8 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Father Zosima on Taking Offense

  1. So true, wonderfully true. Also, I understand, we tend to get wet when standing in the rain. More truth that we safely may hold to be self-evident comes from the Economist; The looming crisis in human genetics:

    We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

    If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

    Folks, but just what is he talking about? Just kidding–we do know. Suffering ahead for the milksops of human kindness, again. Curious; as the Catholic Church abandons resistance to science, it hands over the baton to the perverted, regressive Left. A no-nonsense approach to catastrophes being the only possible way to improvement, our mushy-minded, teary-eyed empathisers with alien suffering[1]–and hey, the ailing self– will go with more of the murderous, demented same–development aid, anyone? Transfer of funds to third world oligarchy via our middle classes climactic climate visions? Humanisation of our materialistic and cold society via import of noble Islamic intuition, and its bearers? Blinded, crippled juggernauts of the noble, savage self, projected onto multicoloured puppets; hopeless and sterile, crushing what hope there could be there, maiming ourselves here in the process, feeling great anyway. Sort of. Of course, here, we’re not of the vulgar kind that takes vulgar action and peddles pamphlets, no, we just keep mum on the subject and deem impolite the society that doesn’t. Who said that silent moral majorities are for right wingers only? Why should they have all the fun? We want to party, too.

    Übernächstenliebe, as Martin Walser put it aptly

    Like

  2. So true, wonderfully true. Also, I understand, we tend to get wet when standing in the rain. More truth that we safely may hold to be self-evident comes from the Economist; The looming crisis in human genetics:

    We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

    If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

    Folks, but just what is he talking about? Just kidding–we do know. Suffering ahead for the milksops of human kindness, again. Curious; as the Catholic Church abandons resistance to science, it hands over the baton to the perverted, regressive Left. A no-nonsense approach to catastrophes being the only possible way to improvement, our mushy-minded, teary-eyed empathisers with alien suffering[1]–and hey, the ailing self– will go with more of the murderous, demented same–development aid, anyone? Transfer of funds to third world oligarchy via our middle classes climactic climate visions? Humanisation of our materialistic and cold society via import of noble Islamic intuition, and its bearers? Blinded, crippled juggernauts of the noble, savage self, projected onto multicoloured puppets; hopeless and sterile, crushing what hope there could be there, maiming ourselves here in the process, feeling great anyway. Sort of. Of course, here, we’re not of the vulgar kind that takes vulgar action and peddles pamphlets, no, we just keep mum on the subject and deem impolite the society that doesn’t. Who said that silent moral majorities are for right wingers only? Why should they have all the fun? We want to party, too.

    Übernächstenliebe, as Martin Walser put it aptly

    Like

  3. Just one more thing. I was hooked on Dostoyevsky when I was in my twenties, I’m not anymore. Just thinking on, say, Prince Myshkin’s debrained, destructive, feeble-minded kindness makes me want to vomit nowaddays. And such noble idiots are we all, aren’t we? With a twist, of course. Secularised, stumbling followers of our Lord’s ways, which we don’t understand anymore, shivering with a cerebral, wasting palsy on top of it? Loving ourselves more than our next, as we feel him to be elusive and unreliable more and more often, squirming with shame for exactly that, yet not knowing what to do differently? So we are diverse and inclusive, double plus good, pretending to feel for the very far away, as we can’t feel for our next anymore, and ourselves–the rake’s kitsch’s progress, Prince Myshroom.

    Like

  4. Just one more thing. I was hooked on Dostoyevsky when I was in my twenties, I’m not anymore. Just thinking on, say, Prince Myshkin’s debrained, destructive, feeble-minded kindness makes me want to vomit nowaddays. And such noble idiots are we all, aren’t we? With a twist, of course. Secularised, stumbling followers of our Lord’s ways, which we don’t understand anymore, shivering with a cerebral, wasting palsy on top of it? Loving ourselves more than our next, as we feel him to be elusive and unreliable more and more often, squirming with shame for exactly that, yet not knowing what to do differently? So we are diverse and inclusive, double plus good, pretending to feel for the very far away, as we can’t feel for our next anymore, and ourselves–the rake’s kitsch’s progress, Prince Myshroom.

    Like

  5. > I was hooked on Dostoyevsky when I was in my teens.
    Mr. Oblique, literary theorists unanimously know Dostoyevsky to be shallow, uninspired, and worthless fodder for non-thought–I’m glad you found out soon.

    > I fantasized (for about five minutes) about being a
    > saintly outsider like the Prince
    Five minutes? I so wish this was true. Say, must we “embrace disintegration?” Really? As knew Carl Schmitt, once again, and known to people of impeccable repute, “Alle politischen Begriffe sind säkularisierte religiöse Begriffe.” Boy, did that guy ever embrace rational thought (except for when he didn’t, ok ok ok).

    Like

  6. > I was hooked on Dostoyevsky when I was in my teens.
    Mr. Oblique, literary theorists unanimously know Dostoyevsky to be shallow, uninspired, and worthless fodder for non-thought–I’m glad you found out soon.

    > I fantasized (for about five minutes) about being a
    > saintly outsider like the Prince
    Five minutes? I so wish this was true. Say, must we “embrace disintegration?” Really? As knew Carl Schmitt, once again, and known to people of impeccable repute, “Alle politischen Begriffe sind säkularisierte religiöse Begriffe.” Boy, did that guy ever embrace rational thought (except for when he didn’t, ok ok ok).

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s