, it will deny, and not see at all the reaches of Catholicism and its very different unifying potency.
    Personally, I can't stand listening to almost all of the successful Youtube "intellectuals" because they do employ the implicit language of narcissism. I find more in common with an Asian worldview.
    0

    Add a comment

  3. Comments - YouTube



    Are you aquarius? You describe the dynamic so well. Its is a very strange clash of ideologies, my actions are not based on furthering my agenda beyond a basic living standard and personal level of contentment, and never at the intentional negative costs of someone elses existence. Maybe to garner attention in my field of work but i can honestly say its with the best of intentions, its to give back, not just to take. I guess the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Narcissists believe everyone is playing a dog eat dog game and cannot comprehend an intent of progression through truth and fairness, so everything you say is seen through their selfish looking glass and twisted into a delusional image of you having their same selfish intent. Why does everyone else believe this though? Are they so unaware and part of the narcissistic machine that they cannot see either intention any more? Why is everyone so scared of the truth that they must shoot the messenger? Kind of random but could it be something simple as mass fear of a possible fluid human sexuality? Hence the effect gender norms have had on the human psyche to build unhealthy barriers and reactions. Or something simple like this i.e a unhealthy image society portraits of success that causes mass delusion. Also if you think about it you could just be intellectualising the difference between good and evil, in other words the quest for truth and fairness and and the quest to profit from confusion. Which is kind of freaky, cause then is it spiritual warfare? and im not "religious"
    Cultural narcissism is a different world view, for sure. There can be good and evil on the side of a cultural schizoids behavior. One may do great harm, potentially, in a non-emotional way, if one's feelings were always harnessed to an ideal that is extremely impersonal, and therefore can't be moderated by personal experiences and self-knowledge. My adventure into an autobiographical mode was to cure myself of this impersonality.
     â–¼
    ♡
    Recently someone was talking about how the word Awmer means hell in Hebrew, so America is actually Awmer eye Ka, which would be a spirit suffering it's own ego. It makes a lot of sense. The me can't be the you, so there is always conflict.
    Yes, I see what you mean. There is only one permissible perspective, so they other person cannot really exist..cannot be allowed to exist at all.
    0

    Add a comment

  4. 0

    Add a comment

  5. 0

    Add a comment

  6. 0

    Add a comment

  7. 0

    Add a comment


  8. 0

    Add a comment

Popular Posts
Popular Posts
  •  Different domains. As long as the control of the domain is not interfered with, both can win at their own games. As an ENTP, I tend to take...
  •  I love it. But Twain was in a sense too optimistic as travel is not always the answer. Or rather nothing beats being a local yokel and expe...
  •   What is a good book by Nietzsche to read in order to understand how he thought that people have an innate nature? Basically arguing nature...
About Me
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Labels
Loading
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.