Finding truth through a deep study of history | with David Livingstone

Please support my work on Substack: deepnoetics.su...
David's website: ordoabchao.ca
Sign up for my course on power: halkyonacademy...
Sign up to my course on the philosophy of the machine:
halkyonacademy...

[@Frank-xh5yj]

Or is he suggesting that Butler, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida etc etc were knights of Malta too? Mind blown.

[@putthekabash]

Love David Livingstone

[@ovgu7137]

Great to see him back on the channel! I hope he becomes a regular guest.

[@hermittravellor]

Salafism and Wahhabism are definitely NOT the same same thing. Traditional Islam follows the salaf (first three generations), whereas ashari/maturidi aqeeda, take their Islamic understandings from Greek Philosophers. This infiltration and divertion has been long standing

[@deepnoetics]

Interesting. Can you recommend a source where I can find our more about this distinction?

[@hermittravellor]

​@@deepnoetics an excellent introductory book into the Islamic creed is "Belief in Allah, In the Light of the Quran and Sunnah" by Dr. 'Umar S. al S. al-Ashqar. How philosophy (ilm al kalaam) was introduced is covered in chapter 4. This book is also available in free pdf download on Internet archive

[@deepnoetics]

@@hermittravellor thank you!

[@hermittravellor]

@@deepnoetics you are most welcome!

[@geolazakis]

Great conversation, however I'm skeptical of Mr. David's ultimate goal with his project, but I can't comment on its content, evidence or conspiratorial connections. He believes that these elites and intellectual workers are trying to suppress human flourishing. But what if he's got it wrong, what if they are trying to uplift human flourishing, instead? Clearly, power and the machine have helped uplift human flourishing, and the cost of inequality-the injustice of the system which Mr. Davis identifies and opposes-might not be a product of those intellectual workers but of that which they work against. He is trying to trace back connections and friendships without any insider knowledge, i.e. true esoteric knowledge. However, I think it's very possible that at the dawn of Faustian culture, the veil will be lifted to reveal a line of heroes, anti-heroes, craftsmen, and martyrs. The stars of the night following the dawn of the west. Then, possibly, the idea (which Mr. Davis proposes) that they are working to make us betray ourselves can be easily disproven, as it would be shown to be a project of human flourishing and our universal self-recognition. Certain people will be the friends, while others will be the foolish enemies. Western culture does not to encourage the idea that “we don't have responsibility to our fellow neighbour”. This is a massive misreading by Mr.David of the Western political and philosophical tradition, a failure to grasp Fauatian culture. This is evident when Mr. David proclaims that he began his search for religious truth via the study of world literature. To pursue studies, not to mention studies to grasl religious truth, requires a certain level of privilege to begin with-a level of educated leisure provided to one by their socio-economic privilege. Something which Western culture has greatly expanded. However, can this privilege, be best spent there, rather than curious studies into transcendental truth? Is this privilege not better used in our personal vicinity to help our neighbours, and to live the good life that way? Is this search not also motivated by the enjoyment that curiosity provides, rather than actual knowledge, like Socrates before us who willingly chose to stay in Athens. As an Orthodox Christian, I think and believe that Jesus Christ is God, the incarnate Logos, the Good. However, I don't want to primarily use reason to discover or claim that. If we seek access to the good primarily via curiosity or intellectual discovery, I believe we fall into a spurious trap. While the Good might not be self-evident to us, we all experience a calling to do good, and even if we are confused, we have a sense of personal shame which most of us often try to overcome by ourselves, not through the Other or the Transcendent. Herein lies a level of personal dishonesty. Thought allows us to judge whether we overcome shame by that which we otherwise oppose, be it selfishness, the machine, deception, etc. And if we are honest with ourselves and beg for the transcendent to reveal itself, by what criteria are we to say it won't? We have to either deny that the transcendent would reveal itself or that the transcendent requires the use of the self, of reason, to discover it-the latter placing one on the same track as Western natural philosophy. We have established that we know of its existence; hence we seek it through reading world literature. However, which transcendent would reveal itself if we're not honest with ourselves? Only conscious honesty can give us confidence in that what reveals itself is righteous, and here, we can only blame ourselves. This discovery of knowledge in the world provides us with the highly stimulative reward of curiosity. But who are we to judge the people in the Western tradition who may have taken this curiosity further than us, for clearly most of these figures have. Be it in their study of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, esoteric or pagan traditions, or whatever tradition we dig up. And if we want to claim that we have discovered the true transcendent knowledge, which these intellectual workers have missed or seek to oppress, then we have to claim ourselves superior on the basis of our own reason, which opens the gateway to ideology. I'm sure the psychoanalytic liberators would have a bone to pick with my use of shame and honesty, as it has been used to structure oppressive societies and to impose a slave morality by a leisurely elite who have overcome shame and use it to cast shadows in the cave which they rule. And here Marquis De Sade's understanding of shame as geographically relative could even be used to understand differing cultures and elites. But I think it would be hasty to conclude that self-honesty doesn't play a role in discovering what the true transcendent is. On the one hand, we have an understanding of shame through power, both as a means to enforce power (slaves) and as a means to overcome shame (elites). On the other hand, we have honesty, which entails another type of power-mainly that of personal strength to deal with shame. The first allows one to become an elite, while the latter has such a high burden that most are doomed to serve as slaves, fated to be defined by what is socially allowed. But here lies the ultimate role of justice: if one overcomes shame via power, ruling over those who give in to shame or live honestly but confined by power, there’s clearly an ultimate case for transcendent justice And if one seeks the transcendent, they have to opt fairly early on if it’s a source for justice. I think framing these matters also opens up the role of agency and does not primarily call understanding politics through tracing a legitimate line of conspiratorial evil, but sees evil merely as the failure to access understanding through honesty, and the futile claim to superiority. The political is not primarily determined by friend-enemy but through heeding the call to good in our lives, I.e. city making, highlighted by how honest we are with ourselves. And when we are in crisis, in need of God, of the Good, which we so often do, then this honesty is the work through which the transcendent reveals itself. I think the clue to what an intellectual worker of any conspiratorial tradition would oppose, if they indeed need to do so consciously, lies in dealing with these very experiences. These are some very random thoughts, but oh well.

[@deepnoetics]

Damn dude, you should write a book :D

[@geolazakis]

@@deepnoetics hahaha I think the shame of writing this wall of text is the limit, of how much of my own stupidity, I can handle

[@geolazakis]

Sneaky sneaky Sean, editing out all the esoteric secrets before publishing part 2 of the interview, a measly 2 weeks after part 1...

[@deepnoetics]

😆

[@StephenMillerIAriseIwakeupI]

I wish he did a book on Yahuah and the paleo-hebrew stuff

[@Jacob011]

Are you really gonna argue based on this ridiculous fallacy that if A is "friend" of B and B is friend of C therefore A is friend of C? Whatever the "friend of" really means? How do you judge something so vague as somebody's friendship status and make such sweeping implications from that? You gotta be reaching!

[@deepnoetics]

Ya, difficult to assess what links are meaningful and which ones just arbitrary.

[@deepnoetics]

The interesting part is I think that many of these figures knew each other and had contact merely by being part of an elite. William Domhoff has done some research on coordination and alignment of elite interests without needing a common plan or friendship, but merely through familiarity of social circles.