>>1182I don't disagree with the most of what he writes, but ZHPL's stance feels criticism-grade rather than engineering-grade. I find this kind of stuff ponderous and boring. Always "let's see this from the outside" as a way to shit on various foolish believers (and he does a great job shitting on ecstasy and taboos), but not much sincere asking of what could have been framed as a set of essential questions.
Let's do the reframe and try to sincerely ask the questions:
Gnosis: what is the most important truth, now lost on most people and probably forbidden by the false regime, which if known reorients one's entire worldview and discredits all the foolish things the normies do and believe? This is our epistemic/ontological competitive differentiation strategy.
Nemesis: What and who is the essential enemy that prevents the good things from happening? What is the super-human principle behind this enemy and how can we combat that enemy? Conversely, what is the principle of the good people who we are allied with and by which we can judge and know our friends? This is our generalized political strategy.
Ecstasy: ZHPL says this is pointless masturbation, but maybe we can be less cynical and ask a generalized question, which is what kind of mental stance should we be seeking? Should we strive to be possessed by a particular spirit, or disciplined by a particular austerity and rationality? Should we be aggressive and willful or calm and serene? This is the question of spiritual/mental/personality strategy.
Taboo: Almost all real taboos I'm aware of in today's world are just lies, but there is a sincere question here: what are the implications of the true gnosis for correct action and speech which we mustn't violate and by which we can distinguish friends? Conversely, what are the false taboos of the enemy which we should be willing to violate to cut ourselves off from false idols and smoke out imposters? ZHPL's examples of the latter are good, and "all progressive taboos are lies" is a good starting point. This backs up our political strategy (nemesis) and makes it very psycho-socially real and concrete.
Eschatology: I don't believe in the end of the world, but we can reframe this as "crisis": what is the most decisive upcoming world-historical event for which we must prepare ourselves, and which we may be able to influence? This is our historical strategy.
Telos: ZHPL almost asks this sincerely: how should we spend our surplus in pursuit of what really matters in life, or for our form of life? This can be fully transcendent, or can be something non-obvious but materially advantageous in the long run, or entirely ambiguous between those. You probably have to be willing to pursue the transcendent to carry out what is actually a fully rational materialist teleology.
These questions I am actually very interested in. I want to know the answer, I want to articulate my current answers and really study and believe them.