neoenlightenment-blog

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Hearts

There is too much uncertainty. Tonight I extended my heart, placed it on a dish, knowing full well it would be pushed away. The fruit was not ripe, no... it was rotting, full of caverns and exceedingly sweet, no one would want that fruit. How do you save a fruit that is lost? The fruit falls to the earth from the serving platter, dying in the heat of the summer sun. And when formless, it seeps back into the ground, it will nourish the earth. Maybe with good luck it could nourish a tree, give its life to a new fruit, a new heart. This is by no means a short process. It is a process with many stages of death and rebirth, but with good fortune the joyous taste of a ripe heart yields so much more pleasure than all the time that was invested into its birth and growth. The heart is taken on the dish and becomes truly appreciated, has meaning. 

Who knows, maybe the heart was never meant to be served. Who said it was to be served?

What a wicked game you play, to make you feel this way. 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Birth

Mind untamed, one which conquers all, Body new, sleek, angled, and lean,  World too large, it designs your fall,  Time is of essence, make your move seen. 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Fear

It seems evident to many that weakness and fear would be married together. I do not think so. To understand weakness one must understand the nature of their incapacity, whereas fear is of the unknown. Both represent incapacity. The inability or lack of access to a solution. Yet within weakness one is able to diagnose where the cancer is stemming from, or through thorough examination at least deduce the pain to a certain facet of life. Fear on the other hand is far more elusive, for as we profess one fear being that of the unknown, it is more fitting that all fear is of the unknown, all fear exists on the uncertainty and foreign nature of the situation. Fear writhes along our skin for we do not know and can not know what the future will hold, and with the vague and dubious mirage what comes we are without any means to prevent or combat what fears us most. There is the chance that it may not even eventuate, to compare it to a tumour is again apt, for there is the potential it will remain benign, or explode into a malignant mess towards which no solution can be tended. Fear and weakness exist relative to time, weakness is the past tense, and in our hindsight perhaps the wise will remedy such debilitations. To remedy the future is a game for the far more cunning, and regardless of any intelligence, intuition or foresight, still one that all will lose - to deal with absolutes in the presence is to project them onto the future, which is inevitably flawed. Thus those who do combat the fear of the future must be fluid, they must become liquid gold lacquering the chips and deformities produced by the wheel of time. Those without liquid gold will not be able to fight the future of their fear. 

So, tell me now of your fear you would enquire. I say that all should fear, for without fear one cannot be fearless. Fearlessness is not the absence of fear, no it is the absolute embrace of fear and an understanding that we must fight the future with every means. To be without fear is something afforded, or more precisely cursed upon the decadent, through the champagne and coke smeared lens of our society we have learnt to forget fear. Through the economic fortunes we have learnt to forget fear. Through idealism we have forgotten fear. What it is to be truly afraid. It is the idealism of the post war era that has ushered us into a gleaming chamber of pure glass. We sit in this chamber and relish, some mock or claim its design distasteful, yet sit all the same in the privilege and brilliance of our new home. The new earth of infinite electrification of our good, to our houses, to our minds, we sit in the glass and can see nothing but the reflection. And so when the glass begins to crack, as all glass must, for the course of the future holds that man is always temporal, as it cracks I ask you what flows through the lacerated 21st century decadence. It is the blood, and now we will fear, for we have forgotten blood, yes we have forgotten what true blood is. Blood is fear, and in the sterility of our modern age we have forgotten that our entire world, the glass house, is surrounded by blood. What is blood? Evidently to see it flow means there is weakness, show me a person who bleeds and rejoices in their own strength. No, blood is the core realisation that all is not well, that there is indeed a problem. How much blood flows is usually a good indicator of how severe the issue is. And let me tell you, our glass house will contain nothing but blood after its flood. 

Why do I fear? I fear because I believe we have forgotten blood, we have forgotten ourselves, and in the gilded cages of the modern age all of us are immune to the true potential of man. There is nothing that man is more adept at than spilling our own blood. This is why I fear. I fear because I know we are weak, and I know that the time that in the current state our modern people will not stand the tide of the incoming storm. I fear because we have forgotten fear. We do not know what it is like to fight for materials, to fight for shelter, to fight for land, or even now I think we have forgotten how to fight for our beliefs. I believe that struggle and pain are a necessity for us as humans to actually recognise the fundamental constrictions of what we are. We, even the strongest of us, are by many standards weak. This is something that has been resolved through our astounding intellect and ingenuity, though our societies have never been stable. The entire history of mans success runs the same course as its failures, the two are inseparable. However I fear that in our enormous and prolonged success of the true “belle epoque” of the new millennium we have forgotten what it is like to fair. I fear that we do not have the losers psychology, I fear that we do not have an adequate psychology or understanding of weakness. For when the ivory towers of our new age shatter into dust, it is only those borne out of struggle, loss, and those who can combat weakness who could resolve our cataclysmic loss. By no means am I suggesting the world is on the precipice of decline or non-existence, but I believe the huge extents of our success have alienated us from our real human weakness. And in the decline, as all empires do decline we will not be equipped to pick up the pieces. 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Weakness

Gilded weakness, a trait championed within the modern world. To regurgitate Nietzsche, of which I cannot profess to be well versed, it is the slave morality and mentality that has infiltrated the psyche of the modern citizen. However let me clarify this, penetrated the mindset of the victor. An identity crisis of the victor. Indeed there are few examples in the world that champion the false “humanism” of the neo-liberal dogma spat at the general public from the ivory towers of the media and the pseudo-intellectuals of academia. A key element of this “humanism” is intimating oneself with weakness. 

Initially to conceptualise the modern notion of weakness one must differentiate it from its predecessor. There, with the death of modernism is a divergence in the idea of what weakness is, a modern rendition far different than the inferred constancy of the older more traditional weakness. The traditional concept of weakness alludes to an incapacity... an incapacity in any sense, whether it be physical, psychological, or intellectual - none of which were revelled in or accepted. It must also be noted that in this traditional sense weakness existed primarily as the absence of strength, and therefore in an older, linear, and less examined construct the will to power, to strength, and to remedy of such weakness was seen as a noble pursuit. Within the old psychology there existed an honour, romance, and impetus for the individual to conquer the elements of the self or society that proved detrimental to themselves - this was seen as a natural course of humanity. Indeed it is the challenge of ourselves and environ that meant we could progress to any example of civilisation anyway. 

Though in contrast the primary change in the psychology of weakness through the post modern years and into the contemporary, is the addition of acceptance to the old robust equation. It is the predisposition of our modern world to do the reckoning with “weakness” through acceptance, justifying the weakness as insurmountable and diverting all explanation to the absurdity and fatalism of the human condition. This is seen within all spheres and especially a penchant of the intersectional schools of thought. They present all weakness, disenfranchisement, and inequality as insurmountable as an individual, deflecting all attention to the importance of societal injustice and inequity. This precludes any idea of individual struggle against the odds, rather surrendering to the hopelessness of the status quo, or engaging in a struggle against the status quo. By no means should the status quo not be challenged, yet there exists increasingly a culture who will throw perfunctory jabs at the status quo to justify their own weak and disenfranchised positions and then retreat into their position of righteous incompatibility with society and the moral high ground. Though their moral high ground exists on the same absurd synthetic social construct as the one that they are contending with. The struggle is never against the self, yet when it is much can still be achieved. Indeed it is the necessity of the weak, ones weak by virtue of the society they live in to fight within the status quo to actively undermine it. To struggle against the self, to conform, this is a sign of great strength, for a fabricated conformity is never real conformity, conformity is defined by its lacklustre ease, for it is natural, thus there exists nobility to the optimism of the conformer. They never truly conform. This is the struggle of man. This is the struggle against weakness. Though the herd is strong, and through focusing on weakness, ailment, the illness of society they never carve the pathway to success. 

Let us compare humanity in a broader sense. The materialistic revolution has reduced the instinctual drive to survive, which some would argue is freedom in itself, freedom through provision. But in the developed world where the post modern schools of thought actually and almost exclusively have sunk their talons, this materialism means the “struggle” within our lives is marginal by comparison to a century ago. To pretend the struggle of man could anywhere near rival the primordial battles of the ancient peoples of this planet is deluded. But, the intersectional schools of thought with their absolute and unwavering devotion to “equity” have decided that in this time of provision there are many individuals, that despite coping with the most comfortable living conditions ever realised by man would never be able to raise themselves out of this perceived injustice. Utter fucking bullshit. The world is the oyster of us all. By no means do I live in this ivory castle, I have known struggle since the early days of my family. By no means do I compare myself to the everyman, I have also been lucky, but indeed there is no everyman. All of us struggle and all of us have the potential to overcome such struggle. But the philosophy adopted by academia today is stifling the efforts of young minds whilst they are in their cribs, in their infancy, by undermining the struggle as ultimately irrelevant given the circumstances of the society we live in. The psychology of weakness is deciding the fate of the youth before they can blossom, or even attempt to blossom because any culture that promoted struggle has been strangled by the modern ideological state. 

It is the strength of man that is born in the fire of struggle, tempered by pain, and glistening in the blood of our forefathers. We live in a culture who would dismiss the pain and suffering that afforded our collective privilege to exist in the world today. This psychological tumour has swelled within the West. It is malignant and untreated. Once the victors of the entire world there is now a constant acceptance of inadequacy. Our victories of a bygone era are inadequate through the lens of the modern and “civilised” man. But let this “civilised” man of today know that every amenity and despised “privileges” that they would never actually forfeit were achieved through the blood, minds, and steel of their ancestors. At not time in human history has this weakness been so corrupted. Weakness should be the motivation for strength, now it is venerated as justice for past oppression. Oppression is contingent on victory. Our weakness today is a violent reaction to being the winner. Western civilisation is the globe, and is Europe, but now we are perverting the achievements borne out of the struggle of our forefathers by accepting weakness as our new status quo. By any rate it is evident the weak will always lose. We stand at the crossroads. A divide where we can acknowledge the history as the history that it is and accept the pragmatism that is so necessary in the modern world for the evolution of the greatest enlightenment man has ever seen. Alternatively, there are dark forces that wish to compete with the great legacy that the enlightenment has brought, dark forces who are bitter, who bore the brunt and injustice of such unabated power, who stand on a new precipice, ready to annihilate everything I have raised in this short discourse. To bring back ages of extreme oppression, unlike anything witnessed by modern eyes. Then too, the neo-liberal culture who prey so much on the injustice of their forefathers will perish all the same. We are collectively weak. Unity is needed. We must look to to weakness as a motivation for strength, not as an insurmountable disadvantage. 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Solitude

A vast portion of literature and the arts that are revered in society today were born in the remote plains of solitude. Most often this is inferred to be a voluntary solitude, and is romanticised. Crucial examples include the Thoreau, the early monastic tradition, Nietzsche and various other artists and romantic writers. Though I am admittedly not well versed with all of these different strains of cultural aspects I often consider the role of solitude within my own life. 

The pressure to engage in social pursuits is pronounced dramatically by the advent of social media. The constancy of exposure to other peoples social interactions presents an inflated portrayal of how the average person spends their time. Though this effect is easy to acknowledge, deep down the dissatisfaction at seeing a synthetic consistency to social gatherings is only detrimental to us as a generation. There is no longer any emphasis, nor actual ideas on how or why one should spend their time alone. I have been hard pressed since returning from a journey overseas to spend as much time with my friends as possible, however I often wonder whether I am fulfilling a synthesised and societally constructed desire as opposed to any actual interests in the company. The digital revolution seems to have exclusively favoured quantity over quality within a social sphere, namely within social media. The existence of a single world defying inseparable bond between a pair of people cannot be conveyed in FB likes, though there would be many advocates of a single relationship of steel and iron than many hundreds made from the brittle fibres of wood and the soft strands of cotton. And so, this illusion of friendship naturally favours quantity over quality, and I have therefore tricked myself into believing I am social animal, yet engaging in a social world where the exchange between my friends and I is of a currency that is nearly meaningless. And so, the call of solitude becomes more pronounced, and though there are advocates for solitude, my opinion is very conflicted. 

Solitude scares me in its most pure form, often because the primary elements associate with it are loneliness and detachment. Ironically I believe the move to solitude may only be a worthwhile and effective one when your are content with the social interactions that you are currently having, as opposed to a withdrawal into the self. It plagues me that so many of the philosophers and people who advocated the detachment of philosophy may have done so because they were fundamentally incapable of forming meaningful bonds within a normal social group. Who is to say that any of these justifications for solitude were truly voluntary, or are they the result of disaffection with the social climate to which they were originally a part. How can any philosophy that purports to have any utilitarian element to it justify solitude when it is clearly a means of escapism from the group. Solitude by its very core cannot be removed from escapism, the motivation to abandon all connection contradicts a social life as being totally beneficial. Making an evaluation of the merits of either is far beyond my scope and experience, however it seems that to have a beneficial solitary experience there must have first been some semblance of compatibility with the social world you are declining. As a result, whilst the attraction and beckoning of solitude tempts me, luring me away, I resist, knowing that I must first be at ease and fulfilment with my current social sphere. There is no denying that we are instinctually geared towards each other, it also seems so absurd that we are so effective at destroying and impeding the amicable existence with others. 

Though it also seems that solitude and philosophy in the modern age are inherently at odds. There are not many instances of what we would regard as a high functioning socialite resigning themselves to solitude. Indeed, it seems that the vast majority of those who are at the peak of social hierarchies have a natural gift of indifference. The ability to disregard or dismiss any thoughts of a higher plane is a crucial mechanism in the perfect clockwork of social animals. To invest little interest in anything and to be fluid with everything ensures a perfect synchronicity with the plethora of characters that they would engage with. Therefore it is mostly above the social animal to even contemplate notions of solitude. The success of the social animal is expounded by the ease in which they approach everything, the indifference, and indifference which negates the entire premise of solitude. Solitude is not at ease. Solitude regardless of the satisfaction in your own social climate is always motivated by the need to escape. The social animal does not have such a need. I am often worried that though the social animal is the inheritor of much within society, the philosopher by even contemplation at all precludes their inferiority in a social aspect. Why would they ever need to run. Here lies my largest irritant with the concept of solitude. My inclination to run is born out of the insecurity of my current position. 

The great cultural figures of aeons past are relevant today because of their innate ability to stand out. Many stand out by their solitude. However it is my belief there is a flaw at the core of their isolation. They exist today as “greats” because they were different, however with the focus on the social society as a necessity for man, who is to say they were fulfilled or satisfied. I do not believe the different are content, the conformed are the content. The different fight and struggle against the dominant discourse of the conformed in areas such as solitude, but the bliss lays with the conformed. Life is short, who was more fulfilled? 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Why?

It’s currently 2:08am and I think with the course of the page established it is probably best to illuminate why I’ve decided to do it. At the moment I am totally broken. A fragmented, shattered, and small version of myself. Ultimately I am weak, and this is why I must fight to regain strength, to build. I feel there is much concession in the world today, that if one is weak this is the end state, it can be accepted and catered for. No longer is there such a motivation to grow, why grow when stagnation is acceptable. I have no desire to accept my weakness, I acknowledge it and I have every intention of destroying it. That said, I do not have every confidence I will be able to endure through the hardest part, the start. Within every strand of writing you should be able to taste the apprehension, uncertainty, and hesitation of my current character. These are things born out of the decadence of my life. Regardless, through a channeled attentiveness to myself and the world around me hopefully such etches within  my character can be erased. Who knows. Though I doubt (I doubt ha!) anyone would have particular interest in the journey I intend to embark on, as a courtesy to the “community” feel we have here, I’ll disclose a little about myself. 

I’m an arrogant, pretentious, lucky, lower-class, 19yo private school ass. The last two are a contradiction, but hey; the truth. I have periods of absolute confidence in myself, and slumps where the reality of my limited understanding of the world becomes a little more apparent. My politics and philosophy are in an entirely formative state, yet I have an absolute detestation for neo-liberal dogma and the “velvet ideology” that has “softly” indoctrinated the vast majority of my peers and company. Am I a communist? Am I a fascist? Am I alive? All of these are good questions. Hopefully within the duration of this page some of that will become more transparent. Unfortunately my fascination with politics seems to diminish the existence of my actual personality sometimes. Which means who I am can disappear quite quickly. I have a lot of friends, but play the game. Unfortunately my only hobby at the moment is going out and drinking with the occasional line of cocaine or a bit of acid. Do I believe in God? I don’t know. Do I get enough sex? Probably, but it isn’t fulfilling and so I’m in a violent cycling process at the moment.  With these things said there is evidently impetus for a more constructive hobby - writing perhaps! Is this a comprehensive description or one that does justice to myself - probably not. However as aforementioned, the tumour that are some of my insecurities veil any helpful attempt to display who I truly am. Because mostly I do not know anymore. 

Enjoy and stick with me - maybe we’ll learn something!

Or alternatively it concerns me that a public platform may diminish the brutality of what I want to write. I suppose we will have to see. 

[neoenlightenment-blog]

Introduction

Hopefully this post inaugurates something much larger to come. The intention of this page is primarily cathartic - to shed some light on the contemporary world in my own perspective. The irony of doing it on Tumblr, a medium so pursuant to neo-liberal dogma is not over my head. Regardless hopefully I learn something. In essence the page intends to engage with all manner of subjects, from politics to philosophy to general living. Out of all of these I don’t know very much, hence why I’m here, so I can maybe pull myself from the mindless assertion of opinion and rhetoric that is my life. In the event anyone wants to tag along... feel free.