Prose on my exposition of grounds

The last time I went to church was a couple years ago. It was a black church which featured plenty of music, dancing, swaying—apparently this is a community-enhancing experience whereby people feel their defenses drop and they begin to love their neighbor on the pew, all out of an agreed-upon shared experience often expressed as “feeling faith.” But that isn’t God they’re feeling—let us shout “fuck the ecstatics”—it’s a shared susceptibility! Aldous Huxley describes the power of music on a crowd as a downward self-transcendence—rather than a horizontal self-transcendence as exemplified by one’s identification with worldly movements, or an upward self-transcendence as found in unitive mysticism—as found in political rallies, military fronts, and religious gatherings and revivals. What does this means for the Puritans who professed to despise music as a channel for the Devil’s influence? Perhaps there was something wise in their disdaining music as a stirrer of the passions? Perhaps the Puritans, in their ascetic and damned view of life, were far more logical than we give them credit for being. Or perhaps it wasn’t about despising the pleasure of music so much as the distortion of logic it entails, especially in their environment where there was practically nothing else (in virtue) to do but work in that howling wilderness.

Also—if compulsory education is used by the state to factory-produce students according to Enlightenment order, to socialize them into wanting habits and buying habits, to socialize their internal insecurities into external desires, to enforce values based on who is good and which behaviors are good and who is bad and which behaviors are bad, which then tend to stay with the pupils for life—though I still think the benefits of compulsory education outweigh the costs at this contingent point in history—but it means all those free-thinking weirdos keep on thinking themselves weird and disorder. By corollary, the popular people maintain their intellectual comfort for life, no matter the absurdity of their beliefs. We need only examine the duopoly and partisanship of American politics, and the continued support of such absurd practices and intellectual erosions, to confirm how state-socialization of social experience itself, rather than socialized economics, renders a population susceptible to ideology. Economic socialism of course remains laudable.

On to to sociological psychoanalysis. Given the relative wealth of America’s poorest of the poor, perhaps Weber’s conceptualization of ressentiment explains the poor’s disdain for the wealthy, as quiet as it’s kept. Likewise, fascistic power-worship, and ego-dystonic yearning to become each person a despot—itself due to the democratic process whereby each individual is empowered to think his thoughts the supernal best of the best thinking undeferred to institutional expertise—perhaps explains the poor’s idolization of the wealthy where it occurs.

Here comes the specter of Nietzsche who has since shaved his mustache as it has become fashionable.

A query from a review of The Genealogy of Morals: “At the most basic level the question is: Have you submitted to a subject-object reversal, whereby your subjectivity is displaced into some kind of ruling object and its will?”

Here follows my partial exposition of my philosophy at twenty-one:

There is no such thing as “mere materialism.” Let us refute the sentence “We are just material” by saying “We are material and are therefore exalted, as evidenced by all the amazing properties to which material is heir.” We are material only, but not “merely.” I think I am, as material, determined in totality by material forces in totality. “I don’t have a body, I am a body.” I know Nietzsche attempted to refute atomism, or whatever he referred to as the guise of determinism—but science is going on more and more to say personality is determined by the inter-relation of environment, punctuated physio-psychological growth periods, and the complex dramas of structural neurochemistry. None of this signifies the metaphysical free will the medieval theologians exalted and which they learned from Augustine…So I think those who think themselves free in the whole sense, the so-called self-masters, are deluded. “We are free to want what we want but we are not free to determine what it is that we want.” So this explains my dislike of conservative freedom-narratives whereby the rightist Christians, revoking the words of their original martyr, assert that the masters of society deserve their place in this natural order because they self-determined into their positions rather than playing by the social rules (read: constraints) which govern all. Such is the fallacy of referring to any social practice as “natural.” Natural is, after all, whatever can occur in nature: be this rape, dictatorship, charity, or egalitarianism. So I have to disagree with Nietzsche in his ultimate aspect of self-determination, in the philosophy-in-a-vacuum sense—and this means yet again disagreeing with rightist politics, that enormous collective delusion which America’s egotists declare on their altar. However, regarding my feelings of being determined from without to a remarkable degree—I wonder is that the product of honest introspection or is it me simply projecting responsibility off to the external, as an ex-addict whose will presumably has been broken since the beginning of adolescence—as the conservatives would accuse?

In other historical news, Coca Cola will in the future employ its own militarized army. One can only imagine the uniforms.

~ by Jeremy on July 7, 2013.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: