<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Baselines for Virtue and Vice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/</link>
	<description>Not Your Grandfather&#039;s Conservatism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2015 20:20:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.7</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mlr</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13370</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mlr]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2015 02:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The kind folks here at the site have my contact info, which I&#039;m happy for them to pass along, if they&#039;d be so kind. If not, let me know here and we can set up a way to chat on Skype.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The kind folks here at the site have my contact info, which I&#8217;m happy for them to pass along, if they&#8217;d be so kind. If not, let me know here and we can set up a way to chat on Skype.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CuriousKing</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13313</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CuriousKing]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2015 01:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#039;s the idea? I&#039;m interested.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the idea? I&#8217;m interested.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harold Kerr</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13263</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harold Kerr]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 03:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;&quot;My take is not only that Kierkegaard is right about a baseline humanity required for real vice but that there is a similar baseline humanity required for virtue as well.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

This is Kierkegaard&#039;s take as well, which becomes clear throughout the whole of &lt;i&gt;Either/Or&lt;/i&gt;; while the first part is concerned with what can make the great sinner, the second is concerned more with what can make the saint. One constant refrain in Kierkegaard is the disdain of the crowd, because within the crowd there is neither room for vice or virtue, only reduction to the animal nature of mankind. Despite his popularity among liberal Protestants and Anabaptists in the United States, Kierkegaard is a profoundly conservative, even reactionary thinker.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;My take is not only that Kierkegaard is right about a baseline humanity required for real vice but that there is a similar baseline humanity required for virtue as well.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>This is Kierkegaard&#8217;s take as well, which becomes clear throughout the whole of <i>Either/Or</i>; while the first part is concerned with what can make the great sinner, the second is concerned more with what can make the saint. One constant refrain in Kierkegaard is the disdain of the crowd, because within the crowd there is neither room for vice or virtue, only reduction to the animal nature of mankind. Despite his popularity among liberal Protestants and Anabaptists in the United States, Kierkegaard is a profoundly conservative, even reactionary thinker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Citadel</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13247</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Citadel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 14:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Really great piece, Mr. Glanton.

This division can be accurately described I think, in the Tradition vs. Modernity dichotomy. It is not that Traditional man was virtuous and wonderful. He wasn&#039;t. He was a sinner as much as all others, but we can see in him some want for better, some reference to the Divine standard he was held to. Modern man shows no such thing. He is self-contained. His sins are often petty and indeed &#039;wretched&#039;, the kind that Traditional man would have had little trouble resisting. Traditional man struggled with the sins of a higher order, wrestling with his wicked nature and the great obligations upon him, questions over of life and death, judgment and mercy, courage and cowardice. Modern man essentially submits to everything. He can&#039;t even resist the slightest temptation because he is the product of a low level cult-of-the-self.

To put it simply, we can just say that man today is... pathetic.

And why not? Why doesn&#039;t man just crawl in the mud like a worm? Since the onset of the Kali Yuga, he has denied all things transcendent, and certainly thrown off the authority that its earthly representatives once had over his life. In denying this, he has no standards but those below himself. This probably explains why he worships and fetishizes the Dalit class: the foreigner, the deviant, the lazy. You see, man has developed a rather ingenious shrine. By being in awe of that which is below him, the only sins he can commit are to be &#039;elitist&#039; or &#039;racist&#039; or to fail in recognition of his own &#039;white privilege&#039;. What other sins could there possibly be when your god is the earthworm?

A sorry state indeed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really great piece, Mr. Glanton.</p>
<p>This division can be accurately described I think, in the Tradition vs. Modernity dichotomy. It is not that Traditional man was virtuous and wonderful. He wasn&#8217;t. He was a sinner as much as all others, but we can see in him some want for better, some reference to the Divine standard he was held to. Modern man shows no such thing. He is self-contained. His sins are often petty and indeed &#8216;wretched&#8217;, the kind that Traditional man would have had little trouble resisting. Traditional man struggled with the sins of a higher order, wrestling with his wicked nature and the great obligations upon him, questions over of life and death, judgment and mercy, courage and cowardice. Modern man essentially submits to everything. He can&#8217;t even resist the slightest temptation because he is the product of a low level cult-of-the-self.</p>
<p>To put it simply, we can just say that man today is&#8230; pathetic.</p>
<p>And why not? Why doesn&#8217;t man just crawl in the mud like a worm? Since the onset of the Kali Yuga, he has denied all things transcendent, and certainly thrown off the authority that its earthly representatives once had over his life. In denying this, he has no standards but those below himself. This probably explains why he worships and fetishizes the Dalit class: the foreigner, the deviant, the lazy. You see, man has developed a rather ingenious shrine. By being in awe of that which is below him, the only sins he can commit are to be &#8216;elitist&#8217; or &#8216;racist&#8217; or to fail in recognition of his own &#8216;white privilege&#8217;. What other sins could there possibly be when your god is the earthworm?</p>
<p>A sorry state indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mlr</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13236</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mlr]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 02:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Nothing has changed.&quot;

But we&#039;re faced with a memeplex with a great deal more machinery at its disposal. I&#039;ll allow that the machinery itself is just as soul-crushing as it always was, and you&#039;re right to observe that the suggestion that somehow society has evolved in a way as to make God&#039;s eternal commandments &quot;obsolete&quot; is insupportable, but surely the intensity of the corrupting influence our generation faces is uniquely fierce, no?

I think that that corruption could be enervated, and the communities where tradition and Virtue thrive could be strengthened, with a Mechanism of equal magnitude and far wiser design that takes all this ... waste, this listless ennui, and turns it into something that could save our culture.

Sadly, so far, there seems to be little interest in moving beyond the theorizing. Dare I suggest that the virtuous here are not immune to ressentiment. I&#039;m considering going full Tesla and just publishing my idea on YouTube: if an NRx&#039;er picks it up, maybe some thread of what we care about will be rescued, and if the Cathedral turns it into the next iteration of Tumblr, well, you won&#039;t be able to say I didn&#039;t try. But it will take computer programming skills and a few months (from what I&#039;ve been told based on my sketches and the Use Case) to make this a reality past my ideation phase; perhaps it was too much to expect that that was present somewhere in the NRx&#039;o&#039;sphere. *shrug* I appreciate how very busy everyone is. Ho hum, oh well. If anyone cares to hear me out, I&#039;m happy to make contact on your terms.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Nothing has changed.&#8221;</p>
<p>But we&#8217;re faced with a memeplex with a great deal more machinery at its disposal. I&#8217;ll allow that the machinery itself is just as soul-crushing as it always was, and you&#8217;re right to observe that the suggestion that somehow society has evolved in a way as to make God&#8217;s eternal commandments &#8220;obsolete&#8221; is insupportable, but surely the intensity of the corrupting influence our generation faces is uniquely fierce, no?</p>
<p>I think that that corruption could be enervated, and the communities where tradition and Virtue thrive could be strengthened, with a Mechanism of equal magnitude and far wiser design that takes all this &#8230; waste, this listless ennui, and turns it into something that could save our culture.</p>
<p>Sadly, so far, there seems to be little interest in moving beyond the theorizing. Dare I suggest that the virtuous here are not immune to ressentiment. I&#8217;m considering going full Tesla and just publishing my idea on YouTube: if an NRx&#8217;er picks it up, maybe some thread of what we care about will be rescued, and if the Cathedral turns it into the next iteration of Tumblr, well, you won&#8217;t be able to say I didn&#8217;t try. But it will take computer programming skills and a few months (from what I&#8217;ve been told based on my sketches and the Use Case) to make this a reality past my ideation phase; perhaps it was too much to expect that that was present somewhere in the NRx&#8217;o&#8217;sphere. *shrug* I appreciate how very busy everyone is. Ho hum, oh well. If anyone cares to hear me out, I&#8217;m happy to make contact on your terms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Glanton</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13229</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Glanton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 21:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To my knowledge, I haven&#039;t accepted anyone&#039;s paradigm of virtue versus sin beyond the one I&#039;ve internalized from their common uses, where virtue simply means a moral trait and vice and sin are roughly synonyms. I&#039;ll leave the strict, analytical theology to theologians such as yourself.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To my knowledge, I haven&#8217;t accepted anyone&#8217;s paradigm of virtue versus sin beyond the one I&#8217;ve internalized from their common uses, where virtue simply means a moral trait and vice and sin are roughly synonyms. I&#8217;ll leave the strict, analytical theology to theologians such as yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gordian</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13228</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gordian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 20:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would be careful about accepting the Catholic paradigm of virtue versus sin.  I think there&#039;s a space between sin and vice, in that sin focuses on God at the center, where vice is a wholly human phenomenon.  All sins are equal, because the gap between murder and thoughts of adultery is miniscule beside the gap between Man and God.  However, the gap between murder and thoughts of adultery is huge from the human standpoint, thus vice can be understood in a graduated sense (worse or less worse) in a way that sin cannot.  The essence of sin is separation from God, the essence of vice is self-harm or harm of others.  A thing can be vice and sin, of course, but the social theorist needs to keep their aspects distinct, and so to use a common theme from the manosphere, a born-again-slut can be forgiven by God and be pure before Christ (assuming the repentance is real, of course) while still being a slut from the standpoint of the world and earthly institution of marriage, thus a poor prospect or ineligible for marriage.

Remember as Christians, we are capable of seeing things in two aspects simultaneously (the sacramental view of reality), as they appear in the spiritual world and as they exist in the earthly world.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be careful about accepting the Catholic paradigm of virtue versus sin.  I think there&#8217;s a space between sin and vice, in that sin focuses on God at the center, where vice is a wholly human phenomenon.  All sins are equal, because the gap between murder and thoughts of adultery is miniscule beside the gap between Man and God.  However, the gap between murder and thoughts of adultery is huge from the human standpoint, thus vice can be understood in a graduated sense (worse or less worse) in a way that sin cannot.  The essence of sin is separation from God, the essence of vice is self-harm or harm of others.  A thing can be vice and sin, of course, but the social theorist needs to keep their aspects distinct, and so to use a common theme from the manosphere, a born-again-slut can be forgiven by God and be pure before Christ (assuming the repentance is real, of course) while still being a slut from the standpoint of the world and earthly institution of marriage, thus a poor prospect or ineligible for marriage.</p>
<p>Remember as Christians, we are capable of seeing things in two aspects simultaneously (the sacramental view of reality), as they appear in the spiritual world and as they exist in the earthly world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/05/14/baselines-for-virtue-and-vice/#comment-13220</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 15:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialmatter.net/?p=2149#comment-13220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I doubt the psychological profile of people today is radically dissimilar to that of our ancestors. Whilst we&#039;ve all been infantilized by the Cathedral (or the Laboratory as I call it), people still do sin, love their close-ones, and hate their rivals. If people have changed, then it follows that God&#039;s eternal commandments have become, if not theologically obsolete, then socially irrelevant. But humanity is all too human. If anything has changed at all, it&#039;s that people have become detached from, even unaware of, their own humanity, mistaking themselves for angels. Though even that is not unheard of. Affluence does that to people, and so they adopt all-permissiveness to indulge in their wealth - and then are punished by Gnon for transgression, and are humbled. The West is now on its path to be humbled, like Babylon. Nothing has changed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I doubt the psychological profile of people today is radically dissimilar to that of our ancestors. Whilst we&#8217;ve all been infantilized by the Cathedral (or the Laboratory as I call it), people still do sin, love their close-ones, and hate their rivals. If people have changed, then it follows that God&#8217;s eternal commandments have become, if not theologically obsolete, then socially irrelevant. But humanity is all too human. If anything has changed at all, it&#8217;s that people have become detached from, even unaware of, their own humanity, mistaking themselves for angels. Though even that is not unheard of. Affluence does that to people, and so they adopt all-permissiveness to indulge in their wealth &#8211; and then are punished by Gnon for transgression, and are humbled. The West is now on its path to be humbled, like Babylon. Nothing has changed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
