The far side of apocalypse

America and Russia, Part Two: The Far Side of Progress

A very interesting analysis from the pen (or keyboard) of John Michael Greer, apparently based on Spengler. (Click on title above to follow link.) Some comments. In his previous works, Greer has also emphasized how *both* the idea of Progress and the idea of Apocalypse are perennial memes in the cultural imagination of the West. They seem to exist in two – or perhaps three - seemingly distinct versions, which nevertheless are connected. The first is Progress-Apocalypse as a dualistic dichotomy, with Progress as Light and Apocalypse as Darkness. Apocalypse is what happens if Progress doesn´t. The curious thing is that Progress can never entirely vanquish Apocalypse – it seems the negative pole is an absolutely necessary bugaboo! This is why completely bland official optimism (“there is no crisis, what crisis, everything is fine”) sounds almost counter-cultural to many educated people, or at the very least extremely unsophisticated. It´s also why official optimism will sooner or later devolve into another form of the Progress-Apocalypse dichotomy, presumably with the “pessimists” as the bugbears…

The other form is Apocalypse-as-Progress. This is the positive apocalypse, the apocalypse dragooned into the service of the very Idea of Progress it´s usually supposed to be an antithesis to. Marxism is a good example of this, another is (probably misinterpreted) Christianity. Here, Progress takes place through the Apocalypse. Of course, not even this version can do without the negative Apocalypse, and often ends with a new dichotomy, now between positive and negative apocalypses. In the Marxist version, “Socialism or barbarism”. 

The third form is the idea that negative Apocalypse is the only thing there is. We´ll all gonna die, man! On the surface, this is a radical denial of the Western Idea of Progress, but in reality it´s still within the “Faustian” paradigm. Its proponents still assume that negative Apocalypse is the only alternative to Progress, but since they lost faith in the latter, they see no alternative to the former. They have “negated” the paradigm, but not “transcended” it (as in Aufheben). Indeed, the paradigm probably needs these people as yet another boogeyman – may I predict that Derrick Jensen (or somebody like him) will ultimately play this role in the Progressive demonology?

Greer´s (or is it Spengler´s) analysis also explains another peculiar fact: the dread of Utopia. Many people criticize Marxism due to its belief in an end-state which, while “utopian”, nevertheless seems…well, static. Since the static is unacceptable to Faustian Man, he can´t have utopia, but must progress even beyond that (at least beyond a static utopia). The ultimate “utopia” of Faustian Man is therefore Protean AI Transhumanist Singularity, or whatever it´s called this week. (The postmodern rhizome or whatever.) Is this why modernity morphs into postmodernity? Cyberpunk is the last word of Faustian Trans-Man.

Of course, he´ll never have it. And he´ll probably never get his Gretchen, either.