Reason, Faith and Gnosticism as Epistemology - James Lindsay


Recommended Posts

S,

Here in America, we just don't do things that way, but I bet some will try.

It's tempting...

:) 

But, that whole silly climate change scam will not prevail.

We have to be aware of what they are doing. Once the silent majority people realize the idiots are serious about taking their goodies away and killing off the population to a manageable number, they will throw the bums out. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

S,

Here in America, we just don't do things that way, but I bet some will try.

It's tempting...

:) 

But, that whole silly climate change scam will not prevail.

We have to be aware of what they are doing. Once the silent majority people realize the idiots are serious about taking their goodies away and killing off the population to a manageable number, they will throw the bums out. 

Michael

Of course!

America has no king and needs no king.

 

I find it utterly baffling though, that people can become so arrogant as to think they can act like rulers over others with no consequences... the lessons of history should not be forgotten, especially by would be utopians and aspiring tyrants alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S,

You know... the more I think about these bums and the French Revolution...

:) 

 

This is only a tangent, but it came to mind.

Robert Heinlein wrote a story I read decades ago, but it stayed with me. It was about an educational system that produced all A+ students.

The penalty for a low grade was public hanging, the student would be hung by the neck until dead.

So everyone got great grades.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/18/2023 at 7:34 AM, tmj said:

... lots of biographical info on James :)

T,

Fantastic video.

Notice that James shrugged.

He got his degree in math and was all set to take an academic career, then evaluated at what he would be required to do and became a massage therapist instead because that, at least, was offering value to his customers.

:) 

As I do come from a Randian orientation, I don't like the word "sacrifice," but when people see this video, they should be aware that Jordan and James do not mean self-sacrifice in the sense Rand meant it when they discuss that topic (like when they talk about the story of Cain and Abel, where Cain's sacrifice to God was inferior to Abel's).

They were discussing something more like being all in on an idea, not half-assing it.

Taken to the develop a skill level, it means showing up and doing focused practice every day, not just going through the motions to check it off a todo list.

In James's new intellectual career, he went all in and even found his own way financially. They both called that "sacrifice," but sacrificing in the right way.

That's a totally different concept. It uses the same word, sacrifice, as the toxic version, but the concept involves growth and creation, not stagnation.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Holy crap.

This is one of James Lindsay's best.

This is not just about epistemology (although it is at root).

This is how to understand all of the different facets through Marxist politics.

In old times, the bourgeoisie and capitalists were not despised by the Marxists because they had stuff and others didn't. They were despised because they did not allow other classes to have stuff. They oppressed other classes. So initially, Marxism sought to eliminate the bourgeoisie entirely.

But when it got to the USA, other classes were allowed to get stuff and they were busy doing exactly that. So the Marxist thinkers did a conceptual shift like a card trick.

In modern times, this is whiteness. In the modern view, whiteness is the new bourgeoisie. It is the perceived oppressor. Without whiteness, the other classes will be able to have stuff. So the aim of woke culture is to get rid of whiteness as much as humanly possible.

It's not about racism. It's about a stand-in for an economic boogeyman.

 

There is more in this talk, too.

I love James Lindsay. I wish he had been around in my college years. His insights would have saved me a lot of grief. The young people today have no idea how privileged they are to have him.

Good for them...

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

James Lindsay just knocked my socks off. So much so, I posted on X.

I swear, I think James just described the majority of online arguments about Ayn Rand in O-Land.

:) 

 

But I am going to start taking his advice on dealing with communists and socialists. Except I will let them know that I know they they are saying I misuse words. Then I will bow out.

Note. This has to be accompanied by something positive for it to make a difference. You don't persuade anyone by leaving. 

In my case, I will describe my own thinking and observations about truth, meaning, importance, and so on, and why. But when that shit happens, I will identify what they are doing and clam up to them.

Has anyone noticed that arguing about who is misusing words was the main tactic deployed during all of the manmade climate change arguments here on OL? 

And so many other things...

Dayaamm!

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love that typo? See that didn't change the meaning of what a vaccine is , they came up with a whole new word , which roughly equates to "an injection that doesn't do much for a specific named purpose, but leaves open the possibility for other effects not named " :)

"Trust the triple c, it's science after all !"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, this is one of James Lindsay's best to date.

American Maoism.

 

I love the simplification he gives of dialecticism. He says it is a process of wedding a true idea and a false idea. People use it to gain power.

He gave as an example Hegel's notion of existence being met with nothingness and synthesized as becoming.

Existence is true. Nothingness is not true. As Rand herself said, nothing is not a state, but a lack of state. And becoming is change over time of something that exists (not of nothing).

 

For James, dialectic is an operating system just like logic or faith is. He said we all have Windows, or Linux or MacOS for computers. Dialectic is like that.

As for the different versions, classic Marxism, intersectionality, critical race theory, etc., he said these were all the same in the sense that an alley cat, a tiger, a bobcat and so on are all felines.

Dialectic works well as an operating system for gaining power over a large population. It works horribly for finding truth or promoting human flourishing. It's an elitist form of thinking that, when implemented, benefits the elites and degrades and kills everyone else.

 

I know this makes hash of Chris Sciabarra's idea that Rand was a dialectical thinker, but I can't get past history. Observation shows Lindsay's version is correct.

Rand said (through Toohey) don't bother to examine a folly. Ask only what it produces.

Well James not only looks at what dialectical thinking produces, he examines it. And takes it all the way back to its roots.

 

To be fair to Chris, he defines dialectical thinking as the art of context-keeping. I want to write about this later, so I don't want to get into it too deep right now.

However, I'll grant Chris that if the context is true and the idea being examined is true, I can see this system working as a great brainstorming tool. But it does not provide any way to find out if the context or the idea are true.

And when applied to Rand's form of reasoning (and I admit, it looks like she reasoned this way at times), it could explain some of her misfires. Even some of her deep insights. Let's say dialectical thinking provides a way of mixing things up so you can look at them from a fresh angle. Shaking the box so to speak. When all of it is true, this can be useful.

 

However, using the dialectical system (thesis-antithesis-synthesis is the common form) , it's easy to use a false idea or false context and come up with a justifiable different form of "reality" (one that is not real but can be argued that it is).

Thus men can be women using this system. Gaining profits can be divorced from business practice and turn into a principle for social organization. And so on.

 

This video is about two hours. I know, I know. Life is short and this shit is long. And boring. :) 

But it will be one of the best two hours you ever spent on an academic subject.

For me it was.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't know if James would agree, or even if he likes, Matthew Ehret and the Rising Tide Foundation people, but as a complement to his ideas on the gnositc form of revealed wisdom (meaning made up shit :) ), kept alive through secret societies and secret rituals and so on, the following video is brilliant. It gives some history of what this looks like over human history when intelligence communities got ahold of it.

Matthew starts all the way back to the Oracle at Delphi, which was a hotbed of spies and intrigues back in those times, but sold to the public as revealed wisdom world leaders would go to for advice.

He also goes into one of the main founders of modern Free Masonry, a guy named Pike. This dude openly praised Lucifer above the Christian God in his writings. The way I see it, this is likely one source of why so many people today are Luciferians.

This history weds perfectly with the "great secret" of ancient gnosticism. And what is that secret? Easy. The One True God is not the Hebrew God. The One True God is Oneness, and He is waaaaaaaaaay above the Hebrew God, who, for them, is a botched inferior god so to speak. I read somewhere that these people believe Lucifer was an angel who opposed this impostor. This is why Lucifer is despised in Abrahamic religions and is a hero and worshipped by those who know the "real revealed wisdom." In their view, the Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship a flawed inferior god and are denied enlightenment by their mistake. And they keep their belief alive using secret processes they they share with each other, starting with their love of Lucifer.

 

One caveat for the video. Matthew is a huge fan of Lyndon LaRouche, who is mostly known these days as a guy who founded a cult of odd people. And, to be sure, there is this side to him. Small, but it is there.

In reality, LaRouche was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's government and a political activist for mostly good things. At least that is what I have seen so far. So you will see Matthew present Roosevelt as a good guy and not as a died-in-the-wool collectivist like we see him here on O-Land. This is Matthew's way of honoring his mentor, LaRouche.

As I said, I have looked into all this and, from my limited perspective, I have seen merit in Matthew's views. I like him and his people.

And like it or not, LaRouche has turned out to be a modern-day prophet who got a hell of a lot more right than he did wrong. Not only that, he was a great historian. In my world, it's OK to learn history from people I do not agree with when they are right. And like I implied, I believe there is more right than wrong with these people when I look at specific issues. Not with everything, but where they shine, boy do they shine.

This is why I set them right beside James Lindsay. And, from another angle, Ayn Rand.

 

Anyway, enjoy this video. It's only 30 minutes. I don't know about you, but it helped me connect some dots that, these days, is always a hard task amidst the constant yelling, propaganda and real threats engineered by the Predator Class. But it provides patterns that make a lot of sense. And once seen, they cannot be unseen as we look out onto what is happening in the world.

 

 

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is going to be weird, but Taylor Swift is making it into this discussion.

And what's more, it all makes sense with gnosticism (or the dialectic) and today's world .

:) 

I need to write this up, but I don't want to lose the article in the memory hole of lost links, so here is the article.

UNHERD.COM

Too many young women yearn for annihilation

Stellar, deep and profound thoughts to follow later.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is going to be weird, but Taylor Swift is making it into this discussion.

And what's more, it all makes sense with gnosticism (or the dialectic) and today's world .

:) 

I need to write this up, but I don't want to lose the article in the memory hole of lost links, so here is the article.

UNHERD.COM

Too many young women yearn for annihilation

Stellar, deep and profound thoughts to follow later.

:) 

Michael

 

I had a read through... interesting.

 

I do note, however, that at the time of the troubadours, Shakespeare, the crusades, in any of the medieval and ancient eras, people routinely accepted and were thoroughly immersed in the idea of living and dying for God(s), living and dying for the King or Emperor, living and dying for the glory of a Nation, State, City, or People, and living and dying for social Duty. 

The idea of the "doomed" love she presents is too focused on the "doom" and not on the "love" particularly when looking at it from a historical perspective of her examples.  Romeo and Juliet, songs by the Troubadours, and stories like Tristan and Isolde, are decidedly individual in accent which is immensely counter culture for the times... to raise above Duty, State, King and God something as individual as the personal experience of Love... this is a grand turning point and one of the early steps towards the idea that in order to say "I love" anything of high enough value to live for or risk dying for ... first you must must be able to say the "I"... this is in a very real sense embracing a self affirmation which is the opposite of self-destruction.

 

As for modern day, I agree there is a darkness and a self-destructive tendency in modern pop music and culture, but it comes not from the romantic ideal of personal love which the troubadours sang so wonderfully about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video below is another one I want to discuss. It's by James Lindsay himself. He is being interviewed by a guy named Peter Mcilvenna at an organization called Hearts of Oak.

Steve Bannon gives these Hearts of Oak people space on his Rumble channel called The War Room to post their videos at times. This video just popped up there.

And it blew me away.

This is one of the best videos I have seen on how cults latch onto you and keep you. I'm not talking about small cults, although it works that way with them, too. I'm talking about large cults like the Chinese Communist Party.

RUMBLE.COM

James Lindsay - SHAME: The Inner School of the Cult People do not like to admit they were wrong and certainly do not like others knowing they believed shameful things. Before it is possible to get peo

I was not too enthusiastic about the title. The topic of shame never rings my ding-a-ling. Besides, I've been through a lot of René Brown's stuff. Also, part of Rand's appeal is her "just say no" policy of accepting unearned shame and guilt. 

But James really nailed it about as well as I have seen. And, he adds to my knowledge and understanding about it.

 

Just a small personal mention. When I first started posting on O-Land forums (around 2005), I came up with a concept I called "Sense of Identity." I put a description of sense of identity and what it looked like in an article I wrote at the time about addiction: Understanding Addiction -- An Objectivist View.

(btw - Barbara Branden loved this concept. I know. She told me. :) )

I'm mentioning this because James discusses this very concept, but from a cult perspective. I won't go into this now, but I will later.

Leave it to say now that he talks about Sense of Identity suffering damage from outside forces acting on inner impulses (peer pressure, propaganda and the like allied to normal human drives). I was talking about this being damaged by repeated itch-scratching, so to speak. For example, you eat or drink the same thing so often, you can no longer imagine yourself without those things. 

But the Sense of Identity concept is the same thing in both cases. I am also pleased to see that I did not invent this concept. It was well studied before I came up with it on my own from introspection. James goes into some places where.

 

On another point, James mentioned the ways people believe in the ideas in a cult. He talks about the outer tier people who adopt the ideas and give lip service to them without thinking them through, the inner tier who adopt the ideas to their core, including the bad ideas, and these become intolerant as reality starts to prove them wrong, and then the inside core of leaders, who may or may not believe in any of it. Yet these insider leaders in the core are the beneficiaries of the goodies the cult produces: money, fame, sex, power, etc. 

I do not consider Objectivism to be a cult per se, but I have to admit, that description--and the way James elaborates on it--describes the Objectivist movement to a tee. :) 

 

I will discuss all of this later. Sorry. I am sorely tempted to right now, but first I have to finish a project that I am way too far behind on. 

More coming.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick note on Taylor Swift. 

Go to 2:19:08 of the video below.

(You don't need to watch Salty's ranting for over 2 hours. He's selling his livestream fish and rants about everything except Taylor Swift. I, myself skipped it and hunted and pecked until I found the part I wanted. :) )

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

Paid advertisement from: http://www.blackoutcoffee.com/salty promo code: SALTY for 20% off first purchase Website: https://saltmustflow.com OTHER PLATFORMS: Odysee: https://odysee.com/@SaltyCracker:a Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/thes…

Here's the deal.

Guess who owns Taylor Swift's music catalogue?

George Soros.

Taylor Swift is on video saying this.

:) 

 

Despite all the other stuff I am going to talk about later, gnosticism, transcendence and so on, that by itself explains a lot of what we are seeing in the mainstream about Taylor Swift these days.

Soros has the top-down. The archetypal messaging to young teen girls in her songs has the bottom up. (And the parents pay for it all.)

Dayaamm...

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If anyone is interested in delving into Gnostic themes, I found the video a while back and it is awesome. Not because Gnosticism and gnosticism are awesome, but because this guy, Laurence Caruana, not only did his homework in super-depth, he has focused passion on the subject.

I only saw this video once, but I will see it several more times before I am done with it.

Enjoy, oh ye who enter here.

:)

Michael 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2023 at 3:31 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's another post about Taylor Swift without going into the article.

Here is another one.

The Pentagon psyops department officially thought she was programmable to stay on message.

And they didn't even hide that as they bought her catalogue to kinda nudge her along...

Dayaamm!

:) 

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Michael Stuart Kelly changed the title to Reason, Faith and Gnosticism as Epistemology - James Lindsay

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now