Eric Voegelin, of “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” fame, penned a small monograph exploring his favorite subject, gnosticism: Science, Politics & Gnosticism. It is a slim book not as well organized as some of his other writings (what came first would have been better coming last), but it is valuable in its succinct differentiation of those intoxicated with the idea of man’s perfection, and those who soberly acknowledge Reality.
Through different approaches, Freud through the study of psychology, Eric Hoffer through the study of history, and Ernest Becker through anthroplogy, psychology and religion developed a theory of group psychology based on transference in pursuit of transcendance by which the individual, through the force of transference, believes as true that which may be false but which the group accepts as truth and accepts as reality that which may be illusion but which the group accepts as real and places both beyond the realm of question, scrutiny and debate. The group accepts as true and real that which enables the group to acquire and maintain its psychological and political powers over the individual and to pursue transcendance over earthly limitations. What the group accepts as true and real are the tenets of its ideology and the instruments of its power. Through the group's collective power each member of the group seeks transcendance, which is the capacity to obtain more life and to transcend earthly material limitations, including the ultimate limit of the flesh, which is death. For the individual to question what the group says is true and real is to deny the group's ideology, invite expulsion from the group and lose the power of transcendance; it is to die. This is why, for example, the falsely accused defendants in Stalin's show trials willingly confessed to the truth of the official lies aginst them, why during their exile to the gulags they routinely defended the truth of those lies and adhered to the tenets of the group's communist ideology, and why for the falsely accused expulsion from the communist party was a punishment worse than death.
Question: Are you the same Paladin that once frequented the comments section of Law & Liberty (before they terminated it, of course)? Your nom de guerre seems familiar to me.
Good Lord, I've been outed! Just don't tell the editors at L&L, or they may start trolling me on Substack:) L&L gave me fits censoring my comments and kicked me off the site under prior pen names, so that I had to change names and email addresses in order to get back on and comment. I was honored to be an unawanted guest polemicist, in the tradition of Thomas Paine in King George's American colonies. Thought about submiting stuff for them, but lacked enthusiasm for the effort. I took a look again after dropping off for quite a while and see that they now have several fine book reviewers on their editorial board, including Daniel Goldman.
BTW: Our man Briggs recently wrote an excellent book review for L&L, which in commenting on last week I said this:
Finally, an educated reader's observation about Law and Liberty. Briggs wrote his fine review for its only section which remains intellectualy esteemable to me, its book reviews. L&L, in my opinion, declined greatly in recent years, a decline I note that coincided with what seems to me to have been its editors' decisions to join the Orange Man Bad mob and also, later, to stop publishing reader comments and criticisms of its increasingly unimpressive articles and essays. (Ironically, the comments and criticisms of its stuff, then, were often more thoughtful, defensible, well-written and entertaining than its stuff.)
L&L was once a modestly cherished publication, and I hope it can regain its footing. From the Weekly Standard, National Review and such, conservativism has endured too much, which is enough.
Not to blow too much smoke, but you were by far my favorite poster there; after reading pieces that made me seethe, I'd quickly scroll down to the comments section in hopes of seeing one of your masterful rebuttals. Let's just say, you never disappointed.
Shortly after L&L removed the comments section, and following several failed attempts at obtaining an explanation as to why, I dropped them as a follow. Like you, I enjoyed the comments section much more than the articles themselves.
If L&L practiced censorship and disliked Trump, then that's a pretty good indication that they were a force of evil to start with. Who would want them back?
Positivism and categorical imperative are synergistic. How can one NOT feel science love must be universally imperative? Unless one is a "denier" willing to injure all of humanity.
Through different approaches, Freud through the study of psychology, Eric Hoffer through the study of history, and Ernest Becker through anthroplogy, psychology and religion developed a theory of group psychology based on transference in pursuit of transcendance by which the individual, through the force of transference, believes as true that which may be false but which the group accepts as truth and accepts as reality that which may be illusion but which the group accepts as real and places both beyond the realm of question, scrutiny and debate. The group accepts as true and real that which enables the group to acquire and maintain its psychological and political powers over the individual and to pursue transcendance over earthly limitations. What the group accepts as true and real are the tenets of its ideology and the instruments of its power. Through the group's collective power each member of the group seeks transcendance, which is the capacity to obtain more life and to transcend earthly material limitations, including the ultimate limit of the flesh, which is death. For the individual to question what the group says is true and real is to deny the group's ideology, invite expulsion from the group and lose the power of transcendance; it is to die. This is why, for example, the falsely accused defendants in Stalin's show trials willingly confessed to the truth of the official lies aginst them, why during their exile to the gulags they routinely defended the truth of those lies and adhered to the tenets of the group's communist ideology, and why for the falsely accused expulsion from the communist party was a punishment worse than death.
Question: Are you the same Paladin that once frequented the comments section of Law & Liberty (before they terminated it, of course)? Your nom de guerre seems familiar to me.
Good Lord, I've been outed! Just don't tell the editors at L&L, or they may start trolling me on Substack:) L&L gave me fits censoring my comments and kicked me off the site under prior pen names, so that I had to change names and email addresses in order to get back on and comment. I was honored to be an unawanted guest polemicist, in the tradition of Thomas Paine in King George's American colonies. Thought about submiting stuff for them, but lacked enthusiasm for the effort. I took a look again after dropping off for quite a while and see that they now have several fine book reviewers on their editorial board, including Daniel Goldman.
BTW: Our man Briggs recently wrote an excellent book review for L&L, which in commenting on last week I said this:
Finally, an educated reader's observation about Law and Liberty. Briggs wrote his fine review for its only section which remains intellectualy esteemable to me, its book reviews. L&L, in my opinion, declined greatly in recent years, a decline I note that coincided with what seems to me to have been its editors' decisions to join the Orange Man Bad mob and also, later, to stop publishing reader comments and criticisms of its increasingly unimpressive articles and essays. (Ironically, the comments and criticisms of its stuff, then, were often more thoughtful, defensible, well-written and entertaining than its stuff.)
L&L was once a modestly cherished publication, and I hope it can regain its footing. From the Weekly Standard, National Review and such, conservativism has endured too much, which is enough.
Excellent!
Not to blow too much smoke, but you were by far my favorite poster there; after reading pieces that made me seethe, I'd quickly scroll down to the comments section in hopes of seeing one of your masterful rebuttals. Let's just say, you never disappointed.
Shortly after L&L removed the comments section, and following several failed attempts at obtaining an explanation as to why, I dropped them as a follow. Like you, I enjoyed the comments section much more than the articles themselves.
I look forward to reading more from you.
I agree with you.
Paladin has it going on.
If L&L practiced censorship and disliked Trump, then that's a pretty good indication that they were a force of evil to start with. Who would want them back?
Positivism and categorical imperative are synergistic. How can one NOT feel science love must be universally imperative? Unless one is a "denier" willing to injure all of humanity.
Thanks
That makes me feel great.
I tried to inquire several times about why my stuff was deleted or blocked. Even called. Got nothing.
Reinsch is still there but is now also involved with Heritage.
So, if he was a problem?, maybe he's less influential at L&L.
Don't have a clue.
They would do well to reopen the floor to debate. Even the Washington Post takes letters to the editor, although it has never printed mine:)
"Democracy dies in darkness, and Wapo will turn out the lights for ya."