Transnihilism, beyond thought

>{ Characterizing technological society as essentially nihilistic prejudges the whole question of what it is. }

Yes, I’ve always known this. No one is absolutely nihilistic. What was meant by nihilism was that it’s nihilism compared to medieval Faith. It’s not “total” nihilism — only a type of antinomian outlaw could come “close” to total nihilism.

>{ Such a dismayed reaction is as likely to close down thought about its nature as much as does any progressivism. }

Quite.
nihil

Incidentally, the novel I find is the mystical work of our late age is Neuromancer. I think it took me a while before I noticed the name means not only someone who does ‘neuroscience magic’, but also it means ‘new romancer’ (i.e. a new mythos, the word ‘romance’ after all is for medieval knight tales), and third ‘Neu Rom-ancer’.
The author is not an “occultist” or “esotericist” or much anything like that. but the work is alchemical. transformative. shamanic. esoteric. it gives a comparatively rootless society a mythos, in the movement it gets roots. the spirit is always here.
It so happens that there are actually Christians in the story. both esoteric vs. proselytizing.

>{ It has undermined our ability to think that there could be knowledge of what is in terms of which the justice of every possible action could be judged in advance}

Yes—this has been observed by me since I was a teenager. most folks somehow cannot see, about some things anyway, that they are true or not in their minds, while someone like i can.
I mean, that´s really the difference between a real philosopher vs. nondescript folks.
The real philosopher will know. know in his mind more surely than even those might who make schemas all their lives. People tend to confuse philosophy with mere thinking. Mere thinkers. They may be good thinkers, but not necessarily good philosophers.
13240097_832170840217377_7989006441704973075_n
if they cannot answer these questions in a significant way, they´re just thinkers.

 

The term nihilism was first used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). Jacobi used the term to characterize rationalism and in particular Immanuel Kant’s “critical” philosophy to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilism—and thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation.

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism]

To describe a destiny is not to judge it. It may indeed be, as many believe, that the development of that paradigm is a great step in the ascent of man, that it is the essence of human liberation, even that its development justifies the human experiment itself. Whatever the truth of these beliefs, the only point is that without this destiny, computers would not exist. And like all destinies, they ‘impose’. (22) Some modern thinkers state that beyond the rootlessness characteristic of the present early stages of technological society, human beings are now called to new ways of being rooted which will have passed through modern rootlessness, and will be able at one and the same time to accept the benefits of modern homogenization while living out a new form of heterogeneity. (24) Characterizing technological society as essentially nihilistic prejudges the whole question of what it is. Such a dismayed reaction is as likely to close down thought about its nature as much as does any progressivism. (29) “…technology is theontology of the age. Western peoples (and perhaps soon all peoples) take themselves as subjects confronting otherness as objects – objects lying as raw materials at the disposal of knowing and making subjects. Unless we comprehend the package deal we obscure from ourselves the central difficulty in our present destiny: we apprehend our destiny by forms of thought which are themselves the very core of that destiny. ‘When you see something technically sweet, you go ahead and do it’ (said Robert Oppenheimer).” (32-33) But the account of existence which arises from the modern co-penetration of knowing and making exalts the possible above what is. It has undermined our ability to think that there could be knowledge of what is in terms of which the justice of every possible action could be judged in advance of any possibly future: ‘Beyond all bargains, and without any alternative’.” (34)
George Grant, «Technology & Justice», University Notre Dame Press, 1986, Thinking about Technology
sam-harris-on-atheism-copy.png
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s