A pleasant talk about nasty things with Harrison Koehli of SOTT. [Evil Exists and Needs to Be Studied, Difficult Times Lead to Difficult Questions, Augustine Was Wrong, Reexamining Our Givens, etc.]
I have reached halfway through the podcast, so far.
Harrison sounds very much like Greg Johnson to my ears. Maybe they grew up in the same region. Rolo's MCing instead reminds me of the voiceover in Vertigo Politix videos, and I don't think I could be more flattering.
The observation about the existence of people without internal dialogue is adjacent to the much debated topic of IQ statistics. Now it's commonplace among dissidents, but denial of 'tabula rasa' is key for changing perspective from the egalitarian point of view we all start from. Or nearly all, because I think affluent people get to understand they need to avoid the peasants (lower and middle classes) quickly and clearly enough during their upbringing. Perhaps it even happens explicitly, with their parents giving them "the talk" about inferiors, I'd bet on that.
Dostoevskij is very readable, come on. Much easier to read him than philosophic treatises, or Ernst Junger's essays. Probably the literary Russian is the problem. Why not read him in English? The Gambler and Notes from Underground are his most enjoyable stories for a contemporary reader, in my opinion. Outside of the 'big 5 Doestoevskij's books' canon, of course.
Great conversation! You touched on topics of great importance. I was especially delighted that you brought up the hypotheses Laurent Guyénot presents in From_Yahweh_to_Zion. I'd love to go deeper into those. I see the genesis of much of today's institutionalized evil in the weaponization of the Yahweh story by pathocrats.
I’ve listened to this podcast twice (second time with pen and paper) it was so enlightening. The last 20 or so minutes were particularly good. I myself have pretty much thrown the baby out with the bath water as you said, simply for lack of time/energy to consider the problem of evil in this world and it’s true nature. You both gave me some good starting points, thank you for that.
Sep 13, 2022·edited Sep 13, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
Thanks for this great conversation. I am little past half way of the podcast (not done yet), so what I will say might be redundant if already covered during the discussion. I think Free Will is not a binary choice between two polarities. It’s probably more akin to a multidimensional decision system. Logic only plays a part. Goodness is discovered through this process, trial and error felt very deeply in our souls, and conducing to an accumulation of knowledge/wisdom, non destructible and with a positive feedback loop. And I agree with Harrison’s comment, that this can only be discovered and reasoned about empirically, through experience (spiritual experience). In this way, the Agustinian (also the same axiom by Meister Eckhardt) that God only delivers us Evil in order to avoid bigger evils starts to make sense. The experience of Love, of the Immortality of the Soul… this is crucial. I think Gurdjieff was also quite clear about the streams of Good and Evil. And Chris Langan says that Evil is the necessary border of God, and that it is incoherent and only capable of action in the World through it’s influence on humans.
Rolo, you are reaching some very valuable conclusions.
I don't have an academic enough background to duplicate easily your use of terms like "metaphysical" or "gnostic."
I am visiting you via Harrison who I think I found out about via "secular heretic."
I found out about Political Ponerology through Laura Knight-Jadczyk and I was looking at her because of her "ET" contact work that was developing a longer timeline for human-like life in this universe.
I got into an interest in the extended human timeline through my study of Scientology. Refer to "History of Man."
Laura and the people working in SOTT has taken a very scholarly approach to this whole problem (except for the Cassiopaeans). Laura has apparently met Scientologists and was not impressed. But the intellectual aspect of Scientology is not something that just jumps up and grabs you. Scientology was built on the desire to find a technology for achieving sanity (spiritual freedom) and not for building a deep or complex Theory of Everything.
You don't need a PhD in physics to use a simple machine (or even a smart phone!). I find that intellectuals tend to get caught up in theory at the expense of ever achieving practical results. I have an electronics background, and for me thinking about something isn't good enough. We need technologies that get results.
(every blog is different - this one seems to cut off long comments...)
We don't need God or The Devil to handle the problems of human sanity. We need a technology that really can handle the problems of human sanity. I think we have such a technology. That technology happens to be based on the idea that we are immortal spiritual beings using bodies to have an experience. This basic finding ties into academic work done with children who remember past lives. So that is one of your bridges between academic work and spiritual work.
For me, the fact is that this Spirit-based model of human life (and life in general) leads to answers to many basic questions in a very powerful way. I invite all who visit here to consider looking into this line of thinking.
To carry on with the conversation a bit: "We have to revise the whole model." That's true.
"Evil" is not an either/or choice! It is derived from playing games with other beings. When you break your brother's toy he will try to make you believe you were "bad" for doing that, even though he breaks plenty of his own toys and that most of them could easily be replaced for $5. Extend that out to larger "destructive acts" and you eventually end up with a segment of the population that stops fighting the idea that they are "bad" and just start going for it.
You have taken time to seek out those scholars who would find discrepancies in the OT. Have you interacted w/ material of those scholars who promote organic unity within OT and by extension NT?
I'm hearing your ideas. I've also read OT many times through. I do not find the ideas you postulate readily represented by overall content and narrative.
--------------------
It is refreshing to hear people still talk of evil as a real thing. One concern though... at the end of the day, your definition of evil must still have teeth. If you say that a person is evil, that label, to be useful must:
1) ...imply that it's of a moral nature. A hungry lion who eats a human is not evil. A bag of tubes and gore that simply follows the dictates of fizzing chemicals in the head, cannot yet be evil.
2) ...imply that a person must not be evil. If you call someone evil and he just shrugs his shoulders and say, "ok... so now tell me what color are my socks, and why should that matter?" then we have a very useless label. You can label that person "dangerous" or "sick". But to call them evil should imply that they ought not be so.
I think the first question that must be wrestled with is can you have good and evil w/ out a moral law giver.
I have reached halfway through the podcast, so far.
Harrison sounds very much like Greg Johnson to my ears. Maybe they grew up in the same region. Rolo's MCing instead reminds me of the voiceover in Vertigo Politix videos, and I don't think I could be more flattering.
The observation about the existence of people without internal dialogue is adjacent to the much debated topic of IQ statistics. Now it's commonplace among dissidents, but denial of 'tabula rasa' is key for changing perspective from the egalitarian point of view we all start from. Or nearly all, because I think affluent people get to understand they need to avoid the peasants (lower and middle classes) quickly and clearly enough during their upbringing. Perhaps it even happens explicitly, with their parents giving them "the talk" about inferiors, I'd bet on that.
Dostoevskij is very readable, come on. Much easier to read him than philosophic treatises, or Ernst Junger's essays. Probably the literary Russian is the problem. Why not read him in English? The Gambler and Notes from Underground are his most enjoyable stories for a contemporary reader, in my opinion. Outside of the 'big 5 Doestoevskij's books' canon, of course.
Great conversation! You touched on topics of great importance. I was especially delighted that you brought up the hypotheses Laurent Guyénot presents in From_Yahweh_to_Zion. I'd love to go deeper into those. I see the genesis of much of today's institutionalized evil in the weaponization of the Yahweh story by pathocrats.
Congrats on the podcast,one step closer to being interviewed on sott lol.Props to Harrison for continuing to reach out to the dissident right.
I’ve listened to this podcast twice (second time with pen and paper) it was so enlightening. The last 20 or so minutes were particularly good. I myself have pretty much thrown the baby out with the bath water as you said, simply for lack of time/energy to consider the problem of evil in this world and it’s true nature. You both gave me some good starting points, thank you for that.
https://www.jerrymarzinsky.com/
https://www.truthseekah.com/jerry-marzinsky/
Thanks for this great conversation. I am little past half way of the podcast (not done yet), so what I will say might be redundant if already covered during the discussion. I think Free Will is not a binary choice between two polarities. It’s probably more akin to a multidimensional decision system. Logic only plays a part. Goodness is discovered through this process, trial and error felt very deeply in our souls, and conducing to an accumulation of knowledge/wisdom, non destructible and with a positive feedback loop. And I agree with Harrison’s comment, that this can only be discovered and reasoned about empirically, through experience (spiritual experience). In this way, the Agustinian (also the same axiom by Meister Eckhardt) that God only delivers us Evil in order to avoid bigger evils starts to make sense. The experience of Love, of the Immortality of the Soul… this is crucial. I think Gurdjieff was also quite clear about the streams of Good and Evil. And Chris Langan says that Evil is the necessary border of God, and that it is incoherent and only capable of action in the World through it’s influence on humans.
evil, interesting word, more tends toward being a belief in a concept backstopped by the evidence that there exists a word for the concept...
so, twist that inverted then evil becomes reverse engineered defined based on chasing the underlying concept...
to maybe what is a psychopath, what describes the psychological dungeon/setting that the psychopath finds lush empowerment within...
Rolo, you are reaching some very valuable conclusions.
I don't have an academic enough background to duplicate easily your use of terms like "metaphysical" or "gnostic."
I am visiting you via Harrison who I think I found out about via "secular heretic."
I found out about Political Ponerology through Laura Knight-Jadczyk and I was looking at her because of her "ET" contact work that was developing a longer timeline for human-like life in this universe.
I got into an interest in the extended human timeline through my study of Scientology. Refer to "History of Man."
Laura and the people working in SOTT has taken a very scholarly approach to this whole problem (except for the Cassiopaeans). Laura has apparently met Scientologists and was not impressed. But the intellectual aspect of Scientology is not something that just jumps up and grabs you. Scientology was built on the desire to find a technology for achieving sanity (spiritual freedom) and not for building a deep or complex Theory of Everything.
You don't need a PhD in physics to use a simple machine (or even a smart phone!). I find that intellectuals tend to get caught up in theory at the expense of ever achieving practical results. I have an electronics background, and for me thinking about something isn't good enough. We need technologies that get results.
(every blog is different - this one seems to cut off long comments...)
We don't need God or The Devil to handle the problems of human sanity. We need a technology that really can handle the problems of human sanity. I think we have such a technology. That technology happens to be based on the idea that we are immortal spiritual beings using bodies to have an experience. This basic finding ties into academic work done with children who remember past lives. So that is one of your bridges between academic work and spiritual work.
For me, the fact is that this Spirit-based model of human life (and life in general) leads to answers to many basic questions in a very powerful way. I invite all who visit here to consider looking into this line of thinking.
To carry on with the conversation a bit: "We have to revise the whole model." That's true.
"Evil" is not an either/or choice! It is derived from playing games with other beings. When you break your brother's toy he will try to make you believe you were "bad" for doing that, even though he breaks plenty of his own toys and that most of them could easily be replaced for $5. Extend that out to larger "destructive acts" and you eventually end up with a segment of the population that stops fighting the idea that they are "bad" and just start going for it.
Honest question.
You have taken time to seek out those scholars who would find discrepancies in the OT. Have you interacted w/ material of those scholars who promote organic unity within OT and by extension NT?
I'm hearing your ideas. I've also read OT many times through. I do not find the ideas you postulate readily represented by overall content and narrative.
--------------------
It is refreshing to hear people still talk of evil as a real thing. One concern though... at the end of the day, your definition of evil must still have teeth. If you say that a person is evil, that label, to be useful must:
1) ...imply that it's of a moral nature. A hungry lion who eats a human is not evil. A bag of tubes and gore that simply follows the dictates of fizzing chemicals in the head, cannot yet be evil.
2) ...imply that a person must not be evil. If you call someone evil and he just shrugs his shoulders and say, "ok... so now tell me what color are my socks, and why should that matter?" then we have a very useless label. You can label that person "dangerous" or "sick". But to call them evil should imply that they ought not be so.
I think the first question that must be wrestled with is can you have good and evil w/ out a moral law giver.