Once again, I just cannot have such optimism. I think we are not entering a resurgence of life affirmation, but instead we are reaching a new state of decadence — fully materialistic life denial. People are now seeking to escape the troubles of the material world through an increasing reliance on material, rather than some sort of asceticism or heroic action. The dopamine chambers. The Dyson spheres. This is exactly what Heidegger feared about technology, that people would use it to run away from the world rather than to achieve power in the world, which subsequently will turn human beings reliant on technology rather than the vice versa.
I am so focused on creating eucatastrophe and life-affirmation in my life, that I sometimes forget most people do not focus on this. Personally, I think a new trend has/is being set by people who simply don't care about the mainstream decadence and will do their own thing anyways. I think this is one of the better things about all this hyper-individualism - multiple routes are being taken, multiple tactics and strategies. I focus on my own, and leave people to theirs. When I experience a small win, it feels much bigger because of my focus. I am not so interested in saving society, or even the entire racial body - a tall order, and a waste of time to focus large amounts of energy on.
It is better to focus on building things in my own life. This is what changes trends, sets new courses for society, it just takes the right set of people to show a path, to make a standard, to set a new trend. I think this is already being done, we are just at the very beginning of it. Remember: if we are at the beginning of something new, that means we are either at the peak, peaking, or just over the peak of the last trend - materialistic life-negation. It is ending, we just don't know the time scale yet, but that also means we just have to do our own thing and build in spite of the current zeitgeist.
I hear some people say the right wing is "terminally online" and that is largely true. We have plenty of boots-on-the-ground organizations in the West, but most of us are fine hiding behind our PFPs and internet identities. Pagans, Christians, NatSocs, Constitutionalists, whatever, there are groups for each individual.
very good post, but I do agree with sectionalism. Though individualism may be an advantage and a curse both, as many ideas will inevitably be tried and fail as faith evolves in the modern world, overwhelmingly, the life/world denying foundations laid by Abrahamism still remain through western society, and materialistic life-denial reigns supreme today, especially among the civilized and the over-civilized. It's a huge trope, but I think leftists being portrayed as the neurotic cultists/footsoldiers of the emerging atheistic new world religion is largely true. The future of religiosity lies in the battle between life denial and life acceptance among western cultures, and of course, might makes right, so it will be decided by who does and will continue to rule. Change is still possible, but we have not escaped the cold grip of this current life-denying nihilistic-materialistic tyranny. They have showed us however that propaganda and control of popular culture/media can sway the minds of millions easily, so establishing a new dogma won't be as difficult as you suggest.
I would say that the life-denying attributes of Platonism are more of a late influence, the notion of “henosis” was introduced by Plotinus who was probably the most life-denying of the Neoplatonists. Middle Platonists and early Platonists were only really interested in demonstrating the underlying oneness of reality, they were less concerned with some sort of soteriology and it was generally agreed that the world was worth living in and that goodness had much more sway over the world than evil. Later more mystical platonists agreed with the goodness of the world, but also viewed enlightenment as the best possible good and sort of a form of apotheosis more than self-immolation. The Dharmic equivalent of this is probably Vishishtadvaita. It still recognizes underlying unity but enlightenment merely brings one close to God (Vaikuntha) while still having a separate being.
I would say Gnosticism is in sort of a league of its own. Christianity is kind of life denying but more in its praxis, with the whole martyrdom schtick. Christians do still believe, after all, that the best end to history is a reincarnation of human beings — that being with a body is better than being without a body
Also am shocked I did not come up on this BAP article sooner, is of incredible and valuable insight, perfectly reasonable as well. I actually remember you guys quoting it on iFunny.
Theravada Buddhism is world-denying in both theory and practice ("nibbana is an ultimate, absolute, unconditioned reality, entirely beyond this world. To reach it, follow ascetic practices.").
Mahayana Buddhism is world-accepting in theory, world-denying in practice ("nibbana and samsara are the same thing. Nibbana is not beyond this world, it IS this world. However, still follow the ascetic practices").
Vajrayana Buddhism is world-accepting in theory, and world-accepting in practice ("nibbana is within this world. It can be thought of as a type of space within the universe. Esoteric approaches, including sex yoga, ecstatic tantra, collective worship, individual practices, etc. are all acceptable. All is sacred..").
Perhaps the last one has to do with much of its surviving development having taken place in the remote mountains of Tibet, where animism and the Bon religion were a thing, so it became life-accepting.
I think Neopaganism in the West is too problematic because it has no... let's say "skeleton". It has no true foundation, no cohesive metaphysical and ethical structure. I think its better for neopagans to adopt something like Vajrayana Buddhism and transform it by infusing its practices and deities into it (extremely common in Buddhism) rather than try something totally new from scratch. I think evidentially, much of its practices are validated, karma, rebirth, nibbana, forms of yoga, meditation and tantra, etc. I think it would also give it more legitimacy than plainly worshipping old gods. If people couldn't convince others of monotheism and that one, ultimate, abstract, and theoretically provable God exists, then what makes one think they'll be able to convince others of the existence of someone like Zeus. Vajrayana Buddhism gives the whole package: metaphysics, goals, ethics, practices and methods, etc. Its easier to adopt and transform it within certain bounds than to conjure something random and have to convince everyone of it.
By the way, I think that the whole thing about religious institutions or structure has more to do with scale, rather than *type* of religiosity. Its not as if paganism of the Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian or Graeco-Roman types didn't have major systems and religious institutions. Only the first type lacked them, albeit they did have its proto-form in people who specialized in shamanism. They only didn't have large scale institutions because there weren't civilizational surpluses to go around and specialize, so it wasn't something one could afford.
I understand the desire to protect one's heritage. I have no heritage to protect, so its easy for me to adopt whatever religion. Northwestern paganism seems too conceptually disorganized to be able to scale, and doesn't have enough unity.
Once again, I just cannot have such optimism. I think we are not entering a resurgence of life affirmation, but instead we are reaching a new state of decadence — fully materialistic life denial. People are now seeking to escape the troubles of the material world through an increasing reliance on material, rather than some sort of asceticism or heroic action. The dopamine chambers. The Dyson spheres. This is exactly what Heidegger feared about technology, that people would use it to run away from the world rather than to achieve power in the world, which subsequently will turn human beings reliant on technology rather than the vice versa.
I am so focused on creating eucatastrophe and life-affirmation in my life, that I sometimes forget most people do not focus on this. Personally, I think a new trend has/is being set by people who simply don't care about the mainstream decadence and will do their own thing anyways. I think this is one of the better things about all this hyper-individualism - multiple routes are being taken, multiple tactics and strategies. I focus on my own, and leave people to theirs. When I experience a small win, it feels much bigger because of my focus. I am not so interested in saving society, or even the entire racial body - a tall order, and a waste of time to focus large amounts of energy on.
It is better to focus on building things in my own life. This is what changes trends, sets new courses for society, it just takes the right set of people to show a path, to make a standard, to set a new trend. I think this is already being done, we are just at the very beginning of it. Remember: if we are at the beginning of something new, that means we are either at the peak, peaking, or just over the peak of the last trend - materialistic life-negation. It is ending, we just don't know the time scale yet, but that also means we just have to do our own thing and build in spite of the current zeitgeist.
I hear some people say the right wing is "terminally online" and that is largely true. We have plenty of boots-on-the-ground organizations in the West, but most of us are fine hiding behind our PFPs and internet identities. Pagans, Christians, NatSocs, Constitutionalists, whatever, there are groups for each individual.
People just need to get in line!
very good post, but I do agree with sectionalism. Though individualism may be an advantage and a curse both, as many ideas will inevitably be tried and fail as faith evolves in the modern world, overwhelmingly, the life/world denying foundations laid by Abrahamism still remain through western society, and materialistic life-denial reigns supreme today, especially among the civilized and the over-civilized. It's a huge trope, but I think leftists being portrayed as the neurotic cultists/footsoldiers of the emerging atheistic new world religion is largely true. The future of religiosity lies in the battle between life denial and life acceptance among western cultures, and of course, might makes right, so it will be decided by who does and will continue to rule. Change is still possible, but we have not escaped the cold grip of this current life-denying nihilistic-materialistic tyranny. They have showed us however that propaganda and control of popular culture/media can sway the minds of millions easily, so establishing a new dogma won't be as difficult as you suggest.
I would say that the life-denying attributes of Platonism are more of a late influence, the notion of “henosis” was introduced by Plotinus who was probably the most life-denying of the Neoplatonists. Middle Platonists and early Platonists were only really interested in demonstrating the underlying oneness of reality, they were less concerned with some sort of soteriology and it was generally agreed that the world was worth living in and that goodness had much more sway over the world than evil. Later more mystical platonists agreed with the goodness of the world, but also viewed enlightenment as the best possible good and sort of a form of apotheosis more than self-immolation. The Dharmic equivalent of this is probably Vishishtadvaita. It still recognizes underlying unity but enlightenment merely brings one close to God (Vaikuntha) while still having a separate being.
I would say Gnosticism is in sort of a league of its own. Christianity is kind of life denying but more in its praxis, with the whole martyrdom schtick. Christians do still believe, after all, that the best end to history is a reincarnation of human beings — that being with a body is better than being without a body
Also am shocked I did not come up on this BAP article sooner, is of incredible and valuable insight, perfectly reasonable as well. I actually remember you guys quoting it on iFunny.
Theravada Buddhism is world-denying in both theory and practice ("nibbana is an ultimate, absolute, unconditioned reality, entirely beyond this world. To reach it, follow ascetic practices.").
Mahayana Buddhism is world-accepting in theory, world-denying in practice ("nibbana and samsara are the same thing. Nibbana is not beyond this world, it IS this world. However, still follow the ascetic practices").
Vajrayana Buddhism is world-accepting in theory, and world-accepting in practice ("nibbana is within this world. It can be thought of as a type of space within the universe. Esoteric approaches, including sex yoga, ecstatic tantra, collective worship, individual practices, etc. are all acceptable. All is sacred..").
Perhaps the last one has to do with much of its surviving development having taken place in the remote mountains of Tibet, where animism and the Bon religion were a thing, so it became life-accepting.
I think Neopaganism in the West is too problematic because it has no... let's say "skeleton". It has no true foundation, no cohesive metaphysical and ethical structure. I think its better for neopagans to adopt something like Vajrayana Buddhism and transform it by infusing its practices and deities into it (extremely common in Buddhism) rather than try something totally new from scratch. I think evidentially, much of its practices are validated, karma, rebirth, nibbana, forms of yoga, meditation and tantra, etc. I think it would also give it more legitimacy than plainly worshipping old gods. If people couldn't convince others of monotheism and that one, ultimate, abstract, and theoretically provable God exists, then what makes one think they'll be able to convince others of the existence of someone like Zeus. Vajrayana Buddhism gives the whole package: metaphysics, goals, ethics, practices and methods, etc. Its easier to adopt and transform it within certain bounds than to conjure something random and have to convince everyone of it.
By the way, I think that the whole thing about religious institutions or structure has more to do with scale, rather than *type* of religiosity. Its not as if paganism of the Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian or Graeco-Roman types didn't have major systems and religious institutions. Only the first type lacked them, albeit they did have its proto-form in people who specialized in shamanism. They only didn't have large scale institutions because there weren't civilizational surpluses to go around and specialize, so it wasn't something one could afford.
Very good article!
People like us who hail from northern Europe will not convert to foreign religions like Buddhism. Hence us becoming folkish pagans.
Northwestern paganism does not lack a skeleton.
I understand the desire to protect one's heritage. I have no heritage to protect, so its easy for me to adopt whatever religion. Northwestern paganism seems too conceptually disorganized to be able to scale, and doesn't have enough unity.
Are you northern European?
If so, then I urge you to reconsider. There are great resources on runestone.org or through Survive the Jive’s new lesson program.
If not, please stay out of our affairs.
I am not northern European.
Good luck with your project! :D
I disagree, but whatever you think is right :)
This was exceptionally good. I profoundly disagree. Thank you for painting a picture of what must be fought.
However, such a religion will not last. We who have kept to the rejection of the world are breeding in it nonetheless. We will bury you.
Interesting.
The thing is, the West has largely turned from Christianity and the trends are continuing. You will eventually have to bury most of your kindred.
Most, but the demographic inflection will kick in, and it will be dramatic. Exponential growth is a hell of a thing.