Farasha, that was brilliant! I will be reading it again and again in an effort to absorb as much as possible given my pedestrian brain. I sincerely appreciate all your efforts, and as always will look forward to your next chapter. Thank you.
Thank you, Jack, for the comment. I greatly appreciate it. Comments such as these really help to keep me motivated. Fighting the Machine is a deeply difficult path, and words of encouragement are always helpful.
What do you think that Heidegger meant when he said that 'only a god can save us now'? For me, it brings to mind Alexander Dugin's notion of 'the fourth political theory' - i.e. that whereas the first three political theories - liberalism, communism and fascism - despite their superficial differences, all share the same materialist premises, a fourth political theory centred on Being (Beyng) and not race, class or individual autonomy, can give us the paradigm shift we need and restore way of being that is orientated towards the Divine and not shadows on the wall of the cave. It's an interesting and vital premise - that it might not take hundreds of years to turn things around but only an instant, and that it's not humans per se that are the problem but rather our attachment to false gods.
My sense is that it will all seem very obvious iand clear in retrospect - after the paradigm shift - but from where we are now things can feel very obtuse and hard-edged and it's not so easy to see how we can get from here to there. Thank you.
I think that Heidegger meant that phrase both literally and figuratively: I believe that he meant 1) that in order to surmount the problems of the modern world that we would need literal divine intervention. Namely, that humans can no longer defeat the Machine on their own, but need the help of spiritual forces; and 2) that we need a change of perspective, namely that the only way we will be able to effect any positive change here and now will be to reorient our hearts, minds, and souls towards things divine, rather than things made by machines that make machines. So, ultimately, I believe that Heidegger wanted us to engage in something akin to postmodern Iamblichean theurgy: to both awaken our third-eye, reorienting ourselves to the divine, but also to call upon the divine for assistance. Only through this twofold process may we be saved as a species. Of course, Life will last long past the reign of man, but all of life is suffused with divine energies, and only man chooses to reject that part of himself, killing everything that is immortal, and building his edifice on the unstable foundation of pure matter.
I would say that we have made such a mess of things that we could never fix things right away, but it would take time; time we don't have. So, for each individual man, he may reorient himself, and he may be saved through his closeness to a god, but mankind's destiny looks far more grim. The only way humans can survive on this planet and not be a bane to all other life-forms is to exist at a population of 500,000,000 or less, and right now most political theorists want to prolong our slow decline, so they advocate increasing growth, when we need rapid decline. Now, humans can be capable of being divine-humanity, but more often than not, today men willingly accept roboticization, so both man and his paradigms are at fault. And certainly, if we were visited by a God tomorrow, as an avatar of the great Fire, society would lock Him up in an insane asylum and shoot him full of drugs.
So, what is to be done: My only solution is to find other like-minded, good-hearted men and women, and retreat to the mountains and deserts, where we may set up small communities which focus on prayer and art, and which may weather all the coming storms, and the apocalypse, for the fourth horseman is man himself.
That's a terrific response, Farasha. Thank you very much. Personally, I believe that every human life adds value to the planet and I instinctively shy away from philosophies predicated around population reduction. But you staked out your position very well in your chapter on over-population and I don't think there's any point now in going over old ground. I find what you say about Heidegger here really illuminating and with regards to your last paragraph - yes, 100% - that's the way out and through. If you've not already seen it, this new essay by Paul KIngsnorth taps into the same stream of thought -
Thank you John. I think that we live in a time with far too much toxic divisiveness, so rather than focus on differences, I prefer to engage with people based on where we can see eye to eye. My population chapter was certainly one that alienated people, but I am willing to both engage in healthy debate, as well as put that issue aside to focus on areas of radical commonality. I am not an anti-natalist, and I do believe that life is precious. In fact, I would say every animal, vegetal, and even mineral life has value. I think that our only difference is that where you say " I believe that every human life adds value to the planet," I would simply add the word "potential". All human lives potentially add value to the world, but due to the gift of free will, many people choose to relinquish their divine mission, and in the process lose their value. I have also been told that advocating for lower populations would entail authoritarianism, but the glorious thing about the entirety of human history up to 100 years ago is that population was generally self-regulating. Without technology, even the most anarchic society would have a relatively stable population. All of this is just an aside to further clarify my views. I have no desire to get into a debate on this topic.
I read Paul's essay earlier in the day and appreciate it. It gives me great hope that people such as us can start from such ostensibly different metaphysical positions, yet end up squarely in the same place!
Great, Farasha, thank you. I recently obtained a recent English translation of an earlier book by Ellul, called, if I remember correctly, Presence in the Modern World, which is about how to live in the face of the ubiquity of La Technique. I'm keen to see how it is related to the attitudinal change you call for. Don't you think Illich was a good example of the right stance? He couldn't take down the modern medical machine he so brilliantly described, but he did show, by personal example, the right attitude to take. (On matters of health and autonomy, he remains my inspiration). I was also struck by your quotation from Abbey. For what he says about the harmlessness of 'mindfulness' etc. in the West may, I'm beginning to suspect, be said of "Buddhist economics" in its latest manifestations, as it works its way through the business schools -- a kind of comforting, harmless palliative for post-Christian Westerners who crave something but are unwilling/unable to draw on their own ancient tradition. Anyone who decides, like Illich, to take the naked Christ seriously, or for that matter the true Buddha, is in for some serious life upheaval as they embrace voluntary poverty and renunciation. Keep up your good work, Farasha. I'll get to Kazantzakis yet, by the way!
You are welcome. "Presence in the Modern World" is a fantastic read. Ellul's sociological texts, despite their importance, are rather a bore to read. On the other hand, his theological texts are quite suffused with passion. My feeling is that Ellul wrote his criticisms of technology out of necessity, but wrote his theological works as a labor of love. All of his theological writings are worth reading. Ellul's protestantism is highly interesting and it would be a force to be reckoned with if it had more than a few adherents.
I like Ivan Illich's writings, but they are largely simple, common sense. More important than his writings is his life. Illich lived his principles without the slightest shred of hypocrisy, and for that reason, I place him in the pantheon of modern saints along with Simone Weil. Often, even major theologians and critics of technology will make an exception for modern medicine, when faced with their own mortality, but Illich followed his principles, stuck to his ideals, and he did it with honesty and fortitude. He knew he had a cross to bear, and he bore it bravely.
I have the utmost respect for eastern religions as traditionally practiced in their homelands, but the versions that are now practiced in the west, along with the versions that the west has exported back to the east are simply perfect ideological companions to capitalism. They are little more than a set of relaxation techniques designed to keep middle managers well functioning during the work week. There couldn't be a stronger contrast between this and the true Buddha or Christ. The true Christ was a warrior, combatant, and revolutionary who demanded everything, with no compromise. I am reminded of the story of the desert father who desired to see the Living God, yet all his years of faith, devotion, and practice yielded no hint of God to him. Only at an advanced age did he have an epiphany, realizing that all attachments keep us tied to the world, so he burned his copy of the gospels and upon performing this act, God showed Himself to the monk. Renunciation is not giving token donations to charity or squatting in various yoga postures for a few hours a week. True renunciation is renouncing even the idea of God, since no human concept can ever hope to come close to describing the majesty and resplendence of the Divine.
Farasha, that was brilliant! I will be reading it again and again in an effort to absorb as much as possible given my pedestrian brain. I sincerely appreciate all your efforts, and as always will look forward to your next chapter. Thank you.
Thank you, Jack, for the comment. I greatly appreciate it. Comments such as these really help to keep me motivated. Fighting the Machine is a deeply difficult path, and words of encouragement are always helpful.
What do you think that Heidegger meant when he said that 'only a god can save us now'? For me, it brings to mind Alexander Dugin's notion of 'the fourth political theory' - i.e. that whereas the first three political theories - liberalism, communism and fascism - despite their superficial differences, all share the same materialist premises, a fourth political theory centred on Being (Beyng) and not race, class or individual autonomy, can give us the paradigm shift we need and restore way of being that is orientated towards the Divine and not shadows on the wall of the cave. It's an interesting and vital premise - that it might not take hundreds of years to turn things around but only an instant, and that it's not humans per se that are the problem but rather our attachment to false gods.
My sense is that it will all seem very obvious iand clear in retrospect - after the paradigm shift - but from where we are now things can feel very obtuse and hard-edged and it's not so easy to see how we can get from here to there. Thank you.
I think that Heidegger meant that phrase both literally and figuratively: I believe that he meant 1) that in order to surmount the problems of the modern world that we would need literal divine intervention. Namely, that humans can no longer defeat the Machine on their own, but need the help of spiritual forces; and 2) that we need a change of perspective, namely that the only way we will be able to effect any positive change here and now will be to reorient our hearts, minds, and souls towards things divine, rather than things made by machines that make machines. So, ultimately, I believe that Heidegger wanted us to engage in something akin to postmodern Iamblichean theurgy: to both awaken our third-eye, reorienting ourselves to the divine, but also to call upon the divine for assistance. Only through this twofold process may we be saved as a species. Of course, Life will last long past the reign of man, but all of life is suffused with divine energies, and only man chooses to reject that part of himself, killing everything that is immortal, and building his edifice on the unstable foundation of pure matter.
I would say that we have made such a mess of things that we could never fix things right away, but it would take time; time we don't have. So, for each individual man, he may reorient himself, and he may be saved through his closeness to a god, but mankind's destiny looks far more grim. The only way humans can survive on this planet and not be a bane to all other life-forms is to exist at a population of 500,000,000 or less, and right now most political theorists want to prolong our slow decline, so they advocate increasing growth, when we need rapid decline. Now, humans can be capable of being divine-humanity, but more often than not, today men willingly accept roboticization, so both man and his paradigms are at fault. And certainly, if we were visited by a God tomorrow, as an avatar of the great Fire, society would lock Him up in an insane asylum and shoot him full of drugs.
So, what is to be done: My only solution is to find other like-minded, good-hearted men and women, and retreat to the mountains and deserts, where we may set up small communities which focus on prayer and art, and which may weather all the coming storms, and the apocalypse, for the fourth horseman is man himself.
That's a terrific response, Farasha. Thank you very much. Personally, I believe that every human life adds value to the planet and I instinctively shy away from philosophies predicated around population reduction. But you staked out your position very well in your chapter on over-population and I don't think there's any point now in going over old ground. I find what you say about Heidegger here really illuminating and with regards to your last paragraph - yes, 100% - that's the way out and through. If you've not already seen it, this new essay by Paul KIngsnorth taps into the same stream of thought -
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/03/a-wild-christianity
Salut, jf
Thank you John. I think that we live in a time with far too much toxic divisiveness, so rather than focus on differences, I prefer to engage with people based on where we can see eye to eye. My population chapter was certainly one that alienated people, but I am willing to both engage in healthy debate, as well as put that issue aside to focus on areas of radical commonality. I am not an anti-natalist, and I do believe that life is precious. In fact, I would say every animal, vegetal, and even mineral life has value. I think that our only difference is that where you say " I believe that every human life adds value to the planet," I would simply add the word "potential". All human lives potentially add value to the world, but due to the gift of free will, many people choose to relinquish their divine mission, and in the process lose their value. I have also been told that advocating for lower populations would entail authoritarianism, but the glorious thing about the entirety of human history up to 100 years ago is that population was generally self-regulating. Without technology, even the most anarchic society would have a relatively stable population. All of this is just an aside to further clarify my views. I have no desire to get into a debate on this topic.
I read Paul's essay earlier in the day and appreciate it. It gives me great hope that people such as us can start from such ostensibly different metaphysical positions, yet end up squarely in the same place!
Great, Farasha, thank you. I recently obtained a recent English translation of an earlier book by Ellul, called, if I remember correctly, Presence in the Modern World, which is about how to live in the face of the ubiquity of La Technique. I'm keen to see how it is related to the attitudinal change you call for. Don't you think Illich was a good example of the right stance? He couldn't take down the modern medical machine he so brilliantly described, but he did show, by personal example, the right attitude to take. (On matters of health and autonomy, he remains my inspiration). I was also struck by your quotation from Abbey. For what he says about the harmlessness of 'mindfulness' etc. in the West may, I'm beginning to suspect, be said of "Buddhist economics" in its latest manifestations, as it works its way through the business schools -- a kind of comforting, harmless palliative for post-Christian Westerners who crave something but are unwilling/unable to draw on their own ancient tradition. Anyone who decides, like Illich, to take the naked Christ seriously, or for that matter the true Buddha, is in for some serious life upheaval as they embrace voluntary poverty and renunciation. Keep up your good work, Farasha. I'll get to Kazantzakis yet, by the way!
You are welcome. "Presence in the Modern World" is a fantastic read. Ellul's sociological texts, despite their importance, are rather a bore to read. On the other hand, his theological texts are quite suffused with passion. My feeling is that Ellul wrote his criticisms of technology out of necessity, but wrote his theological works as a labor of love. All of his theological writings are worth reading. Ellul's protestantism is highly interesting and it would be a force to be reckoned with if it had more than a few adherents.
I like Ivan Illich's writings, but they are largely simple, common sense. More important than his writings is his life. Illich lived his principles without the slightest shred of hypocrisy, and for that reason, I place him in the pantheon of modern saints along with Simone Weil. Often, even major theologians and critics of technology will make an exception for modern medicine, when faced with their own mortality, but Illich followed his principles, stuck to his ideals, and he did it with honesty and fortitude. He knew he had a cross to bear, and he bore it bravely.
I have the utmost respect for eastern religions as traditionally practiced in their homelands, but the versions that are now practiced in the west, along with the versions that the west has exported back to the east are simply perfect ideological companions to capitalism. They are little more than a set of relaxation techniques designed to keep middle managers well functioning during the work week. There couldn't be a stronger contrast between this and the true Buddha or Christ. The true Christ was a warrior, combatant, and revolutionary who demanded everything, with no compromise. I am reminded of the story of the desert father who desired to see the Living God, yet all his years of faith, devotion, and practice yielded no hint of God to him. Only at an advanced age did he have an epiphany, realizing that all attachments keep us tied to the world, so he burned his copy of the gospels and upon performing this act, God showed Himself to the monk. Renunciation is not giving token donations to charity or squatting in various yoga postures for a few hours a week. True renunciation is renouncing even the idea of God, since no human concept can ever hope to come close to describing the majesty and resplendence of the Divine.