The problem is that ‘modernity’ is more than a slogan and/or ideology. And its proponents often bungle the job. A good example is the theory of evolution now pressed into service as Darwinism as a core defining element of secular modernism. But it was clear from the start, and soon taken over by conservative religious figures, that the theory is incorrect in its statistical foundation. To make it a defining ideology of secularism a la Dawkins has done more to discredit modernism than almost any other meme complex. The Enlightenment spawned the real starting point of ‘evolutionary biology’ with figures like the teleomechanists who attempted to properly found biology but were swept aside in the darwin farce. People who sermonize the Enlightenment rarely do their homework. Another example is Lamarck whose thinking had the right overall perspective on evolution but then got sidetracked with his other theories.
And despite his brilliant insights, Marx has produced an economic interpretation of history in the name of materialism that has confused a century of leftists. The Battle with the confusing Hegel over idealism was a misfortune. A hopeless waste of time. In the process socialism is turned into a marxist monopoly, which probably dooms the whole subject.
In general, modernism is constantly misdefined and narrowed to some ideology. As with the dialectic of the Enlightenment and Romanticism it is all too easy to simply misfire in spastic confusion. How indeed to interpret the vastness of ‘modernity’, which most definitely proceeds to a post-religious future even as ‘modernity’ multitasks he successions to the Reformation. And so on. Define modernity at your own risk.
This constellation of issues has been our preoccupation for years, both here and at The Gurdjieff Con where the spiritual right has been examined for its conservative anti-modernity and ultimately …