Heyoka Empaths

„Among the Lakota people, the heyoka (heyókȟa, also spelled „haokah,“ „heyokha“) is a contrarian, jester, satirist or sacred clown. The heyoka speaks, moves and reacts in an opposite fashion to the people around them … The heyókȟa symbolize and portray many aspects of the sacred, the Wakȟáŋ. Their satire presents important questions by fooling around. They ask difficult questions, and say things others are too afraid to say. By reading between the lines, the audience is able to think about things not usually thought about, or to look at things in a different way … Principally, the heyókȟa functions both as a mirror and a teacher, using extreme behaviors to mirror others, thereby forcing them to examine their own doubts, fears, hatreds, and weaknesses. heyókȟa also have the power to heal emotional pain; such power comes from the experience of shame — they sing of shameful events in their lives, beg for food, and live as clowns. They provoke laughter in distressing situations of despair and provoke fear and chaos when people feel complacent and overly secure, to keep them from taking themselves too seriously or believing they are more powerful than they are.[3]

In addition, sacred clowns serve an important role in shaping tribal codes. Unbound by societal constraints, heyókȟa are able to freely violate cultural taboos and critique established customs.[4] Paradoxically, however, it is by violating these norms and taboos that they help to define the accepted boundaries, rules, and societal guidelines for ethical and moral behavior. This is because they are the only ones who can ask „Why?“ about sensitive topics and employ satire to question the specialists and carriers of sacred knowledge or those in positions of power and authority.“ (Wikipedia)

 harleyquinn2 rain whitelodge7

Carnival of Souls

I watched Carnival of Souls, an unusual low budget horror film which became cult over time and also a major inspiration for David Lynch. And indeed, apart from the solid craftsmanship, it´s deep fucking shit. You see, it is about the gradual loss of soul, due to weakness and disconnectedness from the whole, resulting in destructive madness, entropy and annihilation; in a world where lack of competence, personal depth and understanding is the rule among people; not that anyone is truly to blame; it´s simply a place of eerie inhabitants, where the living are mirrored by the undead. Meditate about that.

Independent horror film. The film has a large cult following and is occasionally screened at film and Halloween festivals. It has been cited as an important …
YOUTUBE.COM

Gebet für die Unheilbaren

Eil, o zaudernde Zeit, sie ans Ungereimte zu führen,
Anders belehrst du sie nie, wie verständig sie sind.
Eile, verderbe sie ganz, und führ ans furchtbare Nichts sie,
Anders glauben sie dir nie, wie verdorben sie sind.
Diese Toren bekehren sich nie, wenn ihnen nicht schwindelt,
Diese … sich nie, wenn sie Verwesung nicht sehn.

F. Hölderlin

spanking3

spanking2 spanking11
spanking13 spanking14
spanking4

Ni Tsan

Ni Tsan (ca. 1300 – 1374) war ein chinesischer Kunstmaler und Dichter aus Wuxi (Jiangsu). Bei uns kaum bekannt und kaum übersetzt, mag ich ihn sehr und er erfüllt mich sehr. Seine Gedichte geben reine Eindrücke wieder, da sein Geist, wie man sieht, vollkommen rein und durchsichtig ist. Trotzdem bemerke ich stets ein smaragdenes Schimmern, das sich in einem angedeuteten höheren Raum verliert, wenn ich in sie hineinsehe; aber das ist mein Problem.

 

Der hohe, Wahrheit suchende Mönch, wohin geht er?

Vor ihm (auf dem Weg nach) Indien (liegen) sehr hohe Berggipfel.

(Wie ein) fliegender Gabelweih möchte er dorthin ziehen, (wo sich) der Himmel auf die Bäume senkt.

Mit seinem Metallstab muss er dorthin gehen, (wo) jenseits der Seen die (Tempel-)glocken (klingen).

Auf einer halben Matte unter weißen Wolken neben dem smaragdenen Wasserfall,

(Wenn) zur vierten Nachtwache der fallende Mond in hohen Kiefern hängt.

(Kann man) in Meditation versunken wohl dreitausend Jahre zurückkehrend (durchmessen)

Und gleichfalls die gepflückte Blume sehen (von der die Kunde in) fernen Lehren überliefert ist.

 

Im hohen Pavillon der Familie Teng weilte ich zehn Tage lang.

Des Herrn Lu Weinboot kam hundertmal her und fuhr (hundertmal wieder) zurück.

Seerosen-Suppe und Seebarsch-Haschee hatten wir überreichlich.

Eisgleiche Schalen und schneeähnliche Becher, wie oft handhabten (wir die ?)

Flusswolken, duftig und zierlich, nahmen hingegeben am Feste teil;

Uferweiden(-zweige), lässig hängend, fielen in die Weinschalen (hinein).

Trinkend und trunken bemale ich spielend die weißseidenen Fächer.

Ein schönes Spiegelbild auf dem Bergfluss, flattert der Mond hin und her.

 

Einsam und verlassen der Fluss mit den Ufern darüber,

Das Boot rudernd begegnen wir am Abend einander.

Bei zusammengerolltem Vorhang besingen wir die blauen Bergketten,

(Auf) der nahen Strömung zerstreuen sich die weißen Gänse.

Das starke Herz, ein Tausend-Meilen-Pferd,

Kehrt träumend heim über der fünf Seen Wogen.

Der Stein im Garten (liegt) verlassen und Bambusschösslingen überwuchert

Im Winde wild erheben wir die Stimme zum Gesang.

 

Bei Nacht durchwandere ich den West-Garten der Insel,

Des jungen Mondes Glanz ist überklar.

(Den Schritt) verhalt` ich zögernd unterhalb des Steines der Schlucht.

(Wie) liebe ich des Waldes Baumschatten!

 

Still und verloren das Chung-chü-Kloster.

Im Frühlingswind wachsen die Hui-Pflanzen.

Im verlassenen Wald auf dunkelgrün-moosigem Boden

Smaragdgrüne Blätter und purpurjade-farbene Stengel.

Früh erwacht spürt man (sie) in die Gedanken eintreten,

Am Ende (des Tages sind sie) die Ursache, wenn die magische Verwandlung sich vollendet.

Die Gestalt ihrer Unstofflichkeit lässt sich nicht erschöpfen.

Im hellen Mondglanz erblühen sie.

 

In des Herrn Chang Hütte plaudernd ziehen wir den Lampendocht immer wieder hoch.

Einander gegenüber (sitzend wie) Schatten können (wir uns) nicht trennen, Traum und Schlaf werden eins.

(So) sitzend erreicht uns die Tiefe der Nacht, still ist die lärmende Welt.

Vor der Halle im vereinzelt stehenden Bambus erhebt der Herbstwind sich.

 

Am grünen Fluss der lichte Bambus geistreich nach der Vorlage kopiert.

Bekümmert-zarter Kieferndunst, so fein als wäre er gar nicht da.

Das ungeordnete Blattwerk „leer“ gezeichnet, teils von der Vorderseite, teils von hinten.

Des kalten Stromes siegelförmige Felsen ganz ineinander verschlungen.

(Angesichts) des Wolkengedränges um die Frühlingsinsel denkt man an Trommeldröhnen.

(Beim Anblick) des über den blauen Klippen fallenden Mondes hört man Vögel rufen.

Wer Wesen und Bedeutung dieser wundervollen Formen mitempfindet,

(Erliegt der) Täuschung, er erfreue sich am „Rot-Blau“ einer knochenlosen Malerei.

 

Zierlich wie Rauchwolken im Winde sich wiegende Zweige, noch ist die Tusche nicht trocken.

Die Schönen an den Wassern des Hsiang (musizieren) harmonisch auf Mundorgel und Glocken.

Unruhig auf meinem Kissen träume (ich) von einer Fahrt zu den Unsterblichen.

Reine Schatten (tanzen) hin und her; kalt (strahlt) der Mond in den Bergen.

 

An T´ai-hu spärlicher Schnee, es will kalt werden.

Im Pavillon „Reines Gedenken“ sind die Weinschalen trocken.

Bei abgeschirmter Lampe und Farbpinsel ist (schon) die dritte Nacht vergangen.

Die fernen Berggipfel, der lichte Hain jedoch dulden (noch, dass ich sie) anschaue.

 

Die blauen Berge aufrecht und hoch, die Wasser weithin gedehnt.

(Wo) das offene Land auf die Hochebene trifft, beginnt der Regenhimmel aufzuklären.

Völlig gleichen (einander) die drei hohen Pavillons, die man auf der Höhe erblickt.

Der Menschen Häuser dicht angeschmiegt an weit ausladende Bäume.

 

Die kleine Schale taugefüllt, von reinem Weiß des Bleis,

(Wie) Jade und Schnee (und) gleicherweise gefärbt (wie) Smaragd und Rosenwolken.

Die Zartheit ihrer Form, die Feinheit ihrer Haltung machen mir Altem Freude.

Über den Bambuszaun des Nachbarn fallen Ranken mit herbstlichen Blüten.

 

Wie ist es möglich, dass die Seemöwen mir misstrauen?

Der Alte der Wildnis, der ich jetzt bin, hat lange aufgehört, praktischem Leben zugewandt zu sein.

Ein Fremdling lass ich mein Mattensegelboot oberhalb der Südinsel ankern.

Wolken, Wogen, Dunst und Bäume (alle) Umrisse verdunkeln allmählich.

 

Der Nachkomme des Großen Mannes von Fu Li

Ist auch ein Nachfahre seiner Wesensart.

Er liebt die Berge und liebt auch Bilder;

Er nötigt zu Leckereien und nötigt zum Becher.

Jedesmal, wenn ich den Wolkenschlaf-Fels erblicke,

Dringe ich deshalb durch den Bambus und klopfe an die Tür.

Heute morgen (sogar) im Nebel und eisvogelblauen Dunst;

Es war ganz passend, dass es dazu in Strömen regnete.

 

(Innerhalb) der Mao-(Seen)-Ufer weile ich lange Zeit, im Wechsel von Frost und Sommerhitze,

Wo könnt ich unstet Wandernder in Wäldern und Höhen (eine Bleibe) finden?

Beklagenswert ist, dass Eigentum nicht ständig Besitz bleiben kann;

Wenn ich doch wenigstens, meinem Herzen folgend, irgendwo Frieden fände,

Unter dem Boden des Bootes fließendes Rauschen, leise seufzender Wind,

Die zwischen dem Ried aufgehende Sonne ist schon völlig rund.

Ob meine Freunde tot sind oder leben ist schwer in Erfahrung zu bringen.

In meiner Kümmernis schreibe ich Gedichte, um mich über mich selbst zu erheben.

 

Ich sitze und schaue dem Moose zu, das mein Kleid überwachsen möchte.

Der Teich und die Frühlingswasser schimmern im letzten Abendglanz.

Im verlassenen Dorfe wird es Nacht, kein Lärmen mehr von Wagen und Pferden.

Freundschaftlich geleiten zerrissene Wolken die heimwärts fliegende Kranichschar.

 

Kühl ist der Abend dieses sommerwarmen Herbsttags.

Ich trinke Tee und schlafe bis zum Morgen tief in meiner Einsamkeit.

Der reine Wind schüttelt die Bäume im Hof,

Und eine frierende Grille klagt im betauten Gras.

Des Morgens schaue ich fröhlich dem strömenden Wasser zu,

Des Abends blicke ich voller Erwartung nach Westen.

Von des menschlichen Treibens Komödie weiß ich nichts mehr;

Nur noch die grünen Berge sehe ich mit Liebe an.

 

Außerdem empfehle ich die Lektüre von Tao Yüan-ming (ca. 370 – 427).

Visions of Immortality

According to legend, having achieved Satori means that you are able to see the realm of existence as an infinite weave of jewels which illuminate and mirror each other. Each jewel, prescious as it is, is an aspect of existence, both distinct and unique as well as well as embedded in the whole, serving as a reflection of the whole. The whole, therefore, is an interrelated system of mirrors which reflect the highest light; and each movement within the structure alters the whole structure, so that in every moment a new world is born. Satori means you are able to see the world as being in constant motion, objects are moving, mirroring and relating to each other so that the subject-object dichotomy is transgressed into an all-seeing, yet unlocated, eye (respectively an all-seing eye which is located everywhere). The intellect is transgressed into pure perception and pacified: the whole universe bond together by sympathy and governed by mutual friendliness, there is no need for you being (as usual, once unenlightened) agitated.alice4 And do you remember Richard M. Bucke´s book about Cosmic Consciousness, originally published in 1901? Probably not, since it is not very well known. Bucke, a psychiatrist, achieved enlightenment and suggested that his „cosmic counsciousness“ is a state of mind prominent in all enlightened individuals across history, yet only expressed in somehow different state-dependent language (the language of their specific time and culture) i.e. that all revelations of enlightened consciousness in art, philosophy, spirituality, religion, relate to the same basic experience – in which the enlightened individual experiences herself as a living, spiritual part of an entirely living, spiritual cosmos in which the individual, itself, is an illusion and mortality is an illusion. Everything is governed by the supreme, perceptive intellect who is familiar with the whole and with every aspect of the whole, and the enlightened individual is the bearer of that intellect. Bucke surmised that, apart from usual suspects like Gotama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Laoze or Plato also fellows like Shakespeare, Pascal, Balzac or Walt Whitman were among those who have achieved cosmic consciousness. Mediatate about that!

In the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I have ruminated whether Satori is the common state of mind of the genius. At least there are some resemblances. The genius, at least, has the second sight! With the second sight the genius is able to see through things, to see their true essence, and even beyond that: It is not raw intelligence (in its many facettes) but introspection and the capacity for deep intellectual penetration which makes the genius. The root ability for that is a quality Cooijmans calls associative horizon: that is the ability to see many associations to a given concept, to see (seemingly paradoxical or counterintuitive) associations between remote concepts and the ability to switch from motif to background. Associative horizon is a quality in its own right, relatively independent from g-related intelligence (expressed in IQ). At a basic level associative horizon manifests in (off-the-wall) humour and/or some kind of „deeper“ perception. I see people who have the second sight on Facebook, they´re posting paradoxical memes respectively images which are ambigous and connotative, not definitely to catch intellectually but eternally open, referring again to an innocence of perception yet in a dialectical way. People who have such a perception are very rare. High IQ intellectuals on Facebook are also very rare. That these qualities merge in one person is the rarest. Associative horizon is the basis basis for creative intelligence. IQ-related intelligence enables the bearer of associative horizon to operate at a high level of intelligence and to have a broad intellectual circuit in which his associative horizon can operate and make novel, original and meaningful combinations (as somehow distinguished from conclusions which you derive from g-related intelligence). With intelligence you see many things and the way they function, with associative horizon you see the Matrix. You´re intuitive. If associative horizon and intelligence amplify each other and both get amplified by conscientousness, i.e. intellectual discipline, the possibility of the productive genius arises, and when conscientousness also carries ethical conscientousness the possibility of completeness comes up (see Paul Cooijmans of genius on his website). – So the genius lives in a state of interconnectedness plus the ability to see through and beyond the connections and establish new ones which last forever. He is glued to everything because he is sympathetic. He (intellectually) mimics everything because he is empathic. Before his inner eye he sees into the universe. He gets sucked into the universe, sometimes feel painfully sticked to the universe, like hanging in outer space, being enchained to outer space and hardly able to move (which is one of the more unpleasant experiences, referring, in ordinary language, to inability to live an ordinary life). At one time he feels sucked into space, at one other struck down by the intensity of his perceptions, which constantly form impressions in correspondance with an intense (sometimes painfully intense) inner life.

colourgirl Otto Weininger has noticed that the genius always stands under impressions. In here, the genius is both perceptive and reflective, mature and innocent, intellectual and anti-intellectual, both open and longing for closure and, then, openness again. In doing so and being that way, he creates his world constantly anew and each act is of significance; and of deviance: High intelligence means that one is able to come to sophisticated and comprehensive conclusions, to make abstractions and generalisations. Yet, as Lichtenberg notices, the higher the genius, the more one is able and prone to see only the individual, respectively individual aspects. This might confuse the genius, at least at a young age, make him think he has not a razor-sharp wit as others, a more nebulous and diffuse way of thinking and of perception, therefore to operate at a lower level of consciousness while in reality he is operating at a higher level of consciousness (since of course the genius is able to see the abstractions as well, and very well; what seems to be an unfocused view is an actually more focused one). A bit resemblant to that Pessoa has noticed: the higher the consciousness, the lower the consciousness; which only means that the genius does not relate to ordinary things the way ordinary man does because they are not as closely located to him – in reality the genius is closer also to ordinary things and, if it gets serious, is likely to handle them in a more competent way than ordinary man – I only say that to encourage the genius because due to his highly critical way of thinking the genius is prone to underestimate himself, sees himself to critical, is afraid of inadequancy, and usually gets depressed when he senses inadequancy within himself (yet is also the one who is able to transform his feelings of inadequancy and inferiority into something truly productive, whereas ordinary guy does not sense much inadequancy about himself, with, however, the unarticulated inferiority complex lurking in the back of his mind (and becoming acute when the genius enters)). Because of his ability to see only individuals the genius is able to „think outside the box“, transgress categories and finally establish new ones. Therefore the usual internal state of the genius is some seemingly unproductive brooding which might come along with, again, feelings of inadequancy, lack of identity and unhappiness. With time he will unlearn those connotations, yet remember them, that is to say, the will remain but become less frightening. Finally, when the genius in all aspects only sees individuals (and is able to categorise them), his mind has become the mind of God (as also Lichtenberg has noticed). That is the imperative. – Genius is an eminently rational man and longs to establish rational concepts with a determinedness no one else carries. Yet in contrast to the purely rational man the genius has an access to the seemingly irrational, respectively the a-rational. Usually being synaesthetic, the genius often strives to develop eminently rational concepts in tandem with a-rational or synaesthetic visions or along unusual questions (e.g. questioning what would happen if he moves along a light ray, a question which would not make immediate sense to the purely rational physicist); he throws, for instance, some thought into a vision of black with red dots and the red dots with white dots in them, sees how it amalgamates, transforms or contrasts, then lets it reflect in mirror 127 in his internal system to see what´s happening, etc. Therefore, darkness and light aspects before his inner eye, or in his mind, shimmer through each other, or, for instance: there is some bright oval light in the center of the vision and then the vision falls down, becomes seam-like, fuzzy, falls into the abyss, becomes irrecognizable; but that is when another circle – of perception and of reflection – begins… That is to say, genius is neither purely rational or irrational, he operates at the meta level of rationality. – Genius is immortal and not afraid of death because genius is largely spirit, not person or individual, and his spirit will last forever as well as it has always been. Since he has seen through life in his only life, life extension or reincarnation is not necessary for the genius. #nirvana

In the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I have also ruminated about the hyper-genius, the transcendent genius, and the Omega Man. These venn quite similar with each other. A hyper-genius is more comprehensive than a genius, or operates at a higher level, at least in his specific domain (at 5 sigma level compared to 4 sigma level of the genius; Einstein was, as a physicist, a hyper-genius, although in other respects, and as a person, a genius; Wittgenstein, as the other emblematic genius of the last century, was a hyper-genius in general, respectively not only as a philosopher but also as a person). A transcendent genius has the most radical thoughts and is transcendent in his personality, a both extremely eccentric as well as extremely in the center of humanity located man (Goethe was a hyper-genius, yet not necessarily a transcendent genius, he was a homo universalis (although he did not understand lowlife very well and was not very very concerned or sympathetic about it) but not transcendent man, yet of course operated close to that level; Büchner, an intellect probably superior to that of Goethe (one cannot definitely tell since he died at age 23), understood lowlife, was deeply sympathetic, a fearless revolutionary who might have died in jail like some of his comrades; his language was transcendent and of absolute agility, later in life he might not have cumulated his efforts in a grandiose yet mislead endeavour like the theory of colours but may have become one of the major existential philosophers, etc.). Omega Men are (spiritual) frontier workers of humanity. Resemblant to that Bhagwan says that beyond/above the „universal intellect“, the fourth level a human being can attain, there is a final, fifth level, at which the distinction between the individual and the universal, the larger context, vanishes and is transgressed. That is when the ego is abolished and the intellect of Christ or of the Buddha emerges. At this stage man has ceased to constantly BECOME something, he has begun to finally BE something, his journey (respectively, as Bhagwan says, his „nightmare“) has come to an end. Thou shalt not settle for something less than to attain that fifth stage, says Bhagwan. And indeed, genius is still full of imperfection and should be superseded. Genius does not necessarily work at the last layer of all things. Genius may be, and usually is, a distinct and marked person, but: a person, likely with an ego, maybe a strong or even narcissistic, therefore annoying ego. Geniuses often do not relate well to other geniuses which is the saddest thing among all. That should be overcome. Man should become devoid of ego and become open space – that is the plan, that is the end of the road. The ego (respectively what is commonly taken as the ego) is disturbing, it distracts, impurifies the thinking process and the emotional economy, and it should not be. When you look at the transcendent genius (like Beckett) he does not resemble very much an ordinary person, or, despite his most distinct individuality, a person at all – rather a fluid, an aura, an atmosphere, he is ghost-like because he contains all qualities at once and they do NOT contradict or stand in the way of each other while probably also not being there in harmony, like the universe or the earth is not harmony, simply all exists at once; the great man is the living microcosm, the all, as Otto Weininger put it. Where the genius maybe tries to and puts his energy into becoming a marked person, the transcendent genius will do everything to evade it. He is impersonal, transindividual, and objective. He only seems to be a marked personality because he is „the center of infinite space“ (Weininger). The hyper-genius has ceased to be a person, let alone ego, and has become a spirit, a soul, a guiding light; even his intellect has transformed along those lines. Ahhh … the transcendent beauty of having gotten rid of human/personal qualities… do you see the luminosity in that?

transzendenz – The Omega Man can be envisioned as reaching up into the spheres and down into the dark fond, the primal ground, where his interior is the endless hall of mirrors. Genius is kind of universal man, he encircles mankind, but the omega genius encircles all the other geniuses as well and has become universal spirit. The intelligence of the transcendent genius and the Omega Man is the highest and the most alien, yet at the same time the most elementary, the most basic, the most authentic; being eternally eccentric he and his solutions directly adress the core, the heart of it all and are the most profound. – Whereas the genius relates to the world, the hyper-genius relates to the universe (the infinitely larger, boundless context). The genius will strive to create a work of importance, of significance; the transcendent genius, will, more abstractly and more purely, strive to create values. Likewise, the genius may seek a concrete immortality, becoming inscribed in the book/s of mankind, whereas the transcendent genius will rather seek an abstract immortality, he does not thow himself into mankind but into the universe, longs to become one with the ontological texture of the universe. When you look at the genius you may see a spherical space with positive curvature; the genius tries to establish harmony and give words and objects a definitive meaning. When you look at the transcendent genius you see a line of negative curvature, an open universe in which everything flies into the infinite along an eccentric pathway, also in order to establish harmony, but not in the visible spacetime but in a sort of hyperspacetime; in the visible spacetime the transcendent genius seemingly ever creates disruption and dislocation of identity (think, most prominently, of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or van Gogh). When the genius is constantly convulsing, the hyper-genius seems like constantly exploding, yet both do so in stasis. Look at the ramblings for instance of the transcendent hyper-geniuses of literature like Kafka, Beckett, Shakespeare, Rimbaud or E. Dickinson and you see that behind their words, their language, some deeper structure constantly seeks to emerge and overpower it, that is the dark world, the fond, as well as the heaven that tries to break through, it is the constant shifting of meaning, it is the second world which shimmers through the first, the immediately presented one, the psychosis of the genius language; the works of the (hyper-) genius are characterised when you see behind the first, the immediately presented world a second world emerging. – This nebulaic, yet anti-entropic entity, the purely subjectified and purely objectified trans-person able to navigate freely through inner and through outer space with both the most solid, yet unlocated inner core, is, then, the overman. The overman encircles the earth and is the meaning of the earth. He can communicate with the earth and with any alien civilisation from the depths of outer space since he understands all of those. Potentially, along the above mentioned lines, every man is an overman. The hyper-genius/Omega Man is the most easily understood and embraced by every man, and by the child, and is the trajectory of human endeavour. That includes all and is the bond which connects all. Ahh, the hall of mirrors, what beauty lies in this system… <3

 

OH YES be taught, my friends: Thou shalt not hold artificial ideas about man! Don´t take man as being overly good or overly evil. Ordinary man, per definition, cannot reach the level of the great man, yet he can reflect him, as a mirror. What concerns me, is that I am 10.000 times more stupid and evil even than ordinary man, yet also me – a worm, not a Cherubim – longs for ascension, just like everyone else. Be taught, my friends.

Micheal Chappelle

Micheal Chappelle This is the best description of me and my life that I’ve ever read.

Micheal Chappelle

Micheal Chappelle You know me like the back of your hand.

Problems and Perspectives in Contemporary World Order

(I edited some comments I made on a thread in the Polymathica group into a note, content relating to a master thesis I wrote years ago at the university. Ahhh … apart from that not much is happening inside me at the moment, before my inner eye, looking inside my mind, the current vision is a yellow-coloured space and there are three black dots in it forming some triangle, these days I keep looking at them, watching them in silence and inertia, not producing, or feeling the urge to produce, overly relevant thoughts. Incipit Zarathustra.)

 

In 2005 I wrote a pretentious Master thesis at the university titled „Problems and Perspectives in Contemporary World Order“ in which I tried to discuss all the current major world problems as well as current and prospective developments in the world regions on 50 pages. In the introduction I ruminated that a heuristic framework in which the New (post Cold War) World Order may be conceptualised is established by a coordinate system made out of the „Fukuyama Narrative“ on the one hand and of the „Huntington Narrative“ on the other.

The „Fukuyama Narrative“, established in „The End of History“, in general, argues that after the end of the Cold War respectively the system competition between capitalism and communism, with capitalism respectively free markets (and liberal democracy) having „won“, there are no principled conflicts (Grundsatzkonflikte) in the world anymore and the world is headed for (cultural, political, social and economic) „unification“. Look at science fiction movies where foreign planets with advanced civilisations are usually governed by a planetary government – the road ahead seems intuitively clear (which does not, however, mean: straight). In a globalised world respectively a world dominated by reason and by looking after the common good multilateralism or global governance and a unified spirit seem imperative (at least in the child´s eye and children are always right). The „Fukuyama Narrative“ is Hegelian and stands in the tradition of enlighenment, given at least the more blunt implications of a reading/reception of the „Fukuyama Narrative“ however it is a (probably, likely) dangerous and undialectical, naive form of enlightenment ideology. And at the time when I wrote the thesis the Bush II administration seemed to be guided by such a spirit in their (originally much more far-reaching neoconservative/PNAC) endeavours to bomb in democracy into the Middle East. (Many motives have come into play for marching into Iraq, with George W.´s inferiority complex as the family idiot trying to „get the job done where daddy didn´t“ being one of them, but more general toppling governments hostile to the USA and replacing them with friendly ones as a neoconservative agenda mixed with a genuine hope to promote democracy and progress in the world and, most important, getting a foot in the region: according to an article I read only once (in Harper´s magazine) Cheney´s idea was that with Turkey, Saudi-Arabia and Iraq being allies to the USA US global hegemony would have been secured for the next 50 years, as being the core motive for the Iraq war.) Before that the Western world was guided by such a „Fukuyman“ spirit when it promoted hardcore neoliberalism for the ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet empire, with mixed results, at best. The „Fukuyama Narrative“ has become somehow prevalent or the underlying narrative among globalisation enthusiasts, another prominent label for it is e.g. the maxime about „the world is flat“ established by Thomas Friedman.

Huntington´s book „The Clash of Civilisations“ was written as a critical reaction to Fukuyama. In general, the „Huntington Narrative“ is based on the concept that principled conflicts are still in place and likely to remain indefinitely (with, however, the nature of principled conflicts shifting), where Huntington argues that the dividing lines of the nearer future lie across cultural dividing lines. Although Huntington´s thesis and argumentation was in the utmost majority of cases disapproved or modified (for instance that the actual dividing lines for conlicts will not lie along the grand cultural divides since actually different cultures like Orient and Occident are more likely to be indifferent to each other, but rather in the (seeming) „narcissism of the small differences“ e.g. between Sunna and Shia, etc.) it was a major work of reference, and, as I argued, in the light of the general implication: namely that principled conflicts are not a thing of the past, not a thing which can be, in the spirit of enlightenment, resolved within „rational discourse“ but are likely to remain. On an abstract level the „Fukuyama Narrative“ is about a world headed for community based on mutually shared values and mentality, the „Huntington Narrative“ is about idiosyncracies and (core) differences between people and peoples likely to remain indefinitely. Yet this does not mean that cooperation and becoming closer to each other and unusual, unexpected marriages are impossible or rare (among people as well as among peoples). „Huntington“ is a nemesis to „Fukuyama“ – but also it is the other way round. That may be the, somehow more complicated and diffuse, dialectics of contemporary world order.

So, made up by that coordinates, the question of new world order seems to be: is the world headed for unification and peace or for conflict and divide? And the answer is that within that practical framework complexities are likely to arise which go over the head of politicians and people. This seems to have been confirmed by the developments in the last 10 years. Note also that a defining question for world politics will be what power blocks will stand against each other and in what relationship to each other in the future, and current attempts obviously are about forging such power blocks which, by nature, does include both inclusion and exclusion (or exclusive inclusion as the West seems to try with Russia, which the West tries to weaken in order to subjugate Russia; also consider the ongoing politics to reshape the Middle East, etc.). The relationships within and between the power blocks are likely to be more flexible and fluid, yet maybe also more fragile, unstable and unpredictable, triggering additional policy errors. Concerning the prospects of a world government it was, somehow ironically, Fukuyama himself who, a decade after the publication of „The End of History“ (in 2002) called such an idea, prominent in the West, naive, also in the respect that the larger and more comphrehensive the political entities are the less are the chances that they are democratic and that the multitude can identify with them. What can be said however is that governance in the new world order will/should involve many layers and that people of very high intelligence who are usually excluded from institutions of any sort but who are able to oversee those layers should be included the respective institutions.

The question for democracy in the world is also settled within that coordinate system. It has been argued that in most world regions democracy is „not wanted“ as a perceived cultural artefact of the West, alien and inappropriate for, for instance, Russia, China, Saudi-Arabia or African countries – and not only by Russian etc. leaders but by the populace themselves. Yet democracy was alien in the Western world as well up to recently and the hostility of the insecure European elites and significant parts of the general population like the petty bourgeoisie against the democratic regimes installed after WW1 led to the dictatorships which led to WW2 (however it has to be noted that without the devastations caused by the Great Depression history would likely have gone in another direction). For the most part of history man has been reluctant or hostile to change and progress and feared it. That people are (relatively) open to progress is a new phenomenon and clusters in the industrialised world. Note that for the most time in history man struggled against nature on a day to day basis and established routines were literally held sacred as providing security, and deviations were seen as great dangers to survival, not in a few cases, because of the usual trial and error method with which innovations come into being, for justified reasons. A friend of mine once worked at a developmental project in Ethiopia. Well, it was largely about transfering money from one pocket to the other, apart from that he made the observation that the major obstacle to change and to do something against the hunger in the land was the ordinary farmer´s resistance to try out new agricultural methods, because they feared that it might lead to bad harvest. From that perspective the brutal policy in communist countries, notably under Stalin and Mao, to modernise agriculture with the intention to end the recurrent famines become apparent and, despite their horrendous execution, not the work of psychopaths (which neither Stalin nor Mao were, though they have nevetheless been highly unpleasant characters), and at least Mao was praised by Henry Kissinger as a moderniser of China, which, as should be remembered, was unable to emerge from its backwardness against the West for 300 years.

This needs to be taken into account adressing the initial question of the threat whether democracy is applicable for the Middle East or more general in many parts of the world. In order for democracy, innovation and modernisation to succeed it needs to lead to positive results in the first place. The hostility in Europe soon faded (apart from the most memorable consequence of Nazism/Fascism and WW2) when European countries became (economically) successful, however the conditions of the golden age of postwar prosperity in the Western world were in parts contingent, local and unrepeatable, we were lucky, but there are also other opportunities to be lucky, for instance being a late moderniser who initially just has to copy everything and profit from the lessons learned by predecessors in order to progress relatively smoothly and at fast pace like China. Yes, people in Russia, China or Saudi-Arabia may be unfavorable to liberal democracy, maybe also out of an inferiority complex-triggered cultural narcissism against the Occident, but this does not mean they´re right with their assessment. Time and circumstances may overcome that. Of course it has to be noted that social structures and mentalities influence a lot whether liberal democracy can be an option. Western countries were not composed of multiethnical tribal societies with clientilist structures and they were not overly corrupt. Yet China is an example for a highly corrupt and authoritarian country which is (at least at the moment) (economically) successful. In general in should be avoided to look at single factors as supposedly major determinants of how societies respectively complex systems may develop. It is the interplay of many factors which make up for it. Yeah, we are relatively helpless and incompetent foreseeing the future, but the best approach is to know all the single theoretical models and to keep your models open.

Failed Note about Proclus Diadochus

 

A reccurent meme on Facebook says: „I like weird people… the black sheep, the odd ducks, the rejects, the eccentrics, the loners, the lost and forgotten. More often than not, these people have the most beautiful souls.“ – Schopenhauer called Proclus Diadochus „a shallow, wide, boring windbag“, and I have sympathy for the underdog, So I went to the library, borrowed the only book they have by Proclus in my language, „About Providence, Fate and Free Will, to Theodorus, the Engineer“ and intented to write a note, as a hommage and a tribute to this largely lost and forgotten individual, to make him shine on Facebook.

Unfortunately, „About Providence, Fate and Free Will, to Theodorus, the Engineer“ is actually quite boring and this has made my originally innocent and well-intentioned plan to write a glorious and triumphant note about Proclus Diadochus go sour. In one of his later works Nietzsche said that Schopenhauer was „wrong on every account“ (contrary to what he said in his earlier days and „Schopenhauer as Educator“, the third Untimely Medidation, is a key work to the understanding of Nietzsche at all) but at least in this respect he might have been right. However, I admire intelligence in others but I value highest goodness of character and, according to legend, Proclus was virtuous, hard working, disciplined, engaged in political debates and educational affairs and was prosperous and generous to his friends and a vegetarian. I think if all people had the characteristics of Proclus the world would be a better place, and this shall serve as a monument.

Proclus was a Neoplatonist and the most dominant figure among the Neoplatonists was Plotinus. I recommend getting familiar with his philosophy, for it carries beauty and shall enhance your sense for harmony in the universe. His „Enneads“ are nevertheless badly written, a disaster, so I recommend, at least for introductory means, not reading literature written by Plotinus but literature written about Plotinus.