I was thinking about how you use the word 'history'. I see history as a synonym for "Human Life", because the written record of deeds gives us an opportunity to reflect on human life. Its hard to reflect on something that you don't know anything about.
History has a twofold fascination factor for man, because it is always recording the highlights, while forgetting 99% of everything that actually happens. So on the one hand it collects the output and cogitations of famous and inspired men, it also collects scenes of great beauty or trauma which haunt the mind, but it also forgets 99% of every human experience. Which means the past retreats into a fuzzy, inscrutable haze. This makes it a perfect canvas for the projection of our imagination.
I think imagination plays a role in human life, which only very few people are able to fathom. Pondering my own fascination with history (ancient Greece and Rome/Italy/Germany) made me realize something: people use history as a framework for exploring the imagination. They have to, because without imagination you can't build anything within your own mind, even to investigate a hypothetical.
Those of us who made our bones in this rough and tumble world, at some point generally learned to discipline the imagination to ignore fiction (or draw a strong line between fiction and reality), and the world-building that happens within fiction. "It isn't real", is a very common belief. History however, is real, by common agreement. So there is a common human agreement that the past is a culturally legitimate projection screen for imaginal acts, which if done in a fictional context, would be considered spurious or invalid. People born in right-wing environments, where the past is revered and cherished, will be especially prone to wanting to project their imagination mostly onto the past.
To cogitate on the past at all is to reflect, and to look at large volumes of human experience is evocative of the higher energies within oneself. It is inherently generalizing, sublimating, abstracting, viewing the whole. This has an inherently subtle, internal, magical quality to it. I believe it is this metaphysical quality which Eliade is referring to with his discussion of 'time', and the distinction between the sacred and profane.
I would analyze these experiences using the paradigm of the different energy centers, or chakras. To be trapped within the lower centers, is to be experiencing time in the way Eliade refers to, per this latest NV transmission, as "the brutal march of history". It is to be trapped in the profane. I think there is always a good lesson one is learning, but it is nevertheless, not really metaphysically gorgeous or transcendental.
To experience sacred time, in this paradigm, is to experience the activation of the higher energy centers within oneself. I believe this is the "mythic time of the gods". I think this also maps to Faith, which you point out as well.
There are no hard and fast rules mapping the opening of the energy centers - a subjective inner experience - onto happenings in the external world - our 'objective' experience. This is where all ritual hits a curb, gets a flat tire, and veers off into the meadow: you can't guarantee the activation of internal states in different people, by any kind of external rites. That's why these ceremonies begin as very inspired societal practices, but drag a bunch of people along with them who are not feeling the Spirit. This is the weirdness of going to Church, in that its both a social club, and a sacred practice - depending on who you ask. I go into Churches, when I do go, only alone and never socialize there, because in my view, that's not the highest use of a church.
If you watched Putin's speech celebrating the annexation of the new territories (in former Ukraine), you can see a moment when he talks about the shared love of Russia, and Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya, is actually weeping, he is so deeply moved by it. Probably some people in the audience were bored or even hostile. Such is the subjective nature of experience, even in very powerful ritualistic setting.
Your discussion of the pagan gods versus the Creator god was very interesting and made me think. How I see things, the pagan gods were memories of ancient alien visitations, but the memory of these aliens visiting was preserved, and they became venerated as a kind of real-life Marvel superhero figure in absentia. Because the alien had demonstrated some specific power - teaching people about agriculture, or tool manufacturing - that 'god' became associated with that power or activity. You could say they became archetypal, merely because they lost their specificity, and became associated with a single domain of human experience.
To me, this religiosity is kind of spiritually backward - praying to the gods for advantage in daily life makes sense to me, but doesn't seem metaphysically empowering or correct. You go into this in the broadcast when you contrast this with the worship of the true Creator God, in Christianity. I think the spiritual approach of Christianity is far more advanced and correct.
I think old Testament Yahweh was a negative alien who advised the Israelites to do everything that was most harmful for them. Circumcision, child sacrifice, genociding the Canaanites. They were mind-mogged by a demon basically. Same thing with Islam. It's basically a demon giving a channeler (that's what Moses and Muhammad were, IMO) the worst possible instructions on how to live (except it had to remain plausible). I mean just the idea of child sacrifice, goes against every single instinct within man. It is the bronze age equivalent of what we're seeing now in the culture - just pure destruction.
The part at the end comparing National Socialism and Communism as myths is really profound. Hadn't thought about it that way before.
That part also made me realize that part of the work that Night Owls does is deconstructing the new myths which are basically mind-weapons at this point. "We are not a people", "We have no exclusive right to our own public goods", "We cannot make aesthetic choices about shaping our world", "We are bad", etc. etc. Night Owls says "No" to all of that. We aren't bad, we aren't stupid, we aren't in need of help from millions of strangers to do basic tasks, and we should be able to make choices about our public goods!
Great work, NV. Really grateful for all the high level thinking and hilariousness you bring
I feel like you missed an opportunity to talk about the eschatology of end-of-history liberalism at the end. If the anxiety and doomerism of naziism is partially responsible for its failure, what does that tell us about the similar characteristics of our current paradigm?
I'm going to follow this one up with a more political manifestation of these trends, which will be a continuation of the ending here with Eliade talking about nazism and communism in their mythological dimensions.
I was about to comment on how platonic this sounded and then you mentioned Plato lol. This is a really great compliment to my reading of Edith Hamilton’s Mythology.
Pumped for this. Also please give us a Night Owls ASAP on the LA riots
SCRATCH THAT ONE ON IRAN
Looking forward to Future Moldovan Citizen Ep. 1, where he just ranks Dino nuggets and Tostino’s pizza bites
I'm too stupid to gain anything from this shit but I'll listen to it 2-3 times anyway ty NMV
thank you I appreciate it
Great cogitations, NV! Here's some thoughts.
I was thinking about how you use the word 'history'. I see history as a synonym for "Human Life", because the written record of deeds gives us an opportunity to reflect on human life. Its hard to reflect on something that you don't know anything about.
History has a twofold fascination factor for man, because it is always recording the highlights, while forgetting 99% of everything that actually happens. So on the one hand it collects the output and cogitations of famous and inspired men, it also collects scenes of great beauty or trauma which haunt the mind, but it also forgets 99% of every human experience. Which means the past retreats into a fuzzy, inscrutable haze. This makes it a perfect canvas for the projection of our imagination.
I think imagination plays a role in human life, which only very few people are able to fathom. Pondering my own fascination with history (ancient Greece and Rome/Italy/Germany) made me realize something: people use history as a framework for exploring the imagination. They have to, because without imagination you can't build anything within your own mind, even to investigate a hypothetical.
Those of us who made our bones in this rough and tumble world, at some point generally learned to discipline the imagination to ignore fiction (or draw a strong line between fiction and reality), and the world-building that happens within fiction. "It isn't real", is a very common belief. History however, is real, by common agreement. So there is a common human agreement that the past is a culturally legitimate projection screen for imaginal acts, which if done in a fictional context, would be considered spurious or invalid. People born in right-wing environments, where the past is revered and cherished, will be especially prone to wanting to project their imagination mostly onto the past.
To cogitate on the past at all is to reflect, and to look at large volumes of human experience is evocative of the higher energies within oneself. It is inherently generalizing, sublimating, abstracting, viewing the whole. This has an inherently subtle, internal, magical quality to it. I believe it is this metaphysical quality which Eliade is referring to with his discussion of 'time', and the distinction between the sacred and profane.
I would analyze these experiences using the paradigm of the different energy centers, or chakras. To be trapped within the lower centers, is to be experiencing time in the way Eliade refers to, per this latest NV transmission, as "the brutal march of history". It is to be trapped in the profane. I think there is always a good lesson one is learning, but it is nevertheless, not really metaphysically gorgeous or transcendental.
To experience sacred time, in this paradigm, is to experience the activation of the higher energy centers within oneself. I believe this is the "mythic time of the gods". I think this also maps to Faith, which you point out as well.
There are no hard and fast rules mapping the opening of the energy centers - a subjective inner experience - onto happenings in the external world - our 'objective' experience. This is where all ritual hits a curb, gets a flat tire, and veers off into the meadow: you can't guarantee the activation of internal states in different people, by any kind of external rites. That's why these ceremonies begin as very inspired societal practices, but drag a bunch of people along with them who are not feeling the Spirit. This is the weirdness of going to Church, in that its both a social club, and a sacred practice - depending on who you ask. I go into Churches, when I do go, only alone and never socialize there, because in my view, that's not the highest use of a church.
If you watched Putin's speech celebrating the annexation of the new territories (in former Ukraine), you can see a moment when he talks about the shared love of Russia, and Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya, is actually weeping, he is so deeply moved by it. Probably some people in the audience were bored or even hostile. Such is the subjective nature of experience, even in very powerful ritualistic setting.
Your discussion of the pagan gods versus the Creator god was very interesting and made me think. How I see things, the pagan gods were memories of ancient alien visitations, but the memory of these aliens visiting was preserved, and they became venerated as a kind of real-life Marvel superhero figure in absentia. Because the alien had demonstrated some specific power - teaching people about agriculture, or tool manufacturing - that 'god' became associated with that power or activity. You could say they became archetypal, merely because they lost their specificity, and became associated with a single domain of human experience.
To me, this religiosity is kind of spiritually backward - praying to the gods for advantage in daily life makes sense to me, but doesn't seem metaphysically empowering or correct. You go into this in the broadcast when you contrast this with the worship of the true Creator God, in Christianity. I think the spiritual approach of Christianity is far more advanced and correct.
I think old Testament Yahweh was a negative alien who advised the Israelites to do everything that was most harmful for them. Circumcision, child sacrifice, genociding the Canaanites. They were mind-mogged by a demon basically. Same thing with Islam. It's basically a demon giving a channeler (that's what Moses and Muhammad were, IMO) the worst possible instructions on how to live (except it had to remain plausible). I mean just the idea of child sacrifice, goes against every single instinct within man. It is the bronze age equivalent of what we're seeing now in the culture - just pure destruction.
The part at the end comparing National Socialism and Communism as myths is really profound. Hadn't thought about it that way before.
That part also made me realize that part of the work that Night Owls does is deconstructing the new myths which are basically mind-weapons at this point. "We are not a people", "We have no exclusive right to our own public goods", "We cannot make aesthetic choices about shaping our world", "We are bad", etc. etc. Night Owls says "No" to all of that. We aren't bad, we aren't stupid, we aren't in need of help from millions of strangers to do basic tasks, and we should be able to make choices about our public goods!
Great work, NV. Really grateful for all the high level thinking and hilariousness you bring
to the new right.
I feel like you missed an opportunity to talk about the eschatology of end-of-history liberalism at the end. If the anxiety and doomerism of naziism is partially responsible for its failure, what does that tell us about the similar characteristics of our current paradigm?
I'm going to follow this one up with a more political manifestation of these trends, which will be a continuation of the ending here with Eliade talking about nazism and communism in their mythological dimensions.
I was about to comment on how platonic this sounded and then you mentioned Plato lol. This is a really great compliment to my reading of Edith Hamilton’s Mythology.