Source: Facebook

  • AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST By Daniel Gurpide Art is the celebration of

    AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST

    By Daniel Gurpide

    Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance.

    Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter.

    The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation.

    Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm.

    Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism.

    Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form.

    The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images.

    Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes)

    The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things.

    Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad.

    For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:14:00 UTC

  • AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST By @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide] Ar

    AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST

    By @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide]

    Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance.

    Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter.

    The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation.

    Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm.

    Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism.

    Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form.

    The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images.

    Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes)

    The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things.

    Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad.

    For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:14:00 UTC

  • “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE QANON HOAX?”— 1) Great Question: As you said, (a) it

    —“WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE QANON HOAX?”—

    1) Great Question: As you said, (a) it’s a hoax (trick) not a fraud because it’s not for consideration(that I know of). (b) I am fairly sure it qualifies as entertainment. (c) I don’t see it as defamation. (d) Not sure it seeks to advocate for involuntary transfer. (e) Not sure it’s a conspiracy.

    2) (f) it’s pretty obvious he’s using the same techniques as ‘mediums’ (readers), (g) and so under a soft interpretation I would say it’s ‘for fun’. (h) but if a jury could be convinced it was causing harm to the informational commons, (which it could be) then: the demand would be for informational restitution, and punishment if the jury saw fit.

    3) Restitution would require what is required in most courts which is full confession (explanation), and equal republication thereof. Remember that a hoax (entertainment) and a fraud (theft) are quite different things.

    4) Remember that the purpose of the demand for truth is merely to suppress fraud for any kind of profit or advocacy of any moral hazard from which direct or indirect gains can be had. The market will determine the indeterminable – just as it always does.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 08:00:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Trump. 1) Shutdown, 2) Judicial Appointments.

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Trump. 1) Shutdown, 2) Judicial Appointments. Is that the idea?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 03:22:52 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. –“Everyone wants to outsource responsibility

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    –“Everyone wants to outsource responsibility.”–Charles McCennit


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 03:20:22 UTC

  • Trump. 1) Shutdown, 2) Judicial Appointments. Is that the idea?

    Trump. 1) Shutdown, 2) Judicial Appointments. Is that the idea?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 23:22:00 UTC

  • “Everyone wants to outsource responsibility.”–Charles McCennit

    –“Everyone wants to outsource responsibility.”–Charles McCennit


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 23:20:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WI

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WILL DO SO – BUT YOU COST ME TIME. HENCE DON’T GIVE ME POSTMODERN JUNK.

    Review of a Bolivian Paper on the Alt Right.

    (ouch. remember that if you ask me to review academic work I will do my job. And if you are giving me postmodern drivel I’m gonna be very unkind in my analysis)

    0) First, I can improve on the understanding of the manifesto section a bit. However I am extremely critical if not hostile to the method of argument you are using because it contains nothing testable and as far as I can tell is just postmodern critique. So I won’t comment on it.

    1) The correct framing would be that the current generation of thinkers has adopted the marxist techniques (ridicule, shaming, rallying) simply by being exposed to them for decades.

    2) The movement was made possible by a)end of socialism, b) genetics, c) cog sci (d)immigration.

    3) the movement is merely a cyclical return to nationalism in the face of immigration – first Hispanic since hispanics have one to one replacement of whites, but secondly and more emphatically, muslim immigration which we perceive as even more hostile than jewish.

    4) Trump is an ally of the alt right simply because he is pursuing a strategy of nationalism and the restoration of the balance of powers instead of the single superpower of America that is too expensive for Americans to continue paying for.

    5) the alt right is possible because the internet allows people who are naturally apolitical to mirror the propaganda strategy of the marxists who are highly political. So the economics of collaboration have been reversed from favoring the left to the right.

    6) closing down stormfront and others merely drove the movement to use symbolic language, private message boards, video and podcasts, and made it possible for the right leadership to charge money for content. It backfired.

    7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page 50 because (a)you do not put forth a testable argument and then demonstrate how you defend it, and (b)you then engage in opinion measurement (intellectual gossip) rather than any form of measurement.

    8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature (its all they have to measure) but not in social science where it is nothing more than formally outlined gossip.

    9) I am sorry if this offends, but you have clearly been taught that this form of argument is acceptable academic work. It isn’t.

    https://www.academia.edu/36845752/El_esquema_ideol%C3%B3gico_de_la_derecha_alternativa


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:35:40 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. KILTS ARE PROPER MALE ATTIRE I got married in

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    KILTS ARE PROPER MALE ATTIRE

    I got married in proper highland dress thank you very much and have until recently kept my own kilt. The kilt is the ultimate form of male dress for a host of reasons both biological and practical. And a warm sporran serves as a reasonable cup.

    (Trossachs Church, Trossachs, Calendar, Scotland. Wedding photos at Edinburgh Castle )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:49:59 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Yes when I quote you I edit your stuff – for

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Yes when I quote you I edit your stuff – for posterity’s sake. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:41:45 UTC