Replies: @Lugh

I have read Hoffman and actually have a certain amount of respect for him and he plainly does a better job of grappling with pre-modern thought than many.

He at least somewhat understands the idea of multiple levels of meaning and the need to analyze a culture as an organic evolving phenomena, rather than a set of clearly defined ideas frozen in time that are then consistently applied - like a scientific formula.

But he is still limited by his epistemology - which is still too much that of a modern European.

Hoffman applies his insights about multiple levels of meaning solely to the material realm - they are devices meant to trick outsiders in order to achieve power, with the true message reserved for insiders, who have the key to interpret it. His schema is quite clear and distinct - as you'd expect from a modern European.

Judaism is very much a universalizing religion - Jews have a unique and privileged place in the scheme of world salvation, and are certainly more important than others, but only insofar as they play a key role in the salvation of the entire world.

The dichotomy between particularism and universalism is collapsed - it is only the European mind that demands they must be distinct categories, and therefore, thinks the universalizing message must be a fake front used to deceive outsiders. Only one category can be "real" - but in fact the universal and particular are seen as manifestations of an uunderlying unity.

In the same way, Zen says you must kill the Buddha when you meet him, and also says we are all Buddha's. Paradoxically, striving to be a Buddha hampers you from realizing you are already a Buddha, but unless you make some effort to realize your Buddha nature it will never happen.

European epistemology cannot make sense of this - it must be some kind of deception or just plain nonsense.

Jewish particularism derives its meaning from universalism - so Jewish survival is more important than others, but only because it is the key to saving others. Particularism becomes universalism. Jews as bearers of a higher morality are allowed to sometimes bend the rules in order to survive and spread this higher morality. It is recursive vision.

Hoffman decries this as situational ethics and as mere ethnic chauvinism because he has the metaphysics of a materialist - for him it cannot be anything else.

The "rigid" adherence to an unvarying standard of conduct that does not take into account ultimate goals or particular situations is the rigidity of death - Taoism says in death we are rigid, but all life is flexible like water. The tree that does not bend snaps.

Is it situational ethics? Or is it loyalty to an ethical ideal that cannot be allowed to die out because of any particular situation, that is larger than any situation?

This may be a flawed vision and a dangerous one, and one that easily lends itself to abuse, narcissism, and racism, but it needs to be understood on its own terms for what it is.

The "double mindedness" Hoffman so decries is actually an essential part of dealing with reality successfully, and Europeans dumbed themselves down when they decided to become one-dimensional. Of course, Hoffman sees double-mindedness in purely materialistic terms, and as deception.

This stuff is too subtle to explain to someone steeped in modern European epistemology and metaphysics, which is dumbed down thinking meant for engineering and not ultimate questions - it was only after I purged myself of European assumptions and "dwelt" with pre-modern texts for some time - initially finding them incomprehensible - and living in Asia for many years that I even began to acquire the mental flexibility to approach these questions.

So I know how hard it is for someone used to the "rigid" European thinking to understand the "water like" thinking of other cultures.

But until this mental revolution happens, Europeans will continue to decline into insignificance.

Europe and now are living off inherited intellectual capital.

Replies: @Skeptikal, @nickels, @Lugh

Set a concrete limit on the total number of immigrants that will be allowed into the US per year. Make it known that “migrants” and “refugees” will count as part of that number, thus reducing visas and opportunities for everyone else’s favorite race or interest group.

The point of this is to use divide-and-conquer strategies to set ethnic lobbies in the U.S. battling one another over a finite pie, instead of the present policy of encouraging everybody to rhetorically gang up on straight white men as the source of all evil. This policy would incite the Muslims to point out why America would be nuts to let in more Hispanics, and vice versa.
 

Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Lugh