Metamodern Spirituality | Nietzsche, Power, and Metamodernism (w/ Layman Pascal)

Рет қаралды 2,103

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 15

@PhilosophyPortal 2 жыл бұрын

First, I love that Layman showed up to this video without a shirt and a flower in his ear. Second, I would like to clarify some misconceptions on the "Dark Renaissance" that I think are relevant and came up at various points of this talk: (1) I don't think anybody is juxtaposing "base instinct" versus "higher development" (i.e. some retroactive/naturalistic fallacy); it is that "higher development" must be cultivated through a "division/split" (requiring self-relating negativity) that is present within all "developmental levels" (Layman also pointed towards this). It is this "division/split" where the "base instincts" circulate in the present moment (not in the past). If the human being does not have real transformative practices to be in touch with these base instincts, then there will inevitably be repression and, in my view, "idealistic pseudo-development" (i.e. development that calls itself development in abstract presuppositions, but in reality is just repression of base instincts and a fear of self). To again give the quote defining the Dark Renaissance that was used in the Dark Renaissance critique of Game B: “The Dark Renaissance is a broader potential artistic, philosophical and religious movement which seeks to reveal, affirm, confront, transform the more disturbing aspects of the human condition as the only way to organize society truthfully.” At the center of this definition is the TRANSFORMATION of the more disturbing aspects of the human condition for TRUTH. How this ever got interpreted as nihilistic and post-modern is perplexing. (2) Nobody is conflating dominance and power. If anything we would argue that an "idealistic pseudo-development" which is not in touch with the real of the subject would be at risk of conflating dominance and power without even knowing they are doing it (i.e. doing it unconsciously). What a Dark Renaissance philosophy would point towards is again transformative practice that allows dominance to be understood and contained appropriately. Dominance is something that the subject needs to understand within itself, as something that can potentially manifest itself at various developmental levels of its process of becoming. If those manifestations do not have space to be expressed (appropriate containers) and to be understood (both somatically and intellectually), then you will just end up with a idealistic pseudo-development. Embodied development has to actually work with what we are, and that does include aggressive impulses, and at the deepest levels, that also does include things like the desire to kill-fuck-eat as impulses. No one is saying to blindly act them out versus just a moralistic repression. We are saying they need to be understood as foundational to what it means to consider real human development (I made this point to Layman in our podcast with the example of Osho's spiritual training, and also an emphasis on the concept of sublimation). As Layman said here: "if you are the master all these unruly instincts and bring them together you have entered the most fertile ground, the peak experiences come out of many of your parts being embraced, coming together, overflowing, into an omni-directional empowerment experience". If a subject is NOT in touch DEEPLY with the actual needs and desires of their oral, genital, and anal drives (for example), then that subject is not really developed. The subject may be intellectually or morally presenting as developed, but that is just an image with no ground. You need actual contact and that is scary/frightening (inherently). It can also be tragic since the intellectual-moral sensibilities of the subject may collapse in on their own self-relating contradictions. (3) The example Nietzsche himself gives vis-a-vis "lion attacking a gazelle / you beating up your mail man (why the heck was this example given so many times?!) / neighbour conducting a concerto" is that one should (as an ethical imperative) "CONDUCT A CONCERTO WITH THE SAME ENERGY/DESIRE WITH WHICH A LION ATTACKS A GAZELLE". This is the Dark Renaissance, and you are right, that is a qualitative difference and a meaningful distinction to be preserved. (4) There needs to be a "beating up the mail man" counter on this video. Thanks for this conversation, and hopefully this comment was able to clarify some confusions about what the Dark Renaissance is about.

@BrendanGrahamDempsey 2 жыл бұрын

Much appreciated, Cadell. Helpful to get a nuanced, sober reflection/response that brings some greater clarity to the positions and aims espoused by the Dark R. Not included in the video was an initial discussion about the degree to which the medium is the message, and the role of *how* we communicate ourselves playing inseparably into *what* we are saying. If the articulation of Dark Renaissance ideas happened more in the considered and considerate tone above, it might find itself less misunderstood than when voiced as loud, garish swipes, acerbic barbs, and outlandish demands to "kill beauty!" etc. But, then, the question is: Does a sober, Apollonian treatment of Dark Renaissance ideas betray their very Dionysian essence? Does form then undermine content? It has been my assumption that it would. But I may indeed be wrong about this. If so, and your measured expression does more justice to the ideas than any of that brash braying and howling, then maybe some of the more sensationalist voices are only doing it a disservice. In which case, there's a horizon for much more constructive overlap than had previously appeared the case.

@PhilosophyPortal 2 жыл бұрын

@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I think a lot of misunderstanding occurs because there are certain personality styles at work that seem to inherently clash, i.e. obviously there is something about Alexander Bard's very performance as a subject that is off-putting to some, and it is important to remember that Bard's performativity is mostly designed to provoke, to pull out the darker elements in the other. But that is his own pathic cultivation of a concrete singularity. When you become what you are supposed to become (Nietzsche), and you really own your own spirit, it is impossible to please everyone, and many will find you off-putting for whatever reason. How many people found Nietzsche off-putting? Many. And he liked it that way. I see Bard's performativity as Nietzschean simply because he actually embodies a style and a stance that shows people what is already in themselves, yet only unconscious. As you stated in this talk, without Nietzsche, we would likely have no Freud. Maybe that is true, maybe not.... but it is certain that Nietzsche knew well the unconscious, and built his philosophy inclusive of ITS voice. Very rare or even totally absent in pre-Nietzschean philosophy. We should always remember that the unconscious is not a wild reservoir of archaic instincts but a realm of ideas that think and speak (often a thought and speech that is very ALIEN to the ego). In any case, in my own personal life I try to hold the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian spirits (which was Owen's main point in his contribution to the Dark Renaissance critique of Game B, i.e. Owen's contribution was a call to Nietzsche). We cannot have a "pure Apollonian" or a "pure Dionysian" (and anyway there is no such thing), we have to hold the tension between the two. For me, I do not think that the Dark Renaissance has a "Dionysian essence", I think it has an "essence of tension", we eternalize the antagonism between the Apollonian and the Dionysian and work with what we really are. In Bard's work this is the tension between logos and pathos. According to Bard, the tension between the logos and the pathos is what constitutes the becoming of the masculine. I know in my life, in a very practical day-to-day sense, my being oscillates between the two. I do not in any way sacrifice my logos by being pathic. I do not in anyway sacrifice my pathos by engaging logos. My logos is pathos (my speech to you right now), my pathos is logos (my speech to my woman tonight). For me this is very practical. Its about being alive. I'm alive, and the whole energy of my body is ok, I accept it, I own it. That doesn't mean I should just be a "fuck boy" or "beat up the mail man". What does it mean? It means that I own what I desire and I keep it safe. I do not repress what I desire. I speak it and come to terms with it. It means that if anyone ever does attempt to harm me or even worse, I will be ready to defend myself if need be, whether in pathos or in logos. Respectfully.

@TheDionysianFields 2 жыл бұрын

"If the human being does not have real transformative practices to be in touch with these base instincts, then there will inevitably be repression and, in my view, "idealistic pseudo-development" (i.e. development that calls itself development in abstract presuppositions, but in reality is just repression of base instincts and a fear of self)." "Embodied development has to actually work with what we are, and that does include aggressive impulses, and at the deepest levels, that also does include things like the desire to kill-fuck-eat as impulses." Much of what you're saying here reminds me of Rollo May's work, particularly the book Power and Innocence. But I would say we need to take it all a step further and actually cultivate these dark impulses/instincts which are largely beaten out of us by age 10. One must have it within them to kill if one aims to give birth (per chance, to a dancing star).

@TheDionysianFields 2 жыл бұрын

@@PhilosophyPortal I like Bard a lot, but I think he's dead wrong when he says women want sex more than intimacy.

@PhilosophyPortal 2 жыл бұрын

@@TheDionysianFields I agree with you. The opposite is true.

@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel 2 жыл бұрын

What a great way to spend a Friday night! After watching his recent talk with Dr. Last, I’m trying to watch everything I can that involves Layman Pascal, and it was very nice to see him speaking with you, Brendan, after your recent talk on Technosocial. I appreciate your willingness to engage with all these fine people, and, until your talk with Fraga and Owen, I didn't know you attended the Institute of Sacred Music-I have a few friends who did that back in the early 2010s who liked the program a lot. I know not everyone who attends necessarily does music, but do you happen to play an instrument? Wait, wait…you play banjo! Just found the videos! I play piano myself, and also sang in choir over ten years, though it’s been a long time since I’ve tried to hit some low bass notes… I see Dr. Last left a very good comment, and he put it very well that “‘higher development’ must be cultivated through a ‘division/split’ (requiring self-relating negativity) that is present within all ‘developmental levels.’" I found that remarkably articulate of the DR position, and I actually think a Game B / Dark Renaissance discussion focused specifically on that point would be extremely fruitful (in my opinion at least). From my viewings of Mr. Rutt, Mr. Hall at Guy’s channel, etc., I cannot get a clear reading on how much Game B would disagree with this Hegelian notion (I realize there are distinctions between Metamodernity and Game B, so forgive me for speaking as if there are not), or if they would actually agree with it, but perhaps using different terminology, etc. I think Cadell’s second point is also important here: DR is concerned that a failure to take “the split” seriously at all levels will result in a manifestation of power that is destructive. As I understand it, taking “the split” seriously is precisely to make sure that power does not become dominance as such. Anyway, I just wanted to say that this was a great listen, and I see you also have talks with Zack Stein and Gregg Henriques, both of whom I’m trying to listen to as much as I can this 2022. I look forward to checking those videos out-thanks for doing the work to make them possible!

@sensespacepodcast 2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like you're on a good trail!

@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel 2 жыл бұрын

@@sensespacepodcast Hopefully! I ended up typing out wayyyyyyyyyy too many pages about it, but I found the undertaking fruitful! I also finally had a chance last night to listen to the new discussion at The Stoa between DR and Game B and thought that was also illuminating regarding some of the points mentioned here. Anyway, thanks for the comment!

@keencole 2 жыл бұрын

I just want to pay respect to the way you both communicate, sounds like music. Brendan the way you frame and pose your questions or topics opens the folds of my own mind creating new synapses and Layman your breadth of information in constructing your responses is always both awe inspiring and so understandable. I appreciate the mastery you both possess very much.

@TheDionysianFields 2 жыл бұрын

Good talk. I completely understand Brendan's concerns here. Some ambiguity can elevate a body of work but when it reaches a certain threshold, that body can lose its value along with its prescriptive function. It might take on a different function--such as a brilliantly crafted Rorschach test--but we can no longer look to it for takeaway wisdom. Nietzsche pushes things right to that line and perhaps crosses it (though I still, personally, love his style). Of course, the thing about Nietzsche is that even if we omit all normative and prescriptive claims, the descriptive elements of his work alone give us enough to classify him a genius. And maybe that's where we should rest our focus and let the remainder serve as that Rorschach test. I couldn't help but think of this quote from Schindler's List in conjunction with Brendan's words down the stretch: "A man commits a crime, he should know better. We have him killed, we feel pretty good about it. Or we kill him ourselves and we feel even better. That's not power, though, that's justice. That's different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill -- and we don't. That's power. That's what the emperors had. A man stole something, he's brought in before the emperor, he throws himself down on the floor, he begs for mercy, he knows he's going to die... and the emperor pardons him. This worthless man. He lets him go. That's power. That's power." Power is the capacity to override the natural or prevailing order (or drive). Wisdom is knowing when and when not to.

@tinfoilhatscholar 11 ай бұрын

Power vs force. It's a good book, but also just a concept that I recommend you familiarize yourself with. Wholesome or delusional. This is a concept in Buddhism, which in some ways speaks for itself... The idea says there are only these two types of acting/actions, which raises the obvious question: who or what determines what is one or the other? For that, I will suggest that the value of actions should be weighed against their own outcome, within the context of the natural environment that houses the action. (A true basis of our fundamental reality being aligned to Nature, to life itself, is the trick in itself, where we must have a space for diversity within coherence) Good conversation, thanks for sharing.