V interesting, thanks for sharing Glenn. I don't pretend to follow all of his arguments, and I'd probably appreciate a read of his book(s).
Personally, I sit uncomfortably on this, as I am a hardcore Liberal who also sees the limits of Liberalism (And its dangers when taken too far without leavening), and also the necessity of spiritual, and/or traditional elements that have been cast aside.
Dugin seems not to have followed Graeber in seeing the basics of the Ideologies in normal social situations;
Leftism: How you interact with your friends in a social group;
Rightism: how you interact with authority and hierarchy;
Liberalism; How you trade with peers.
These will be true in all civilisations except totalitarian impositions.
Another point of disagreement I would have is the apparent claim that ONLY Liberalism as a Ideology seeks universalism and other forms of domination - both the Right - Nation, hierarchy, and the Left - Community, socialism, will also follow similar paths to universal imposition if taken too far. If the result of WW2 had been different, we would be seeing that now instead.
I grasp that for Dugin "Liberalism is the enemy", a huge, if understandable simplification considering Liberalism is the main force he has to overcome as he sees it.
Again, I wish I had read one of his books at least to better understand his arguments.
A society without ANY Liberalism however will be a hellscape.
One stunning irony is that the Eurasianism that he describes is almost a textbook example of traditional, pre-Modern Liberalism. Live and let live is about the most Liberal thing you can possibly say.
That this to some extent is no longer the case, is partly the fault of Liberalism's excessive success, but also unarguably due to Feudalism's re-enrtry under the rebranding "Neoliberalism". And the ruling elites increasingly frantic attempts to create chaos and social division to hide the theft of Public wealth from under their noses, and the destruction of the social compacts.
This appeared to be entirely missing from Dugin's analysis of "Liberalism", and that has huge ramifications.
But there's only so much one can cover in an hour's worth of conversation.
I get the feeling attempting a defence of Liberalism with Dugin would be a fools' errand, even from a Liberal that agrees with many of his core principles.
The way the Western media treated the assassination of the beautiful and extremely intelligent Darya was a harbringer of not only how Russians were to be considered, but also the later behaviours of Israel and its assassination programs.
It is hardly surprising that Dugin loathes the West and its never-ending hypocrisies and forked-tongues.
I was going to say something similar. Maybe it is the problem caused by postmodern chains of logic which assume each logical step is 100% true or false. If you use a series of logical steps that are in turn say, 75% "true" or valid, a series of such assumptions in a chain lead to conclusions that are "not true". Say 0.75x0.75x.0.75=0.42. Our entire legal system is built on chains of logical precedents without taking holistic or intuitive looks and what the end effect of the chain of steps is.
Yes. Perhaps there's already a philosophical or historical definition of rationalism which could be why Dugin didn't use that word (?), but I'd certainly critique modernity on that score.
We have an excessive belief in our own rationality that is difficult to warrant on empirical grounds.
I am a believer in probability and detection/estimation theories. These more classical applied mathematical subjects seemed to have get lighter and lighter touch in modern system engineering courses, and likely even less out of the STEM fields. Fuzzy logic came out of the difficulties in applying binary logic in real life. The neural net based AI approach can be considered as pushing this thought line to the extreme to consider a full vector of possible attributes and the associated reliability of "detection/indication". The theoretical output of a single neuron is binary, but the inputs are all analog. There are many fundamental limits and flaws to call neural nets as AI. However, the basic neuron operation is definitely a better decision process than using only binary logic and interpreting its deficiency in arbitrary narratives.
Very interesting interview. However, I am concerned that alternative views, like that of Mr. Dugin, might eventually be banned in the near future. I wrote a snippet about it. https://quannguyen128.substack.com/p/battle-of-maling
Very true and highly needed perspective in today’s western society and political climate.
No wonder his books and publications are forbidden and “burned” in the western mainstream bookstores and can’t be found except on eBay. It’s just so childish and stupid as only the narcissistic mindset of these retards can expose.
V interesting, thanks for sharing Glenn. I don't pretend to follow all of his arguments, and I'd probably appreciate a read of his book(s).
Personally, I sit uncomfortably on this, as I am a hardcore Liberal who also sees the limits of Liberalism (And its dangers when taken too far without leavening), and also the necessity of spiritual, and/or traditional elements that have been cast aside.
Dugin seems not to have followed Graeber in seeing the basics of the Ideologies in normal social situations;
Leftism: How you interact with your friends in a social group;
Rightism: how you interact with authority and hierarchy;
Liberalism; How you trade with peers.
These will be true in all civilisations except totalitarian impositions.
Another point of disagreement I would have is the apparent claim that ONLY Liberalism as a Ideology seeks universalism and other forms of domination - both the Right - Nation, hierarchy, and the Left - Community, socialism, will also follow similar paths to universal imposition if taken too far. If the result of WW2 had been different, we would be seeing that now instead.
I grasp that for Dugin "Liberalism is the enemy", a huge, if understandable simplification considering Liberalism is the main force he has to overcome as he sees it.
Again, I wish I had read one of his books at least to better understand his arguments.
A society without ANY Liberalism however will be a hellscape.
One stunning irony is that the Eurasianism that he describes is almost a textbook example of traditional, pre-Modern Liberalism. Live and let live is about the most Liberal thing you can possibly say.
That this to some extent is no longer the case, is partly the fault of Liberalism's excessive success, but also unarguably due to Feudalism's re-enrtry under the rebranding "Neoliberalism". And the ruling elites increasingly frantic attempts to create chaos and social division to hide the theft of Public wealth from under their noses, and the destruction of the social compacts.
This appeared to be entirely missing from Dugin's analysis of "Liberalism", and that has huge ramifications.
But there's only so much one can cover in an hour's worth of conversation.
I get the feeling attempting a defence of Liberalism with Dugin would be a fools' errand, even from a Liberal that agrees with many of his core principles.
The way the Western media treated the assassination of the beautiful and extremely intelligent Darya was a harbringer of not only how Russians were to be considered, but also the later behaviours of Israel and its assassination programs.
It is hardly surprising that Dugin loathes the West and its never-ending hypocrisies and forked-tongues.
Excesses of reason?
Funny, if I was going to criticise modernity on that axis I'd be inclined to draw attention to its deficits of reason.
I was going to say something similar. Maybe it is the problem caused by postmodern chains of logic which assume each logical step is 100% true or false. If you use a series of logical steps that are in turn say, 75% "true" or valid, a series of such assumptions in a chain lead to conclusions that are "not true". Say 0.75x0.75x.0.75=0.42. Our entire legal system is built on chains of logical precedents without taking holistic or intuitive looks and what the end effect of the chain of steps is.
Yes. Perhaps there's already a philosophical or historical definition of rationalism which could be why Dugin didn't use that word (?), but I'd certainly critique modernity on that score.
We have an excessive belief in our own rationality that is difficult to warrant on empirical grounds.
I am a believer in probability and detection/estimation theories. These more classical applied mathematical subjects seemed to have get lighter and lighter touch in modern system engineering courses, and likely even less out of the STEM fields. Fuzzy logic came out of the difficulties in applying binary logic in real life. The neural net based AI approach can be considered as pushing this thought line to the extreme to consider a full vector of possible attributes and the associated reliability of "detection/indication". The theoretical output of a single neuron is binary, but the inputs are all analog. There are many fundamental limits and flaws to call neural nets as AI. However, the basic neuron operation is definitely a better decision process than using only binary logic and interpreting its deficiency in arbitrary narratives.
Very interesting interview. However, I am concerned that alternative views, like that of Mr. Dugin, might eventually be banned in the near future. I wrote a snippet about it. https://quannguyen128.substack.com/p/battle-of-maling
Very true and highly needed perspective in today’s western society and political climate.
No wonder his books and publications are forbidden and “burned” in the western mainstream bookstores and can’t be found except on eBay. It’s just so childish and stupid as only the narcissistic mindset of these retards can expose.
Suggest to look into the work of Jonathan Pageau and Emmanuel Todd.