Source: Facebook

DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE?

—“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl

CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience.

And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it.

And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’.

This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples.

So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie.

Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.