from X, again.


2016-07-01 07_01_22-Blut Aus Nord (777 Cosmosophy) (Album 2012) - YouTube.jpg

A very quiet American Reply:
June 30th, 2016 at 4:47 pm

No. You make the common mistake of confusing ‘matter’ with some notion of ‘stuff’ (admittedly, the Germans use ‘Stoff’ for matter)—that is, ‘things’ in contrast to the ‘ghostly’ (as in the vulgar interpretation of the soul as the ‘ghost in the machine’)—‘sensibilia’ in traditional language. Yet anything evident at all to the senses is not pure matter, but Form-in-matter (whether understood as presence or participation). It is so evident first and foremost not because of its material substrate, but because of the order or arrangement (taxis) within it—the ‘presence’ of Form, which is the principle of any being’s unity and being.

Pure ‘matter’ (if there be such a thing) is nothing other than pure ‘potency’, pure ‘malleability’, pure ‘possibility.’ As such, ‘money’ is MORE material than most things you think of as material precisely because it is the most ‘formless’, because it connotes infinite possibilities. It is just another name for the Principle that is also called ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’, ‘equality, ‘power’ etc.—the notion of the Limitless (ἄπειρον)—which liberal modernity identifies as the only unqualified good.

This mistake does not belong to liberal modernity alone—it is coëval, or even older, than humanity—admin will appreciate Paradise Lost V.851-866, which is not the same point, but based on it—but liberal modernity exceeds all in its stubborn wilful insistence on adhering to this mistake because it defines itself by its rejection of the saner view.

What saner view? It is founded on the recognition that matter/potency is posterior to Form/activity and depends on it for its Being—that apart from Form, matter is but non-being of a certain sort—that matter, far from being a principle of goodness because of its infinity, rather loves or yearns for Form the way that the ugly desires the beautiful or the female the male (Physics 1.9)—just because Form—genuine order—is what is good for it.

This view need not contradict modern science (founded upon the hypotheses [cf. Republic 510b-511e] of mathematical physics and, finally, dependent on an interpretation of Being as inFORMation), only materialist interpretations of the same (which cannot give any genuine explanation of the presence and priority of information in the world—the men labouring under these interpretations are worse than dreamers who do not know they dream [Republic 533b ff.]). Such interpretations are based not on any serene observation of the empirical facts, but rather on the prior commitment to an ethics founded on rebellion—the devil was the first Whig—which dominates their vision.

Until it break out of this view, no matter how many elaborate castles-in-the-air it constructs—or sophomoric fantasies of a future humanity technologically divinised through History it enjoys—, Neoreaction will find it impossible to find a ‘horizon beyond liberalism’. The challenge of doing so is not to be underestimated—even Heidegger said Höher als die Wirklichkeit steht die Möglichkeit. But without succeeding in this, Neoreaction will just be the latest in a series of Gnostic rebellions against the order of the world, in service to our bellies and our fancies.



3 thoughts on “formations

  1. we were pleasantly surprised by this comment of master intellect —
    by the commenter who calls himself A Very Quiet American.

    it contains, strangely enough, very much the same Theory of Forms as our DECEMBER 10, 2015 post «scynet» does.

    • ‘strange’ is not the right word { late 13c., “from elsewhere, foreign, unknown, unfamiliar,” from Old French estrange “foreign, alien, unusual, unfamiliar, curious; distant; inhospitable; estranged, separated” (Modern French étrange), from Latin extraneus “foreign, external, from without” (source also of Italian strano “strange, foreign,” Spanish estraño), from extra “outside of” (see extra). }

      e.g. because probably many nowadays view materialism vs. idealism as a pseudoproblem. i think e.g. Zizek does.

      ‘weird’ is. the right word.

      { c. 1400, “having power to control fate, from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd “fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates,” literally “that which comes,” from Proto-Germanic *wurthiz (source also of Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt “fate,” Old Norse urðr “fate, one of the three Norns”), from PIE *wert- “to turn, to wind,” (source also of German werden, Old English weorðan “to become”), from root *wer- (3) “to turn, bend” (see versus). For sense development from “turning” to “becoming,” compare phrase turn into “become.” }

      we take weird to mean a very positive thing.

  2. Pingback: collectiontradition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s