Here is how religious-philosophical arguments come together

The spiritualists, who think in terms of thoughts and ideas, the materialists (including science), who think in terms of atoms and bodies, and the pragmatists, who say both sides are valid (see Alexander Bard), are all arguing about materialism/supermaterialism (formerly deemed spiritual).  There is no split here, there is only different levels of evolution from the material to the supermaterial. It is that simple, or that difficult.

The religious fantasy regarding entropy

The fantasy is the idea that we will survive the so-called entropy of the universe by transcending the material, physical world. (eg. Teilhard De Chardin) How convenient.

No, the material world does not disappear, it evolves, if we are lucky, or wise, to the supermaterial world and that is how we will survive the entropy of the Kosmos.

The Great Spiritual Blockade against the material world by Traditional religion is a theological error which needs correcting. Godhood is not "beyond" the material world, Godhood is the Zenith of the Material World.

The goal of the Involutionary Inward Path, of reaching the blissful, desire-free state of the Soul, has been confounded with Godhood. The Soul-state can be retained in the Inward Path as a glimpse of Godhood, but Godhood is the goal of the Evolutionary Outward Path.

The Without needs to be included in the Within. The Twofold Path in Evolutionary Christianity expresses and affirms both Paths.

Answering Heidegger

Being is not “present” as Time. Being is present when life evolves to Being, and not before that. Immaterial defined Time cannot define Being on the sidelines other than in the language of some being or Being doing the defining.

One cannot go beyond Being or beyond time to that which “grants” being. Only Being can accurately define Being, time itself has nothing to say about Being because time does not exist as an object.

Being or Godhood is not apart from the world, or beyond the world. Being is made of the same substance as the world but of that substance at its highest evolutionary level.

What “sends” or gives “presence” to Being is always the living object at various levels of evolution, using whatever language the object has evolved to use. Absolute Being uses Absolute Language, but this is not uttered before Being or Godhood is attained in evolution.

One would need to “de-construct” the actual living object to discover its language, presumably existing within the mind and consciousness of the living object and not outside it.

It does not seem possible to view language in terms of Being, as Heidegger seems to have attempted to do. One cannot view language in terms of Being or Godhood unless one is Being or Godhood. We can't “liberate” language from man until we evolve beyond man.

Language remains the tool of expression of beings or Being and depends on their level of evolution in discerning Reality. Language cannot be elevated to Being or Godhood.

Reason and Objects

Reason often misses its object in philosophy, but this was also the case in theology where reason is not a material or supermaterial object but a denotation or spiritual definition. So reason often misses its object in both philosophy and theology

“Objective truth” is literally what the term says, an object that truly exists, not the definition or equation denotating that object.

Godhood is such an object, although a Supreme Object, or Objects

Perhaps the problem stems from seeing God as not connected to the material world, as beyond the material world in a non-material reality. Godhood is connected to the material world which evolves from the material to the supermaterial and then Godhood, all as living objects at various levels of evolution. 

The truth of the object is secondary to the object. This has not been thought true in most religion and philosophy.

Why I am not a subjectivist

Objects exist in reality and we see only various levels and degrees of what the object really is. What we see requires a mind and eye evolved and sensual input to see what is seen and known.

We can see and know what our bodies and minds can see and know, and there are various levels of development of bodies and minds in seeing and knowing.

But there is always the objective object, seen from the viewpoint of different evolved levels of consciousness.

This is why Godhood requires a God's mind to see and know, which is why Godhood must be evolved to before we can know Godhood or define the absolute name and form of Godhood, and not before that. Esoteric religions which claim a name for God are therefore getting considerably ahead of themselves. 

What most Traditions define as God or the Father is the desire-free state or experience that mystics can enter in the Soul-Mind of man, which is not Godhood.

Jazz and Conservatism

Jazz music, at least classic jazz, contains a kind of conservatism that is very creative. Traditional tunes are improvised on. The new is synthesized into the old, often in exciting ways. Avant-garde jazz (and art) usually rejects the old and creates only what is new.

Most ideologies have no realistic way to move from the past and present to the future. Revitalized Conservatism and Ordered Evolution address this dilemma in both religion and politics.

Convergence is overemphasized by Teilhard

Most scientists do not believe in a directed evolution. I don't think science has adequately accounted for the constant rise of evolution from the simple to the complex, toward higher consciousness, intelligence etc. Teilhard De Chardin addressed this question with the illustration of a river finding its course by adjusting to the terrain it flows over. Evolution is directed from within like the river flow and shaped from without by the terrain of evolution.

But Teilhard saw a future for mankind that I cannot affirm. Teilhard saw a great collective coming together of mankind, a convergence into one superhuman mankind, containing the whole of man, with no parallel evolution, no separateness. Convergence is emphasized by Teilhard whereas divergence is emphasized by Evolutionary Christianity (EC).

Evolution both converges and diverges but it is the divergence which drives the central flow or activates the river of evolution. Convergence holds the pattern before the next level of evolution diverges. Both are necessary, but the future belongs to divergence.

Affirming divergence takes EC away from the collectivism and even totalitarianism of Teilhard. Divergence leads to parallel evolution, independent states, and some form of federalism which supplies the overall convergent order.

Human nature as carefully defined by sociobiology affirms divergence, humans naturally prefer their own in a fundamental biological way, and this is largely overlooked by Teilhard. Social programs must be harmonized with  human nature or the programs will be short lived, which is why most new ideologies don't last long.

Do we worship definitions or objects?

The language of philosophy and theology seems to create both Being that does not exits as an object in reality, and Being that does exist as an object in reality. Theology and philosophy seem to define Being, or God as, (1) an idea and not an object of substance, or (2) an object that does exist in some kind of substance. I combine these two in theological materialism, with a Being-Object that usually does not exist until it is evolved to in the future.

I say objects are vastly more important than definitions of objects. Even the definition of Godhood, which supposedly is only in God's Mind, is less important than the Supreme Object Godhood.

Theology has more often said truth is an actual existing object (although “spiritual”), and philosophy has more often said truth is an idea (spiritual?), which in an odd way makes theology more like science in seeking the real existing object. But science too gets lost in mathematics, as philosophy and theology get lost in definitions. It is the task of philosophy, theology, and science to know the difference between these.

There is not materiality in every form of speech, some speech is idealistic, or a creation of what does not exist, but this does not mean that reality exists only in language.  Materiality evolves to supermateriality, and this closes the gap between the so-called spiritual and the material, as there is no duality here. The formerly spiritual exists as a supermaterial object, which can have a name and a definition, but the name or definition is not what we acknowledge or worship, it is the existing object, or the Supreme Object, which we acknowledge, or worship, and seek to evolve to become.

The Substance of the Soul and Spirit-Will

“Christ” dwells in the Soul of human beings, but the Spirit-Will dwells at the Zenith of the Soul. They are not the same, they do not have the same goal.

The Inward Path leads, with much effort, to the ego-less, blissful state of the Soul, or Christ, which Jesus and other great mystics reached, and is a virtual mirror of Godhood, but not Godhood. The Outward Path of life, which requires even more effort, is activated within by the Spirit-Will to evolve to Godhood, which is then shaped from without by evolution.

Christ is the goal of the Inward Path to the Soul, the Spirit-Will defines and activates the Outward Path of evolution leading to Godhood. This is the Twofold Path of the Evolutionary Christian Church (ECC).

Both the Spirit-Will and Godhood contain Real Substance, but this is a far more subtle supermaterial body than, say, a granite rock, or even sun light. This is a central point in ECC.

It is because of this supermateriality that material science will one day define these subtle bodies, with perhaps new knowledge or new technology, and affirm at least some of what religion has been trying to say for thousands of years.

Convergence, Divergence and Governance in Evolution

Contrary to the implications of Teilhard De Chardin, convergence and simplicity are not opposites, divergence is not merely the lack of complexity, divergence is not a Roussean return to the primitive, convergence is not the only good movement in evolution.

Divergence is vital in evolution, but so is convergence, the results of divergence in selection are made to last with convergence. This is the Ordered Evolution I speak of, with “order” more or less defining convergence, and “evolution” defining divergence.  This then defines Revitalized Conservatism.

Divergence does not mean anarchy, anarchy is a less civilized simplicity. Efficient institutions are a sign of the civilizing of the beast, not a sign of decadence.

Representative government seems to be the middle ground between various kinds of dictatorship and elitist aristocracy---we need real elected representative leaders, not the totalitarian masses to lead. The Church offers voluntary guidance, separate from the state, even if in its own institution the Church is a form of monarchy.

Small states need to evolve at their own pace, some faster, some slower, but all guided to Godhood, voluntarily, in this theological materialism. Monism is not the totalitarian "sociological monism" of Teilhard (and Marx), the path to the Supreme Monism of Godhood, for all, is through divergence, protected in its convergence with a light federalism, or subsidiarity as the Church calls it, as we evolve to Godhood.

We will need to diverge from the human species if we are to evolve to Godhood, we cannot stop at humans no matter how wonderful we are.  Contrary to Teilhard, Godhood does not transcend matter to the spiritual, Godhood is the evolution of the material to the supermaterial.

Young actresses inevitably degrade and sacrifice themselves on the alter of Hollywood

Young actresses usually begin their careers in Hollywood playing good girls, perhaps because they are good girls, but inevitably they degrade and sacrifice themselves on the alter of Hollywood, playing foul-mouthed sexual degenerates. Then another good girl arrives and the same debasement happens again. The young women are shamed in their good girl image by Hollywood agents, producers and the media, who actually seem to hate wholesome girls, while abusing them. The problem is that Hollywood has helped shape popular culture into refusing to define any behavior as foul or debased, and young people live within this debased culture, even if they originally came from families who tried to teach them traditional morality.

Hollywood is dominated by people who either refuse or are unable to conform to the dominate culture, which is still at least a watered-down Christian culture. They proceed to tear down the traditional culture every chance they get, and since they dominate the media, they get many chances to do so.

No wonder puritanical men arise feeling like gallant knights saving the damsels in distress. The problem now is that the damsels have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by Hollywood that they don't even know they are in distress, at least not until they find that they have to enter some substance abuse treatment program---but even then Hollywood profits from what should be bad publicity.

Changing Hollywood now seems impossible, they have obtained the power to tell you to go to hell. Back in the early days they had to submit to traditional movie codes, and so on, but not anymore. So what do you do when there is no compromise between warring parties?

Imperial dictatorship is not the answer, although this has often been tried during similar circumstances in human history. I do not believe that one people is chosen or has supremacy over all others. I believe in divergence and variety. This means that you need to separate the warring parties, give them their space, if need be even give them their own small state or ethnostate. Then you protect all the small states with light federalism.

And build your own media.

Hip Hop, Rappers, and the Gentleman

Modern day Rousseauns (modern liberals) seem to welcome Hip Hop and rap culture because they seem to prefer the obscene nursery rhymes of the “innocent primitive” "uncorrupted" by Western civilization and its evils. If Hip hop and rap culture had its own independent ethnostate I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but I prefer more the culture of the Gentleman. 

I am not talking here about simpering, over-civilized fops when I speak of the Gentleman, I am talking about the fundamental idea of "gentry" symbolized in his grant of coat-armor, and his superiority as a fighting man, and I'm taking about unsurpassed Western civilization.

Since evolution is a central root of my worldview I am obviously not against change or new things, but my kind of evolutionary conservatism synthesizes the new into the old. Ordered evolution is the term I use for change and stability, not anarchy.

During the Dark Ages in Europe anarchic barbarians overcame what was then civilization, and it took well over a thousand years to turn the barbarians into European and English gentleman. Assuming you prefer the gentleman, we might have to wait awhile before Hip Hoppers and rappers to become Gentleman.

There is not necessarily a racial component to being a Gentleman, white barbarians who preceded the Dark Age seem to have been at least as barbarian as Hip Hoppers and rappers but they eventually became Gentleman through the evolution of nurture and nature and the development of ethnostates.

Philosophers make a false idol of language

Heidegger seems to think that language not merely expresses the world, including Being, language gives the world shape, the shape of Being is always and only linguistic. ( see “Heidegger and Aquinas,” Caputo).

This is considered a problem in modern philosophy, but it is not a problem in reality.  Language should not and does not create the actual world, or create Being, when it does it is giving itself far too much importance.

I think language remains what it was for Aristotle and St. Thomas, an exterior sign of interior mind. Language does not give birth to Being, when it does it is in error.

The error of relativistic Structuralism seems to be in this Heideggerian reading of language, to them Being always depends on the language used to define Being, so there are different Beings for different languages, since Being only exists in languages.

We invent being with language when we don't know what Being is, but this invention does not mean that Being is only an invention of language, it illustrates that we are inventing Being with language and not that Being is only language.

Being is an Object, or Objects, a Thing, and man can try to put a word to Being, but the word does not create Being. The exact, Absolute, Real Word or Words for Godhood can only be known by Godhood, or perhaps by a penultimate Gods.

As we become higher evolved we will better define Being, but language will never be Being Itself, not even with Godhood. Even with Godhood, language will still be the exterior expression of interior mind, based on both sensual input and memory even in Godhood's case, it will be Absolute Exterior Expression of Absolute Interior Mind.

Opening the three thousand year old blockade

The great reluctance to affirm material life is seen in the path of taking action in life only as long as it is not materialistic, as a sacrifice to God, which is seen in both the Christian and Eastern religions---since we are alive whether we like it or not, the question becomes not whether to act but how to act.

But this is meant only for the Involutionary Inward Path to the Soul Within where the Father dwells. Jesus sacrificed his life introducing the truths of this Inward Path to the Western world—the path was already known in the East.

The ethics of the materially sacrificial Inward Path are not meant for the Evolutionary Outward Path, which affirms material evolution as the vehicle by which we evolve to Godhood.

Traditionalist Rama Coomaraswamy said, “Forgotten is the way to Heaven,” Forgotten? The Outward Path to Godhood has not even been properly known.

With the Outward Path, Evolutionary Christianity opens the Great Spiritual Blockade against evolving from the material to the supermaterial and to Godhood. The Outward Path is added to the traditional Inward Path. The tree thousand year old blockade to Godhood is now opening.

Particularism and Internationalism

The difference between the social philosophy of Evolutionary Christianity (EC) and Teilhard De Chardin is that EC affirms particularism and Teilhard affirms internationalism. I think the road to internationalism is through particularism. Teilhard opposes pluralism and wants humans to converge into one, world-wide, socialized synthesis. This is related to Teilhard's view of a convergent, spiritual, Omega Point, which is a subject for another reflection.

Divergence is not much mentioned by Teilhard who prefers convergence. The problem with centering on convergence is that it does not relate well to human nature. Any totalization of man is always pulled into divergence and particularism because man always prefers his own, and this needs to be affirmed and not denied. Evolution has taken place through variety and divergence as well as convergence, but positive mutations are protected with particularism.

What we need, and what we are capable of, is cooperative competition, as we rise in evolution toward Godhood. Small states protected by light federalism best affirm human nature, and best allow evolution to take place. Research centers in every nation, with a central intercommunication regarding upward evolution, perhaps as envisioned in the brilliant and volatile ideas of Raymond Cattell, is an example of how cooperative competition can be guided. Many of these questions are ethical and moral questions and Evolutionary Christianity would want to help lead this effort. 

Godhood is the goal of religion, the material world evolves to the supermaterial world and not to an immaterial, abstract, Omega Point, therefore, this great goal also vitally involves social philosophy informed by sociobiology.

On Language

It seems to me that Heidegger does not make his case for changing the old idea of language as primarily communication, words as an exterior sign of the interior mind, or language communicating meanings already constituted in the mind.

Heidegger wants to reject this “dualist” language theory (see “Heidegger and Aquinas,” by Caputo), but in the process I see only complicated obfuscation---to say that “language is not representative but manifestative” is to me obfuscation.

It is true that we can develop names for things that do not exist outside of our minds, but this is still language representing our interior mind, our interior minds simply can be ignorant of the exterior world as in a dream and not describe reality. The hope is that intelligence and consciousness will evolve to find the correct or real knowledge of the exterior world, and then use the interior mind to describe that exterior reality as accuratley as possible.

When both beings and Being are known and seen as material and supermaterial existing real objects, and not as immaterial word creations or definitions, then the language describing these objects may eliminate Idealism and most metaphysics. Language will continue to be an exterior sign of interior mind, but with high enough evolution, perhaps only with the Supreme Godhood attained, Godhood's Mind existing in Godhood's Body will describe Absolute Reality with Absolute Language.

Defining The Humanities

I believe the Humanities in colleges and universities should be directed toward two central themes: discovering and defining human nature, and then discovering and finding how culture can deal with and balance itself with human nature. Basic syllabus courses in literary studies, philosophy and other humane disciplines, and even sociobiology can be examined with this in mind.

Traditionally in the West, for eight hundred years or so, the Church defined human nature in higher education, and people were educated with skills that taught them to be of service to Church and state.

Over time this changed to where the humanities were expected to be an actual indoctrination regarding the evils of class, race and gender. (see R. V. Young, “The Liberal Arts and the Loss of Cultural Memory”)

With the financial collapse now comes the virtual abandonment of the humanities---which had already abandoned the traditional humanities---in favor of humanities directed toward research that will have a direct economic impact on society, that is, making higher education more like glorified vocational schools.

Heidegger's Being and the Spirit-Will

(The following post from May 12 was lost in Blogger's technical problems of yesterday, although it did go out to some followers.  I am posting it again so it will be included in my categories.)

Thursday, May 12, 2011

“The difference between beings and Being is the area within which metaphysics, Western thinking in the totality of its essence, can be what it is.” (Heidegger, “Identitat and Differenz”)

Heidegger's Being seems to be what I define as the Spirit-Will, which is not Being and not Godhood. Heidegger's Being is not the cause of beings, his Being comes to pass by passing into beings (see “Heidegger and Aquinas” by Caputo). Again this to me is the Spirit-Will.

Being, or Godhood, is the cause of beings, which are always activated by the Spirit-Will within them. The Spirit-Will activates the material world which is shaped by outward evolution to evolve to Godhood, and then, with Godhood attained the Spirit-Will is enclosed within the next Kosmos.

Being as Godhood is as concrete in the world and not abstract as beings in the world, however, Godhood is the highest evolved concrete object, the zenith of concrete evolution. There is no difference between Being and beings that cannot be explained by the level of evolution of the beings.

Godhood is Eternally Represented in the kosmos through “offspring” beings in the kosmos, but Godhood Itself has “finitude” in the sense that Godhood transmutes into offspring in the next kosmos. It is the kosmos of objects related to Godhood that are eternally represented---as we all instinctively seek to be activated by the Spirit-Will to eternal representation.

Back To Human Nature For Culture

Throughout history, human nature has been, among other things, kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, xenophobic, religious-making, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. In addition to this definition from sociobiology, which I largely affirm, I believe that human nature is also fundamentally activated by the Spirit-Will within life, which is then shaped by evolution from without.

This view of human nature, which takes a little courage to affirm in the political correctness of the times, should be at the foundation of culture. When culture goes against this view of human nature, history shows that it is always pulled back, sometimes violently, sometimes more slowly.

What would culture look like if it was in harmony with the real human nature just defined? It would contain many elements of classical conservatism. But in addition to conservatism it would take into account the evolutionary nature of the activating Spirit-Will within, which seeks to activate all life to evolve to Godhood in the Kosmos. This would balance out the order of conservatism with evolution, with what I call Ordered Evolution.

Applying this worldview to all people suggests a world of small states, or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, and, voluntarily, guided in upward evolution by the Church.

Divine Attachment To Nature

Buddha's disciple, pushed by Buddha, at first sees a flag in motion, then he sees the wind in motion, then finally he sees the mind in motion, which I think also defines Western Idealism. Both dwell on the mind and not on the world of nature which they consider unreal, more or less. In the Bhagavad Gita (3: 4-9) Krishna gives advice to Arjuna regarding how to perform work yet not remain in the karmic grip of nature and sense objects. This is also like St. Paul telling his followers that if they must marry then they must, but it is far better not to marry and seek God Within.

They all lead to rejecting the real world (which they call unreal) in favor of a definition or principle or blissful condition not of the real world.  Nature is always the enemy in the Inward Path of Traditional Religion and one must rid the body of all attachment to nature. If some connection to real life is allowed they say we must deal with it without any attachment to it. One attains this goal by completely emptying oneself of ones ego so that one can be “One” with the Father, containing nothing of oneself.   Jesus, Buddha and others attained this condition.

This is all part of the Great Spiritual Blockade against nature evolving to Godhood, Real Godhood, which is a Godhood not the same as the immaterial, virtual God or Father Within of the Soul. This inward condition is a blissful glimpse of Real Godhood which can be attained by fulfilling, not getting rid of, divine evolutionary desires of nature which seek to evolve to Godhood---but not profane devolutionary desires. True Godhood is attained in this Outward Path.

That being said, both Paths are included in the Twofold Path of Evolutionary Christianity. Ordered Evolution and Revitalized Conservatism define the social philosophy of the Evolutionary Christian Church where the importance of synthesizing the new into the old is understood. But the Traditional definitions of the Higher Self and Lower Self are reversed, with the Lower Self defined as the Soul at Zenith of the Mind, where virtual God is seen, and the Higher Self at the Zenith of the Soul, where the Spirit-Will can help guide us to evolve to  Kosmic Godhood. We must move beyond the centripetal Inward Soul to the centrifugal Outward Spirit-Will.

The Divine Goal of Heredity

Teilhard De Chardin defined “orthogenesis,” the principle of purpose, as the only complete form of heredity. I see the Spirit-Will as a supermaterial form of heredity which is received through reproduction and survival and is the activating instinct of matter. The Spirit-Will is teleological, Its purpose is to attain Godhood by way of evolution, activating matter as its vehicle to Godhood. This means that Godhood is the divine and ultimate goal of our heredity.

The Spirit-Will is an implicit supermaterial force (not merely “psychic or immaterial), yet to be defined explicitly by science, but it will be. The Spirit-Will works with natural selection at any level, evolution then shapes matter. Life has evolved in stages moving upward in complication, consciousness and intelligence, as well as sideways and backward, and it will continue to do so, as long as life survives, all the way to Godhood, and then in the next Kosmos.

Beyond Quantum Mechanics?

“ Neither Einstein's relativity nor quantum mechanics are physics so we cannot use them as a foundation for our new model (although we should find that the mathematics that works in the real world still applies). We have to discard "modern" physics and return to the classical physics of a century ago. This, perhaps, is the greatest hurdle – to discard our training and prejudices and to approach the problem with a beginner's mind.

The "something absolutely fundamental" that is missing in our explanation of gravity and quantum behavior is the electrical structure of matter. Here we are not talking about negative electrons and positive atomic nuclei. We must "go down" one more level and propose that all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant structures of electric charges of opposite sign that sum to the charge on that particle.

The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle.⁴ It must have structure to provide its dipole magnetic field. There must be orbital motion of charges within the electron to generate the magnetic dipole. The transfer of electrical energy between the charges in their orbits must be resonant and near-instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same model applies to the proton and the neutron. This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects...” (Italics mine)

(From “The Electric Universe” )

How I resolve Kantian subjectivism and Hegelian evolutionism

How do I resolve Kantian subjectivism and Hegelian evolutionism with the concept of objective and unchanging truth, “without which the concept of unchangeable Catholic dogma can make no sense.” ? (Bishop Richard Williamson )

Unchanging truth is not God, it is the definition of God. Godhood itself is an actual Supreme Object or Objects evolved to in the cosmos, which then evolves higher.

Subjectivism leaves out the teleological goal of Godhood, activated by the Spirit-Will within all life, which evolves not subjective truths but different evolutionary levels of seeing the same truths of the world, with only the highest evolved Godhood able to see more Absolute Truths.  Intellectualism has been too much with us in religion.

Dramatic Simplicity

I think I would define the best writing style as I would the best music style: a piece of music is great if it stops you short and makes you listen to it, and a writing piece is great if it stops you short and makes you read it.

It seems to contain a simplicity in beauty, but more a dramatic simplicity in beauty.

Barber's Adagio for Strings does this. Bach is sacred and beautiful, yet if you straighten out his complicated Baroque beauty you seem to find a simple, dramatic, Romantic line. The best Romantics show this kind of simplification of Bach.

Writers who do this sort of thing do their work for the reader, simplifying, clearing up, illuminating, yet with beauty, and with strong, beautiful, dramatic simplicity which stops you short and makes you read it.

Perhaps all great art and culture does this, including philosophy and religion.

St. Thomas and Sociobiology

Thomas didn't study the modern subject of sociobiology, but his ideas on love and bonding harmonize with sociobiology.

The different categories of friendship discussed by Thomas put God first, kinsmen second, then fellow citizens, and then fellow human beings (see J. Polet's “Christianityand Global Citizens,” Modern Age, Summer, 2010) This harmonizes with human nature as defined by sociobiology, minus the view on God.

The Second Commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves does not say first love the global community as ourselves, which is the only politically correct love now allowed. Since we cannot really do good to all, we ought to consider those who are closer to us. To Thomas, the nature of charity is necessarily preferential and bound by local circumstances. In times of extreme necessity then everything tends to become common property.

We are to provide for our own first and give alms out of our surplus. As in sociobiology, Thomas believes moral demands decrease the farther we get from the center.

In describing human nature, Evolutionary religion includes the love of God, defined as the love of the Spirit-Will to evolve to Godhood. All men, all races, are activated by the Spirit-Will within a human nature that must harmonize with social philosophy. Human nature is basically kin-centered, local, tribal or ethnic, and even xenophobic; to deny it does not make it go away.

Our view of human nature and Godhood leads to the rejection of supremacy or imperialism and to the affirmation of small states, or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, and guided by the Church in helping all men evolve to Godhood. Thomas might not approve of our evolutionary divine goals, but would find accord with  our view of human nature.

Symbolic and Real God

The Inward Path needs to allow the Outward Path

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna taught much the same things as Jesus Christ did in the New Testament, but with different cultural phases, and images. These men taught in symbols, yet they have been often understood literally. Religious Tradition West and East can be understood as being similar when they are seen symbolically rather than literally. Ecumenism can this way apply.

The God-Within, the Father, whom Jesus and Krishna intimately knew and felt, does not literally make these men God, they were speaking of the God within all men, within all nature, whom they have become completely identified with in their lives. This understanding was very difficult to come by, requiring much discipline, forsaking all the desires of the flesh. This is the God-Within of the Involutionary Inward Path in the Theoevolutionary Church. This is the God of Tradition, the ecumenical God.

Evolutionary Christianity presents the Twofold Path in affirming the Evolutionary Outward Path, which is the Path of Evolution, this is not the Path to the God Within but the Path to the Godhood Without, who is attained at the Zenith of Evolution, from the material to the supermaterial and Godhood. This is not a symbolic or virtual God, this is Real Godhood, the Supreme Object.

There has been a Great Spiritual Blockade against the Real God, total identity has gone to the bliss of experiencing the God Within, which has blocked our evolution to Real Godhood. The Paths need to be reoriented, the Inward Path needs to allow the Outward Path. Religion can join the real world and use all knowledge to help all people evolve to Kosmic Godhood, while holding on to the God Within of Tradition to give us a divine glimpse of Real Godhood.

New Monism and Tradition

Ones monism seems to lean toward either spiritualism or materialism. I synthesize these into supermaterialism, but a supermaterialism that occupies the same space as spiritualism. The Traditional spiritualism is the Inward Path, supermaterialism is the Outward Path, in the Twofold Path.

This follows the general Revitalized Conservatism of Evolutionary Christianity and theological materialism, and Ordered Evolution, which rejects revolutionary methods while affirming ordered evolution to Godhood. The Traditional Inward Path leads to the God Within or the Godmind, the Outward Path leads to the evolution of life to Real Godhood.  This is the Twofold Path.

Over time in a persistent but non-systematic way I am fitting Evolutionary Christianity into an historical philosophical and theological system. I have been comparing Primordial Tradition, Aristotle, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Bergson, Teilhard, Heidegger, Cattell, and New Age thinkers. And yet it is a new system with its own terminology. It is big enough to mainly satisfy my mind.

On Participating In Being

Every being (small b) is being-in-itself, the slight but important connection with Godhood, or Being (capital B), is by way of the activating Spirit-Will-To-Godhood Within.  In any case, Godhood transforms or transmutes, that is, evolves, into cosmic Godhood. Aquinas said we can't say “running itself runs,” but yes we can, when the runner and running are seen as ongoing and endless evolution, and when we don't give overdo emphasis to abstract things.

The distinction between Being and being is between levels of evolution, with the highest evolved as Being-Godhood, and beings which are still evolving to Godhood. This shows that life is in the old “image of God,” as well as illuminating the old alchemical saying “as above so below.”

Saying such things as “the concrete participates in the abstract” gives far too much attention to the abstract, as metaphysicians tend to do. Even if a metaphysical model may need its abstract “pure form,” definitions and denotations of the concrete are inferior, nonliving, elements of the concrete, or should be considered so.

The concrete in any case is always evolving and changing, as is the river of Heraclitus, and this includes transforming Godhood, therefore “perfection” is not an unchanging thing, even if metaphysics desires an unchanging thing and therefore defines an abstract principle as unchanging. Godhood is as real and alive as you and I, only far higher evolved, and this is the perfection of the cosmos, which  transforms into cosmic Godhood.  Old cosmos continue seeking to evolve to cosmic Godhood, activated by the Spirit-Will within the the life within them.

Symbolic Gender, Spirit and Duality

Tradition seems to see the Spirit as the Heavenly Mother (eg. Shekinah of the Hebrews) but if one must attach gender to these things I see the Spirit-Will as more the Heavenly Father, since the Spirit-Will is the activator of material and supermaterial life. Would matter than be more female? But I don't attach gender to these things because it encourages a false duality. Matter and Spirit are always together, as the material and supermaterial, in their evolution together to Godhood.

This nonduality also means one does not “sacrifice” the “temple” of the body to Spirit, because in doing so we lose the means, the vehicle, required to evolve to Godhood. This sacrifice is done in the Inward Path where in doing so one can see and experience the God or Godmind Within, but this is not Godhood. Godhood is reached through the Outward Path with the evolution of material life to supermaterial life and Godhood. Nevertheless, both Paths are included in Evolutionary Christianity.

Purpose In Evolution

Purpose is seen in the rise of the various spheres in and around the earth, from the electrical gases to the geosphere to the biosphere, etc. which also seem to have risen in the same general sequence in our galaxy and in the kosmos. This does not mean that evolution has not taken place in forming these various spheres, there was purpose from within which was shaped by evolution from without.

Science doesn't yet approve of this analysis but the same purposeful evolution in the kosmos will take place from electrical gases, to the biosphere, to man, to superman, to Angels, to Penultimate Gods, to Godhood. This is a teleology vital to our worldview and religion, this is purpose activated by the Spirit Within the evolving material and supermaterial world.

Can Classical Tradition Be Salvaged?

It seems to me that the classical educational goal of “eudaemonia,” happiness-through-restraint, will be required in the very long evolution to Godhood. (see Koons on Babbit, Modern Age) This also means that the teleological kosmos of the classical world can remain, although changed to relate to the goal of evolving to Godhood. Self-control and prudence are classical virtues required in the survival and evolution of all groups all the way to Godhood.

Human nature can be a central subject of study, as it was in classical times, but the vital field of sociobiology needs to be included if culture is to reflect what we are. Otherwise culture will always be snapped back to human nature, one way or another.

“Ordered Evolution” rather than the more classical “ordered liberty” better describes Revitalized Conservatism. This affirmation of political restraint can remain.

It seems to me that the synthesized mix of democracy and aristocracy, defined as the ideal order, can remain, seen in the original Republican Constitution of the United States, but it too needs revitalization. Raymond Cattell's cooperative competition between evolving groups is within human capability, with small states, protected with light federalism.

Godhood also remains the goal, but a Godhood reached through evolution. The Involutionary Path to the God within of traditional religion remains, along with the Evolutionary Path to Godhood, in the Twofold Path of Evolutionary Christianity.