Gentle

As citizens from after the demythologization of nature, we recognize that evolution gradually makes smarter, stronger, and healthier creatures through natural selection.

If we are honest, we acknowledge the same in our society. Generally speaking, the more intelligent, attractive, capable, stronger and healthier rise and those who are obstructed by lower ability or ineptitude fall.

Some belief systems are immensely popular because they oppose this notion. If all you want are warm bodies on your side, you should preach the word that ability doesn’t matter; all that matters is that you are human and thus you are equal.

One side of any healthy restoration of a society will be a renewal of choosing people based on ability, without the egalitarian subsidies of government regulation and social pressure.

Ability-based choice goes both ways. It means the attractive blonde must demonstrate her competence before we promote her for being beautiful. It also means that we do not give an extra lift to those who are disadvantaged or marginalized. They face the same test as everyone else.

However, people tend to see ability-based choice in a false dichotomy. In this human fairy tale, the smart tend to be cruel and the dumb tend to be kind-hearted. The problem with picking by ability, they claim, is that you get cruel tyrants.

These are people who have not spent much time in nature. The cruelty of an organism varies in inverse proportion to its power. That is to say, the truly cruel animals are the ones with almost no power. They are consequently bitter and intensely competitive.

At the top of the power cycle are those who are powerful and know it. Wanton cruelty to them seems pointless and impotent, as well as boring. They are interested in the exercise of power toward a goal because they see anything else as beneath them. They are proud, but their pride disciplines their self-control.

This makes sense when you consider that traits seem to cluster together. Smarter people tend to be healthier, better-looking and more noble. With intelligence comes a higher degree of organization and a greater degree of foresight, which eliminates the appeal of many behaviors.

People of greater power are generally not constantly trying to demonstrate their power. There is no need for them to do this. In addition, the people who will understand are few. As a result, they exercise their power selectively and to great effect.

Throughout the world, this principle is consistent. It shows us that there is a greater component to intelligence than the linear, and that is character. Linear intelligence measurements are essential and accurate, but on top of that, the degree of nobility of mind must be considered.

Recall those great Japanese rubber-monster-attacking-Tokyo movies. In them, a previously unknown threat would emerge; all known methods would fail; some skinny nerd would invent a possible way of dealing with the threat, and it would usually be less satisfying than the military solution. But in the end, the nerd prevailed.

It’s the same way with natural aristocracy among human beings. The race for greater degrees of ability in known task-areas is a mighty competition, but at some point it tends to reward those who prepare with a manic single-mindedness, not those who can think.

The thinkers are the ones who can deal with previously unseen problems, or notice when whole systems are out of whack just by looking at the details. Otherwise require linear methods because those allow them to use all of their intelligence in a focused manner.

The phrase “gentleman” and “gentlewoman” are mostly lost to history in terms of meaning, but one derivation of this term refers to those whose methods are gentle, not a matter of brute intelligence but of organic depth of thinking.

Throughout human history, victory has belonged to the biggest brute until the gentle people come along. They may be ruthless, these gentle people, but their modus operandi is to fix things, to create new things, and to work around problems rather than bashing them head on.

In 1789 our society decided it no longer wanted gentle people. It wanted equal people, which required linear assessments of ability based not on depth of thought, but on linearity of it. Results have decline so much that many now want the gentle people back.

9 Comments

  1. Ted Swanson says:

    I’m glad you wrote this. Since I was little I always knew this, subtly. Nature resembles “all or nothing” more than “everyone has at least one thing they’re good at.” Trash is trash and nobility is nobility.

    Another way to express this is the seemingly illogical maxim: If you want something to get done give it to a busy person.

  2. crow says:

    Hehe :)
    Rodan rocks!
    When I as younger, I always thought being a man was about being tough.
    Now I am a man, I realize what it’s really about is not having to be.
    But probably, being tough is the only way to not have to be.
    What do I mean by this?
    I’m not sure.

    Maybe its…
    Developing a capability is an end in itself.
    The capability, once developed, is not the goal.
    Developing it is.

    1. Esotericist says:

      Manliness to me is like martial arts. The guy who wins is the guy who got what he needed without having to fight. You can fight every guy in a place, and win, but not get what you came for, and thus lose. Winning the battles, losing the war, kind of like the West has done for centuries now.

  3. Jon says:

    Excellent. “When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” We have leaders who are good at one thing – being politicians. They want to fix all problems through politicking. We need Philosopher Kings with a depth of understanding that a tradesman can not, by nature, ever grasp.

    1. Esotericist says:

      This is so brutally true. Being good at politics, or at products, is not the same at being good at their goal, which is good leadership and good tools (not the voting kind).

  4. Lisa Colorado says:

    “Ability-based choice goes both ways. It means the attractive blonde must demonstrate her competence before we promote her for being beautiful. It also means that we do not give an extra lift to those who are disadvantaged or marginalized. They face the same test as everyone else.”

    That could happen in a given group, at certain times… It would require a serious override of the sexual ego. Also it would be great to understand both masculine and feminine archetypes of power, linear and circular. Girls have their own kind of math, little understood but very instinctual.

  5. 1349 says:

    Wow… Another article like that and i’ll burst into tears like from “Also sprach Zarathustra”. :)

    These are people who have not spent much time in nature. The cruelty of an organism varies in inverse proportion to its power. That is to say, the truly cruel animals are the ones with almost no power. They are consequently bitter and intensely competitive.

    Same things can be seen in a human society. Those short, ugly, dumb, talentless etc. tend to be cruel, competitive, envious, resentful…

    1. Esotericist says:

      My own experience agrees with this. Powerful people tend to be if anything compassionate but detached. They will help you help yourself once you have proven you are ready. Otherwise, they let you do your thing, and they do theirs. It’s the angry, bitter, resentful and unable who are ready to take revenge at any moment.

  6. Tucken says:

    Gentle is virtuous. I like people who handle things gently but what is a gentleman? Generally someone who’s gentle according to society’s standards and not his own. Don Quixote is an interesting character when talking chivalry. I wonder if he was a real knight, or not?

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 0.897 seconds