PDA

View Full Version : Question on the Polarity of Human Thought



Jack
Sunday, February 8th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Carl Schmitt (and Francis Parker Yockey) put foward the idea that human evaluations occur between two poles -

- Aesthetics distinguishes between the Beautiful and the Ugly,
- Economics between the Profitable and the Unprofitable
- Moral between the Good and the Evil
- Politics between Friend and Enemy.

Each of these four fields of human evaluation - aesthetic, economic, moral, political - have what I would call a nexus (Carl Schmitt does not deal with this, as far as I'm aware, but from my perspective, adding this element helps). The nexus of aesthetics is form, the nexus of economics is product, the nexus of moral is human action, and the nexus of politics is - what?

Schmitt believes that the 'friend' has nothing to do with good, profitable or beautiful. The enemy does not have to be immoral, useless, or hideous. He is simply one who infringes on one's own identity and values to the extent that he can be considered a threat to the self. The act of deciding who the enemy is, is at the same time selecting one's friends - the friend does not have to be moral, profitable, or beautiful - he is one who is willing to fight alongside one's self against the enemy. The political is defined by the very real possibility of killing physical death, for either the self or the enemy. The core question of politics is effectively as follows: for what convictions is one willing to die?

A conviction, for the purposes of this topic, is a positive evaluation (moral, aesthetic, economic, or otherwise) for which one is willing to risk losing one's life or means of sustaining it. A conviction must necessarily be loved - one's family, one's people, one's God, etc. So, I put the question: is love not a positive moral, or aesthetic, or economic evaluation but the nexus of the political?

Moody
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 06:16 PM
I would say that 'love' is too obviously an emotional polarity [Love/Hate] and cannot serve as a 'nexus', as you put it.

I would say that the nexus of the Political is 'human relations', which encompasses love, hate, indifference etc.,

Jack
Monday, February 9th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Human relations are not necessarily political - trade with others is a form of human relation, but is not political. Hate does not exist in the absence of love - hate is the emotional effect of having something you love (to the point of being willing to kill/be killed in order to protect it) credibly threatened with destruction (go ahead and argue with that, I'm putting foward the idea to see if it works). Where there is indifference, there is no politics.

FadeTheButcher
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 06:54 AM
Jacques Derrida has some interesting things to say about binary oppositions. Derrida claims that such oppositions are not polar, that one term is simply privilaged over the other, and argues that such binary oppositions are typical of Western thought since Plato. I will post more about this later.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 08:53 AM
Human relations are not necessarily political - trade with others is a form of human relation, but is not political.

Dear lad, politics is the study of human relations. If you were the only individual that existed, then there would be no politics. Human relations are always political. It is political science that decides what is the best form of interaction. Trade is a type of human relation and it's called political-economy.

Jack
Tuesday, February 10th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Please do, I'm interested.

Moody
Wednesday, February 11th, 2004, 07:29 PM
Let's look at the word 'NEXUS'.

Quite simply, it means a 'connection'.

The Latin is 'nectere', meaning 'to bind'.

Three main senses are used today;

1) Connection, link; also: a causal link.

2) A connected group or series.

3) Centre, focus.

Taking the sense of 1 and 2, we can ask, what is the connection between the political criterion of 'friend and enemy'?

In the broadest terms, we can say 'human relations' if our concept of the political is of the widest [and mine is].

The word 'human' in this context should be suggestive of human groupings at all times [families, tribes, nations etc.,] - see my thread on the "Philosophy of 'the Human'?" - rather than of isolated individuals. Hence the compounded use of the word 'relations' which suggests the sense of connection necessary for a NEXUS.

So the political seen as 'human relations' certainly fulfills the definitions of Nexus found in 1 and 2 above, albeit in the broadest sense.

As to indifference, I tend to think that not bothering to vote in an election is just as much a political 'act' [by default] as is purposely voting, for example.

But if we want to be more specific, then the third definition of Nexus, as a 'centre', as a 'focus', allows us to be so.

The nexus of the political in the sense of 3 is simply 'the State'.

Jack
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 04:17 AM
Let's look at the word 'NEXUS'.

Quite simply, it means a 'connection'.

The Latin is 'nectere', meaning 'to bind'.

Three main senses are used today;

1) Connection, link; also: a causal link.

2) A connected group or series.

3) Centre, focus.

I was referring to point 3. Perhaps a better (though more 'crude') word would've been 'hinge'. But thanks for posting that.


Taking the sense of 1 and 2, we can ask, what is the connection between the political criterion of 'friend and enemy'?

In the sense I was referring to ('hinge'), I meant (and Schmitt does point strongly at this) - one what grounds is one defined as 'friend' or 'enemy'? And I put foward the idea that these grounds, the hinge, so to speak, is love - which, interestingly enough, Kant banished from his conception of morality.


In the broadest terms, we can say 'human relations' if our concept of the political is of the widest [and mine is].

We can indeed say that if we are working with 'man as a social being' (which he definetly is) - but I don't believe that defines the political. Politics, Yockey said, is activity in relation to power - and that is certainly true. However, power is empty without an aim, an objective, and that's what I'm trying to get at.


The word 'human' in this context should be suggestive of human groupings at all times [families, tribes, nations etc.,] - see my thread on the "Philosophy of 'the Human'?" - rather than of isolated individuals. Hence the compounded use of the word 'relations' which suggests the sense of connection necessary for a NEXUS.

Evola puts foward this idea, the 'person' as opposed to the 'individual' in chapter three of Men Amongst the Ruins. The human is undefinable - because it does not exist. People exist, but not 'individuals' (i.e. atomic units).

So the political seen as 'human relations' certainly fulfills the definitions of Nexus found in 1 and 2 above, albeit in the broadest sense.


As to indifference, I tend to think that not bothering to vote in an election is just as much a political 'act' [by default] as is purposely voting, for example.

What, not being bothered to go to the polling booth, or refusing to go for reasons of politics? The first, I think, is definetly not political, while the first obviously is.


The nexus of the political in the sense of 3 is simply 'the State'.

And in the absence of the State, i.e. civil war? Then what? Politics there certainly does not end. We need to define what the State is. I'll keep reading Evola's Men Amongst the Ruins (I got my copy on Saturday, and Revolt against the Modern World today) and I'll type something up on his views of what the State is, in the traditional sense, and how it came about. And then I'll try fix it with ethnicism/racialism and see if it works.

Moody
Monday, February 16th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Jack; "In the sense I was referring to ('hinge'), I meant on what grounds is one defined as 'friend' or 'enemy'?
And I put foward the idea that these grounds, the hinge, so to speak, is love - which, interestingly enough, Kant banished from his conception of morality".

Moody; 'Love' is problematic as a ground here, especially as we do not employ the distinctions used by the ancients in our language.
I fail to see how 'love' in the sense of the erotic, which is a kind of madness, can be the ground of the political criterion!
Think of it - 'the erotic politician', as Marilyn Manson said!
Perhaps the platonic, non-erotic love can be used to refer to various types of attachment, from the family to patriotism itself; but all this doesn't tell us why we should regard someone as a political enemy.
It is possible to fall in love with one's enemy, so that love cuts across the intended criterion - this alone tells us that love of any kind cannot be its grounding.

Jack; "We can indeed say that if we are working with 'man as a social being' (which he definitly is) - but I don't believe that defines the political. Politics, Yockey said, is activity in relation to power - and that is certainly true. However, power is empty without an aim, an objective, and that's what I'm trying to get at".

Moody; But that emptiness of power grounds the political far more than does love. There is also a difference between defining something and grounding something.
It is true to state that the political is grounded in power - the sort of power which resides in the social setting of the human.
The object is to win the eternal struggle with your enemies.

Jack; "Evola puts foward this idea, the 'person' as opposed to the 'individual'. The human is undefinable - because it does not exist.
People exist, but not 'individuals' (i.e. atomic units)".

Moody; 'Person' literally means 'mask'; there is a constant game of deception going on in the human at the level of persona.
Do any categories at this level exist as thing-in-themselves?
Surely, all our morphologies are projections aimed at defining/structuring/ordering a 'reality' we cannot touch without the intermediary measure of our thinking/feeling.
Given all that, the 'human' is as good as any other category, like 'people', 'individual' etc., [see my thread 'The Philosophy of 'the Human?' "].

Jack; "Not being bothered to go to the polling booth is definitly not political ..."

Moody; Not so;the apolitical is part of the political; politicians of a certain stripe WORK towards engendering apathy in certain voters.
Therefore in democracy, voter apathy is significant and political.

Jack; "And in the absence of the State, i.e. civil war? Then what? Politics there certainly does not end".

Moody; Then you move away from the specific definition of 3 towards the generalised 1 and 2 of 'human relations'. The 'political' then devolves to more primitive forms of socialising.

Jack; "We need to define what the State is".

Moody; We know what States are when we see them; or do you imply that there is a Platonic Form of The State?

Jack
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Jack; "In the sense I was referring to ('hinge'), I meant on what grounds is one defined as 'friend' or 'enemy'?
And I put foward the idea that these grounds, the hinge, so to speak, is love - which, interestingly enough, Kant banished from his conception of morality".

Moody; 'Love' is problematic as a ground here, especially as we do not employ the distinctions used by the ancients in our language.
I fail to see how 'love' in the sense of the erotic, which is a kind of madness, can be the ground of the political criterion!
Think of it - 'the erotic politician', as Marilyn Manson said!
Perhaps the platonic, non-erotic love can be used to refer to various types of attachment, from the family to patriotism itself; but all this doesn't tell us why we should regard someone as a political enemy.

No, not the 'Platonic'. I am referring to what I'd describe as, for lack of a better word, 'total love'. Something for which one is willing to risk one's life to advance or protect.


It is possible to fall in love with one's enemy, so that love cuts across the intended criterion - this alone tells us that love of any kind cannot be its grounding.

'Falling in love with one's enemy' is a blurring of the political. The very distinction between friend and enemy, I argue, is based on love (as I've tried to define above).


Jack; "We can indeed say that if we are working with 'man as a social being' (which he definitly is) - but I don't believe that defines the political. Politics, Yockey said, is activity in relation to power - and that is certainly true. However, power is empty without an aim, an objective, and that's what I'm trying to get at".

Moody; But that emptiness of power grounds the political far more than does love. There is also a difference between defining something and grounding something.

Power is a means. Love is a motivation, and aim, and a motivation all in one - it is the very reason why the distinction between friend and enemy exists.


It is true to state that the political is grounded in power - the sort of power which resides in the social setting of the human.

I agree.


The object is to win the eternal struggle with your enemies.

The object is to annihilate whatever threatens what one loves. Incapacitating an enemy, to the extent where he cannot influence or destroy or effect in any way that which one loves, counts as part of that.


Jack; "Evola puts foward this idea, the 'person' as opposed to the 'individual'. The human is undefinable - because it does not exist.
People exist, but not 'individuals' (i.e. atomic units)".

Moody; 'Person' literally means 'mask'; there is a constant game of deception going on in the human at the level of persona.

I am not talking where the word came from or what it literally means (I know, person, 'persona', mask) :p Person, meaning (as I'm using it now), a person with definable characteristics that stay true for an extended length of time.


Do any categories at this level exist as thing-in-themselves?

'Everyone knows who you appear to be, very few know who you really are'
- Niccolo Machievelli.

My point, based on a measure of faith, combined with a fair load of evidence, is that there is something behind the mask, and the mask links with it strongly. The mask is dependent on the being behind it. So yes, I do indeed believe people exist in themselves.


Surely, all our morphologies are projections aimed at defining/structuring/ordering a 'reality' we cannot touch without the intermediary measure of our thinking/feeling.

I agree. That's a problem.


Given all that, the 'human' is as good as any other category, like 'people', 'individual' etc., [see my thread 'The Philosophy of 'the Human?' "].

I've seen it, and I still disagree with it.


Jack; "Not being bothered to go to the polling booth is definitly not political ..."

Moody; Not so;the apolitical is part of the political; politicians of a certain stripe WORK towards engendering apathy in certain voters.

The apathetic voter may be encouraged not to vote, but for most, apathy is a way of conserving energy ('can't be bothered going') - it is seen as an unprofitable, useless exercise - a matter of personal economy.


Therefore in democracy, voter apathy is significant and political.

I don't agree.


Jack; "And in the absence of the State, i.e. civil war? Then what? Politics there certainly does not end".

Moody; Then you move away from the specific definition of 3 towards the generalised 1 and 2 of 'human relations'. The 'political' then devolves to more primitive forms of socialising.

You have claimed anarchy (the state of mutual cooperation amongst people without being coerced into agreements) is 'anti-political'. This doesn't follow from your suggesting that the political devolves into 'socialising' with the breakdown of the State.


Jack; "We need to define what the State is".

Moody; We know what States are when we see them; or do you imply that there is a Platonic Form of The State?

I am implying that there is an absolute definition that covers all 'States' no matter how different (e.g. parliamentary democracy, dictatorship, worker's councils) they appear to be.

Moody
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Jack; "I am referring to what I'd describe as, for lack of a better word, 'total love'. Something for which one is willing to risk one's life to advance or protect".

Moody; In politics that is called 'patriotism' - love of one's fatherland etc.,
It doesn't describe the friend/enemy criterion; it only refers to the aspect of 'friend', and therefore cannot serve as a nexus.

Jack; "'Falling in love with one's enemy' is a blurring of the political. The very distinction between friend and enemy, I argue, is based on love (as I've tried to define above)".

Moody; This further shows how inadequate 'love' is as a nexus; it is possible to have love for an enemy, and yet still regard him as an enemy.
Schmitt is at pains to describe the non-personal aspect of the friend/enemy dichotomy.

Jack; "Power is a means. Love is a motivation, and aim, and a motivation all in one - it is the very reason why the distinction between friend and enemy exists".

Moody; Not so, as Schmitt agrees, it is possible to love an enemy [Jesus said something similar]. It is incorrect to restrict power to being a 'means' only.
Power is the very GROUND of politics .
Nietzsche would regard love as a mere affect, and I tend to agree with him; love tends to be a transient thing, and so fickle.

Jack; "The object is to annihilate whatever threatens what one loves. Incapacitating an enemy, to the extent where he cannot influence or destroy or effect in any way that which one loves, counts as part of that".

Moody; Did not Wilde say the opposite; 'each man kills the thing he loves'.
No, love has little to do with the political, apart from possibly the afore-mentioned patria.
One NEEDS enemies; we maintain enemies [the ones that we respect and even love at times] so that we remain fighting fit.
If all my enemies vanished, I would become flabby and directionless.
Philosophy itself BEGAN in the wrestling match - the first philosophers were wrestlers who even tried to wrestle with words.
So, life is a struggle - an agon - as the Greeks knew.
The Political is the very stuff of life in its widest sense, and its focus is in the State.

Jack; "The apathetic voter [i]may be encouraged not to vote, but for most, apathy is a way of conserving energy ('can't be bothered going') - it is seen as an unprofitable, useless exercise - a matter of personal economy".

Moody; Yes, but you are only viewing things from the point of view of the masses; to those in Power voter apathy is a tool to be used. Why else would bread and circuses be a prerequisite in politics since the time of the ancients?
Try and brainwash and mesmerise the masses if you are in democractic politics - YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO VOTE FOR WHAT THEY REALLY NEED!

Jack; "You have claimed anarchy (the state of mutual cooperation amongst people without being coerced into agreements) is 'anti-political'. This doesn't follow from your suggesting that the political devolves into 'socialising' with the breakdown of the State".

Moody; Anarchy [no-government] is anti-political by definition; this is not to say that the anti-political cannot be used by the power-base in the same way as voter-apathy can be used.
Anarchist groups are used by the establishment to beat up White Nationalists, for example.
Ultimately, the anti-political and the apolitical are used by the political - another indication that Politics is of the widest scope and about human relations, all told.

Jack; "I am implying that there is an absolute definition that covers all 'States' no matter how different (e.g. parliamentary democracy, dictatorship, worker's councils) they appear to be".

Moody; This is that very wide definition of the Political with which I began.

Jack
Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Jack; "I am referring to what I'd describe as, for lack of a better word, 'total love'. Something for which one is willing to risk one's life to advance or protect".

Moody; In politics that is called 'patriotism' - love of one's fatherland etc.,
It doesn't describe the friend/enemy criterion; it only refers to the aspect of 'friend', and therefore cannot serve as a nexus.

I'm not referring to patriotism, but that is what's part of it. Put it this way - if a fellow human assaults one's girlfriend, and one loves her, the friend-enemy line is drawn and violence occurs. The friend-enemy connection is well capable of occuring outside the State.


Jack; "'Falling in love with one's enemy' is a blurring of the political. The very distinction between friend and enemy, I argue, is based on love (as I've tried to define above)".

Moody; This further shows how inadequate 'love' is as a nexus; it is possible to have love for an enemy, and yet still regard him as an enemy.

Really? Prime example: Underworld, modern adaption of Romeo and Juliet (Yes I know you hate pop culture but it's a good example). Female vampire falls in love with a guy who's about to become a werewolf. She no longer regards him as an enemy and defends him against other vampires. It's a reorientation of the friend-enemy connection, it doesn't show how 'inadequate' love is as a nexus.


Schmitt is at pains to describe the non-personal aspect of the friend/enemy dichotomy.

Hostis as opposed to inimicus. Politics is personal because it deals with people. There are two types of enemies, the adversary, whom one is trying to defeat, and lies inside the group, and the enemy, with whom there is a very serious possibility of violence. In the example I put foward above (the girlfriend thing), the 'group' breaks down (he may be part of one's own ingroup, but the second he violates what one loves, he's enemy).


Jack; "Power is a means. Love is a motivation, and aim, and a motivation all in one - it is the very reason why the distinction between friend and enemy exists".

Moody; Not so, as Schmitt agrees, it is possible to love an enemy [Jesus said something similar].

Which explains why Jesus pulled out the whip and drove the money changers away from the synagogue...?


It is incorrect to restrict power to being a 'means' only.
Power is the very GROUND of politics .
Nietzsche would regard love as a mere affect, and I tend to agree with him; love tends to be a transient thing, and so fickle.

'Life is action' - Francis Parker Yockey. Power is the capability to act. Capability is means.


Jack; "The object is to annihilate whatever threatens what one loves. Incapacitating an enemy, to the extent where he cannot influence or destroy or effect in any way that which one loves, counts as part of that".

Moody; Did not Wilde say the opposite; 'each man kills the thing he loves'.
No, love has little to do with the political, apart from possibly the afore-mentioned patria.

Patria is only a part of the what can be 'totally loved'. One's life, friends, family (inc. future family), way of life, and one's community, and yes, one's honour.


One NEEDS enemies; we maintain enemies [the ones that we respect and even love at times] so that we remain fighting fit.

To love one's enemy means to view him as an adversary rather than an enemy. The distinction of enemy is governed by the very real possibility of violence and killing, according to Schmitt.


If all my enemies vanished, I would become flabby and directionless.
Philosophy itself BEGAN in the wrestling match - the first philosophers were wrestlers who even tried to wrestle with words.
So, life is a struggle - an agon - as the Greeks knew.

That has nothing to do with 'enemy', and everything to do with adversary.


The Political is the very stuff of life in its widest sense, and its focus is in the State.

Politics can and does occur beyond the reach of the State. Witness gang warfare (yes, friend/enemy distinction is made, violence and killing does occur), civil wars, revolutions.


Jack; "The apathetic voter [i]may be encouraged not to vote, but for most, apathy is a way of conserving energy ('can't be bothered going') - it is seen as an unprofitable, useless exercise - a matter of personal economy".

Moody; Yes, but you are only viewing things from the point of view of the masses;

You are ignoring the point of view of the masses.


to those in Power voter apathy is a tool to be used. Why else would bread and circuses be a prerequisite in politics since the time of the ancients?
Try and brainwash and mesmerise the masses if you are in democractic politics - YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO VOTE FOR WHAT THEY REALLY NEED!

One uses the masses as a tool - to incapacitate the adversary's (say, another Senator) ability to act. Once again showing economy, as useful-useless distinction, is subordinate to politics.


Jack; "You have claimed anarchy (the state of mutual cooperation amongst people without being coerced into agreements) is 'anti-political'. This doesn't follow from your suggesting that the political devolves into 'socialising' with the breakdown of the State".

Moody; Anarchy [no-government] is anti-political by definition;

Then please explain how the CNT, the massive Anarcho-Syndicalist trade union, waged war against Franco's troops for several years? Are you suggesting that physically killing was not a possibility or actuality, and that friend-enemy distinctions were not made?


this is not to say that the anti-political cannot be used by the power-base in the same way as voter-apathy can be used.
Anarchist groups are used by the establishment to beat up White Nationalists, for example.

Showing that Anarchists are capable of making the friend-enemy distinction and thus are political. Anarchist groups aren't used by the establishment - they go ahead and fight regardless. On the aspect of racialism and nationalism, the Anarchist groups you refer to hold the same views as the State, so it's no suprise they fight WN's. These same Anarchist also fight the system at G8 meetings in far larger numbers than they fight WN's.


Ultimately, the anti-political and the apolitical are used by the political - another indication that Politics is of the widest scope and about human relations, all told.

I don't agree. Politics subordinates a lot of things, but it is not about 'human relations' in general, but a specific section of human relationsh - between friend and enemy.


Jack; "I am implying that there is an absolute definition that covers all 'States' no matter how different (e.g. parliamentary democracy, dictatorship, worker's councils) they appear to be".

Moody; This is that very wide definition of the Political with which I began.

Yes it is. But, as I've mentioned, the State is not the nexus of the political.

Moody
Wednesday, February 18th, 2004, 05:06 PM
Jack; "I'm not referring to patriotism, but that is what's part of it. Put it this way - if a fellow human assaults one's girlfriend, and one loves her, the friend-enemy line is drawn and violence occurs. The friend-enemy connection is well capable of occuring outside the State".

Moody; That is the personal enmity which Schmitt REJECTS as an aspect of the Political friend/enemy; you are refering to the PRIVATE enemy, not the PUBLIC one. Only the latter is political, and in that case it is quite possible to have a political enemy that one does not hate.
This public friend/enemy distinction is impersonal and unemotional, so the examples you give of private and emotional situations have nothing to do with the Political as Schmitt sees it.
I quoted Schmitt's work on all of this - see the Politics forum, subforum 'Law', thread is 'Carl Schmitt'.

Jack; "Underworld, modern adaption of Romeo and Juliet (Yes I know you hate pop culture but it's a good example). Female vampire falls in love with a guy who's about to become a werewolf. She no longer regards him as an enemy and defends him against other vampires. It's a reorientation of the friend-enemy connection, it doesn't show how 'inadequate' love is as a nexus".

Moody; It's adequate for the personal and private situations you describe, but it is NOT adequate for the Political.
Clearly, you are not thinking in political terms at all, but in personal, emotional and private terms.

Jack;"Hostis as opposed to inimicus. Politics is personal because it deals with people".

Moody; There you contradict Carl Schmitt, the man you were using as your model!
Politics is not personal, that's what differentiates the public from the private sphere. The latter is involved with issues like privacy, and the former is the political.

Jack; "There are two types of enemies, the adversary, whom one is trying to defeat, and lies inside the group, and the enemy, with whom there is a very serious possibility of violence. In the example I put foward above (the girlfriend thing), the 'group' breaks down (he may be part of one's own ingroup, but the second he violates what one loves, he's enemy)".

Moody; Clearly, the "girlfriend thing" has nothing to do with the political; therefore 'love' is not the nexus of the Political - the whole idea is absurd!

Jack; "Which explains why Jesus pulled out the whip and drove the money changers away from the synagogue...?"

Moody; He is said to have objected to Jewish synagogues being used as Money Changing venues! A religious matter, obviously.
That the 'Jesus' is a contradictory fellow, preaching violence one minute and peace the next is hardly relevant.
The fact is that it is possible to love one's enemy - look at the fraternisation between German and British air aces in WWI. Mosely said of that situation that "we loved each other as brothers"
So Schmitt's argument stands - the political is not the private, but the public enemy. Therefore emotions such as love etc., are irrelevant to the political distinction of friend/enemy.

Jack; "'Life is action' - Francis Parker Yockey. Power is the capability to act. Capability is means".

Moody; The ability NOT to act requires even more power. Nietzsche counted this ability to avoid re-action as particularly Noble.
Life IS Will to Power - that supplies the Ground of all Being and Becoming - cause/effect, means/ends, space/time, motivation/reaction etc., etc.,
Therefore Power is a far better nexus for the Political in the wider sense, than is 'love'.

Jack; "Politics can and does occur beyond the reach of the State. Witness gang warfare (yes, friend/enemy distinction is made, violence and killing does occur), civil wars, revolutions".

Moody; None of those examples are 'beyond' the State - they are all within the State; they are failings of the State, but they are not beyond it.
They all come down to 'internal affairs', and are private to the state, rather than politics per se, which latter is the relation of States to other States.
Violence and killing does not betoken the 'political' - the majority of such activity is DOMESTIC.

Jack; "Then please explain how the CNT, the massive Anarcho-Syndicalist trade union, waged war against Franco's troops for several years? Are you suggesting that physically killing was not a possibility or actuality, and that friend-enemy distinctions were not made?"

Moody; No, civil-war is an internal and therefore private matter - it only becomes political when outside States become involved; only then does the POLITICAL friend/enemy distinction come in.
Civil war is an example of the PERSONAL enmity which is private and not political. This is why we usually think it correct to not become involved in the internal affairs of States. If outside States DO become involved, then the civil war is POLITICISED.

Jack; "Showing that Anarchists are capable of making the friend-enemy distinction and thus are political. Anarchist groups aren't used by the establishment - they go ahead and fight regardless".

Moody; They fight against anything and are useful cannon-fodder; the BNP book-shop was shut down in England because anarchists rioted outside it in 'protest' some years ago. The authorities did nothing to stop the riot as it gave them an excuse to shut down the book-shop - to 'avoid' further riots!
If that's not using, I don't know what is.
If anarchists are against government and against authority in general, then they are anti-political - unless you want to widen the definition of the political to include all human relations - something you previouslly rejected!

Jack; "On the aspect of racialism and nationalism, the Anarchist groups you refer to hold the same views as the State, so it's no suprise they fight WN's. These same Anarchist also fight the system at G8 meetings in far larger numbers than they fight WN's".

Moody; They fight against the political, generally. The example you give underlines my point; when anarchists riot against capital, then the authorities come down on them hard [even shooting them dead in Italy]. However, when the same groups attack nationalists the authorities largely stand by.
So such groups are USED by the State, but are anti-political themselves.
Anyway, this is all internal politics and is not related to the public Political friend/enemy distinction made by Schmitt.

Jack; "I don't agree. Politics subordinates a lot of things, but it is not about 'human relations' in general, but a specific section of human relationsh - between friend and enemy".

Moody; Yes, those occuring amongst States.

Jack; "But, as I've mentioned, the State is not the nexus of the political".

Moody; Defining the word 'nexus' correctly, then the State IS the nexus of the political in a specific sense.
More generally we can say that the political nexus is Power, not love.

Jack
Friday, February 20th, 2004, 05:37 AM
Jack; "I'm not referring to patriotism, but that is what's part of it. Put it this way - if a fellow human assaults one's girlfriend, and one loves her, the friend-enemy line is drawn and violence occurs. The friend-enemy connection is well capable of occuring outside the State".

Moody; That is the personal enmity which Schmitt REJECTS as an aspect of the Political friend/enemy; you are refering to the PRIVATE enemy, not the PUBLIC one. Only the latter is political, and in that case it is quite possible to have a political enemy that one does not hate.
This public friend/enemy distinction is impersonal and unemotional, so the examples you give of private and emotional situations have nothing to do with the Political as Schmitt sees it.
I quoted Schmitt's work on all of this - see the Politics forum, subforum 'Law', thread is 'Carl Schmitt'.

Really? "The friend, enemy and combat concepts recieve their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing" (Concept of the Political, p.33). Hate has nothing to do with morality. The enemy is one who threatens one's exist and one's way of life.


Jack; "Underworld, modern adaption of Romeo and Juliet (Yes I know you hate pop culture but it's a good example). Female vampire falls in love with a guy who's about to become a werewolf. She no longer regards him as an enemy and defends him against other vampires. It's a reorientation of the friend-enemy connection, it doesn't show how 'inadequate' love is as a nexus".

Moody; It's adequate for the personal and private situations you describe, but it is NOT adequate for the Political.
Clearly, you are not thinking in political terms at all, but in personal, emotional and private terms.

The war, in the movie, waged between the vampires and the werewolves is an annihilation war. It is most definetly political.


Jack;"Hostis as opposed to inimicus. Politics is personal because it deals with people".

Moody; There you contradict Carl Schmitt, the man you were using as your model!

That's right, I did. I like some of his ideas but his 'collective' concept I find inadequate.


Politics is not personal, that's what differentiates the public from the private sphere.

If another man violates my girlfriend and he's part of a gang, I'm part of a gang, the line is drawn in the sand and there is a definite possibility of physical killing, it most definitely is political, and it is personal, because the two collectives are tied together by personal bonds. This is where I disagree with Schmitt.


The latter is involved with issues like privacy, and the former is the political.

If one is willing to use force to retain privacy, privacy is political.


Jack; "There are two types of enemies, the adversary, whom one is trying to defeat, and lies inside the group, and the enemy, with whom there is a very serious possibility of violence. In the example I put foward above (the girlfriend thing), the 'group' breaks down (he may be part of one's own ingroup, but the second he violates what one loves, he's enemy)".

Moody; Clearly, the "girlfriend thing" has nothing to do with the political; therefore 'love' is not the nexus of the Political - the whole idea is absurd!

It most certainly is not. Nations have gone to war because of love. Have you read The Illiad?


Jack; "Which explains why Jesus pulled out the whip and drove the money changers away from the synagogue...?"

Moody; He is said to have objected to Jewish synagogues being used as Money Changing venues! A religious matter, obviously.

When the possibility of violence is real, the situation switches from moral to the political. The religious is quite capable of becoming political - witness the Jihads waged by early Muslims against the East Roman Empire.


That the 'Jesus' is a contradictory fellow, preaching violence one minute and peace the next is hardly relevant.

Sir Arthur Keith explained how Jesus was not a contradictory fellow. Muhammed preached love and war at the same time. The Inquisitors used to convert their enemies at swordpoint and then kill them so they'd go to heaven instead of going back to their heretical ways.


The fact is that it is possible to love one's enemy - look at the fraternisation between German and British air aces in WWI. Mosely said of that situation that "we loved each other as brothers"

And why were they at war?


So Schmitt's argument stands - the political is not the private, but the public enemy. Therefore emotions such as love etc., are irrelevant to the political distinction of friend/enemy.

The public is an extension of the private.


Jack; "'Life is action' - Francis Parker Yockey. Power is the capability to act. Capability is means".

Moody; The ability NOT to act requires even more power. Nietzsche counted this ability to avoid re-action as particularly Noble.
Life IS Will to Power - that supplies the Ground of all Being and Becoming - cause/effect, means/ends, space/time, motivation/reaction etc., etc.,
Therefore Power is a far better nexus for the Political in the wider sense, than is 'love'.

I disagree with Nietzsche.


Jack; "Politics can and does occur beyond the reach of the State. Witness gang warfare (yes, friend/enemy distinction is made, violence and killing does occur), civil wars, revolutions".

Moody; None of those examples are 'beyond' the State - they are all within the State; they are failings of the State, but they are not beyond it.
They all come down to 'internal affairs', and are private to the state, rather than politics per se, which latter is the relation of States to other States.
Violence and killing does not betoken the 'political' - the majority of such activity is DOMESTIC.

Are we talking about how far the State's jurisdiction is on paper, or how it is in reality? In terms of civil war I would say the State is breaking down, and is definetly political.


Jack; "Then please explain how the CNT, the massive Anarcho-Syndicalist trade union, waged war against Franco's troops for several years? Are you suggesting that physically killing was not a possibility or actuality, and that friend-enemy distinctions were not made?"

Moody; No, civil-war is an internal and therefore private matter - it only becomes political when outside States become involved; only then does the POLITICAL friend/enemy distinction come in.

Schmitt would definetly disagree with you here.


Civil war is an example of the PERSONAL enmity which is private and not political. This is why we usually think it correct to not become involved in the internal affairs of States. If outside States DO become involved, then the civil war is POLITICISED.

We? Several West-European countries, as well as America, intervened in the Russian Civil War. The situation was political from the second the first bullet was fired. Define what the State is so we can proceed with this section of the conversation.


Jack; "Showing that Anarchists are capable of making the friend-enemy distinction and thus are political. Anarchist groups aren't used by the establishment - they go ahead and fight regardless".

Moody; They fight against anything and are useful cannon-fodder; the BNP book-shop was shut down in England because anarchists rioted outside it in 'protest' some years ago. The authorities did nothing to stop the riot as it gave them an excuse to shut down the book-shop - to 'avoid' further riots!

Didn't Nietzsche say the power not to act was noble?


If that's not using, I don't know what is.

Taking advantage of an opportunity and initiating it are two different things.


If anarchists are against government and against authority in general, then they are anti-political - unless you want to widen the definition of the political to include all human relations - something you previouslly rejected!

Human relations include economy and friendship (in the normal sense of the term). That is why I do not accept 'human relations' as the key to the political.


Jack; "On the aspect of racialism and nationalism, the Anarchist groups you refer to hold the same views as the State, so it's no suprise they fight WN's. These same Anarchist also fight the system at G8 meetings in far larger numbers than they fight WN's".

Moody; They fight against the political, generally. The example you give underlines my point; when anarchists riot against capital, then the authorities come down on them hard [even shooting them dead in Italy]. However, when the same groups attack nationalists the authorities largely stand by.
So such groups are USED by the State, but are anti-political themselves.
Anyway, this is all internal politics and is not related to the public Political friend/enemy distinction made by Schmitt.

It certainly does relate to the political friend-enemy distinction made by Schmitt. State authorities plainly regard Anarchists as the lesser of two evils as compared with nationalists. That the Anarchists can and do define their enemies, and hence their friends (in Schmitt's terms), and act on that, shows that they are political.


Jack; "I don't agree. Politics subordinates a lot of things, but it is not about 'human relations' in general, but a specific section of human relationsh - between friend and enemy".

Moody; Yes, those occuring amongst States.

Define the 'State' so we can continue.


Jack; "But, as I've mentioned, the State is not the nexus of the political".

Moody; Defining the word 'nexus' correctly, then the State IS the nexus of the political in a specific sense.
More generally we can say that the political nexus is Power, not love.

On page 20 of Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt announces it is unsatisfactory to define the political in terms of the State.

Moody
Friday, February 20th, 2004, 07:08 PM
Let's not stray too far here; I am opposing your original assertion [made under the title of 'Polarity'] that LOVE is the Nexus of the SCHMITTIAN criterion of friend/enemy.

YOU made that assertion - YOU based it on Schmitt.

Now, Love implies its OWN polarity of Hate, as in Love/Hate.

You claim that the Iliad depicts a war fought over 'Love'; indeed it does, but that is Greek propaganda. Just as American propaganda says that the Iraq war was fought over 'Freedom'.
War and politics are far more impersonal affairs - far more Machiavelli than Casanova.

Contradiction completely runs through your discourse.
You refuse to see the Political in the widest sense as 'human relations', yet you keep bringing in things like personal relationships, gang warfare, privacy, religion etc., saying that they are 'political'.

You even make the public and extension of the private, suggesting they are [in your usual formula] a difference only of degree, and therefore all ultimately political.
So doesn't all this suggest that you see the Political in the widest terms, as 'human relations'?

In all those situations named above, love/hate may be present, but it MAY not. Love is not a sine qua non here, and so is not a Nexus.

As to the definition of the word 'State', I use the standard dictionary one [as I do of 'nexus']. I am not in the habit of making illegitimate re-definitions of words to make them fit an ever-shifting argument.

Also, my ideas are my own - I have no obligation to follow Schmitt as it was YOU who used him as an authority in the FIRST place - not I.

My ideas on the nexus of the Political are purely my own.
Such concepts as Power/ human relations/ the State, make convincing candidates for a nexi of the Political.
'Love' does not.

George
Sunday, March 14th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Yes, the end of life and the means to that end are power, the value of which is measured against a one-dimensional unipolar scale, more or less, more is good and less is bad. The four fields are arbitrarily distinguished from our perception of power in the four dimensions. The nexus of them all (the 'supernexus', if you prefer) is power.

Moody
Friday, March 19th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Yes, the end of life and the means to that end are power, the value of which is measured against a one-dimensional unipolar scale, more or less, more is good and less is bad. The four fields are arbitrarily distinguished from our perception of power in the four dimensions. The nexus of them all (the 'supernexus', if you prefer) is power.

Yes, we arrive at Power because, ultimately, there is only degrees of Power.
Weakness is just a low ebb of Power.

So Power is like the sea in that sense, it ebbs and floods.

But there are no deserts - Power is everpresent.

Jack
Saturday, March 20th, 2004, 07:12 AM
Let's not stray too far here; I am opposing your original assertion [made under the title of 'Polarity'] that LOVE is the Nexus of the SCHMITTIAN criterion of friend/enemy.

YOU made that assertion - YOU based it on Schmitt.

Now, Love implies its OWN polarity of Hate, as in Love/Hate.

You claim that the Iliad depicts a war fought over 'Love'; indeed it does, but that is Greek propaganda. Just as American propaganda says that the Iraq war was fought over 'Freedom'.
War and politics are far more impersonal affairs - far more Machiavelli than Casanova.

Contradiction completely runs through your discourse.
You refuse to see the Political in the widest sense as 'human relations', yet you keep bringing in things like personal relationships, gang warfare, privacy, religion etc., saying that they are 'political'.

You even make the public and extension of the private, suggesting they are [in your usual formula] a difference only of degree, and therefore all ultimately political.
So doesn't all this suggest that you see the Political in the widest terms, as 'human relations'?

In all those situations named above, love/hate may be present, but it MAY not. Love is not a sine qua non here, and so is not a Nexus.

As to the definition of the word 'State', I use the standard dictionary one [as I do of 'nexus']. I am not in the habit of making illegitimate re-definitions of words to make them fit an ever-shifting argument.

Also, my ideas are my own - I have no obligation to follow Schmitt as it was YOU who used him as an authority in the FIRST place - not I.

My ideas on the nexus of the Political are purely my own.
Such concepts as Power/ human relations/ the State, make convincing candidates for a nexi of the Political.
'Love' does not.

Fine. Moody - according to what evaluation is one deemed 'friend' or 'enemy', that is, another who is willing to fight alongside oneself, and one with whom death is a very real possibility?

As for 'Machievelli and Casanova', political systems do not make decisions. The State is not seperable from the individuals which comprise it, nor is the Nation or any other organisation. Someone always makes a decision. The person, according to Schmitt, who designates the enemy, whose decision cannot be appealed, is sovereign. That person has motivations, evaluations. There is something which is deemed important enough to kill for. Until something is deemed that important, it is not political, according to Schmitt. Hence an enemy may be beautiful, good, and useful, but if he threatens whatever it is one deems to be worth killing for, he is the enemy. Religion is not necessarily political, nor is privacy or personal relationships. I reject 'human relations' as the center of the political because the political is only part of associating with other people, not the center. For instance, I may buy a bottle of vodka from a bottle shop down the street. That was an act of trade, a form of human association, economics. It is not political. The person who works in the bottle shop may be perfectly moral, that would be my evaluation according to whatever I deem 'good'. That person may even be excellent in every possible way - beauty, skill, intelligence, etc. But if that person threatens whatever I deem worth killing for, that person is my enemy. One canot be 'disinterested' in what it is one deems worth killing for. The average Joe who goes to fight in the trenches does not need to hate his enemy, only to follow the decision of the sovereign.

Politics, Economics, Aesthetics and Morality are forms of human evaluation. Define 'State'.

Moody
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Jack; "Fine. Moody - according to what evaluation is one deemed 'friend' or 'enemy', that is, another who is willing to fight alongside oneself, and one with whom death is a very real possibility?"

Moody; The Evaluation of harm/help.

Jack; "As for 'Machievelli and Casanova', political systems do not make decisions".

Moody; They are designed to facilitate decision making on the political level.

Jack; "The State is not seperable from the individuals which comprise it, nor is the Nation or any other organisation. Someone always makes a decision".

Moody; Yes, there are no absolute individuals - all is organ-ic. Every decision is based on the extra-personal, whether it be conscious or no.

Jack; "The person, according to Schmitt, who designates the enemy, whose decision cannot be appealed, is sovereign. That person has motivations, evaluations".

Moody; Yes, but see the sovereign with a tiny retinue cast out on the blasted heath, such as King Lear. What an abject creature is this 'sovereign'!

Jack; "There is something which is deemed important enough to kill for".

Moody; And yet life has little value - it is unimportant. As Napoleon watched the slaughter of war he knew that a few shots of semen wasted in a whorehouse could replace those lives lost.

Jack; "Until something is deemed that important, it is not political, according to Schmitt. Hence an enemy may be beautiful, good, and useful, but if he threatens whatever it is one deems to be worth killing for, he is the enemy. Religion is not necessarily political, nor is privacy or personal relationships".

Moody; No, even when they are considered important enough to entail slaughter in both cases; nor can they be ultimately separated from politics because all is organic and ultimately linked in the human world.

Jack; "I reject 'human relations' as the center of the political because the political is only part of associating with other people, not the center. For instance, I may buy a bottle of vodka from a bottle shop down the street. That was an act of trade, a form of human association, economics. It is not political. The person who works in the bottle shop may be perfectly moral, that would be my evaluation according to whatever I deem 'good'. That person may even be excellent in every possible way - beauty, skill, intelligence, etc. But if that person threatens whatever I deem worth killing for, that person is my enemy. One canot be 'disinterested' in what it is one deems worth killing for. The average Joe who goes to fight in the trenches does not need to hate his enemy, only to follow the decision of the sovereign".

Moody; Buying that vodka is political because the price will depend on the political control of the economy etc., The political is all-pervasive and therefore covers all human relations to a degree. However, power is the real nexus of the political - not your "love".

Jack; "Politics, Economics, Aesthetics and Morality are forms of human evaluation. Define 'State'"

Moody; And 'love'? Didn't you start by saying that this was the nexus?
A contention you have singularly failed to support.
As for 'State', I said that the State [being a political entity] could reasonably be a candidate for a nexus of the poltical for obvious reasons.
Define Love.

Jack
Wednesday, March 24th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Moody; The Evaluation of harm/help.

Schmitt defines the enemy as one who threatens one's existence and way of life to the extent that physical violence or killing becomes a definite option. The friend is defined as one who is willing to risk his life for the elimination of the enemy.


Moody; They are designed to facilitate decision making on the political level.

More importantly, the execution of decisions. A man alone can make a decision as to who are his friends and enemies.


Moody; Yes, there are no absolute individuals - all is organ-ic. Every decision is based on the extra-personal, whether it be conscious or no.

Really? Hindus, Buddhists, Evolians and even Ernst Jünger and Nietzsche would disagree with you there. Every decision is based no the extra-personal? So how exactly does selfishness exist, Moody?


Moody; And yet life has little value - it is unimportant. As Napoleon watched the slaughter of war he knew that a few shots of semen wasted in a whorehouse could replace those lives lost.

Glory and Empire. That's what Napoleon loved. His goal. And it takes at least 18 years for those 'few shots of semen in a whorehouse' to mature into a soldier.


Moody; No, even when they are considered important enough to entail slaughter in both cases; nor can they be ultimately separated from politics because all is organic and ultimately linked in the human world.

I'm not arguing that it's not linked, but that it's definable. Religion is not necessarily political, nor are human relations.


Moody; Buying that vodka is political because the price will depend on the political control of the economy etc., The political is all-pervasive and therefore covers all human relations to a degree. However, power is the real nexus of the political - not your "love".

The act of trade (money for vodka) is not political. It is economic. If, for some reason or another (say the bottleshop owner assault one's girlfriend) the bottleshop owner was deemed the enemy, that is, one against whom physical violence or killing as a real possibility, then it becomes political. If one was to put a knife to his throat and demand the vodka price be dropped by 50% it would be political. The State interfering in the economy is political. In such a context, buying a bottle of vodka is not political, but economic.


Moody; And 'love'? Didn't you start by saying that this was the nexus?
A contention you have singularly failed to support.
As for 'State', I said that the State [being a political entity] could reasonably be a candidate for a nexus of the poltical for obvious reasons.
Define Love.

Love:the evaluation of something for which one is willing to stake one's life. The State (once you've defined it - or do you want me to define it?) is an important part of the political, though not the center. A man acting on his own to kill his enemy is not the State. That's why I say the State is not the center. It is quite important, I agree. But an organisation cannot be seperated from the individuals which comprise it. One cannot demand everyone in a community die for 'the community'. That would be either stupidity or a lie.

Moody
Thursday, March 25th, 2004, 07:41 PM
Jack; "Schmitt defines the enemy as one who threatens one's existence and way of life to the extent that physical violence or killing becomes a definite option. The friend is defined as one who is willing to risk his life for the elimination of the enemy".

Moody; And how many wars can REALLY be justified on this basis?
Did you really believe that Saddam's Iraq threatened your "existence and way of life"?

Jack; "More importantly, the execution of decisions. A man alone can make a decision as to who are his friends and enemies".

Moody; Are the decisions made by the "man alone" political or personal?

Jack; "Every decision is based on the extra-personal? So how exactly does selfishness exist, Moody?"

Moody; The extra-personal means that we are ALL the result of past decisions made by others [as are they ad infinitum]. So there is no 'clean' decision that is not in some way coloured by the extra-personal.
Selfishness is then a nihilistic delusion.
Most philosophers/ religionists accept that we are all part of some kind of chain of being - even Nietzsche.

Jack; "It takes at least 18 years for those 'few shots of semen in a whorehouse' to mature into a soldier".

Moody; The point is that WASTED semen [as whores don't tend to get pregnant] would make an army [as would all the semen spilled in masturbation]. The illustration is not meant so literally as you take it; it just means, 'why cry over mass slaughter, when your average male wastes zillions of sperm every day!'.

Jack; "Religion is not necessarily political, nor are human relations".

Moody; 'Not necessarily' being the qualifying phrase. However, we see the increasing politicisation of EVERYTHING. To this extent, everything is POTENTIALLY political.

Jack; "The act of trade (money for vodka) is not political. It is economic".

Moody; The separation of economics as a specific discipline is rather recent; it is very much part of politics; indeed, we are refering to the political economy here.
The price of alcohol is affected by the type of politics in power; indeed, whether or not you are ALLOWED to buy alcohol is down to politics [and this would be influenced by religion, showing how economics-politics-religion all interact].

Jack; "The State interfering in the economy is political".

Moody; And when doesn't the state "interfere" in the economy?
Unless you are buying the bottle on the black market; and even then you are partaking in a criminal act - itself a politicised category. If caught you could be punished for buying a bottle - political once again.

Jack; "Love:the evaluation of something for which one is willing to stake one's life".

Moody; That sounds like altruism, not love.

Jack; "The State is an important part of the political, though not the center. A man acting on his own to kill his enemy is not the State".

Moody; But he is within the State [you keep sneaking the word 'centre' in there; the agreed upon term for this discussion was 'nexus'], and he will have to take the consequences FROM THE STATE should he be charged with murder.

Jack; "That's why I say the State is not the center [of the political]. It is quite important, I agree. But an organisation cannot be seperated from the individuals which comprise it. One cannot demand everyone in a community die for 'the community'. That would be either stupidity or a lie".

Moody; By your own reasoning; if the State cannot be separated from the community and the individuals which compose that community, and they all feel threatened enough by an enemy to kill/or be killed by that enemy .... Then they have exercised 'love' in your sense via the political.
So clearly, they have fulfilled the demand that everyone die for the State. So how is that [by your own train of thought] a stupidity or a lie?

Jack
Friday, March 26th, 2004, 12:46 PM
Jack; "Schmitt defines the enemy as one who threatens one's existence and way of life to the extent that physical violence or killing becomes a definite option. The friend is defined as one who is willing to risk his life for the elimination of the enemy".

Moody; And how many wars can REALLY be justified on this basis?

Justice is what whoever has power says it is.


Did you really believe that Saddam's Iraq threatened your "existence and way of life"?

Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued.


Jack; "More importantly, the execution of decisions. A man alone can make a decision as to who are his friends and enemies".

Moody; Are the decisions made by the "man alone" political or personal?

I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility.


Jack; "Every decision is based on the extra-personal? So how exactly does selfishness exist, Moody?"

Moody; The extra-personal means that we are ALL the result of past decisions made by others [as are they ad infinitum]. So there is no 'clean' decision that is not in some way coloured by the extra-personal.
Selfishness is then a nihilistic delusion.
Most philosophers/ religionists accept that we are all part of some kind of chain of being - even Nietzsche.

So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will.


Jack; "It takes at least 18 years for those 'few shots of semen in a whorehouse' to mature into a soldier".

Moody; The point is that WASTED semen [as whores don't tend to get pregnant] would make an army [as would all the semen spilled in masturbation]. The illustration is not meant so literally as you take it; it just means, 'why cry over mass slaughter, when your average male wastes zillions of sperm every day!'.

Is murder acceptable, Moody? What about parracide? Gotta die sooner or later, right?


Jack; "Religion is not necessarily political, nor are human relations".

Moody; 'Not necessarily' being the qualifying phrase. However, we see the increasing politicisation of EVERYTHING. To this extent, everything is POTENTIALLY political.

I never denied everything is potentially political.


Jack; "The act of trade (money for vodka) is not political. It is economic".

Moody; The separation of economics as a specific discipline is rather recent; it is very much part of politics; indeed, we are refering to the political economy here.
The price of alcohol is affected by the type of politics in power; indeed, whether or not you are ALLOWED to buy alcohol is down to politics [and this would be influenced by religion, showing how economics-politics-religion all interact].

"It's not illegal until you get caught"
- Eminem.


Jack; "The State interfering in the economy is political".

Moody; And when doesn't the state "interfere" in the economy?

Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical.


Unless you are buying the bottle on the black market; and even then you are partaking in a criminal act - itself a politicised category. If caught you could be punished for buying a bottle - political once again.

Because one group of thugs issue a decree saying such-and-such is wrong, therefore whoever partakes in such-and-such shall be punished. I might decide buying vodka underage is perfectly acceptable and go ahead and do so.


Jack; "Love: the evaluation of something for which one is willing to stake one's life".

Moody; That sounds like altruism, not love.

I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish. Suppose person X loves person Y to the extent that his life would be unbearable, to him (for one reason or another), if person Y died. In a drive-by shooting, person X steps in front and takes half a dozen bullets in the chest. Is that altruism or love, Moody? Was person X doing it for the sake of person Y, or because he had an interest in person Y staying alive, to the extent that if he died in the process, he thought that an acceptable loss? Altruism is BS.


Jack; "The State is an important part of the political, though not the center. A man acting on his own to kill his enemy is not the State".

Moody; But he is within the State [you keep sneaking the word 'centre' in there; the agreed upon term for this discussion was 'nexus'], and he will have to take the consequences FROM THE STATE should he be charged with murder.

He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?


Jack; "That's why I say the State is not the center [of the political]. It is quite important, I agree. But an organisation cannot be seperated from the individuals which comprise it. One cannot demand everyone in a community die for 'the community'. That would be either stupidity or a lie".

Moody; By your own reasoning; if the State cannot be separated from the community and the individuals which compose that community, and they all feel threatened enough by an enemy to kill/or be killed by that enemy .... Then they have exercised 'love' in your sense via the political.
So clearly, they have fulfilled the demand that everyone die for the State. So how is that [by your own train of thought] a stupidity or a lie?

The State is easily seperated from the community. You haven't provided a definition though. If everyone is to die for the State, and the State is an organisation comprised of humans, then the State is committing suicide (after all, everyone, INCLUDING the members of this organisation called the State, are dying for this organisation called the State - is it really that hard to figure out why it's stupid?), and the question should be asked why mass suicide became attractive - what exactly were they dying for, again? For a suicidal group of people? Or alternatively, members of the organisation called the State decided to utilize non-members towards their own ends by appealing to 'the community' for the 'common good'.

Moody
Saturday, March 27th, 2004, 04:04 PM
Jack; "Justice is what whoever has power says it is".

Moody; I have long maintained on this thread that Power is a far more convincing candidate for a nexus of the political.

Jack; "Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued".

Moody; The case made by the British state, for example, - that he was an immediate threat has been shown to be false - we went to war anyway.

Jack; "I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility".

Moody; 'Not mutually exclusive'? - there is NO poltics without people [and there is no people without politics].

Jack; "So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will".

Moody; Even all those you name see free will operating within the limitations of cause and effect. If one looks at he whole concatenations of cause and effect within the world, within the Universe, then one will see there is very little 'freedom' of any kind. Indeed, if it were possible to compute all previous activity, then the actions of most would be entirely predicatable. And yet those who act predictably think themselves possessors of free-will!
Free-will is just a feeling that derives from an excess of strength [just as listnessness is the result of a lack of the same].
As Nietzsche said, there is only Strong Will and Weak Will - not 'free' Will.

Jack; "Is murder acceptable, Moody? What about parracide? Gotta die sooner or later, right?"

Moody; Such things are always accepted - even if they are called different names.

Jack; "I never denied everything is potentially political".

Moody; This is why 'human relations' works as a broad political nexus.

Jack; "Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical".

Moody; Violence is not a nexus of the political anymore than love is.

Jack; "I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish".

Moody; And yet you define love in terms of altruism ["love is something for which one is willing to stake one's life"]; this altruistic [alter=other] version of love is supposedly your nexus of the Political!

Jack; "He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?"

Moody; All those named belong to a State, and use the in-stit-utions of the State, which are run according to the stat-utes of the State.

Jack; "The State is easily seperated from the community. You haven't provided a definition though. If everyone is to die for the State, and the State is an organisation comprised of humans, then the State is committing suicide (after all, everyone, INCLUDING the members of this organisation called the State, are dying for this organisation called the State - is it really that hard to figure out why it's stupid?), and the question should be asked why mass suicide became attractive - what exactly were they dying for, again? For a suicidal group of people? Or alternatively, members of the organisation called the State decided to utilize non-members towards their own ends by appealing to 'the community' for the 'common good' ".

Moody; According to you they were willing to die to defend their State from the threat of violence; they were, to use your own definition, 'willing to stake their lives' for something.

Jack
Tuesday, March 30th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Jack; "Justice is what whoever has power says it is".

Moody; I have long maintained on this thread that Power is a far more convincing candidate for a nexus of the political.

Power is meaningless without intention. Once there is intention, there needs to be will (usually will arrives out of the intention), and then there is action. Power is the field upon which politics is played out. Intention, political or not, comes from an evaluation of importance. The political evaluation (love) is something for which one accepts the possibility of dying and/or killing.


Jack; "Saddam presented a threat to whatever the elites who had the capacity to make the decisions valued".

Moody; The case made by the British state, for example, - that he was an immediate threat has been shown to be false - we went to war anyway.

The excuses the British elite have used have been proven to be incorrect, but were successful into manipulating the British masses into making them accept its happening. Someone's interests were served and I believe they're happy it happened regardless.


Jack; "I've said politics is personal, it deals with people. They are not mutually exclusive. In any case, that depends on whether physical violence or killing becomes a very real possibility".

Moody; 'Not mutually exclusive'? - there is NO poltics without people [and there is no people without politics].

Then what about 'impersonal politics', Moody?


Jack; "So, in short, there are no decisions. Most philosophers, except the ones who believe in free will or tabula rasa? Didn't Nietzsche say Christianity 'invented' free will to make man feel guilt when compared to the ethical standards of Christianity? Hinduism and Buddhism both accept free will (once elevation/enlightenment, for lack of a better word) has been reached. Islam and Judaism both believe in free will".

Moody; Even all those you name see free will operating within the limitations of cause and effect. If one looks at he whole concatenations of cause and effect within the world, within the Universe, then one will see there is very little 'freedom' of any kind. Indeed, if it were possible to compute all previous activity, then the actions of most would be entirely predicatable. And yet those who act predictably think themselves possessors of free-will!
Free-will is just a feeling that derives from an excess of strength [just as listnessness is the result of a lack of the same].
As Nietzsche said, there is only Strong Will and Weak Will - not 'free' Will.

In either case [strong will/weak will], you still maintain they are propelled by forces over which they have no control, and the decision doesn't exist, it is undefinable.


Jack; "I never denied everything is potentially political".

Moody; This is why 'human relations' works as a broad political nexus.

One that I believe is too broad.


Jack; "Then it's not a matter of violence and so is not poltiical".

Moody; Violence is not a nexus of the political anymore than love is.

Yes, it is. A knight loves his honour and has agreed to serve his lord, he is willing to die for the fact that he has agreed to serve his lord. Love does not necessarily mean romantic relationships between two individuals, Moody.


Jack; "I've stated my reasons of why I think altruism is rubbish".

Moody; And yet you define love in terms of altruism ["love is something for which one is willing to stake one's life"]; this altruistic [alter=other] version of love is supposedly your nexus of the Political!

And this love is directly tied (nay, is) the individual's relationship with the other - it is selfishness, and that cannot be unavoided.


Jack; "He'll have to take consequences from the jury or judge, a group of individuals or an individual, respectively. These people have motivations, evaluations. What is this 'State' you speak of?"

Moody; All those named belong to a State, and use the in-stit-utions of the State, which are run according to the stat-utes of the State.

Define the 'State'. These 'statutes' and 'laws' ultimately hinge on the decision of a sole individual. That's what Carl Schmitt focused a lot of his work on, and why the Nazis were interested in his work.


Moody; According to you they were willing to die to defend their State from the threat of violence; they were, to use your own definition, 'willing to stake their lives' for something.

Even the members of this state? Interesting - a self-consuming organism. That is mass-suicide Moody. Someone plants that idea in their heads, and that's manipulation, because that someone has little intention of having everyone including himself die for something when a subgroup of people (the State's functionaries), who are going to die, are that something. Either that or mass-stupidity.

Moody
Wednesday, March 31st, 2004, 04:48 PM
Jack; "Power is meaningless without intention".

Moody; Power exists with or without intention. 'Intention' is the arena where man puffs himself up; even if he did nothing intentionally, Power would operate in its totality regardless.

Jack; "The political evaluation (love) is something for which one accepts the possibility of dying and/or killing".

Moody; A strange parenthesis! Are we to accept that love='political evaluation'? I think not: such is utterly perverse. In such cases I would advise you to coin a neologism, rather than distort commonplace words.

Jack; "The excuses the British elite have used have been proven to be incorrect, but were successful into manipulating the British masses into making them accept its happening. Someone's interests were served and I believe they're happy it happened regardless".

Moody; "Interests" is a much weaker word than you used before.

Jack; "Then what about 'impersonal politics', Moody?"

Moody; Misunderstanding of the word 'impersonal'; it does not mean without people, it means dealing with people in an unemotional way. So personal relations are still paramount.

Jack; "In either case [strong will/weak will], you still maintain they are propelled by forces over which they have no control, and the decision doesn't exist, it is undefinable".

Moody; Those forces are ultimately non-human. We are mere actors on a stage etc., etc.,

Jack; "A knight loves his honour and has agreed to serve his lord, he is willing to die for the fact that he has agreed to serve his lord. Love does not necessarily mean romantic relationships between two individuals, Moody".

Moody; Oh dear; the days of knights etc., have long gone. Who was the last European king to fight at the head of his troops?
No, 'dying for your country' is a very impersonal affair these days. Indeed, the parents of some British soldiers are attempting to take the government to court over the death of their sons. How many people join the forces today expecting to die for their country?
How many of those officials who sanction wars are ever caught up in the fighting?
No, you view is too romanticised - we no longer live in the Middle Ages.

Jack; "And this love is directly tied (nay, is) the individual's relationship with the other - it is selfishness, and that cannot be unavoided".

Moody; Staking one's life for an-other, is by definition altruism. You previously defined love as just that. Selfishness admits of NO OTHER.

Jack; "Define the 'State'. These 'statutes' and 'laws' ultimately hinge on the decision of a sole individual. That's what Carl Schmitt focused a lot of his work on, and why the Nazis were interested in his work".

Moody; I disagree; the origin of law is lost in the mists of time. Law, like language, is a collective enterprise. I define State via usage; the fact that we can use the term extensively in a multitude of discussions shows that we know what it means. Go to a dictionary if you need a working definition.

Jack; "Even the members of this state? Interesting - a self-consuming organism. That is mass-suicide Moody".

Moody; As Jim Morrison said, "it's the difference between suicide and a slow capitulation". Essentially all organisms are programmed for death - I wouldn't call that suicide as such, rather 'inevitable extinction'.

Nuovo Vesuvio
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 03:23 PM
i am quite happy this topic is here! Yes it is dualty of eXperience. Our physical reality is created by elctromagnetic energy - thus must have poles, polararity - positve/negative, male/female, goog/bad, yin/yang etc etc.