The Major Challenge for South America

The challenge is difficult because there are multiple causes which challenge us today and that condition our circumstances both in South America and in the world in general.

To the most famous ones, such as global warming, the desertification of the continents, the pollution of the seas and rivers, the excessive exploitation of mining and forests, the atmospheric pollution of large cities—to these and others, we have to add the creations of contemporary man, such as the technological challenges, where technology is increasingly separated from human control via robotics and artificial intelligence, the international imperialism of uncontrollable finance and money, the arbitrary and uncontrolled actions of international mega companies, the unlimited production of weapons (there is always an excuse for this), the exorbitant displacement of native populations (6 million in Colombia, 8 million in Venezuela, etc.), the exponential growth of poverty (50% in Argentina), the decline of education at all levels and a long etcetera.

All this and much more makes a univocal diagnosis of our challenges and their circumstances very difficult; nevertheless, we are going to try, with our limited forces (never believe it, says Francis), to sketch out some answer.

It is known that philosophy seeks to determine the substance of entities through their accidents, seeks the ultimate causes of entities, to make explicit the meaning of what is and exists. And so, it has always maintained that the two essential features that characterize man are his rationality and his freedom.

By his rationality he knows and acts with knowledge of causes, and by his freedom he can act in one way or another, since man is not a determined being, but rather a being not yet finished, as Nietzsche would say. And here is the crux of the matter, because today all these challenges, and others, that we have enunciated, condition the exercise of his freedom.

Thus, politically correct thinking, post-truth, the culture of cancellation, single thinking, reductio ad Hitlerum as Leo Strauss teaches, fake news with its false narratives, the woke culture, the one says and thinks as one says and thinks under the dictatorship of Heidegger’s one—all this has created a hegemonic and homogenizing conditioning that makes impossible the healthy freedom of man in his circumstances. In short, freedom both in its negative sense: to be free from, and in its positive sense: to be for.

We have analyzed the theme linked to politics, the political and the social, through the study of metapolitics, as a multidisciplinary neo-science that studies the major categories that condition political and social action.

The study of metapolitics has led us to confirm that today the men who have power in our societies, whether political, social, public or private, cultural or economic, have, in the vast majority of cases, responses conditioned by some of the narratives we have enunciated.

Of these narratives we can highlight globalization as opposed to that of large spaces, human rights as a civic religion replacing the rights of peoples; the cultural isostheneia that makes impossible a hierarchical valuation of cultural products while leveling all by the same yardstick; multiculturalism over interculturalism, given that several cultures live in us; the consensus always of the powerful against the dissent of the preference of ourselves; the industry of memory over history as science; the state of crisis always under the promise of overcoming it over that of decadence, whose law is that one can always be a little more decadent; progress as progressivism over progress as the passage from the worst to the best; relativism within the historical nation over healthy relativism among the different ecumenical groups that constitute what we call the world.

As far as circumstances are concerned, we have to get used to thinking in continental terms, as Joaquín Edwards Bello taught in his beautiful book, El nacionalismo continental (1925-1935). Thus, our circumstance is Sut-America and not South America, an expression of a colonizing Gallicism. In the same way, we have to speak of Ibero-America or Hispano-America and not Latin America, which is strange to us in its denomination.

And today South America continues to suffer the blows of European interference, both English and Dutch, which have not let us go as prey since the time of our independence: Malvinas in Argentina and the Essequibo in Venezuela. In addition to the claims over the South American quadrant of Antarctica, which goes from 0° to 90° west, where Chile and Argentina have the most well-founded claims, not only because of their proximity but also because of their historical colonization of the White Continent.

Today the mass media as a whole are affirming that if a third world war is declared, taking into account the war in Ukraine, the tension over Taiwan, the one between India and Pakistan and the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza by Israel and its confrontation with Iran, the safest place in the world will be Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.

This prognosis is no small thing, since it indicates that the Southern Cone of America is not only far from the possible theaters of war operations, but that, above all, it maintains an equidistant position from the warring parties.

This indicates that the circumstances are propitious for us as long as our countries remain distant from any foreign interference.

Cultural Isostheneia

I would like to present in this brief meditation, if not an original idea (which it undoubtedly is), at least an originary one (since it originates from us and is not a copy of anyone else). It is the concept of cultural isostheneia.

With the inauguration of this concept, we intend to work on the description of the unique and politically correct thought.

The term comes from the Greek ισοσ=equal, and θένεια=weight, which translates as equipollence.

The notion seeks to indicate the existence of tastes, attitudes, norms, estimations and artistic expressions, contradictory among themselves, but of equal cultural valuation.

This makes a hierarchical evaluation of cultural products impossible, while at the same time leveling them all by the same yardstick. No distinction is made between the good and the bad, and attempts are made to erase all differences between kitsch and mastery, the licit and the illicit, the sacred and the profane, the everyday and the festive.

Thus, trash television is on the same level as the most exquisite painter or filmmaker. Great literary texts are losing their value in themselves; they only serve as pre-texts for other texts.

The reign of mediocrity wants to justify its own incapacity by leveling everything down. The epoch of leveling, as Max Scheler called it.

The imposition of the concept of isostheneia, (due in the first place to the North American social anthropologists, according to whom no culture exists superior to another, from Franz Boas onwards) to the reduced scope of artistic and cultural expressions has managed in our postmodern era to relativize all cultural expression where the most vulgar, coarse, ugly and plebeian is equated in value to the most noble, fine, beautiful and profound that man produces.

But the functionality of isostheneia does not end there; it has taken the concept to broader domains than those of the individual, replacing popular cultures with the flattest and most mercantile vulgarity. Thus, the so-called bailanta (a mixture of cumbia, chebere, salsa and bad taste) replaced popular music. And there will be no shortage of stupid people who equate the popular with the massive, the popular with the homogeneous, the popular with the lack of nuances.

The serious problem that is posed today to national and personal identities is not the identity of others, but the identity, understood, of all equally.

In fact, the concept of cultural isostheneia, which applies equally to art, philosophy, literature, politics, history, music, architecture, is a product of the calculating reason of modernity where man appears for the first time defined as a res extensa, as a measurable thing. And if we can measure him, they asked themselves, we can label him and corset him in a unique and universally valid model following the model of mathesis mathematica.

Isostheneia has its projection in the political realm, through the concept of political correctness where mass media consensus is replacing political parties. Hence, it has been acutely noted that today, political discourse is characterized as “a compromise that does not compromise” and is directed not to the people but to the mass media.

Our politicians spend long hours today explaining in the media their own statements to the media, while reality follows its course, which is not, coincidentally, governed by them but by the indirect powers that are ultimately, among other things, the owners of the media.

Today, the political installation of any candidate is first of all media and then, but far away, his capacity of execution and management is highlighted.

The concept of cultural isostheneia, by sustaining cultural relativism and philosophical skepticism as a principle, limits criticism to the sphere of reflection (mere cultural criticism), leaving aside any projection of this to the field of social and political life. That is why its organic intellectuals belong to the progressive left and its social-democratic variants and lack critical political thought, but are garrulous about the creation of critical thought.

They are mere agents of the simulacrum, of the Kantian “as if,” which is one of the signs of our times.

Cultural isostheneia flatly rejects the different and its expression—dissent, because it means and demands something different from what is in force, from what is given.

Dissent is the foundation of the real alternative and demands a step that goes beyond merely theoretical criticism, because dissent is a break with opinion, which in mass and consumer societies is always and only published opinion, and no longer public opinion. This break with opinion follows Plato’s old advice against the sophists: “they call themselves sophos, when only God is so; we are mere philo-sophos. They deal with doxa, we with episteme.”

Cultural isostheneia is, in short, the pathology of the unique and politically correct thinking, which has become, in our days, the most evident consequence of the failure due to the philosophical errors of liberalism and Marxism in their conceptions about man, the world and its problems, as Miguel Angel Virasoro, one of our greatest philosophers, liked to say.

A Little about Method

We wish to justify our proposal of a dissident hermeneutics to approach studies on metapolitics. We say “dissident” because we start from dissent as a method of metapolitics, according to which we seek another meaning to the social-political disorder we suffer. Its motto could be opposer pour penser.

Dissident hermeneutics rescues the existential dimension of the interpreter, who starts from the preference of himself and his situation in a given ecumenical world. That is to say, there is no universality as in Kant-Habermas-Apel in understanding, since this is done from a genius loci. And it is dissident because, first of all, it dissents with the status quo in force and its great categories that condition political action, offering another sense.

Thus, the approach to these major categories is based on dissidence with them because they are products of crypto-politics and not of public policy. All the mega-categories that make up this globalized world are products and creations of the different lobbies or power groups that exist in the world and that end up governing it. Dissident hermeneutics starts from this presupposition but, at the same time, its criterion of truth is based, no longer on the ideologues of the different sectors, but on the different ethos of the ecumenical groups that make up this world, which is a cosmos, meaning both order and beauty. The world, in its ultimate sense, is an ordered and beautiful set of entities that compose it—in such a way that when man disarranges it, it is transformed into something ugly and unlivable.

Colophon

The main challenge of our time is that man went from Descartes’ “I think” at the beginning of Modernity, to “I desire” in this postmodernity in which we live. The latter transformed us into homo consumans, someone whose main purpose is to consume.

The political, social, economic and cultural projection of this consuming is reflected in the conscience of the political, economic, social and cultural agents “all cut from the same cloth,” because the conditioning to which it has been subjected, leads it to think “as it is to be thought,” in a unique and politically correct way of thinking. And this is what metapolitics denounces, disarms and unmasks. Basically, the purpose of metapolitics is to go against crypto-politics and in favor of public policy, which is carried out beyond the different lobbies, of all that which is hidden in the actions and thinking of those who govern us, and of which many of them themselves are not aware.

If our hypothesis is true, we are governed, in general, by people who are not aware of the ultimate reason for their actions. Would Heidegger’s prognosis be true then—only a God can save us?

Source: https://www.thepostil.com