Episode 5 – Language and Meaning

In this episode, Amory and Bellamy respond to viewer feedback, try to clarify some of their positions, and get a LITTLE BIT into some of the reasons why language can be so confusing in these kinds of discourses. Also, Amory expands on what it means to be a reactionary and why he is reclaiming the word.


Contents:

Dunbar’s number
Intentional communities vs. postmodern villages
Concepts of liberty
Korean Confucian collectivism
Moral libertarianism and individual free will
Liberty as a prerequisite for all action
The importance of free speech
‘Liberty’: the new alt-right code word! 😀
Fire
The difficulty of forming much certainty about the distant past
Big themes matter more than small details
Graham Hancock casts big doubts about the absolute accuracy of anthropology
Paradigm shifts and the falsificationist perspective
Would be happier if we were dumber apes than we are?
Has Bellamy swallowed the Right-Wing Kool Aid and changed his language as a result?
Wokeness, Cultural Marxism and Western Values
Amory states his intention to revisit Cultural Marxism and defend it as a term
Words do not have essences
The aNews dumpster-fire
Amory loves ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ too much and almost gets distracted!
Explaining the logic of the Dinesh D’Souza tweet
RT ≠ Endorsement
Amory BEGINS to unpack what it means to be a reactionary (to be revisited many times!)


[More feedback in the next show. Note to the feedback givers quoted today: we realise we didn’t hit all aspects of your questions on this visit. We will come back to them in due course. Thanks again for getting in touch, and feel free to do so anytime]


Amory: Why I am a reactionary

Anarchism and the Reactions against Modernity


Audio version available here

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anon
anon
4 months ago

from a spiritual point of view, to unify the knower and the known….. it may be a mistake to dismiss knowledge that doesn’t translate into modern culture. i think certain kinds of anprims miss the point as well, if they see pre-historical human animals as having a lesser cognitive ability. maybe they were different in a way we can’t understand from within our paradigm of rationality. is logos the best way to comprehension? can you demonstrate that without relying on logos? personally, i wonder what ways of knowing are unthought of in the modern world because they are incompatible with… Read more »

Ian
Ian
4 months ago

The sense that I am getting is that the disagreement between the two hosts, when the topic is “Anarchism”, centers very little upon deeper values or concrete disagreements between your applied worldviews. Most of the disagreement I am noticing seems to be about what “Anarchism”, the word, the concept, means to each of you personally. Then you agree and disagree between yourselves with the sort of image you each create of the word. I don’t mean to say that any and all discussion of this topic, definitions of words and concepts, is useless. Though with a word so charged I… Read more »

anonymous
anonymous
4 months ago

what are the musical preferences, favorite artists and albums of both of our hosts?

Bellamy Fitzpatrick
4 months ago
Reply to  anonymous

I am generally a fan of the intersections of jazz, rock, funk, and metal. Some favorites are: almost everything Mr. Bungle-spawned (Trio-Convulsant, Secret Chiefs 3, Fantomas, etc.), all the stuff to come out of the Miles Davis fusion ensemble (Mahavishnu Orchestra, Shakti, Headhunters, Return to Forever, Weather Report, etc.), Last Exit, Blind Idiot God, Tool, Mars Volta, Praxis, Zu, Arcana, Tony Williams Lifetime, Trio of Doom, Sonny Sharrock, Ween, Les Claypool, Eyvind Kang, Frank Zappa, Vinnie Couliata…those are what come to mind initially. I consider Mike Patton and John McLaughlin to be anecdotal evidence of the presence of demigods on… Read more »

7
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x