Eco-primitivism: The downfall of civilization?

As you probably know, hallucinogens have actually been used to treat schizophrenia and various other mental health conditions.
The West just hasn't quite reached that stage of acceptance yet.

Instead, people are expected to rely on antidepressants, antipsychotics, Xanax, and that whole crew.

Then there’s the Ibogaine protocol, which helps treat heroin addiction. Here in the States, we still mostly deal with methadone, which is honestly a terrible medication—arguably worse than the heroin itself.

ironmarlin1 said:How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

Dunno—guess Charles Zerzan, Imre Hamvas, Michael Schumacher, and even Steven Pinker are just too "inspiring" for everyone... anyway, I'll get back to your post ASAP, just tied up right now.

ironmarlin1 said:How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

Is this the same guy who took DMT and decided we’re all just bacteria?

William Palmer7 said:As you probably know, hallucinogens have actually been used to treat schizophrenia and various other mental health conditions.
The West just hasn't quite reached that stage of acceptance yet.

Instead, people are expected to rely on antidepressants, antipsychotics, Xanax, and that whole crew.

Then there’s the Ibogaine protocol, which helps treat heroin addiction. Here in the States, we still mostly deal with methadone, which is honestly a terrible medication—arguably worse than the heroin itself.

I don't recall schizophrenia being treated that way. Originally, they were used as tools to induce pseudo-psychosis—the idea was to give psychiatrists a firsthand look at what psychosis feels like so they could better help patients. Maybe there's a connection to schizophrenia there.

But maybe some of those heavy early psychiatric studies touched on schizophrenia; I just can't think of a single one right now.

Regarding current psychiatric antidepressants, based on other people's reports and my own experience (on one antidepressant, very little with anxiolytics (I think I tried Xanax once, Normaban a couple of times, and Phenibut a few times), through microdosing psychedelics, and after about 30-40 trips), they’re probably better, though these things are highly individual.

I believe there's potential for them to find a place in psychiatry and psychotherapy, but more as an extra tool in the kit rather than some miracle panacea that overenthusiastic advocates make them out to be. It’s been like this with a thousand different things before (cocaine included); eventually, things stabilize, a niche is found, and that's that.

It's all a bit overhyped. Look at addiction forums; half the people went for Ibogaine treatment, and a tiny fraction actually got cured. Personally, I haven't run into a single one. Usually, it's just a temporary shift. On the flip side, Ibogaine isn't as medically low-risk as classic serotonergic psychedelics, so the risk is high—there have even been fatalities.

The alternative scene loves taking anecdotal evidence—often outliers—and building massive narratives and theories around them, which occasionally leads to full-blown financial empires.

It’s true, but think about it—mainstream Western medicine doesn't even attempt, let alone succeed, at synthesizing a compound that could actually cure addiction. It’s practically unheard of in our medical establishment.

Meanwhile, Ibogaine actually has the potential to resolve addiction. I’m not sure what the exact success rate is, but that isn't really the point.

And yet, Ibogaine was "discovered" by tribal shamans in Africa.

It really makes you wonder if they aren't quite as primitive as we tend to assume.

William Palmer7 said:It’s true, but think about it—mainstream Western medicine doesn't even attempt, let alone succeed, at synthesizing a compound that could actually cure addiction. It’s practically unheard of in our medical establishment.

Meanwhile, Ibogaine actually has the potential to resolve addiction. I’m not sure what the exact success rate is, but that isn't really the point.

And yet, Ibogaine was "discovered" by tribal shamans in Africa.

It really makes you wonder if they aren't quite as primitive as we tend to assume.

The percentage actually matters quite a bit. If you get into extremely low percentages, you can basically find correlations for anything—like claiming milk for kittens or something equally absurd cures addiction.

But setting that hair-splitting aside, Ibogaine doesn't actually cure addiction; it might just help manage the withdrawal. Just like most drugs that help someone get through the physical detox only to have them fall right back into addiction, the same thing happens with Ibogaine.

From everything I know, psychosocial factors play a much larger role in recovery. Social and psychological therapy and support are more vital for long-term results than just handling the physical detox, so Ibogaine isn't a magic bullet either.

Also, who knows how much those African shamans actually discovered? They likely used Ibogaine for entirely different purposes. My guess is it was some Western drug user who actually identified its potential. 😬

William Palmer7 said:Is this the same guy who took DMT and decided we’re all just bacteria?

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

ironmarlin1 said:You sound a bit like a passage pulled from an essay by Bill Hamvas... which is actually quite good. I was recently reading a radical progressive piece written in that classic Pinker style: https://www.thenation.com/article/po...-bannon-putin/

Of course, Hamvas was well known for following the traditionalist teachings of René Guénon and, to some extent, Julius Evola.

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that's what the madman wrote in his book), which then leads to the far right... whereas Guénon and Evola lead to Darya Dugina and Steve Bannon.

Why couldn't Nietzsche lead to Thomas Mann, or Guénon and Evola lead to Bill Hamvas? You might have asked that same question to Georg Lukács when he was persecuting Hamvas. We all know the kind of answer you would have received in those days. Then again, Lukács had much closer ties to Mann (through his essays, for instance), so he wouldn't have made such a glaring oversight regarding Nietzsche.
Even John Zerzan—who, with his particular set of views, bears a certain resemblance to the Unabomber—serves as a lifeline for some, a way to resist those ideologues. These days, people are showing up at your doorstep threatening death and physical violence if you happen to own the "wrong" books, all in the name of that radical-progressive fanaticism. I've experienced it personally. These are heavy times. And the communists used to hunt down Hamvas. Imagine what it's like today...

It is fascinatingly ironic that the "far-right" today finds its fuel in evolutionary theories of biological racism. It’s a fertile ground that Pinker and his cohort of "evolutionary psychologists" helped till years ago. If you ask me, evolutionary theory will serve their racist agendas much better than Hamvas or Mann ever could. We even have an example right here on this forum (Alyosha) with such theses. But honestly, examples aren't even necessary; it's blindingly obvious to anyone looking. (Those who find it unclear should be viewed with suspicion.)
Though, I suppose we shouldn't get bogged down in questions of race or the right wing. People who claim to be dedicated to "hunting racists"—which sounds like a profession far too noble a name to exist without being a mere front for something else—have plenty of them in their own ranks. And Black Americans aren't even their primary target. Today, anti-Islam sentiment is a regular fixture within these "progressive" circles. For instance, for years, these federal agencies were busy inquiring about Black rights, yet never once did they mention Muslims.
But let's be real, I think it's mostly just a public spectacle designed to mask massive financial and ideological interests behind lofty ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality, and so on. It's the classic playbook... blacklists for certain authors, and whitelists for ideals that seem non-existent to everyone else, making them perfect breeding grounds for various subversions. To me, someone who spends all day preaching progress and equality while simultaneously harassing people and threatening them with death is far more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for criminality. It's quite simple to grasp, and you don't need much intellect to see why that is.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."? There is profound wisdom behind that, even if the thought seems foolish on the surface.

I've only ever read bits and pieces of Hamvaš—just snippets and quotes, unfortunately.
But I've been hearing that specific kind of "vibe" for a long time now—not just from him—it just pops up every once in a while.

As for that article you mentioned, the author immediately frames Traditionalism as this obscure, lurking beast—something even more dangerous than nationalism.
An "expert" on the far right, clearly....

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that’s what the maniac wrote in his book) and then down to the "far right"... whereas Guenon and Evola lead to Dugin and Bannon.

Pinker is completely blinded by his hatred for Nietzsche—he’d probably censor him if he could... and yeah, he brings up Evola as some "early fascist intellectual."

The thing is, Evola is primarily an aristocratic traditionalist.

Lisa Jackson7 said:I've only ever read bits and pieces of Hamvaš—just snippets and quotes, unfortunately.
But I've been hearing that specific kind of "vibe" for a long time now—not just from him—it just pops up every once in a while.

As for that article you mentioned, the author immediately frames Traditionalism as this obscure, lurking beast—something even more dangerous than nationalism.
An "expert" on the far right, clearly....

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that’s what the maniac wrote in his book) and then down to the "far right"... whereas Guenon and Evola lead to Dugin and Bannon.

Pinker is completely blinded by his hatred for Nietzsche—he’d probably censor him if he could... and yeah, he brings up Evola as some "early fascist intellectual."

The thing is, Evola is primarily an aristocratic traditionalist.

Exactly; they give all the university professors a platform. Reading between the lines, one would conclude the author hasn't actually cracked a single book by any of the Traditionalist authors. If that’s what passes for an "expert," then you already know the current climate at our universities. Especially within the humanities. It’s basically a "hunt for the youth," as they call it in academic circles. Honestly, why don't they just rename those institutions altogether?

Steven Pinker is utterly blinded by his animosity toward Friedrich Nietzsche; he’d love nothing more than to censor him... and yes, he refers to Julius Evola as an "early fascist intellectual."

Evola is, first and foremost, an aristocratic traditionalist.

Perhaps I could stomach that label for Evola, but that isn't why people turn to him. Pinker is essentially a mouthpiece for American think tanks, and his job is to travel the globe "classifying people"—essentially, if you aren't some caricature of Pangloss, you're labeled "far right" or compared to Anders Breivik and the like. In those circles, even a hint of pessimism is viewed as dangerous, a gateway to extremism and such. Granted, Nietzsche also grappled with pessimism, but there is a vast chasm between a profound thinker and a mere propagandist or lobbyist. I won't go into full detail here, but these days they actually monitor the psychological profiles of students to "mold" them accordingly. Even the old Joseph Stalin would have been envious. His interpretation of Nietzsche is a laughingstock, even within those very academic circles that are themselves exactly what we see today. Is a true intellectual someone who hasn't even heard of Thomas Mann? But then again, we shouldn't expect much from Nobel Laureates. Just look at the entire artistic scene in France or Russia at the dawn of the 20th century, or Henry Miller in the States. Or Bel Hamvas in Eastern Europe, and so on, and so forth.

To be fair, whenever someone starts preaching Pinkerism, you instantly know what's happening—there's either a dirty underlying interest at play, or it’s pure, unadulterated idiocy. Most likely, it’s the former. I know exactly what's going on.

We’re all just being bankrolled by Gays and the CIA, obviously. 😳

I’ll tell you, there really are only two ways to look at this...

If you're actually interested in that whole rabbit hole of hallucinations, LSD, and the hippie era, there’s that sharp, rather biting commentary from Thomas Mann regarding Aldous Huxley... a critique that is, at its core, quite negative. Then again, Thomas Mann was deeply shaped by the shadow of Friedrich Nietzsche, so perhaps none of it carries much weight, or so Steven Pinker would have us believe.

I know plenty of folks who get completely obsessed with those narratives—people who can recite the exact molecular makeup of various hallucinogens or pharmaceuticals like it’s scripture. I honestly can't fathom who finds that level of detail compelling, but I suppose there’s a certain breed of person who finds solace in molecular structures. To me, an atom is just... an atom.

As for this idea of "optimism"—which isn't necessarily the flip side of pessimism, mind you—I have a particularly instructive quote from Nietzsche for you:

"Where good begins. — It begins where the eye becomes too weak to perceive the subtle nuances, failing to recognize the evil impulse for what it truly is; man then postulates a kingdom of good, and this sensation of having entered a circle of goodness stirs up all those impulses that previously felt threatened or endangered by darker urges—feelings of security, comfort, benevolence, and so on. Thus, the duller the eye, the greater the perceived good. From this arises the eternal cheerfulness of common folk and children! And from this, too, comes the gloom and melancholy—born of a guilty conscience—of the great thinkers!"

He probably wasn't thinking of Pinker when he wrote that.

Nice is dead!

-Steven Pinker-

bluemason3 said:Nice is dead!

-Steven Pinker-

Even Bernard Williams warned us about this specific Pinker problem. On one hand—much like you—there is an appeal to human nature, pointing out (as you do) that primitive peoples still kill, slaughter, and rape (take the Yanomami, for instance), yet on the other hand, there is this desperate attempt to convince us that progress is inevitable despite this innate human condition. To believe in such progress requires, as Williams puts it, a sort of "fatuous" psychology of transcendence. Of course, according to those "think tank types," for example, Weinstein's assault was "perfectly executed." A little riddle for you: Why?

To put it bluntly, out of sheer politeness, I won't label you as the alternative, but I will say you seem to be under the unconscious influence of American (or perhaps EU) think tanks, lobbyists, and the like, who want us to believe this or that because their supposed research (likely military-funded) suggests that certain outliers (for instance, if you hold a suspicious opinion regarding this or that) imply a lack of strategic interest or a disregard for pressing "social issues"—which can be fatal, etc., etc. Naturally, you can wrap all of this up in fancy psychological formulas, citing chemical imbalances and whatnot... but we know what's actually being said. You have to be seasoned with narrow-minded ideals; otherwise, well, we all know how things go. Someone shows up at your door—some newly arrived "neighbor"—and bam... suddenly there are guns, death threats, assaults, the full weight of Government agencies... and all it took was a little bit of optimism. We've been tipped off (from where? who knows) that people like you are potential Anders Breiviks.

And yet, people immediately emerge to say:

"Well, it wasn't quite like that."
"Why do you have to exaggerate everything?"
"How do you remember all these details?"
"Do you even have proof?"
"You're going to end up killing someone one day."

And so we see, there has been massive progress. It’s essentially a legitimate murder attempt designed to prevent a potential murder (without naming names, though it's certainly in their blood). These days, murder attempts aren't reported; they are simply "redirected." Besides, if someone doesn't inherently want to kill (unlike some of us), we will engineer circumstances until they do, and keep at it until the desire takes hold. It's quite simple... we have "software engineers for internal combustion engines" (to quote a Government agency) who specialize in exactly that. I tell you, we just need to find more "adaptable" people and everything will be fine. And you would still sit there lecturing about the molecular structure of LSD and the march of progress? I honestly don't know how it's possible. One really must be on LSD to be casually leafing through Pinker in the face of such realities.

ironmarlin1 said:You sound a bit like a passage pulled from an essay by Bill Hamvas... which is actually quite good. I was recently reading a radical progressive piece written in that classic Pinker style: https://www.thenation.com/article/po...-bannon-putin/

Of course, Hamvas was well known for following the traditionalist teachings of René Guénon and, to some extent, Julius Evola.

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that's what the madman wrote in his book), which then leads to the far right... whereas Guénon and Evola lead to Darya Dugina and Steve Bannon.

Why couldn't Nietzsche lead to Thomas Mann, or Guénon and Evola lead to Bill Hamvas? You might have asked that same question to Georg Lukács when he was persecuting Hamvas. We all know the kind of answer you would have received in those days. Then again, Lukács had much closer ties to Mann (through his essays, for instance), so he wouldn't have made such a glaring oversight regarding Nietzsche.
Even John Zerzan—who, with his particular set of views, bears a certain resemblance to the Unabomber—serves as a lifeline for some, a way to resist those ideologues. These days, people are showing up at your doorstep threatening death and physical violence if you happen to own the "wrong" books, all in the name of that radical-progressive fanaticism. I've experienced it personally. These are heavy times. And the communists used to hunt down Hamvas. Imagine what it's like today...

It is fascinatingly ironic that the "far-right" today finds its fuel in evolutionary theories of biological racism. It’s a fertile ground that Pinker and his cohort of "evolutionary psychologists" helped till years ago. If you ask me, evolutionary theory will serve their racist agendas much better than Hamvas or Mann ever could. We even have an example right here on this forum (Alyosha) with such theses. But honestly, examples aren't even necessary; it's blindingly obvious to anyone looking. (Those who find it unclear should be viewed with suspicion.)
Though, I suppose we shouldn't get bogged down in questions of race or the right wing. People who claim to be dedicated to "hunting racists"—which sounds like a profession far too noble a name to exist without being a mere front for something else—have plenty of them in their own ranks. And Black Americans aren't even their primary target. Today, anti-Islam sentiment is a regular fixture within these "progressive" circles. For instance, for years, these federal agencies were busy inquiring about Black rights, yet never once did they mention Muslims.
But let's be real, I think it's mostly just a public spectacle designed to mask massive financial and ideological interests behind lofty ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality, and so on. It's the classic playbook... blacklists for certain authors, and whitelists for ideals that seem non-existent to everyone else, making them perfect breeding grounds for various subversions. To me, someone who spends all day preaching progress and equality while simultaneously harassing people and threatening them with death is far more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for criminality. It's quite simple to grasp, and you don't need much intellect to see why that is.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."? There is profound wisdom behind that, even if the thought seems foolish on the surface.

Nietzsche basically targeted everyone—his critics, his fans, you name it—and honestly, it’s impossible to put them in one camp. But hey, it's not that surprising when you look at the contradictions scattered all over his work, his quotes... even his own damn life.
He’s managed to grab a massive amount of attention from Christian philosophers and theologians—people totally obsessed with his whole "holy YES to life" thing... regardless of how anti-Christian he actually is, or maybe even because of it.
Thomas Mann? For sure... he saw something prophetic in Friedrich Nietzsche that would lead to a "new humanism"... definitely within art.
Mann was always a critic—basically pointing out how "instinctual" power and reason are constantly at odds, with one just being shoved down the other's throat.

The link from René Guénon to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Julius Evola is straight-up direct.

Even John Zerzan—who kind of reminds me of... Unabomber Some people's views are basically the only thing keeping us from total collapse—they’re the last line of defense against these ideologies. Nowadays, you’ve got fanatics practically knocking on your door, threatening death or physical violence just because you own books that don't fit their radical-progressive agenda. I've dealt with this shit personally. These are heavy times, man. Even back in the day, the communists were out there persecuting Ralph Waldo Emerson. Just look how far things have gone since then...

I don't even know what to say about those attacks you're bringing up—honestly, I've seen you harping on about them in other threads too...

It’s actually pretty wild how backwards this works—it’s like the whole far-right movement is basically being fueled by the exact opposite of what you'd expect. Those damn evolutionary theories about biological racism—absolute garbage. Steven Pinker basically paved the way for all those "evolutionary psychology" hacks with his buddies—total joke. They'll probably twist evolutionary theory to back up their racist nonsense long before they ever touch anything by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Thomas Mann. We’ve got an example right here on the forum from a user like Alyosha—someone who lives and breathes these kinds of theories. But honestly, you don't even need examples—it's pretty obvious what's going on just by looking at them. (If that isn't clear to you, I've got my doubts about you.)

Honestly, I get the feeling most evolutionary psychologists are playing around with "nitroglycerin" without even realizing how volatile it is... or maybe they know exactly what they're doing and they just don't give a damn.

As for Alyosha—this is exactly where we split ways.

Then again—social constructivists can be absolute lunatics too.

Look, I’m telling you—this isn't even about race or right-wing politics. The people who claim they're out there "hunting racists"—which, let's be honest, sounds way too noble a title for a job that probably just serves as a front for something else—have plenty of those types right in their own ranks. And it's not even Black Americans they're primarily targeting. These days, being anti-Islam is basically a requirement in those "progressive" circles. For years, you'd see these Government agencies obsessing over civil rights for Black Americans, yet they never once breathed a word about Muslims.
But look, I honestly think it’s just a massive PR stunt designed to mask fat wallets and radical ideologies behind these shiny, virtuous ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality and the rest of that usual checklist... It’s the classic playbook—blacklisting certain authors while white-listing these "ideals" that everyone pretends are real, even though they’re actually just perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of agendas. To me, someone who spends all day preaching about progress and equality while simultaneously tormenting people and issuing death threats is way more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for crime. Honestly, you don't need a PhD to see through that.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."" There's some deep logic there, even if it sounds totally insane at first glance.

I get it... unfortunately, it's just a permanent abuse of science to grab university chairs, secure research grants, and control the media.

I once sat in on a seminar by Puljak—which had nothing to do with his actual work—and, man, he's basically the first thing you think of when you hear him speak... I mean, he knows how to hold an audience and he isn't boring, but... yeah, no thanks.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Nietzsche basically targeted everyone—his critics, his fans, you name it—and honestly, it’s impossible to put them in one camp. But hey, it's not that surprising when you look at the contradictions scattered all over his work, his quotes... even his own damn life.
He’s managed to grab a massive amount of attention from Christian philosophers and theologians—people totally obsessed with his whole "holy YES to life" thing... regardless of how anti-Christian he actually is, or maybe even because of it.
Thomas Mann? For sure... he saw something prophetic in Friedrich Nietzsche that would lead to a "new humanism"... definitely within art.
Mann was always a critic—basically pointing out how "instinctual" power and reason are constantly at odds, with one just being shoved down the other's throat.

The link from René Guénon to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Julius Evola is straight-up direct.

Even John Zerzan—who kind of reminds me of... Unabomber Some people's views are basically the only thing keeping us from total collapse—they’re the last line of defense against these ideologies. Nowadays, you’ve got fanatics practically knocking on your door, threatening death or physical violence just because you own books that don't fit their radical-progressive agenda. I've dealt with this shit personally. These are heavy times, man. Even back in the day, the communists were out there persecuting Ralph Waldo Emerson. Just look how far things have gone since then...

I don't even know what to say about those attacks you're bringing up—honestly, I've seen you harping on about them in other threads too...

It’s actually pretty wild how backwards this works—it’s like the whole far-right movement is basically being fueled by the exact opposite of what you'd expect. Those damn evolutionary theories about biological racism—absolute garbage. Steven Pinker basically paved the way for all those "evolutionary psychology" hacks with his buddies—total joke. They'll probably twist evolutionary theory to back up their racist nonsense long before they ever touch anything by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Thomas Mann. We’ve got an example right here on the forum from a user like Alyosha—someone who lives and breathes these kinds of theories. But honestly, you don't even need examples—it's pretty obvious what's going on just by looking at them. (If that isn't clear to you, I've got my doubts about you.)

Honestly, I get the feeling most evolutionary psychologists are playing around with "nitroglycerin" without even realizing how volatile it is... or maybe they know exactly what they're doing and they just don't give a damn.

As for Alyosha—this is exactly where we split ways.

Then again—social constructivists can be absolute lunatics too.

Look, I’m telling you—this isn't even about race or right-wing politics. The people who claim they're out there "hunting racists"—which, let's be honest, sounds way too noble a title for a job that probably just serves as a front for something else—have plenty of those types right in their own ranks. And it's not even Black Americans they're primarily targeting. These days, being anti-Islam is basically a requirement in those "progressive" circles. For years, you'd see these Government agencies obsessing over civil rights for Black Americans, yet they never once breathed a word about Muslims.
But look, I honestly think it’s just a massive PR stunt designed to mask fat wallets and radical ideologies behind these shiny, virtuous ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality and the rest of that usual checklist... It’s the classic playbook—blacklisting certain authors while white-listing these "ideals" that everyone pretends are real, even though they’re actually just perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of agendas. To me, someone who spends all day preaching about progress and equality while simultaneously tormenting people and issuing death threats is way more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for crime. Honestly, you don't need a PhD to see through that.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."" There's some deep logic there, even if it sounds totally insane at first glance.

I get it... unfortunately, it's just a permanent abuse of science to grab university chairs, secure research grants, and control the media.

I once sat in on a seminar by Puljak—which had nothing to do with his actual work—and, man, he's basically the first thing you think of when you hear him speak... I mean, he knows how to hold an audience and he isn't boring, but... yeah, no thanks.

Christian interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche are, for the most part, fundamentally flawed. You see people attempting to frame him through a Dostoevsky lens, making these rather silly attempts to link his philosophy to the Cross—claiming, for instance, that "he was actually a Christian"—but these arguments rarely offer a real rebuttal; they mostly just resort to flat-out ignoring his actual points, which, frankly, says quite a lot about the state of the discourse. Now, Thomas Mann certainly offered a much more sophisticated perspective, though if I may be so bold as to critique a Nobel Laureate, his approach suffers from certain aesthetic shortcomings (aside from... Death in Venice ...which is undoubtedly a pinnacle of literary achievement. He eventually went on to link that sense of humanism with Sigmund Freud, though if you ask me, I wouldn't take that connection quite so far.

The connection from René Guénon to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Julius Evola is quite direct, really.

It’s largely true, I suppose, but when you see an "expert" immediately leap to labeling something as "far-right," it serves as a glaring indicator that the academic landscape in our universities has drifted completely off course. It feels less like genuine intellectual inquiry and more like a calculated game of power dynamics and political maneuvering.

Generally speaking, I can't help but feel that most evolutionary psychologists are playing around with pure nitroglycerin without having the slightest clue how volatile the substance actually is—or perhaps, if they do realize it, they simply couldn't care less about the potential for a massive explosion.

When it comes to Alyosha, that’s exactly where our perspectives start to drift apart.

On the other hand, you have to admit that the social constructivists can get absolutely carried away with themselves once they start spiraling.

I knew from the jump that this was going to turn into something incredibly controversial, and I found myself turning against these theories almost immediately. Even just looking at how they describe reality, you can see the fingerprints of the evolutionary psychologists all over it. It’s a bit like reading William Faulkner; he paints a tragic world, certainly, but he doesn't inject quite as much of his own personal agenda or specific desires into the fabric of that universe. With these guys, however, there's this unmistakable sense of self-projection. It isn't surprising at all that evolutionary psychology has become such a deeply political tool. You see the whole spectrum—from Robert Trivers and Steven Pinker all the way down to the far-right biological racists—all unified by these same evolutionary frameworks. It feels like a modern-day version of "blood and soil," a sort of adolescent realism repackaged for a new era. And then, of course, you throw Jordan Peterson into the mix...

I see where you're coming from... but honestly, what we’re witnessing is a systemic, deep-seated corruption of science itself. It’s become this calculated maneuver to seize control of university departments, monopolize research grants, and dominate the media landscape just to maintain a stranglehold on the narrative.

I actually had the chance to sit in on a seminar featuring Puljko recently—an event that, in hindsight, didn't really align with his usual line of work at all... and I have to say, listening to him, the first thing that comes to mind is Steven Pinker. Don't get me wrong, Puljko certainly knows how to command a room and he isn't nearly as tedious as some others might be, but... no, thank you.

I’m inclined to agree. It’s all far too simplistic. Then again, he’s being hammered by the dark, reactionary right—people like Raspudić (who, let's be honest, backs someone like Glasnović)—so I’d be hesitant to jump in and attack Puljko too aggressively. Personally, I’d take that shallow scientism any day—as long as it stays shallow—over the alternative: the guns, the shouting matches, the petty theft, the constant brawling, and all that other chaos you people claim is missing from Puljko's approach. In fact, it's precisely that sort of chaos that seems to provide the erotic—shall we say, homoerotic?—spark for guys like Raspudić when they look at Glasnović or Karamarko. Though, mind you, he has a penchant for affairs outside of marriage, too. He even makes pilgrimages to places like Medjugorje. I meant to write an interlude there. Essentially, the whole thing follows a strictly Catholic trajectory.

ironmarlin1 said:Even Bernard Williams warned us about this specific Pinker problem. On one hand—much like you—there is an appeal to human nature, pointing out (as you do) that primitive peoples still kill, slaughter, and rape (take the Yanomami, for instance), yet on the other hand, there is this desperate attempt to convince us that progress is inevitable despite this innate human condition. To believe in such progress requires, as Williams puts it, a sort of "fatuous" psychology of transcendence. Of course, according to those "think tank types," for example, Weinstein's assault was "perfectly executed." A little riddle for you: Why?

To put it bluntly, out of sheer politeness, I won't label you as the alternative, but I will say you seem to be under the unconscious influence of American (or perhaps EU) think tanks, lobbyists, and the like, who want us to believe this or that because their supposed research (likely military-funded) suggests that certain outliers (for instance, if you hold a suspicious opinion regarding this or that) imply a lack of strategic interest or a disregard for pressing "social issues"—which can be fatal, etc., etc. Naturally, you can wrap all of this up in fancy psychological formulas, citing chemical imbalances and whatnot... but we know what's actually being said. You have to be seasoned with narrow-minded ideals; otherwise, well, we all know how things go. Someone shows up at your door—some newly arrived "neighbor"—and bam... suddenly there are guns, death threats, assaults, the full weight of Government agencies... and all it took was a little bit of optimism. We've been tipped off (from where? who knows) that people like you are potential Anders Breiviks.

And yet, people immediately emerge to say:

"Well, it wasn't quite like that."
"Why do you have to exaggerate everything?"
"How do you remember all these details?"
"Do you even have proof?"
"You're going to end up killing someone one day."

And so we see, there has been massive progress. It’s essentially a legitimate murder attempt designed to prevent a potential murder (without naming names, though it's certainly in their blood). These days, murder attempts aren't reported; they are simply "redirected." Besides, if someone doesn't inherently want to kill (unlike some of us), we will engineer circumstances until they do, and keep at it until the desire takes hold. It's quite simple... we have "software engineers for internal combustion engines" (to quote a Government agency) who specialize in exactly that. I tell you, we just need to find more "adaptable" people and everything will be fine. And you would still sit there lecturing about the molecular structure of LSD and the march of progress? I honestly don't know how it's possible. One really must be on LSD to be casually leafing through Pinker in the face of such realities.

Who cares? All that loud-mouthed rambling, inventing problems that don't exist, pitting abstract concepts against actual facts, and other philosophical nonsense just to stroke one's own ego—it's all, quite frankly, completely irrelevant.

The fact is, that’s how primitive societies functioned. It isn't like that today. You’re going to have to perform some serious pseudo-intellectual gymnastics if you want to resolve the internal conflict between actual facts and your own biases. 😍

As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to religious apologetics. 😳

This Williams guy is a total clown. Regarding what’s quoted here, I want to make one thing clear: I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsense written by certain philosophers or theologians—people like Steven Pinker, for instance. I'm just not that kind of reader. It starts with a flawed premise—that because mega-violence is "natural," any attempt to reduce it must be "unnatural." That’s just a logical fallacy. It also shows a total misunderance of nature and evolution. Honestly, it's just someone retreating into conceptual abstractions and philosophical fantasies typical of a regressive mind. 🧐 😛

Humans aren't exactly simple creatures. We’re driven by a messy mix of impulses, and depending on what’s necessary for survival or passing on genes at any given moment, certain traits take the lead while others get pushed to the background. That high level of adaptability is exactly why our species has managed to spread across the entire globe and thrive in just about any environment imaginable. It doesn't even take evolutionary timescales to see this play out; it happens in real-time. Even a minor shift in economic stability or social security can immediately alter everything—from the types of men women find attractive to political leanings and the general dynamics of how we interact with one another.

Organized communities have always outperformed tribal ones. It’s simple math: staying organized requires suppressing certain impulses while amplifying others, which is exactly why they end up winning. I don't see any "transcendence" in the whole process—honestly, it's a pretty silly term. Of course, this balance is never perfect, which is why we still need a functional legal and judicial system to keep things in check.
It’s like the whole deal with junk food. Evolutionarily speaking, we’re hardwired to crave high-calorie meals because, for most of human history, food was scarce. Back then, grabbing every calorie you could get was a survival tactic; nobody was losing sleep over cholesterol levels. It's just as natural to be lazy and conserve those precious calories whenever possible. But the world has changed. Today, the environment is different, so we have to be intentional about monitoring our diet and basically inventing artificial ways to stay active. Some people are better at navigating this and thrive, while others struggle. That's just how it goes. So, what does "transcendence" actually look like here? It’s easy to say we should want more calories, but it’s equally natural to want to hoard food and ensure maximum food security. You just have to learn to navigate the tug-of-war between these conflicting biological drives. Good luck out there.
It doesn't mean we’ve transcended anything. It just means we:
- spotted certain advantages to larger communities and expanded specific tendencies (uniting and conforming) to broader groups. This happened through gradual, concentric circles via the evolution of trade and communication; we didn't just leap from tribes straight into globalization.
- reached a higher level of existential security, which naturally lowered the desperate need to huddle together for survival (that drive still fluctuates today depending on how secure we feel)
- developed more complex social structures filled with various subcultural identities we can latch onto, essentially projecting our old tribal needs onto them.
- decided to suppress impulses that don't fit this kind of advancement (using ideological control—once religious, now "human rights"-based, alongside the growth of state bureaucracy and civil law)

Also, nothing was actually "erased." The circle of "us" simply expanded. Our tribe wasn't just a literal group of relatives anymore; it scaled up using new tools for control and homogenization, like religion, race, or the nation-state. It’s only with globalization that we felt the need to invent concepts like universal human rights and equality. That's the phase we're in now.
Mind you, none of this is a clean break. There are layers of trends, conflicts, and friction everywhere. People form "tribes" based on all sorts of different criteria within much larger frameworks. Some lean heavily into an in-group mentality, others less so. It all depends heavily on social and economic security, and how much people actually trust the government and such. Honestly, a truly global tribe would probably require an alien invasion to exist, since those kinds of bonds usually only form when facing an "other."

Spare me the grand philosophy, transcendence, and other nonsense. It’s just over-conceptualizing a blurry gray mass by using high verbal intelligence to throw abstractions around while lacking any mathematical grounding or actual facts.

It’s just one idiot talking to another, man. If they weren't busy with this, they’d probably be doing something useful and concrete. The most successful among these pseudo-intellectuals succeed by playing minor roles or acting as sidekicks to real science—if they aren't actively trying to throw a wrench in something they can't even comprehend. They borrow and steal from actual experts, then twist things with their own brand of stupidity to cater to a niche audience. 😳 But hey, that’s evolutionarily explained: even a useless beta musician without any real advantages has to find a way to land a date, and there’s always some high school girl charmed by messy philosophical posturing and empty verbal gymnastics. It’s basically just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader or a guru. 🕺

The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but I'll be polite and won't bother explaining why. 😁

bluemason3 said:Who cares? All that loud-mouthed rambling, inventing problems that don't exist, pitting abstract concepts against actual facts, and other philosophical nonsense just to stroke one's own ego—it's all, quite frankly, completely irrelevant.

The fact is, that’s how primitive societies functioned. It isn't like that today. You’re going to have to perform some serious pseudo-intellectual gymnastics if you want to resolve the internal conflict between actual facts and your own biases. 😍

As far as I'm concerned, it all boils down to religious apologetics. 😳

This Williams guy is a total clown. Regarding what’s quoted here, I want to make one thing clear: I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsense written by certain philosophers or theologians—people like Steven Pinker, for instance. I'm just not that kind of reader. It starts with a flawed premise—that because mega-violence is "natural," any attempt to reduce it must be "unnatural." That’s just a logical fallacy. It also shows a total misunderance of nature and evolution. Honestly, it's just someone retreating into conceptual abstractions and philosophical fantasies typical of a regressive mind. 🧐 😛

Humans aren't exactly simple creatures. We’re driven by a messy mix of impulses, and depending on what’s necessary for survival or passing on genes at any given moment, certain traits take the lead while others get pushed to the background. That high level of adaptability is exactly why our species has managed to spread across the entire globe and thrive in just about any environment imaginable. It doesn't even take evolutionary timescales to see this play out; it happens in real-time. Even a minor shift in economic stability or social security can immediately alter everything—from the types of men women find attractive to political leanings and the general dynamics of how we interact with one another.

Organized communities have always outperformed tribal ones. It’s simple math: staying organized requires suppressing certain impulses while amplifying others, which is exactly why they end up winning. I don't see any "transcendence" in the whole process—honestly, it's a pretty silly term. Of course, this balance is never perfect, which is why we still need a functional legal and judicial system to keep things in check.
It’s like the whole deal with junk food. Evolutionarily speaking, we’re hardwired to crave high-calorie meals because, for most of human history, food was scarce. Back then, grabbing every calorie you could get was a survival tactic; nobody was losing sleep over cholesterol levels. It's just as natural to be lazy and conserve those precious calories whenever possible. But the world has changed. Today, the environment is different, so we have to be intentional about monitoring our diet and basically inventing artificial ways to stay active. Some people are better at navigating this and thrive, while others struggle. That's just how it goes. So, what does "transcendence" actually look like here? It’s easy to say we should want more calories, but it’s equally natural to want to hoard food and ensure maximum food security. You just have to learn to navigate the tug-of-war between these conflicting biological drives. Good luck out there.
It doesn't mean we’ve transcended anything. It just means we:
- spotted certain advantages to larger communities and expanded specific tendencies (uniting and conforming) to broader groups. This happened through gradual, concentric circles via the evolution of trade and communication; we didn't just leap from tribes straight into globalization.
- reached a higher level of existential security, which naturally lowered the desperate need to huddle together for survival (that drive still fluctuates today depending on how secure we feel)
- developed more complex social structures filled with various subcultural identities we can latch onto, essentially projecting our old tribal needs onto them.
- decided to suppress impulses that don't fit this kind of advancement (using ideological control—once religious, now "human rights"-based, alongside the growth of state bureaucracy and civil law)

Also, nothing was actually "erased." The circle of "us" simply expanded. Our tribe wasn't just a literal group of relatives anymore; it scaled up using new tools for control and homogenization, like religion, race, or the nation-state. It’s only with globalization that we felt the need to invent concepts like universal human rights and equality. That's the phase we're in now.
Mind you, none of this is a clean break. There are layers of trends, conflicts, and friction everywhere. People form "tribes" based on all sorts of different criteria within much larger frameworks. Some lean heavily into an in-group mentality, others less so. It all depends heavily on social and economic security, and how much people actually trust the government and such. Honestly, a truly global tribe would probably require an alien invasion to exist, since those kinds of bonds usually only form when facing an "other."

Spare me the grand philosophy, transcendence, and other nonsense. It’s just over-conceptualizing a blurry gray mass by using high verbal intelligence to throw abstractions around while lacking any mathematical grounding or actual facts.

It’s just one idiot talking to another, man. If they weren't busy with this, they’d probably be doing something useful and concrete. The most successful among these pseudo-intellectuals succeed by playing minor roles or acting as sidekicks to real science—if they aren't actively trying to throw a wrench in something they can't even comprehend. They borrow and steal from actual experts, then twist things with their own brand of stupidity to cater to a niche audience. 😳 But hey, that’s evolutionarily explained: even a useless beta musician without any real advantages has to find a way to land a date, and there’s always some high school girl charmed by messy philosophical posturing and empty verbal gymnastics. It’s basically just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader or a guru. 🕺

The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but I'll be polite and won't bother explaining why. 😁

First off, that isn't actually a fact. Second, this whole idea of performing pseudo-intellectual acrobatics—the notion that you can simply step outside of society and "observe" it as if you aren't inherently part of its fabric—is pure delusion. It’s as if this person somehow stumbled, quite by accident and without any preconceived notions, into some remote tribe on the other side of the country just to "describe the people" and was suddenly struck by the sheer novelty of the facts they found. You seem to have conveniently omitted the "fact" of the observer themselves. And let’s be honest, he brought his own biases along like a loaded shotgun. I mean, we have so many wars, massacres, and tribalistic conflicts happening right here and now that we really need an "anthropologist" to come along and explain to us that, yes, other people are also fighting, too. You are completely ignoring the underlying intention of this "describer"—these tepid, lukewarm facts are nothing more than a mask for his own perspective.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole thing really just boils down to religious apologetics at its core. 😳

Even though Williams was an atheist.

Honestly, this Williams fellow seems to be nothing more than a complete and utter fool. Regarding what’s been cited here—I should probably clarify that I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsensical ramblings of various self-proclaimed philosophers or theologians, nor am I someone who keeps up with the likes of Steven Pinker. I simply have no interest in consuming that kind of fluff. It all kicks off from this fundamentally flawed starting point—this idea that certain things are somehow "unnatural." It’s a slippery slope of logic: they argue that if mega-violence is considered a natural part of the human condition, then any concerted effort to reduce it must, by extension, be an affront to nature itself.

Where exactly did he say that?

It’s the same old story, really—once again, within this tiny little fragment of an argument, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a logical fallacy. It all stems from a fundamental, deep-seated misunderstanding of nature and the mechanics of evolution itself. Instead of grappling with reality, there's this constant, wearying retreat into these hollow conceptual abstractions and flights of fancy, typical of a philosophical mind that has become quite frankly degenerate and regressive in its outlook. 🧐 😛

So, what you're doing here is essentially accusing someone of performing these elaborate conceptual acrobatics just to manufacture a position that they never actually voiced—and, frankly, one they would never even consider holding.

People aren't nearly as simple as we like to pretend they are. We are driven by a messy web of competing impulses, and depending on what’s most vital for survival or passing on our genetic legacy at any given moment, certain drives take the driver's seat while others are pushed firmly into the backseat. It’s this incredible capacity for adaptation that defines the human species; it's precisely why we’ve managed to spread ourselves across every corner of the globe, thriving in environments that would crush almost anything else. And this isn't just some slow-motion drama playing out over millions of years through evolutionary epochs—it happens in real-time, right under our noses. You see it when the landscape shifts: even a slight tremor in economic stability or a sudden dip in social security can instantly recalibrate everything. Suddenly, you notice shifts in the types of men women find attractive, or subtle pivots in the political spectrum and the very fabric of how we interact with one another. Everything is interconnected, reacting to the pressures of the moment.

"Humans aren't such complex creatures," you claim, and then immediately pivot to describing the micro-economics of cigarette trading in a high school courtyard. "Humans aren't such complex creatures," you say, before delivering the most vulgar, reductive, and utterly banal concept imaginable—evolutionary psychology.

Organized communities have simply proven more effective than tribal ones, which necessitates a higher degree of impulse control and the suppression of certain drives in favor of others; that’s just how history unfolded. I don't see any "transcendence" in any of this—honestly, it's a rather silly term. Of course, it's never perfect, which is why we still require the oversight of a repressive legal system.

"Impulse control." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
"The male." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
Well, Sigmund Freud did speak about the role of "impulse control," but you seem to be interpreting that through a strictly Victorian lens. In the modern era, people are essentially paralyzed by their own inertia, yet here you are lecturing us on the luxury of "controlling one's impulses."

Furthermore, nothing is being "erased"; rather, the circle of "us-ness" is simply expanding.

And now we're bringing in Peter Singer. (Humans aren't such complex creatures)

It isn't that our tribe was just a literal tribe; it evolved through new instruments of control and homogenization, such as religion, race, the nation-state, and other mechanisms. It is only with globalization that the need for universal human rights and equality emerged, and that is the phase we find ourselves in now.

We aren't.

In reality, none of this is a simple erasure; instead, there are multi-layered tendencies, conflicts, and micro-conflicts at play. People coalesce into "tribes" based on various foundations within broader frameworks; some exhibit a stronger in-group mentality than others, all heavily dependent on levels of social, economic, and general security, as well as the degree of trust in government institutions and so on. To truly form a global tribe, we'd probably need an alien invasion, since such unity is best forged against the backdrop of an "other."

Someone who prefers the Steven Pinker version of humanity over Thomas Mann (or Bernard Williams, for that matter) talking about "multi-layered tendencies" and a "global tribe."

Spare me the grand philosophies, the talk of transcendence, and all that nonsense—it's just a way for a murky gray mass of people with inflated verbal intelligence to swirl around abstractions while lacking any actual mathematical rigor or grasp of the facts.

Williams actually noted that Pinker introduces a sort of psychology of transcendence. And you, quite clearly, are a disciple of those idiotic movements.
What on earth does a Lebesgue integral have to do with the "expansion of the circle of us-ness"? Honestly, if someone from my math department thinks they have better insights into "social movements" than anyone else, they are truly delusional. Have you even seen Sam Peckinpah's *Straw Dogs*, the one about the mathematician?

Look, buddy, it’s just one idiot talking to another; if they actually had anything worthwhile to contribute, they’d be occupied with something far more substantive and concrete. The most successful thing about these simpletons today is how they manage to stay small-time, acting as mere sidekicks to serious science—if they aren't outright trying to wedge a spoke into a wheel of a machine they can't even begin to comprehend. They borrow from it, they steal from it, and then they try to spin their own brand of nonsense to cater to their little niche audience 😳 Honestly, though, there's an evolutionary explanation for all this—even a useless beta male without any real comparative advantages has to find a way to land a date, and he always finds some wide-eyed coed charmed by a messy, pseudo-philosophical disarray and empty verbal posturing. It’s essentially just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader, a guru, or a New Age charlatan 🕺

"Serious science"? Since you clearly consider yourself such an expert on facts, do you have an explanation for this compulsive need to constantly praise STEM and "serious science"? Especially when we're already dealing with the fact that you can't even objectively observe yourself. And you'd "just describe" things? I suppose that must be some sort of "impulse" you haven't quite learned to master yet.
Alpha and beta males. ("It's not that simple")
He just wants chicks. ("It's not that simple")
Have you ever considered that modeling everything after the animal kingdom is just a symptom of our specific era? Namely, the animalistic era:

The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but fine, I'll be polite and won't comment on why 😁

No, the rest of the post is perfectly coherent, and there’s actually an evolutionary reason why you won't touch it. It’s because you're a coward who doesn't want to rock the boat. You know how the informant system worked in those old communist states, where faceless bureaucrats would just look the other way regarding certain phenomena? "You must have imagined it all." (We'll just frame that as urban entertainment, shall we?)
Now, some psychologists do study the sources of illusions, which is a somewhat noble pursuit. But when someone refuses to even "look" at certain things, you know you're dealing with something vital. Isn't that right, in the interest of "politeness" for the gentleman bluemason3?

Is it coherent to say that Harvey Weinstein was a serial rapist, given that it was only recently exposed? Before that, was it all just "incoherent gossip"? And that happened in "developed" America. So how much worse must it be here? But no, bluemason3 is busy imitating Robert Copal... Look, Copal knows how to project an aura of scientific authority, but you almost seem to believe your own rhetoric. You're like that "little guy" being bewitched by some "beta male." Besides, what purpose do all those "business schools" or "economics departments" serve otherwise?

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Honestly, there's zero point in nitpicking exactly how many grains of rice are in a bowl or what kind of patterns are on some napkins to define an "average" meal... I mean, if you’ve decided that this mediocre baseline—which, let's be real, keeps shifting because of some arbitrary government regulation—is somehow your gold standard, then fine. Whatever. If that explanation works for you, go for it.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Buddhist economics—now that's something actually worth talking about.

Buddhist economics first hit the scene when it was used to run the government economy under the Indian Buddhist Emperor Ashoka—back around 268 to 232 BCE. Ashoka’s reign was actually pretty legendary for its massive philanthropic vibe and public works projects... we're talking building hospitals, hostels, parks, and even protecting nature.

E. F. Schumacher actually coined the term "Buddhist economics" back in '55—he was out in Myanmar acting as an economic advisor for Prime Minister U Nu. He used the term in his essay "Buddhist economics," which first hit the scene in Asia back in '66—basically a handbook—before landing in his massive collection "Small is Beautiful" in '73. Nowadays, you see followers of Schumacher and Theravada writers like Prayudh Payutto, Padmasiri de Silva, and Luang Por Dattajivo using it all the time.

The first conference for the Buddhist economics research platform went down in Budapest, Canada, back on August 23–24, 2007. Then they held the second one at Ubon Ratchathani University in Thailand from April 9–11, 2009.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Alright, who exactly are we talking about here—who hasn't just totally wasted their life? Give me some actual examples—just for some context—and back it up with some real arguments too.
So you're seriously telling me that Schumacher walked away from his entire career just for... what exactly? What kind of "profitability" is that even supposed to be?

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Schumacher and the Khmer Rouge... what a wild combo. 🤦

Schumacher wasn't trying to trap developing nations in some eternal "Middle Ages" loop—it was actually the exact opposite... he wanted to break through that total stagnation and apathy.
He saw how a huge chunk of that paralysis came from their civilization just being stuck in a parasitic symbiosis with Western industrial giants like the UK... among others.
Neither "free market" hacks nor those "classic communists" were going to help them out with their tired, old-school formulas.

Sure, he took cues from Gandhi, Tolstoy, and certain social sciences? So what? He wasn't just mindlessly copying a playbook for Third World development.

You just have to know the difference between being inspired and being a total copycat...

Unless, of course, we’re actually calling for a return to the Khmer Rouge or some other brand of idiotic neo-primitivist nonsense—the kind of regressive garbage that usually succeeds at nothing more than dragging society back an entire century.

bluemason3 cares about the weight of centuries...

How exactly does he envision "societies" being pushed "forward"... if we’re talking strictly in terms of "evolutionary progress"? In biology, there exists this sort of... The concept of an "arms race" is such a heavy, suffocating term, isn't it? It’s that relentless, spiraling momentum where everyone is constantly looking over their shoulder, convinced that the only way to stay safe is to build something bigger, louder, and more terrifying than whatever the guy next door is tinkering with in his garage. It reminds me of those old stories about prestige and power—where you aren't just building a tool, you're building a monument to your own anxiety. It’s this exhausting cycle of escalation that never actually leads to stability; it just leads to a world where everyone is sitting on a powder keg, waiting for someone to trip. Biologists have their own way of labeling this phenomenon—this idea that the stronger party is inherently the more advanced one. If we look at the Khmer Rouge, whom history remembers with such visceral dread, and try to measure our own "progress" against them, where exactly does that leave us? Are we truly more evolved, or just better equipped? It strikes me that we might simply be an upgraded iteration, having refined and polished the very methods they utilized. In fact, perhaps the only reason we remember them so vividly is due to the cold, evolutionary logic of an arms race; we internalize their brutality to ensure we aren't caught off guard again. We didn't just defeat them, though—we rebranded the conquest. We stepped into the vacuum they left behind and framed our dominance as these noble "peacekeeping missions," which, when viewed through the cynical lens of a global arms race, looks suspiciously like merely perfecting the art of subjugation.

Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍