Posts Tagged ‘esotericism’
Friday, February 17th, 2017
I. Some comments on NPR1
I was delighted to listen to the first episode of Nationalist Public Radio and to find a circle of notable individuals with different areas of expertise that are not just smart enough to excel in their areas of thought, but to know how to be flexible to try and understand each other. The conversation was smooth, the density of the content was high, the waypoints were made and advanced was both natural and rich.
There were a couple of points that appeared excellent prospects upon which to start a topic relevant to this point in time. That is, if we are going to take the reins of our evolution or if you are just going to allow Leftists to crash land this ship anywhere for the sake of their feelings; and if so, what is the most sensible and reasonable way of going about doing this.
There are four particular comments in this first episode that are of interest here. The first was the idea of tracing our steps back to when humanity took a wrong turn for the worse. I assume this means investigating and studying it, so we can know how to advance somewhere whence we can correct the situation. Reversing is not only practically impossible but seems like a most inefficient way.
The second was a briefly-discussed question regarding being on the right or bad side of history. This is a question of whether or not you care more about results or about your reputation with whatever kind of status quo reigns the future of humans. That is the only thing that decides whether you are on the right/good or wrong/bad side of history; usually, those who are losers at a given time are seen as being on the ‘wrong side’ of history sooner or later. The case is obvious for the three German Reichs; it is less obvious for Europe today (which is ‘defeated’ ideologically from inside as if by a cancer).
A third comment referred to the ability of those with a higher level of general intelligence to self-program, to enforce self-discipline and so change themselves. This is a great comment that should be remembered when discussing and taking policy. For it is through evaluation, will and action that we can become better; this is something to which we will come back in detail in this article.
Fourth comes something I am in strong disagreement with: the idea proposed during the radio show that those who amass wealth tend to be intelligent, conscientious and generally not physically violent. These three are patently false and could stem from someone who happens to come from a nice family that was able to amass a certain (or a considerable) amount of wealth.
In our kind of society, one does not need intelligence to become wealthy; one merely has to keep the goal of being rich in mind and work steadily towards it as a priority. This is why many people with a robot-like mentality, that sacrifice themselves six days a week and place the idea of wealth and affluence as the sole thing to fill their empty lives, become rich in under a decade, and rather wealthy in a few.
This, rather common, kind of wealthy people are rarely, if ever, conscientious about anything but what pertains their self-assurance in wealth. Many, are actually prone to violence, but are ‘smart’ enough to keep it in when it is convenient to do so, and then take it out in one way or another —including actual violence inflicted on less powerful individuals, with a variation on the kinkiness factor.
Shaping Our Evolution
As was mentioned by one of the speakers, natural selection does not really care about anything; it is incorrect to talk about good or bad in terms of it since it is only determined by who lives enough to reproduce itself. That means that evolution could go in any direction, irrespectively of what we as sentient beings with a certain ‘moral’ predilection think or want.
It could go full Idiocracy, that painfully illustrative movie; or it could also go full Iron Gates, that sadistically painful and illuminating pulp fiction novel by Martinet Press. It will definitely not stay the same or become as most innocent sheep in society want it just because they wish it were so.
If we did plan on taking a manner of control over this evolution, to make it a conscious change rather than one subject to all kinds of forces but our own, we would have to ask ourselves just what traits do we desire to see grow and develop in future humanity. Some may simply elect to justify themselves egotistically and claim that it is just natural to want to see your own genes spread. This latter is an animalistic mentality without what the ancients would consider noble. Do we, rather, want an all-around better species? If so, what is “better”?
Some of us would propose taking the image of perfection — as per classical antiquity — as emanating the ideas of a hypothetical Golden Age. This entails striving for a balance of body and mind, which is a goal that is not necessarily achieved by everyone but is recognized as the ideal. It involves an improvement of all abilities to the maximum, which shows and promotes character and endurance, themselves crucial in the upward scaling of the higher exponents of humanity. Apart from this is respect and conscientiousness for what is deemed to deserve respect on nihilist-realist grounds.
To these ends, a new culture must be developed and promoted. It must be decided if this is to be a matter of politics or of spirituality. The answer is probably the latter, since spirituality is always a part of the culture, while politics are usually specific decisions that arise from the time-specific needs of the people based on their culture. Apart but related to this is whether we just want to develop a culture that can nurture us towards a better future or if we want to improve genetic predisposition (this is where the question of some kind of eugenics comes into play). These are, of course, matters of concern for realists that can see the needs of a better, happier and more full humanity, rather than succumb to the pity for the tears of those too lazy to exert themselves beyond their present comfort.
To conclude, we may notice that this will entail a discussion of an ends versus means issue. In it we must recognize that there is no absolute freedom to be found anywhere; rather, there is only a choice in whether we submit to this or that idea or authority. You may decide you want to bow down to conformity and compromise the future for the sake a momentary commodity; or you may give your life purpose in the name and direction of excellence and high ideals.
In reality everything and anything must be achieved; nothing is awarded as a gift or title in exchange of sycophancy or money as it is in the illusion promoted by a decadent human society.
This propels us to the fundamental question of human society: do we do what needs doing for a transcendental goal, or do we respond to what most people reward, and assume this has a transcendental quotient based on an assumption of an attribute of “humanism” to its function?
For example, consider the problem of jobs:
Livingston directly confronts the issue of socially necessary work with what he calls socially beneficial work, a somewhat slippery concept The former faces the same forces of routinization, speed-up and, finally, elimination like many jobs, whereas the latter retains its desirability – as meaningful work – even though it is often valueless as a source of compensation.
The ultimate question for Livingston – “Why can’t we stop working?” Or, to rephrase it, why can’t socially beneficial work become dominant?
Livingston approaches this question by extending the discussion beyond jobs to define the larger issue here: what do we need to live full lives? He begins by referring to Freud’s statement that to be fully human we need love and work.
There are two models here:
- Traditional. We decide what is right according to the order of nature, transcendental values, and then apply material resources to achieve it, in a qualitative sense, meaning that we never fully achieve it but always get closer.
- Modern. We decide what is materially convenient and flattering to the individual, and then argue that it is a transcendental value or a substitute for it, called “ideology.”
Jobs should be a means to the end of the transcendental: we do what is necessary in the material to make our vision of what is excellent become real.
Instead, we have made ourselves instead slaves of what is convenient; commerce and popularity dominate culture, instead of the other way around. This is a path toward the destruction of ourselves as a civilization.
Again I say:
That is, if we are going to take the reins of our evolution or if you are just going to allow Leftists to crash land this ship anywhere for the sake of their feelings; and if so, what is the most sensible and reasonable way of going about doing this.
The first path leads away from this, but the second leads toward it. Knowing the difference is the choice between suicide and rising to new heights in evolution, morality, realistic adaptation and mental clarity.
Wednesday, January 18th, 2017
Read David Brooks columns is an exercise in coin-flipping because he is either mostly really on and totally insightful, or completely off-base in an educated, half-bottle-of-wine sort of way that is both entertaining and misleading:
The early Christians seem to have worshiped the way David did, with ecstatic dancing, communal joy and what Emile Durkheim called “collective effervescence.” In her book “Dancing in the Streets,” Barbara Ehrenreich argues that in the first centuries of Christianity, worship of Jesus overlapped with worship of Dionysus, the Greek god of revelry. Both Jesus and Dionysus upended class categories. Both turned water into wine. Second- and third-century statuettes show Dionysus hanging on a cross.
But when the church became more hierarchical, the Michals took over. Somber priest-led rituals began to replace direct access to the divine. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus urged, “Let us sing hymns instead of striking drums, have psalms instead of frivolous music and song, … modesty instead of laughter, wise contemplation instead of intoxication, seriousness instead of delirium.”
When elites try to quash the manners and impulses of the people, those impulses are bound to spill out in some other way.
In this column, Brooks gets one thing right, which is that Trump is appealing to those who recognize that the official way is broken and needs to be overthrown through mockery. What he gets wrong is the nature of the process.
New ideas start out with an attitude that is part Dionysian, but more appropriately, esoteric. That is, those who can know, know, and everyone else follows along.
The herd surges, and then infiltrates, and then assimilates, which results in the original idea being converted to a form of hedonism: whatever makes people feel good, whether intellectually or physically, predominates. The Crowd has won!
At that point, a backlash — just as stupidly rigid as that which it is reacting against — takes over. The people of order take over and create a whole lot of rules to keep the sheep in line.
What they are reacting to is not Dionysianism, which is a type of discovering nature through deconstructing the human perceptual barriers that enclose our consciousness, but individualism. Everyone doing whatever they feel good about means that the original purpose is lost.
The 180 degree reaction is not Apollonianism, which is negation of the self and dwelling within the idea outside of the human stain, but a reaction to the emotionality of the crowd with the emotionality of the cause, which drives away anyone fun and lets drippy nerds who excel at tests and fail at life predominate.
A saner way is the middle path: keep focus on the goal, and do not seek to patrol methods, which is a type of control or backward logic that attempts to regulate purpose by making certain types of action taboo. You can regulate goal, but regulating methods does not force the goal to appear, even when you remove all methods known to end elsewhere than the goal, assuming that what is left is a direct path to the goal.
Nietzsche might not see the middle path as Dionysian, but in another view, it is the ultimate Dionysian. Instead of looking toward the idea, one adapts to reality, finds what is beautiful, and then invents theory from that, knowing that (per parallelism) this world is organized in the same way as the next, and therefore that what is realistic is also logically optimal.
Donald Trump may be a jester because the court is corrupt. Western civilization is at its nadir. However, our path out lies in not separating adaptation to physical reality from logical clarity, but in the area where the two overlap, giving us a perspective on what is real both now and forever.
Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Since colored pills seem to represent the modern desire for a one-step solution to the decline of Western Civilization, let us look at the grey pill: the notion that the world mirrors the self, instead of the other way around.
The essence of the grey pill is individualism, or the idea that the self is more important than reality. This idea comes both from our tendency to view our big brains as more real than the world around us because the sensations of thought are stronger, and our natural inclination to resent life for resisting our intent and urges.
As it happens with human intelligence, the grey pill manifests itself in universalism, which roughly speaking means that all people perceive and understand the same truths. This is a form of individualism expanded inside-out, because the implication is that what the individual thinks is what the rest of the world does or should think.
Universalism serves as the basis for The Enlightenment™ thought, because for us to place our faith in “human reason,” we must believe it is evenly distributed among humans, even though all evidence points to the contrary. With that notion in our heads, ideas like democracy, rule by law and not wise elders, diversity and equality suddenly seemed plausible, to the ruin of all.
In reality, esotericism makes more sense than the grey pill. In esotericism, understanding of symbols or truths is entirely dependent on the perceiver, and people are limited to variant — not equal — degrees by experience, genetic ability and dedication. This means that nothing can be “true” in a universal context; there is only reality, and some assessments of it, which are not shared completely between people.
In other words, the essence of esotericism is the black pill, or the notion that there are no inherent truths and human attempts to portray, communicate and moralize based on perceived truth are illusion. There is only a hierarchy of people, with some knowing more than others, and we either put those in charge to discipline the rest, or the rest oppress us all by insisting on ignorance.
Friday, December 9th, 2016
The important thing about the Alt Right is that — contrary to appearances — it shows the right growing up and merging its two threads, opposition to delusional Utopianism on one hand, and its resistance to “modern society” on the other.
Few are willing to mention the truth about the West, which is that it is soul-killing. Jobs are spirit subjugation; the cities are ugly; all of our products are designed to take advantage of us and deprive us of the function of that product. What kind of rising technological empire cannot make a refrigerator that lasts longer than ten years?
In the hands of the proles, the vote went to the people, and this seems to empower whoever wants to treat the population as a cash cow and milk it for all that it is worth. Governments are self-interested businesses, but so are regular businesses. All want to extract the most cash out of the population through deliberately broken policies, which then require more money to try to make them work, and planned obsolescence. The reason for this that these organizations are comprised of people, and each person wants a job forever and more money and power, and they are given an aegis of public interest behind which to engineer theft.
In social situations, people do the same thing. The name of the game is to take all that you can and externalize the costs. People are inept and do sloppy work, knowing someone else may have to clean it up. The ultimate modern symbol is litter because the citizen who enjoys his pleasures and then leaves behind a mess has externalized the cleanup, making him seem victorious for having taken more than he has given. All of these problems arise from a lack of purpose to society, which leaves it as a group of conflict special interests warring it out for power at the expense of the normal working population who just want stable lives.
We like to talk about how democracy freed us from insane wars and totalitarianism, but we live under “soft totalitarian” circumstances where the wrong opinion means losing jobs, home, family and friends; we also have under democracy embarked on two World Wars and many proxy conflicts in which nothing was permanently resolved. Our future is one of endless war in which those who fail to affirm the Narrative and its ideology are treated as enemies of the state, enforced through fear of collective punishment in which others shun the heretics in order to avoid being associated with heresy. Our modern life is more controlled than life under fascists or National Socialists, and seems to have replicated the conditions in the Soviet Union, albeit with better shopping and slicker products that nonetheless break after a few years.
In this modern totalitarian state, we live in misery. Jobs are jails because there is no focus on the end result, only appearances. This puts vicious manipulators in charge and marginalizes those who try to be efficient and do their job and get out with more free time. Those who spend the most time at the job succeed, even though this by definition implies inefficiency and ineptitude. The person who designs a product which is cheaply made and heavily advertised wins, because the highest margin of profit is achieved, while quality products are beaten out of the market because it is always easier to find ten idiots willing to buy junk than one person who values performance over price.
Most people are insane as a result. In order to handle a necrotic society of this nature, they must rationalize it as good, which means accepting dysfunction as function. This makes them prone to spend even more time on pointless activity and to resent those who do not, against whom they retaliate. Their search for some substitute for purpose and meaning causes them to become perverse and fetishize all sorts of broken behaviors just so they can feel important and that their lives are worth living, which furthers social decay.
The core of the revolution against modernity is realizing that our thinking is backward. Instead of finding positive goals and directing economics and society to achieve them, we work by attending to demotism — consumerism, democracy, popularity — and assume that it finds the right answers. Instead, it discovers inferior substitutes and makes them mandatory norms, which ensures that most of our time is wasted fighting back against the vast waves of dysfunction around us.
We need to discover values and purpose again. This requires identity, which is the core of Spencer’s speech: Amerika is not great because it is rotting from within, and the core of that rotting is the herd of cultureless, purposeless, and raceless grey lumpenproletariat that Leftism manufactures. We have no goals, nothing to strive for, and it is killing us. We either discover identity — which requires the most basic foundation of identity, which is race and ethnicity — or we are doomed to be nothing but servants to an ideological empire which values mediocrity and compliance over life itself.
In ideology, life is a means to an end, which is ideology. This circular reasoning turns us into “free” slaves toward the Utopian ends of our leaders, which are in public expressed as egalitarianism, but in private the profit taken from pitching an ideological product that people want, and from that, by achieving power and wealth as career criminals like the Clintons, Obama, Merkel and others demonstrate. Our leaders do not care about the results of their actions, only appearances, because like corporations selling planned obsolescence products, they are shilling a cheap substitute that the herd will buy in order to take profit out of the civilization.
We are ruled by parasites, and by our own hand. Who has sympathy for the worker? Any time a “free” government program, union benefit, or socially dysfunctional reduction of standards comes along, the workers vote for it because they perceive it to be in their interests. They are shocked and amazed when the free stuff turns out to have costs, and those costs make workers too expensive, so business offshores and outsources as a means of avoiding the parasitism. They blame business, but in this area, business is innocent; the parasitic nature of the voter/worker has driven them away in order to remain competitive.
Under the publicly permitted dialogue, we cannot say that we lack purpose and allow economics, politics and popularity to lead us around like a domesticated animal. After all, what is popular is perceived as us, but this fragments when we look around and see how we have little in common with others. That leads us to realize that we either choose values-first, or we end up with methods-first, which is the type of “means over ends” analysis that is favored by both the Left and people who fear that having goals will make them appear as having fallen short.
Spencer pointed out the root of this mentality:
America is not great because in my lifetime, America has lost an essence. It’s lost a people, it’s lost a meaning. You listen to presidential inaugurations, these are these times when presidents will go up and tell us “what this is really about” and get everyone fired up, they don’t talk about America as an historic nation and a people with a story, as the product of a race, of a worldview, they basically talk about America as a platform for all of humanity. They talk about America as an economic system, effectively.
He identifies the failing of the Right in America as occurring sometime over the previous century when it shifted from a perspective of “a people” to the notion of “an ideology,” but instead of accepting Leftist socialism, made capitalism the root of its belief. That created a permanent fusion between Left and Right because they both agreed on ideology over realism, and within that, wanted a hybrid of the capitalist state and the liberal social programs of Europe and the East.
That in turn represented a shift toward the herd mentality of the third-world and especially Asia, as exhibited to the West first by the Mongols. Third world societies tend to be defined by a lack of social order, and instead a need for strong power and granular power, usually a matriarchy. This enables them to hold themselves together despite having no unity, but the cost is that exceptional leaders and innovators are scarce if evident at all. This keeps them in the stage of doing the same things over and over, not improving.
This trend fits within the general path of the West for the past thousand years. With fixed civilization and excellence, people began to thrive, but this created a population bloom in which few had the aptitudes of the founders that enable them to collaborate. Western Civilization began splitting into different Special Interest Groups a thousand years ago, and with The Enlightenment,™ formalized this to the level of the atomized individual. With that, the roots of a rootless time were formed.
Modernity is thus not so much a technological level, but any time based on the intent of the individual instead of a collaborative will to thrive. Paradoxically, the intent of individuals forms a herd where collaboration does not, simply because groups of individuals converge on a lowest common denominator, which like the third world consists of everyone doing what they want except when it comes to whatever principle holds the society together like a fence around chickens, and that becomes sacred in a way that nothing else does.
That foundation of Control creates people who are incapable of independent thought and dependent on the herd for guidance, and creates an unhealthy focus on popularity and emulating others as a means of being included in the group. It is a pre-civilization state, not like hunter/gatherer wanderers, but like a civilization that has given up on the principle of civilization, which is working together to make life more pleasurable, intense and sacred. Not surprisingly, the flight from civilization ultimately manifests in a selfish mob manipulated by cruel parasites.
Americanization, in this worst possible sense of the word, this is what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said she wanted a “hemispheric open market.” This is what George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg want. They want an undifferentiated global population, raceless, genderless, identityless, meaningless population, consuming sugar, consuming drugs, while watching porn on VR goggles while they max out their credit cards. Don’t deny that that is the kind of passive nihilism that so many in the elite class actually want. They want a world without roots, they want a world without meaning, they want a flat grey-on-grey world, one economic market for them to manipulate.
With this, he positions the Alt Right against Modernity, which is what Right-wingers have been wanting for centuries. We dislike the industrialization of the countryside, the concentration of people into cities, the loss of traditional virtues and knowledge, and the rootless modern city where people are dedicated to self-pleasure that makes them miserable through its lack of meaning.
Modern society can then be described as meaningless because there is no purpose to civilization, and without that, each person is an island in himself. This in turn reverts human behavior to that of monkeys, self-interested to the point of excluding everything else, and gives us with no way to “reach out” to things of importance, including excellence in the physical and metaphysical realms. People will not give up the pretense and rationalization that this is good, because it gives them a sense of power — think of the One Ring in Lord of the Rings — but become existentially miserable.
The Right has traditionally espoused time-proven types of social order, heritage/identity, hierarchy, transcendental visions of nature and religion, and a pursuit of excellence as means toward not just functional society, but human thriving. These give us firm guidance and a sense of some things as immutably important such that we do not mind sacrificing for them, even before we realize how important they are to our own happiness. This is how to build a civilization, and with our retreat from it, we have failed; however, we can rise above that state.
This leads us to wonder what the soul of the West actually is. Some say it is conquest and aggression, others piety, and still others mention a sense of order, balance and harmony within a natural golden chain of being. All of these are true, but in my view, the root of the West is that it is reflective: we stop to reflect on life, and require meaning from it, because that is how we motivate ourselves to survive the difficult and rise above challenges.
Western man, by virtue of being reflective, discovers all these other aspects of life as parts of a natural order which make life significant to us. It is more than “human nature”; it is the mathematical structure of life itself that requires a center, constant struggle to affirm principles, and a hierarchy in which those who are best rise to the top so all may benefit from their insight. This in turn leads us to an understanding of an order to life, the interconnection of its parts — structure, design, form — as being more important than material, and that leads us to spiritual and mythic understanding.
Spencer has in the past pointed to the root of our downfall as “individualism,” against which he posits an aggressive realism. We must not project ourselves onto the world, but accept it as is, and then we see what we can do with it, instead of creating fantasy worlds of Utopian ideology and then insisting that others treat them as real.
This leads to a riff from Bruce Charlton that is both not quite correct, and more importantly, a good guide for the future. In his view, the Alt Right must tackle spirituality:
I don’t see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now – which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm – everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.
Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.
(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook – taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being — only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)
The idea of the Alt Right as materialist only makes sense when one takes into account that political learning is an arc and not a binary where one steps over an exoteric threshold and suddenly understands everything. The Alt Right is a bewildered people emerging from the Utopian dream of Leftism to realize that they had been seeing the world in symbols alone, and realizing these are empty, attempting to find the hidden meaning in reality. This is why some of us suggest the black pill as a means of removing the illusion which is communicated like a virus through social contact, and from that position of absolute emptiness, rediscovering reality.
These are all thoughts for the future. As Spencer pointed out, the Alt Right arose from the Leftist assimilation of the Right, causing those focused on sanity to reject the Right and Left alike and look toward a new beginning. That new beginning means that the Alt Right is nascent even as it appears to have certain conventions graven in stone, and that it has a future to discover through recapitulating the history of reaction, ancient conservatism and traditionalism.
On our way back from the event, we stopped in Brenham, Texas to visit the tobacco barn and enjoy some of the local scenery, despite discovering how much modernity has ravaged this isolated outpost of beauty. Of course, no Texas road trip is complete without a stop at Whataburger (pronounced roughly as “water burger” by locals). One does not have to believe in signs to imagine that the universe was winking at us.
Friday, September 30th, 2016
Modernity specializes in replacing past knowledge. This occurs because modernity is entirely a product of the egalitarian ideology, which always seeks to remove any competing ideas, even if they are not hostile.
One of the idea we have lost is the real nature of the “divine right of kings,” which is an explanation for the reason the aristocracy were given power. In the modern vision, it was a religious fanaticism that allowed people to believe some other people were selected by God to have power.
In actuality, the divine right of kings is a restatement of esotericism. That term itself is not widely known, but a dictionary search reveals the following for esoteric:
understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite:
Esotericism refers to the nature of knowledge as both (1) cumulative and (2) dependent on the ability of those who seek it. It is inherently inegalitarian, but its opposite, exotericism, is profoundly egalitarian: in an exoteric system, truth is distilled to symbols, which are then used to educate equal people who are then presumed to be equally competent at the discipline.
No one really believes in esotericism of course. All those doctors went through medical school, but there are some you trust more than others. Even in car mechanics, all of whom are certified, we trust some more than others and believe some are more talented than others.
Those two areas of choice — talent and trust — reflect the reasoning for an understanding of the divine right of kings as esotericism. Some people are more competent than others, and some more morally good; those who are the best in those areas should be in power not because of moral obligation, but practicality. It is a realistic adaptation to our world and the needs of civilization.
When it is said that the kings have descended from the divine, it means that they are the continuation of the best in our people, which is closest to the divine because such people have the best understanding of reality, the highest moral standards, and will advance civilization by not merely reacting to conditions but by imposing a creative focus to their leadership by which they not only do what is practical, but improve the quality of what exists so that it rises above what we previously thought was possible.
To hominids gathering beetles, roots and bush meat it must have been inconceivable that something like imperial Rome or pre-democracy Athens might exist. In the same way, to modern people it seems impossible that life can be anything more than gathering jobs, consumer products and triplicate forms. But it is possible to rise above and then keep on rising.
For that reason, traditional societies saw their aristocrats as a gift from God. These were people blessed with not just intellectual power, but moral goodness, and within that, the aesthetic preference for beauty, truth, sanity and excellence. These people alone can make a great society.
As we have slowly shifted to the exoteric, starting long before the Peasant’s Revolt but gaining speed with those lower-class rebellions and the fetishizing of them by intellectuals during The Enlightenment,™ we have seen our civilization slowly decay as it has stopped aiming for excellence and has contented itself with mere pragmatic reaction.
Aristocrats are like antennas that receive more of the signal from God, consisting of understanding the order of nature at a level deeper than appearance, where the rest of us get a lesser part of the signal. For that reason, they are chosen by God, and have the divine right to rule, as it will produce the best — closest to God, who is infinite perfection — results.
Thursday, September 15th, 2016
The question of the supernatural boils down to a simple metric: is the world organized by material, or by information?
If it is organized by material, then bits of stuff just bounce into one another and create what we know of as reality. Opponents call this nihilism because it believes in no ordering force. Intelligent Design tries to work around that by saying that a cosmic chess-player designed those material pieces to create an emergent order.
If it is organized by information, material is the canvas through which order is expressed. This suggests that what happens in reality is more of a calculation, or interaction between material parts to derive informational results, than a pre-planned order. It is both emergent and animate.
The argument for an underlying mathematical or informational order to reality is separate from the question of purpose. We are agents of choice by virtue of being alive; we make choices based on our ability to perceive and our honesty in doing so; there is no inherent right or wrong, but those who choose to pursue reality find it has much to teach.
In discovering reality, one finds oneself look at structure or patterns, and comparing what one knows of how things work to what is seen. This can lead to a perception of an underlying system of order:
A lot of people don’t realize what’s really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidents and things. They don’t realize that there’s this, like, lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you’re thinkin’ about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone’ll say, like, “plate,” or “shrimp,” or “plate of shrimp” out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin’ for one, either. It’s all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.
The above, from the movie Repo Man, is designed to be humorous, but illustrates the basic point: either we think there is a principle of organization, or not. If there is a principle of organization, it is not material.
This presents a quandary to our highly material minds. We work from the original material, which is our bodies and their needs, and inevitably extend that into the social sphere because it is composed of other bodies like us. Bodily needs and desires are universal; contemplative analysis of the order of existence is not.
But over time, we see how patterns repeat. How those implicate other patterns. And how, at the heart of it all, the entirety of existence appears to be alive.
Bruce Charlton illustrates this with his insight into synchronicity:
But this understanding of synchronicity assumes that Life is nearly-all discrete, granular, autonomous and unconnected events: just ‘bits’ of information.
In contrast, synchronicity is ‘telling’ us the opposite about Life – that in reality our Life is a web of relationships between conscious entities – like a dream.
The point of synchronicity is really very simple, and does not need decoding – because it is not a informational message. Synchronicity is the sudden awareness that Life is a web of connected and purposive relationships; and that there are many entities around us involved in these relationships – things as well as people.
The division comes down to the alive-ness of life. If you sense that reality acts like an organism, pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place. This is an esoteric understanding, however, and not accessible to most. But, as many of our smartest and best people have discovered, it is the understanding which unites all the parts of reality.
This seeming paradox exploded into public consciousness with quantum mechanics, which affirm an order which works outside linearity and likely, outside materiality:
Some claim that it shows quantum mechanics implies action-at-a-distance, period. Others maintain that we can still avoid action-at-a-distance by denying that quantum mechanics is a theory about a reality in space and time. Either way, the consensus is that Einstein can’t have what he wanted – a real world in space and time, without action-at-a-distance.
…Ordinarily, we think that the past is fixed while the future is open, or partly so. Doesn’t our freedom to affect the future depend on this openness? How could we affect what was already fixed? These are deep philosophical waters, but we don’t have to paddle out very far to see that we have some options. We can say that, according to the retrocausal proposal, quantum theory shows that the division between what is fixed and what is open doesn’t line up neatly with the distinction between past and future. Some of the past turns out to be open, too, in whatever sense the future is open.
Interestingly, the most likely solution to this problem is relativity across time as well as space:
Costa de Beauregard pointed out that Alice could affect Bob’s particle without action-at-a-distance, if the influence followed an indirect, zigzag path through space and time, via the point in the past where the two particles intersect. But there are no zigzags like that in standard quantum mechanics, so if we put them in we are actually agreeing with Einstein that the theory is incomplete.
This gives us an interesting model: two events can influence one another across space and time, with each event adjusting itself to match the other, not so much as if they were entangled but as if they were different computations whose results rely on one another. We can see the same effect in microprocessors where a thread is dependent on the outcome of another thread, and must adjust the form of that outcome, for example number of decimal places, based on what is calculated in the other thread.
In my hopefully-upcoming book Parallelism, I argue for another approach: events are not just dependent on one another across time, but can partially create one another through pattern similarity, such that things which are potentially true become true when they find structural counterparts in another event, including a person. In this view, we create supernatural reality from supernatural possibility.
At that point, we have taken the world-organized-by-information to the place where the cosmic idealists of the past visualized it: the universe as a vast informational construct, with a purpose of its own, in which we can by emulating its patterns gain greater power, if we so choose.
Very little in life is simple. This approach is not as simple, popular or gratifying as exoteric liberal Christianity or materialistic atheism, but it is more logical in a world where most is mystery, and the underlying patterns dwarf their material outcomes in importance.
Saturday, October 10th, 2015
A friend of mine paused mid-conversation. “I really liked North Germany,” he said. “They’re xenophobes, of course, but I suppose I don’t blame them. And that’s not a problem for me, so it’s none of my business.”
He is a tall, blonde, athletic and distinctive-looking fellow who has made his career saving lives in medicine. I doubt he would ever endanger or give less service to someone on the basis of race, religion, creed, culture, etc. But he tapped into something that most of us are feeling.
We have grown up distrusting those in power above us. This is inseparable from our beings at this point. There is always an official story, and then what most people do, and a private reality. Think of it in terms of beer: officially, you should enjoy whatever you want; most people slug down Budweiser or one of the big brands; in private, most people that you would want to know will admit to disgust at Budweiser and have their own smaller brands they pursue.
This is the Bell Curve in action: most people are uncritical, and at the far left people choose beers for irony or uniqueness not quality, but from the middle toward the right people choose by quality and are loyal in that decision. Despite that, the official government concept is that all beers are equal and that people choose arbitrarily and that choice should be respected.
At this point, the radicals of the 1780s are still in control of our government, media and recognized cultural institutions. They chant this same dogma, which is that the Bell Curve is flat, and in religious denial of Darwin we should not favor the right end of the curve so that we keep evolving, but make every position “equal” so that no one is encouraged to rise above themselves.
Privately, most of us whose intelligence scores place us to the right side of the Bell Curve will agree that this is nonsense and superstition on par with ducking stools and cargo cults. Equality is a social fiction to help us all “just get along,” but the price of that compliance is that society becomes based on an official lie that we work around privately at our own expense.
In other words, society has become a parasite. Many of us, like my friend mentioned above, have not articulated how it gets its hooks into us, but we know what we are no longer interested in paying for. We are not interested in helping those who cannot help themselves, the great diversity experiment, or the radicals of feminist and other stripes who seem like self-parody.
Given the mostly unreflective nature of humanity, this insight is staggering. Very few of us do more than go to work, pay our bills including taxes, and throw a few beer cans at the television screen before forgetting about politics for another year. But now, it is has become obvious that we have a System which does useless things in order to justify itself, like a carpet cleaning salesman who tracks mud through the house and then hands you a coupon.
As a result, we are all becoming crypto-conservatives. Conservatism is both common-sense realism and a desire to do what is best; that is what it conserves: the best that human life offers. Conservatives look to the long term to measure what is best because measuring in the short term does not work. Our common sense is based on the long-term as well, so it is different from the liberal “Well we did this and no one died so it must be the right way” half-cocked version.
Crypto-conservatives recognize the logical reality that Leftists keep trying to obscure with “facts” that are actually interpretations. Logically, diversity cannot work because two groups cannot occupy the same space, so it destroys every group involved. Historically, the happiest societies have been anti-diverse, and common sense says that a society where everyone is moving in the same direction will be the happiest one. Even more, strong culture like you can have in homogenous societies means less for government to do, and more that people “just know” they should do.
We keep seeing holes in the narrative. Crypto-conservatives recognize that democracy is the theft of leadership by taking it from the most competent and handing it to the unruly mob. We also know that most people, while not bad, are also not good — to be good requires intending to be good and demanding it of oneself. We see democracy as the pretense that people are good in order to manipulate them, and wonder who the manipulators are.
Anyone with some experience with life also becomes a believer in inequality and esotericism, which is a model for how we learn. Not all people are good, but also, competence varies widely, as anyone who has had to hire and fire people will tell you. Moral character varies widely as well, so pick your friends — and employees, customers and renters — carefully. Is it any wonder that is one thing government is hellbent to make illegal? Esotericism is another idea government fears: the thought that nothing can be taught in one step, but that it takes years and natural talent to learn. That is not equal, so it must be bad.
When we are in a store or business, and the owners do too many things that are manipulative and tie down one of our arms with rules while forcing us to hold up something for someone else’s benefit with the other, we get cynical and bail out. No one has yet figured out how to do the same with government and transition from our parasitic System to something less ideological and more common sense. But if the hearts of the people are anything to go by, it is coming — and soon.
Friday, August 2nd, 2013
Like many of you, I am a brooder. I observe, I theorize, then I apply and test. And then I fiddle, and repeat, again and again.
This process arises because the genius of existence is that it is a process of perpetual increase in organization, or getting better at what we have always been. It is not a process of changing who we are, only refining it.
Such it is with philosophy, which is the proper name for where the mind wanders. That which looks for answers is philosophy; its opposite are the anthrocentric forms like politics, where we are given choices from among options created by humans. Philosophy seeks to unite reality with our inward impulses.
If anything will open a new direction for humanity, it is this kind of thinking. Politics is motivated by values, values are motivated by observations, and observations are created from aesthetic choices and reality itself. In other words, we choose which of the available outcomes we desire, and from that we build a set of preferences and that trickles down into political orientation.
The oldest form of philosophy is that which insists upon a study of cause-effect relationships. It says, at its simplest possible level, that nothing causes itself; rather, the things we think of as reality come about as a result of chains of causes that are not always visible. Naturally, this clashes with the materialistic belief of our time, which sees all events through a chemical or mechanical metaphor.
Traditionalists are divided on what they are. The most articulate exploration of the belief is through Huxley, who in his The Perennial Philosophy both identifies the roots of traditionalism, and lists some attributes of the belief system. Others point to the Guenon/Evola axis, which basically extends Nietzsche and Schopenhauer back into the realm of the pagan Greeks.
Others disagree with this but I see the most important aspect of Traditionalism as being its tendency to affirm a singularity of reality and thought. In the view of a Traditionalist, all religions are different ways of describing the same underlying divinity, whether they are polytheist or monotheist. Even more importantly, all knowledge is derived from the same world, using the same cause-effect method.
The nature of cause-effect reasoning to verge on ultimate causes creates a schism in that the question arises whether paleoconservative and traditionalist values arise from religion, or can be derived through secular means. Many of us identify ourselves as Secular Traditionalists, which actually doesn’t mean we are secularists.
Instead, it means that we are of the belief that it doesn’t matter. If you think in terms of cause-effect reasoning, you will develop a deep reverence for reality, and will reverse your already reversed thought and start seeing yourself as the product of the world and the tendencies of the world as more important than your self-expression. You become a reality-worshipper.
As a nihilist, I don’t exclude the supernatural from reality. I see the supernatural as an extension of the natural, and realize that to demand that we prove the supernatural through materialism is a “begging the question” fallacy, because the supernatural is a dimension added to materialism. We can infer it through pattern recognition and processing, but we will never touch it or experiment on it.
However, to extend Traditionalism itself, I see both the supernatural and the secular as different ways of describing the same thing. If approached with the same attitude of reverence and use of forward reasoning instead of reversed reasoning, they lead to similar places and may even connect each other at some point.
In fact, many of us are monists, or people who do not believe there are multiple worlds. In this view, the supernatural is an extension of the natural, and uses a similar pattern organization. There is no other world where everything is right; the present world is divine, and it has additional dimensions which we may also be able to explore.
This irritates many who wish to make religion the rock upon which conservatism is based. I understand and appreciate their concerns. The leftist is wily in its ability to subvert and destroy the meaning of all tokens in language, so it makes sense to have something which cannot be translated into language, and must be felt through the gut.
However, as the prior age of materialism and egalitarianism winds down in lugubrious spoilage as it always does, my goal is to unify the thinking of people on direction and preferences. All else is a means to that end. Traditionalism itself is but one way of describing the world.
What is important is that we remember this: the world itself is constant, and we are changing. We must look toward the world and its patterns for knowledge, not rely on our own judgment, which will cause us to project. All things describe the world, not the other way around. To put the symbol before its referent is to become solipsistic and lose touch with the whole of existence.
Right now, the battle rages across the blogosphere about the role of Christianity in the restoration of the West. I am here to tell you now that none of this matters. What infested the West is the same thing that infested Christianity, and may have brought about the conditions where religion needed to be explicit and exoteric about morality as Christianity is, and that is Crowdism.
Crowdism is what happens when humans put their own egos before the world. They clump together in groups of reality denialists, and work to force that reality denial on others, so that no one can point out the emperor having no clothes and reveal the reality before us. Their goal is to confuse, subvert, destroy, sabotage, decompose and make ambiguous.
Our goal should be the opposite. We should clear aside the attic full of junk that is the neurotic Western mind, put the ego in its proper place, and embrace the world as a whole. This is the essence of tradition, whether done with the name of God, gods or simply a statement of appreciation for the genius design of forests on your lips.