Gramsci and idealism

[AshvinP]

Gramsci analytical philosopher? "Cultural hegemony by ideological possession" as a primary mechanism of class society power hierarchy maintaining it's status quo sounds quite continental to me. And I don't think Gramsci would claim to be free of the ideological possessions of the Eurocentric cultural hegemony he (self-)criticizes. Zizek etc. continue to struggle with very similar notions of ideological possession and seek liberatory philosophizing.

What sort of perspective is Ayahuasca possession? We don't need to build a big theory to agree that in many psychotropic experiences human perspective is far from dominant, while the spiritual perspective, if such term sounds agreeable, engages and teaches deep philosophizing, wisdom seeking and wisdom learning. Deep truths, such as "All is Valuable", can emerge in crystallized linguistic forms.

Also Greek philosophy can hardly be understood in separation from Mysteries of Eleusis.

Still not sure if this addresses your point in any way. There's still loads of mutually unclarified presuppositions behind what "primarily non-human perspective" could mean.

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts. We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality. What is true of us now is even more true of ancient philosophers who barely even had a personal perspective, let alone one that could be freely integrated with non-human ones. Maybe that's not what Gramsci was saying, but that's how I understood him and that's what I also believe to be true. Nothing is set in stone, so these things can change, but I see no indications humanity is at that stage of spiritual development yet.

Ashvin, here is a thought experiment: Consider the statement, "I need to experience more nature." Did it trigger thoughts of a walk in the woods or of deep breathing? I'll bet it was the former even though, in fact, deep breathing is just as much an experience of nature. My point is that the word 'human' for you implies separation from nature and this is simply not true for all cultural mindsets. For myself, personally, becoming both more animal and more human are deeper plunges into nature.

No, it doesn't. You just desperately want to shoehorn a critique of "civilization" into every discussion on this forum, which I suspect is motivated by your politics and temperament more than anything else. Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

[SanteriSatama]

Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

Marx himself was only a dialectical materialist, not metaphysical/ontological such. Ethical motivation of his work was the psychological phenomenon of alienation, and Marx studied the "material" - ie. mathematical causation behind the phenomenon of alienation. "Fetish" is a word often used in relation to quantified valuations. Gramsci, another Marxist, subscribes to idealism and studies ideological possession.

What is the materialism you are talking about, Ashvin?

Also JayCee seems to have been highly critical of the fetish of quantified valuation, especially in the form of coinage. "Give to emperor what is emperor's!" could be today translated: "Let the Central Banks keep their money to themselves."

In the field of contemporary mathematical physics, also metaphysical/ontological materialism is at the bottom a phenomenon of fetish of quantified measuring and valuation. That's what "materialism" really means.

[AshvinP]

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts.

We could as well say that all the concepts we are expressing here are Spirit concepts. Or concepts in M@L.

We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality.

Peter Jordan's evolutionary psychology would push the start much much further to lobster etc. etc. perspectives...

We can only say that if we want to make the distinctions between human, non-human, MAL, etc. meaningless. Which may comprise a large part of what you want to do, but I prefer to keep them intact for awhile longer. There cannot be any discussion of evolutionary history without such distinctions.

[AshvinP]

Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

Marx himself was only a dialectical materialist, not metaphysical/ontological such. Ethical motivation of his work was the psychological phenomenon of alienation, and Marx studied the "material" - ie. mathematical causation behind the phenomenon of alienation. "Fetish" is a word often used in relation to quantified valuations. Gramsci, another Marxist, subscribes to idealism and studies ideological possession.

What is the materialism you are talking about, Ashvin?

Also JayCee seems to have been highly critical of the fetish of quantified valuation, especially in the form of coinage. "Give to emperor what is emperor's!" could be today translated: "Let the Central Banks keep their money to themselves."

In the field of contemporary mathematical physics, also metaphysical/ontological materialism is at the bottom a phenomenon of fetish of quantified measuring and valuation. That's what "materialism" really means.

I guess I am talking about "pragmatic materialism", which I define to be any worldview which makes one consider economics, politics, dynamics of money-power, etc. to be primary forces of evolution within human thought/cultures, and dynamics of conscious activity only secondary, tertiary, etc.

What is supremely ironic is that Jesus was pointing out precisely my concern here when saying "Render unto Caesar", i.e. do not confuse economics/politics of the Empire (or your equally abstract conception of "God") to be running the show.

[Lou Gold]

I see it (along with the Axial Age) as born out of scarcity conscious civilization, which occurred in several locations abot the same time when sedentary populations expanded to the point of tipping the biome from a previous abundance (that allowed permanent settlement) to a new scarcity for people who had lost hunter gatherer social structure and skills.

From wiki article on Axial age:
Anthropologist David Graeber has pointed out that "the core period of Jasper's Axial age [...] corresponds almost exactly to the period in which coinage was invented. What's more, the three parts of the world where coins were first invented were also the very parts of the world where those sages lived; in fact, they became the epicenters of Axial Age religious and philosophical creativity."[25] Drawing on the work of classicist Richard Seaford and literary theorist Marc Shell on the relation between coinage and early Greek thought, Graeber argues that an understanding of the rise of markets is necessary to grasp the context in which the religious and philosophical insights of the Axial age arose. The ultimate effect of the introduction of coinage was, he argues, an "ideal division of spheres of human activity that endures to this day: on the one hand the market, on the other, religion".[26]

In my view coinage affirms rather than disputes my interpretation. Still another step occurred a bit later when the grandson of Genghis Khan forcefully (on pain of death) introduced paper money. These were all steps in expanding and consolidating power, pretty much as Harari suggests, because these technologies of myth and fiction were capable of organizing more people. This orientation of power over leads to empire building colonialism and extractive conquest of 'natural resources', etc instead of achieving a balanced relationship with biome, which is the existential foundation of indigenous life. The quest for power-over does NOT feel compelling under conditions of secure abundance. It emerges into broad social forms under the insecurities of scarcity.

[Lou Gold]

The point is simple - everything we are writing now, all of the concepts we are expressing in this dialogue, are human concepts. We are always starting from the human perspective in philosophical argument, analytic, continental, whatever else, even if our argument is to deny the primacy of human perspective in metaphysical-spiritual reality. What is true of us now is even more true of ancient philosophers who barely even had a personal perspective, let alone one that could be freely integrated with non-human ones. Maybe that's not what Gramsci was saying, but that's how I understood him and that's what I also believe to be true. Nothing is set in stone, so these things can change, but I see no indications humanity is at that stage of spiritual development yet.

Ashvin, here is a thought experiment: Consider the statement, "I need to experience more nature." Did it trigger thoughts of a walk in the woods or of deep breathing? I'll bet it was the former even though, in fact, deep breathing is just as much an experience of nature. My point is that the word 'human' for you implies separation from nature and this is simply not true for all cultural mindsets. For myself, personally, becoming both more animal and more human are deeper plunges into nature.

No, it doesn't. You just desperately want to shoehorn a critique of "civilization" into every discussion on this forum, which I suspect is motivated by your politics and temperament more than anything else. Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

Not so. There were other civilizations that were restorative and even generative such as the terra preta civilizations of the central Amazon basin. My view is definitely not Marxist and I observe that development-oriented leftist governments have been ruthlessly destructive of intact biomes and indigenous peoples. I believe "your politics and temperament more than anything else" results in what you project as my views. Here is a fine documentary about terra preta civilization:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/1 ... rra-preta/

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, here is a thought experiment: Consider the statement, "I need to experience more nature." Did it trigger thoughts of a walk in the woods or of deep breathing? I'll bet it was the former even though, in fact, deep breathing is just as much an experience of nature. My point is that the word 'human' for you implies separation from nature and this is simply not true for all cultural mindsets. For myself, personally, becoming both more animal and more human are deeper plunges into nature.

No, it doesn't. You just desperately want to shoehorn a critique of "civilization" into every discussion on this forum, which I suspect is motivated by your politics and temperament more than anything else. Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

Not so. There were other civilizations that were restorative and even generative such as the terra preta civilizations of the central Amazon basin. My view is definitely not Marxist and I observe that development-oriented leftist governments have been ruthlessly destructive of intact biomes and indigenous peoples. I believe "your politics and temperament more than anything else" results in what you project as my views. Here is a fine documentary about terra preta civilization:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/1 ... rra-preta/

The notion that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization, philosophy and culture seems pretty Marxist to me, or at least Malthusian. Regardless of what we call it, I strongly disagree and also think it's a perilous way of conceiving it.

[Lou Gold]

No, it doesn't. You just desperately want to shoehorn a critique of "civilization" into every discussion on this forum, which I suspect is motivated by your politics and temperament more than anything else. Ironically, it is the Marxist materialist view of human history that separates and alienates us from nature as it can find nothing of value in our spiritual evolution or denies any such evolution is even happening.

Not so. There were other civilizations that were restorative and even generative such as the terra preta civilizations of the central Amazon basin. My view is definitely not Marxist and I observe that development-oriented leftist governments have been ruthlessly destructive of intact biomes and indigenous peoples. I believe "your politics and temperament more than anything else" results in what you project as my views. Here is a fine documentary about terra preta civilization:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/1 ... rra-preta/

The notion that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization, philosophy and culture seems pretty Marxist to me, or at least Malthusian. Regardless of what we call it, I strongly disagree and also think it's a perilous way of conceiving it.

Once again you project. I never said "that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization." All civilizations -- Western or not -- were once indigenous and there was a great diversity of ways. Some regenerating and even enhancing their biome. Others focused on resource extraction and exploitation. Some facing a state change from resource abundance to scarcity (caused either by population increase, climate change or whatever) were driven to seek power and developed the means and habits and consciousness to do so. This happen in several global locations at a time called the Axial Age. A certain civilized adaptation called power over nature and others emerged. Because they were more powerful, they became the conquering empire-building colonizing ones. Just as life loves life, power loves power. That Materialism should become dominant should be no surprise, simply because it is powerful. At least, for awhile.

[AshvinP]

Not so. There were other civilizations that were restorative and even generative such as the terra preta civilizations of the central Amazon basin. My view is definitely not Marxist and I observe that development-oriented leftist governments have been ruthlessly destructive of intact biomes and indigenous peoples. I believe "your politics and temperament more than anything else" results in what you project as my views. Here is a fine documentary about terra preta civilization:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/1 ... rra-preta/

The notion that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization, philosophy and culture seems pretty Marxist to me, or at least Malthusian. Regardless of what we call it, I strongly disagree and also think it's a perilous way of conceiving it.

Once again you project. I never said "that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization." All civilizations -- Western or not -- were once indigenous and there was a great diversity of ways. Some regenerating and even enhancing their biome. Others focused on resource extraction and exploitation. Some facing a state change from resource abundance to scarcity (caused either by population increase, climate change or whatever) were driven to seek power and developed the means and habits and consciousness to do so. This happen in several global locations at a time called the Axial Age. A certain civilized adaptation called power over nature and others emerged. Because they were more powerful, they became the conquering empire-building colonizing ones. Just as life loves life, power loves power. That Materialism should become dominant should be no surprise, simply because it is powerful. At least, for awhile.

You just restated exactly what I claimed you were stating, so no projection going on here. The Axial Age was the beginning of non-indigenous Western civilization.

[Lou Gold]

The notion that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization, philosophy and culture seems pretty Marxist to me, or at least Malthusian. Regardless of what we call it, I strongly disagree and also think it's a perilous way of conceiving it.

Once again you project. I never said "that resource abundance-scarcity dynamic drove all of non-indigenous Western civilization." All civilizations -- Western or not -- were once indigenous and there was a great diversity of ways. Some regenerating and even enhancing their biome. Others focused on resource extraction and exploitation. Some facing a state change from resource abundance to scarcity (caused either by population increase, climate change or whatever) were driven to seek power and developed the means and habits and consciousness to do so. This happen in several global locations at a time called the Axial Age. A certain civilized adaptation called power over nature and others emerged. Because they were more powerful, they became the conquering empire-building colonizing ones. Just as life loves life, power loves power. That Materialism should become dominant should be no surprise, simply because it is powerful. At least, for awhile.

You just restated exactly what I claimed you were stating, so no projection going on here. The Axial Age was the beginning of non-indigenous Western civilization.