Sunday, June 17, 2018
I believe culture should be linked to the unfolding of material evolution---and it is not an unfolding of "spirit." This is what integrates the arts, religion, and the sciences.
But there is no "Absolute" end or synthesis to the journey of the evolution toward Godhood because Godhood leads to the next Godhood, endlessly, without a beginning or end---it is humans who anthropomorphically see an end to their own lives and assume the universe works that way too.
Those who believe in the complete randomness of evolution, the vast majority of scientists, often make dismissive comments regarding any kind of direction to evolution, usually in footnotes to show its unimportance to the text, but then the footnote’s are often emotional and long, protesting too much. I find the arguments that evolution is “non-purposive” and random as closed as the religious arguments denying evolution; information is lacking in both arguments. Human culture needs to be involved with and in harmony with the evolution of life toward Godhood.
Scientist Francis Heylighen wrote, “ ...it is assumed that evolution is largely unpredictable and contingent on a host of uncontrollable factors, which may steer its course in any of an infinite number of directions. However, it is noted that directions in which complexity increases are generally preferred...Though fitness is relative to the environment, it has two components that can increase in an absolute sense, internal fitness (strength of linkages between components) and number of environmental perturbations that can be counteracted. Increases in these two components tend to be accompanied by respective increases in structural and functional complexity...Still, it can happen that systems evolve towards a simpler organization, although this seems rare. It is most likely to occur when the system enters a simpler environment, as when an organism becomes an internal parasite or moves back from the land to the water, but these are obviously unusual examples which go against the general trend of environments becoming more complex. ("The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution”)
The drive to survival and reproductive success within life has a logical goal: ongoing supreme success in survival and reproduction at the zenith of material evolution in the universe; and that defines real Godhood.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
It's about over now, we won't return to traditional America or traditional Americans. What we have now is a polyglot of diversity which does not work. It's post-America now, global America, which is what the liberals and neocons wanted---they even openly admit it now. They don't care about America any more than the new immigrants do, it's a place to exploit fading riches.
The problem is their polyglot global America is not based in real human nature. Human nature is kin-centered, heterosexual, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as Marxism and globalism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect human nature.
And that is where the hope for America comes from: we will eventually decentralize into a protected ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions which can still legally follow the constitutional separation of powers and states. In any case that is where polyglot America (and Europe) will end up, purposefully or unpurposefully, peacefully or by civil war. Polyglot empires are the end of civilizations, ethnostates are the beginning and the end, if we are wise and strong enough to keep them.
Friday, June 15, 2018
The old way of defining high culture was having knowledge of art and philosophy. It was aristocratic, perhaps necessarily elitist. Then science began to enter the mix with such overarching fields as the evolutionary science of sociobiology, pointing out the biological origin of social behavior, which virtually subsumes the humanities, including art and philosophy, if we are honest about it.
So now how do we define high culture? It has to be a broader synthesis of art, philosophy and science. The biological origin of social behavior brings all fields back to earth---although doing research science seems to be a high I.Q. aristocracy, chosen by merit. But aristocracies are more than test scores.
Affirmative Action has shown us that rejecting merit in choosing various positions is not the only problem. Even if test scores merit the choice (and they usually don't) there are clashes simply due to ethnic differences. For example, what seems like over-defensiveness to one group may be normal behavior to another. Social harmony comes easier when both nature (genes) and nurture (culture) are homogeneous, that is, when aristocrats and commoners are composed of elements that are mainly of the same kind. That is simple common sense.
Some readers may guess what I'm going to say next: high culture can develop an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature, where meritocracies can create more harmonious "aristocrats" and "commoners." Some sort of federalism can protect but not rule the whole. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be legally adapted in the United States from our constitutional separation of powers and states, so this future can be conservative and is not too Utopian.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
In reality the deeper spiritual gurus celebrate a lot of death. First they think being born into the sinful material world means the death of the real Self. Then must come the death of the lower nature and the awakening of the higher nature, followed by the diffusion into eternity, really another death defined as life because all the desires of real life are gone.
Why this great hatred of real life? It all seems to be done in reality to experience the bliss that can come from blocking all the desires of material life, some of which can cause pain, and this desirelessness is then pumped up as being the experience of heaven or nirvana. Was no hedonistic heroin available?
No. That is wrong religion. Right religion affirms successful survival and reproduction and defines Godhood as the zenith of successful survival and reproduction and the zenith of material evolution. Life, evolving life, is celebrated, not death.
Finding the best way to evolve, eventually all the way to Godhood, allows us to take another look at political philosophy to see how much of it is affected by religious hedonism and Utopianism. Deep-conservatism keeps it feet on the ground while gazing up at real evolutionary material and supermaterial horizons.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
I can agree with Nietzsche when he writes about "naturalizing humanity," and the task of translating man back to nature, but I don't think religion or culture needs to be seen as an "overcoming" of nature as Nietzsche saw it.
We don't need to murder God or religion as Nietzsche tried to do. But religion needs to be transformed into a theological materialism which understands that we, and nature, evolve in the material world to supermaterial Godhood.
The will-to-power of Nietzsche can be remodelled a bit; what the will really is is a will-to-Godhood (Tirips) and it is an entirely material activation. It's not clear to me if Nietzsche thought of his will as spiritual or material but it is clear that he rejected both God and religion.
Evolutionary theological materialism retains but transforms Godhood and religion and creates a real synthesis of nature and culture/nurture.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The will to power of the nerds is a better translation of the "managerial revolution" than "the revenge of the nerds." Yes, revenge might have been involved due to, say, bullying in high school by star football players, but the deeper motivation was the will to power of the nerds.
As Jack Trotter more or less pointed out in "Chronicles," the nerds attained power by shoving aside traditional meritocracies which cared at least as much about what was good for the people and the nation and as they did about efficiency and profits. The nerds had also absorbed modern liberalism and cultural Marxism in the humanities departments of the elite colleges and universities they attended, and so when they weren't looking at their clipboards they were talking about how all rowdy bullies need to disappear in a vast bureaucracy of equality. ( I might add that President Trump is no nerd which must relate to why the managerial nerds hate him so much.)
This does not mean that democracies should not consult with experts. In our increasingly complex world we should have more scientists (sociobiologists would be my preference) in congress and fewer lawyers who now make up the vast majority, as Cattell once suggested. We need people who can look beyond the narrow confines of efficiency and profits, which has given us global corporations and political empires managed by power-desiring nerds who have been destroying the West, with no feeling of patriotism.
Now we have nerds pushing for the dominance of artificial intelligence which they will of course control, preferring the evolution of computers to the evolution of nasty patriotic humans.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Taking their clues from Nietzsche, postmodern philosophers were biased toward the individual over the group, at times reaching the level of worshiping the individual. I believe this came from missing or greatly undervaluing knowledge of the Neo-Darwinist science of sociobiology, which showed us that group-selection trumps individual selection: as E.O. Wilson put it: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."
The great psychologist Raymond Cattell believed that the key to evaluating the individual and the group was for society to have a way to understand the difference between the social and anti-social outsider, because creative outsiders can be virtually criminals in rejecting laws. This harmonizes with the understanding that group-selection is the primary unit of selection and individual selection follows after.
The bottom line for me in thinking about the group and the creative individual is to let individuals and outsiders freely create with no strings attached, that is, philosophers, artists, engineers, scientists, or whoever, but in the end the judgment has to come down to understanding and judging the difference between the social and anti-social work of outsiders. Cattell's field was in comprehensive psychometric testing and the tests work quite well in telling us much about social and antisocial people (as long as there is room for outsiders to fall through the cracks, which being outsiders they often do.)
Conservatism in general upholds social change and not radical antisocial change, but this tends to get lost in a conformity that allows no antisocial or social change.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Do we ever "escape" the world of necessity, and why would we want to?
It is a suicidal wish, or a hedonistic desire to live without any displeasure.
The bliss religious gurus seek, or the absolute truth philosophers desire is not experienced beyond the material world, these things are in their very material human heads, or in their very material pleasure centers, not in any trance of non-material spiritualism.
But this realism does not kill Godhood. Real Godhood is reached by the very materialism that spiritualism rejects. We evolve to supermaterial Godhood by way of material evolution, and not by "releasing" ourselves from the "bonds" that bind us to the "wheel of life."
Religion and philosophy need not be rejected but they need to be brought back to real material life and real material and supermaterial evolution; art, culture, and political philosophy can grow from there.
Saturday, June 09, 2018
The great scientist E.O. Wilson has said that group-selection supersedes individual selection: "The competition between the two forces can be succinctly expressed as follows: Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. Or, risking oversimplification, individual selection promoted sin, while group selection promoted virtue."
Libertarians can join conservatives in applauding the value of altruism, which was developed by group-selection preferences, and was the social foundation of most religions and political philosophies. Libertarian philosophers missed that distinction, which makes the differences between free trade and fair trade. Since most of the libertarian philosophers were refugees from totalitarian political systems that probably made them prefer the concept of individual freedom over group freedom, which was an unfortunate bias. It gave capitalism a bad name.
Both group-selection and individual selection are mainly driven by the biological origin of social behavior, although there is a co-evolution between nature and nurture. This subject moves into epistemology when we ask the question, can knowledge alone be reality, or is knowledge defined as being in harmony with reality which then brings human satisfaction? Biology comes before knowledge of biology and our knowledge needs to harmonize with biology rather than only dwelling in a world of abstractions and calling it knowledge of reality and settling for a lesser satisfaction with that.
Friday, June 08, 2018
Our intellectual and political elites often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature
Our intellectual and political elites often say that our worldviews must operate "within the bounds of the laws of nature" (John Locke) and within the laws of human nature, but they then often misinterpret the laws of nature and the laws of human nature.
Claude Polin points out (Chronicles, June 2018) that Marx and Marxism are not the enemy of liberalism, they are the embodiment of liberalism, claiming to establish the ideals and goals that liberals only talk about, which Marxism supposedly achieves by forceful totalitarian means.
All of this is based on a false reading of nature and human nature, which is in many ways the opposite of liberalism and communism: human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as modern liberalism, or cultural Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.
Conservatism and traditionalism affirm many of those natural traits, but then their definition of a non-material soul, spirit, and heaven is as utopian as the Marxist utopia which offers "no leadership, currency, private ownership, laws or need for any of these things." At least the gurus of Marxism didn't despise the material view of nature as the elite religious gurus did---but not their lustful yet religious peasants.
Readers of this blog know that I believe human beings would be better off to get in sync with what they and their activations actually are, which means existing in the flow of successful survival, reproduction, and ultimately material evolution toward supermaterial Godhood. So we need not lose conservatism or religion, but they need to be transformed (not rejected) within the real bounds of the laws of nature and human nature, best defined in the non-utopian evolutionary sciences, and in the religious philosophy of theological materialism.
Thursday, June 07, 2018
Both religion and philosophy tend to value thinking over life (Nietzsche's position). Although I would add that religion at the upper levels of development "feels" and "experiences" blissful states which thinking gets in the way of---perhaps a different version of Dionysus.
I think we need to look at life from a deeper position than only thinking or feeling and when we do the biological origin of social behavior reveals a force which thinking and feeling are only a part of---although it may still be rational. Biology comes before and develops thinking and feeling.
I then take the position that human biology contains an activation to evolve to the highest success of Godhood, along with dealing with the random outside forces of selection and evolution. I call that inward activation Tirips (a material will to Godhood) which transforms thinking and feeling about spirit and Godhood.
I believe this primal and sacred activation to evolve toward Godhood, which one day may be empirically understood, shows the "will to power" to be secondary. This primal and sacred activation is more important or deeper than thinking or feeling, and it needs to be included in religion, philosophy and science.
Wednesday, June 06, 2018
In asking that question I'm not talking about the polite lies that oil social interaction, such as: "How are you doing." "Fine, thank you."
In the short term lies and lying people can have an advantage over non-liars. But lies are found out and sometimes dealt with harshly. But then people who lie come up with new lies to cover old lies, and on we go.
It seems to me that a people who maintain a warrior society lie less because, for example, lying about the strength of ones troops can get many people killed. eg. "Tell the truth and shoot strait." But that may not apply to spying and espionage, which really complicates the question.
A non-warrior people, a merchandising people, may gain advance from lying, culturally and even genetically, as liar's might do well bartering etc.
What happens when the warrior-mentality comes up against the merchandising-mentality? Maybe that's when caste's develop.
At first glance it looks like the "identify politics" of the liberals could find common cause with the Alt-right because they both push the importance of ethnicity. But then the left does a diabolical thing, it promotes nonwhite and non-Western peoples by the method of charging white-Western people with being racist and xenophobic. And of course there is also the fiction on the left that all human beings are the same and would all get along but for evil racism---discounting of course their own identity politics.
Conservative's will talk about the importance of political and cultural affinities which tend to create the geographical bonds between people, but they won't mention, or rarely mention, the stronger group-selection preference of ethnicity. It's an understandable excuse since the ruling politically correct cultural Marxism of the left can ruin conservatives if they are charged with being racist. And then there is the universalism beneath the spiritualism of Christianity which also has something to do with the reluctance of conservatives to affirm deep ethnic differences between peoples.
So we have the process of the separation or balkanization of the United States now beginning to take place along with the collapse of the American empire, which was predictable given that real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things, with group or ethnic-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.
The natural and rational way to deal with the separation or balkanization of the United States and the collapse of the empire would be to legally and non-violently adapt the constitutional separation of powers and states to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That won't be easy but it will be more humane and far better than the solutions put forward by the left, and even the right, as mentioned above.
Tuesday, June 05, 2018
Why philosophers and theologians especially should stop casting about in abstract nothingness for knowledge
It's not a "bias" that knowledge is activated by the drive to survival and reproductive success. And the reality goes even deeper than that to the drive or will to evolve materially to supermaterial Godhood, which works along with the outside natural forces of evolution and selection. How can it be called "bias" when it is the prime reality of the life? It can be a bias only if you think there is higher spiritual or abstract knowledge beyond the material and supermaterial, but there is not. That describes the basic epistemology of theological materialism.
Human beings therefore would be better off to get in sync with what they and their activations actually are, which is existing in the flow of successful survival, reproduction, and ultimately material evolution toward supermaterial Godhood. Philosophers and theologians especially should stop casting about in abstract nothingness for knowledge. The ancient Greeks and Nietzsche called this "accepting one's fate," which perhaps has a more negative tone than it should have when evolving to Godhood is seen as our real goal.
Monday, June 04, 2018
We need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide
Liberals in America have been indoctrinated with a cultural form of Marxism which teaches them to open wide the borders of the United States and allow in virtually all immigrants, even criminals.
Liberals have been brainwashed from pre-school to grad-school to believe that human nature is formed only by culture to be whatever we decide to make human nature, and genetic traits have little or nothing to do with it.
Liberals think that all the immigrants will simply melt into America because liberals are ignorant of genetically-derived human nature with its group or ethnic-selection preferences, which means that distinctly different people don't melt, they compete, often fiercely.
Non-assimilation brings cultural changes as a result of the natural differences between people---as the people change the culture changes. The non-assimilation eventually brings social disorder and even civil war.
The murder of the West seems a better analogy now than the suicide the West. The analogy of suicide seems related to ignorance, the murder analogy seems more deliberate, although in the deepest sense they may both be the result of ignorance.
The flat fact is we need to change our immigration laws or America as we have known it will be more a murder than a suicide......Will there ever be payback for those responsible for the murder? That depends on who saves us, how we are saved, and if we are saved.
Sunday, June 03, 2018
It seems to me that aristocrats led to the production of great art because they were primarily not greedy for money, and did not have such a thing as affirmative action pushing ethnic preferences in choosing the art of monarchies or in nationalistic Europe.
That has not been the case especially in the United States over the last 100 years, but also in Europe. Money and greed---and ethnic preferences since the 1960's---has been choosing the art and the artists, which has led to mostly garbage as art.
Now we have cheap pornography in our books and films and the obscene nursery rhymes of Rap, all chosen by people seeking money or ethnic preferences. Today even on my classical music station I heard one of those boring jacked up Gershwin "American symphonies" which wasn't worth being created let alone having "variations" on.
We probably won't have great art again until America and Europe form an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, along with an appreciation again of meritocracies. But don't hold your breath for it.
To truly join the individual with the group and with life religion needs the sociobiological understanding of life
As mentioned here a few days ago, I don't think art can serve as a foundation for culture, as Nietzsche thought it could, and I don't think philosophy or science alone can. Religion can, but to truly join the individual with the group and with life religion needs the sociobiological understanding of life.
Religion says a spiritual universalism joins the individual with the group and with all life, whereas sociobiology says religion itself, as well as spiritualism, developed because they helped join the individual with the group for the purpose of more successful survival and reproduction.
To more deeply and truly join the individual with the group and with life religion needs to see Godhood as being supermaterial, not spiritual, and evolved to in the material world. And science needs to admit an inward activation to evolution and life, which works along with evolution and natural selection, endlessly seeking Godhood defined as the zenith of successful evolution, survival, and reproduction.
The old way to Godhood was the Involuntary Inward Path to the symbolic "God" experienced within, the new or transformed way to Godhood is the Evolutionary Outward Path to the zenith of material evolution or supermaterial Godhood. That is the Twofold Path of theological materialism, conservatively retaining the old but transforming it.
I have called that sacred activation within life several things: originally I called it the "spirit-will-to-Godhood," using the word "spirit" to relate better to traditional religion, wanting to include traditional religion in theological materialism, while transforming "spirit" into a material or supermaterial drive within life. l have since called the sacred inward drive "Tirips" to better distinguish it from a spiritualism which does not really exist, while retaining Godhood as the sacred supermaterial goal of evolving material life.
Saturday, June 02, 2018
Survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism
The hypothesis of sociobiology regarding the development of religion is that religion's better bonded people together and made religiously bonded groups more successful than people or groups unbonded by religion or groups weakly bonded by religion.
But like almost everything in life the good comes with the bad, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Spiritualism can be taken to extremes. Asceticism often leads to denying all the material desires including the desire for reproductive success. Several religious founders downplayed the desires of the flesh and warned against them, even advocating celibacy.
It is from that extreme base of spiritual idealism that universalism often develops, which ends up weakening religions---as political universalism (modern liberalism) weakens nations. The original bonds of religion are then broken and the people are therefore broken.
This would seem to give the advantage to religions that remain ethnocentric and not universal, like Judaism, or even religions that claim to be universal but whose members remain bonded within the same ethnic groups, like the Islamic Arabs or Islamic Persians, and the Mormons before they embraced universalism.
The religious philosophy of theological materialism doesn't have that problem of spiritual idealism or universalism because it believes that Godhood is supermaterial, not spiritual, and Godhood is evolved to in the material world. Therefore survival and reproductive success become vital in evolving to Godhood.
The hypothesis is that survival and evolution work best in religiously and ethnically bonded groups before they are overcome with spiritualism and universalism. Theological materialism affirms an ethnopluralism of ethnostates where all ethnic groups and all ethnostates can best bond themselves and proceed with ongoing evolution toward real Godhood, aided by religion, science, and any other field that advances evolution. Various forms of federalism can protect the whole, along with international evolutionary research centers open to aiding all states.
Friday, June 01, 2018
When Nietzsche said early in his career that life could be justified only through art he was attacking rationality, but also traditional morality. Postmodern thinkers took up Nietzsche's cause, and we see what happened. We have the political correctness of cultural Marxism, which is a bunch of virtually fictional ideas unconnected to real life or real human nature, and as a result we have the decadence and degeneration of Western high culture.
Theological materialism affirms the sociobiological definition of human nature which affirms conservative and traditional human traits and behavior. But this super-synthesis also involves turning "spiritualism" back on its feet after standing on its head for millenniums by defining Godhood as the supermaterial zenith of material, not spiritual, evolution, which can be aided by religion, rationality, art, politics, and even science.
We can affirm all of these fields in the super-synthesis of theological materialism. That is, the material evolution of life to supermaterial Godhood justifies real life.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
In the past philosopher's talked about the influence of culture on the philosopher, and wondered if the philosopher could be "timeless" outside of his culture. This was before postmodernism went wild and decided it could be completely free ("condemned to freedom"---what arrogance) and invent a relativity of truths and values, since all thing were the result of nurture not nature.
Sociobiology changed all that with its empirical studies on the biological origin of social behavior. Philosophers can't escape the implications of sociobiology and almost seem suicidal to want to. Ideas are only as timeless as the biological origin of social behavior relates to ideas (although there is a co-evolution between biology and culture, biology takes the lead.)
So that is why sociobiology needs to be placed at the foundation of philosophy, which will effect the specialties of philosophy, from politics to art. I think sociobiology even relates to ontology and the definition of Being since I believe we evolve to supermaterial Godhood in the material world.
This brings wild postmodernism and its cultural Marxism back to reality as it does the spiritualism of metaphysics, if they can admit it. It also brings Godhood or Being back to reality, rejuvenating them without rejecting them. Conservatism also looks good because it is grounded in the biology of human nature---although conservatism needs to better admit the deep reality of evolution within tradition.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
The vulgar show that finally gave conservatives a chance to vent a little bit was canceled because Roseanne said something bigoted, which minority comedians do every time they go on stage. But the cancellation, which the culturally Marxist liberals wanted even before Roseanne said something bigoted, will only cause more anger, not prevent it. Why?
There is a difference between bigotry and ethnocentrism and Roseanne Barr's statement on Valerie Jarret was bigoted, that is, it showed intolerance toward those who hold different identities from her own (she is Jewish).
But you can prefer your own kin and ethnic group without hating other groups. Ethnocentrism is an extension of being kin-centered, and both of those traits are a basic part of real human nature because they helped humans survive and bond successfully in a dangerous and competitive world.
Minority comedians who have suffered bigotry against them are allowed to vent and attack the majority, which is probably why we have so many angry Black and Jewish comedians, but whites are not allowed to vent anger in that way. That's how dictators rise.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates to, and the more extended its range of applicability…”
We can resolve the "tension between ontology and anthropology" (Eliot Jurist term, from "Beyond Hegel and Nietzsche") not through reason alone but through material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. But that Godhood is not a "spiritual" Godhood, Godhood is a living object, or objects, at the highest level of material or supermaterial evolution. Godhood is not beyond life and is not defined in the metaphysics of the minds of men, or in blissful yogic experiences. This is the way we can resolve the differences between religion and science: both religion and philosophy can move on from the "non-material" yet still have Godhood and religion.
Will Godhood reason an Absolute Reason? That is where material evolution is advancing, but will Godhood reach the ability to do Absolute Reasoning? Perhaps not, because evolution and the universe are unending, with no beginning and no end, even if anthropocentric humans see an ending and a beginning to their own lives (although reproduction carries life on). There will always be Gods arising.
This theological materialism also helps resolve the question of where philosophy and philosophers and religion and theologians fit in Culture: are they created by the culture? Can they be aloof from culture? Material evolution creates philosophers, cultures, and the Godhood of religion; no one in reality can be aloof from that, not even the founding mystics experiencing nirvana within human bodies, ironically by blocking (and transvaluating) material drives and materialism.