Center Search Center

At certain points they must recognize that they are dependent upon the very people they vilify and send their minions again. And not only the people--the norms those people represent and defend. All of your examples have a "that's not what I meant" flavor to them--we did;t mean to kill the sacred body of the progressive reporter, we didn't mean to bring in terrorists, I didn't mean that you should attack *me*, etc. On a certain level, they do think it's all not really that serious, because the middle will always be there--but if the middle will always be there, what is the meaning of what they're doing?

You have a point, though-- maybe it's more of an uneasiness than a "terror." They get anxious, and sometimes hysterical, though, over rather simple declarations, like "we need borders," or "some people should be in jail." They can't exactly deny such statements, but they also can't let themselves get caught agreeing with them. So, they have to attack those who make them as intentionally introducing some unreasonable divisiveness and "politicization" into whatever the situation is. Yes, I'm reading that as a kind of terror, but maybe it's something else.

---

So, if people wore religious symbols in solidarity with any victims of any faith, they would be recognizing the sacred as a legitimate basis of solidarity; if at least one faith is excluded on victimary grounds, then it's not a question of the sacred at all, but just solidarity along victimary lines.

---

But maybe that's not quite what you had in mind.

---

Your last sentence suggests an element of human sacrifice, which I think is there--and would highlight the distinction between the victimary and the Christian sacred you make.

Some further inquiry into HLvM

Research Notes

Related posts

The Meaning of Meaning, and Metalanguage

A liberal democrat admits it's mimetic tribalism, all the way down, but can't accept any kind of kingship as solution.

Why is there a default love of the present High and a default hatred for the present Middle within many reactionary circles, when there's nothing in anthropoetics that says the present High will survive as such or be as close to 'threading back tot he originary scene' as an ascending Middle center?

It doesn’t make sense to claim that you can turn to social construction for meaning but not to lived reality.

@adam What is your view of this? One of the key claims seems to be about the need to put up a barrier between the Low and the High using the Middle. There is a few things here inconsistent, it seems, with absolutism. Also makes use of a computer science analogy.