Abstraction and universality are definitions and denotations of real things, or often times unreal things, and they should not be worshiped or idealized, as they often are.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Abstraction and universality are definitions and denotations of real things, or often times unreal things, and they should not be worshiped or idealized, as they often are.
This describes the belief in supermaterial Godhood, where abstractions and universalisms are finally grounded in real life. Although the supermaterial properties of Godhood remain unknown, this is not a definition of God beyond nature and materiality. Go ahead and use spiritual abstractions when you must, but call then that, see them as that, refrain from calling them God.
Religion can open its virtually closed door to the material world, science and evolution, with Godhood realistically remaining as supreme materiality which we evolve to by way of refining material evolution, not blocking it or killing it.
The Twofold Path includes the largely abstract God-Within of tradition but transforms it into real Godhood in the outward path of evolution. Opening the abstract door closed to Godhood can also help save dying religion.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
The term “Ordered evolution” opens the door to the future without closing the door to the past, whereas the term “ordered liberty,” which is often used by conservatives, seems to discourage the Faustian view of man conquering nature and prefers instead an Arcadian happy view of the past, or sometimes a more pessimistic view of this world of woe. “Ordered evolution” actually opens the door to the future, to science and so on, without closing the door to the past.
These terms seem to be grounded in how we define God, nature and man. Man seems no less free or more determined with either term, but the choices we do have within determined paths seem to be evolutionary or devolutionary. When freedom is centered on an unchanging order of God beyond nature, then liberty seems more like an after-thought. Order in evolution needs to be seen as necessary to our ongoing evolution toward Godhood.
If unchanging order essentially defines God then“ordered liberty” looks more oxymoronic. When Godhood is understood as the supreme cosmic goal we evolve to in nature, then the phrase “ordered evolution” is more the reality. Ordered evolution defines the reality of our freedom and is not radical revolution. When order is seen as vital in evolution, the past is not extirpated, the future includes the best of the past. This defines a revitalized conservatism or an evolutionary conservatism.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
We have allowed hedonism to set the ethics of our internal national values, with federally legalized gay marriage, the wide open immigration of millions of immigrants, rampant pornography and drug use, and on and on. What this means is that since our internal ethics are degenerate we will be subject to between-group selection, that is, we rot internally and fall externally, which has happened to countless past civilizations.
This means we must prepare for the consequences of a nation splitting apart, and the best way I can see to manage this decline is by affirming the separation of powers written in our original Constitution. This means the near-independence of regions and states, where local values may legally prevail, with small states, even virtual ethnostates, entitled to consider their own survival. Reality says that educational culture has little impact on changing the differences that immigrants bring with them, especially when they are distinctly different from the natives---they do not assimilate and require or demand their own culture, which is only natural.
Even given our hedonistic times, which have almost gleefully destroyed healthy human values, I believe traditional ethics eventually will prevail because they are derived from real, innate, human nature---the question is how to best manage it. If we remain mushy and morally weak to this Constitutional solution we may not prevent a revolution, which modern liberals, or conservatives for that matter, would not like at all.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Traditional religions, west and east, had the First Experience of the Inward God, after mystics learned to block or stop all material desires so that they could see the Inward God, or the Father Within. The Second Experience of God includes but transforms the Inward God to Outward Godhood, not by blocking material desires but by refining and cultivating material drives, by ever seeking such Godly traits as truth, intelligence, beauty and goodness in upward evolution. Our duty appears to be to help life and evolution along the path to Godhood, because it is not always conscious or direct in doing so.
It seems to me that the universe is both linear in material life evolving to supermaterial Godhood, and cyclic when life does not make it to Godhood there are recurring chances to do so in endless universes. That is, all of creation may not commence with perfection and then move toward decline before it rises to perfection again, as is thought in the traditional east. It is Man In Evolution, not man trapped in cycles, even though history tends to retell similar stories. Life may continuously evolve to Godhood with starts and stops along the way with no end or beginning.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Great frustration has much to do with the doctrine of resignation to fate seen in the revival of the Traditionalist School now popular in the far right. In effect they give up on the possibility of progress and are highly negative about the Western adventure of science and evolution. Nietzsche and Raymond Cattell wrote about how early Christianity made pity and resignation their way to deal with the great frustrations of the middle-east of the time. This seems to be a more eastern than western way of dealing with life.
In the West we don't reject progress in that way, we look forward to the adventure of evolution, even to our evolution to Godhood, which is almost the opposite of resignation and pity. For example, it seems that the more courageous wing of sociobiological studies is finding that the societies that endure and don't destroy themselves somehow mold genetics toward a reduction of the genetic lag between IQ's, and in the way people have or have not emotional control. These frustrations can lead to revolutions, or to the philosophies of resignation and pity. This assumes, backed by more and more research, that there is strong genetic component to IQ and to emotional control. It's time to stop blocking this knowledge.
Looking further ahead toward our future evolution, we will either change consciously or unconscionably and it seems far better regarding the rise and fall of societies to consciously try to moderate this process than to have it unconscionably moderate us. This should be thought of as compassionate in preventing the suffering of a dying society. Hardin and Cattell called this “discriminating altruism.” The Faustian spirit of the West doesn't resign its fate to hopeless cycles---most seriously, we may not evolve to real Godhood if we do. The God-Within, the Father-Within of Tradition needs to be included but transformed into the real Godhood we evolve to in the cosmos.
Monday, June 24, 2013
The modern evolutionary political position seems to be this: the state does not provide for our life and our evolution toward Godhood, it can restrict itself to providing protection against external and internal forces, and “protection against the protectors” as someone once put it. Then it is religion and science which can culturally aid in our evolution, voluntarily, with institutions that can be both privately and state funded if we choose to do so. My point is that any given political system is contingent upon the religious ethos.
There need not be a conflict between evolving talented individuals and less talented majorities when these are seen in a reciprocal relationship, the individual needs the group and the group needs the individual. To honor the talented, the beautiful, the good, is to honor the sacred goal of evolving to the zenith of these things. Envy needs to be understood in light of advancing evolution. Those who seek to create a wedge between this reciprocal relationship, like the Marxists, should not be indulged.
As to modern liberalism, real “progress” is defined by both cultural and biological evolution. As to conservatism, sociobiology defines human nature as innately conservative, so an ordered evolution among small largely independent states within light federations seems most harmonious. Libertarianism and neoconservatism seem as internationalist as they are individualist, in effect they tend to be against the love of ones own nation, the love of ones own people, and against economic nationalism, at least partly due to an overreaction to the brutal and imperialistic world wars of the twentieth century. The same overreaction to the past misuse of science by nationalism and communism seems to have blocked the renewed science of sociobiology from political science and the humanities, where it is needed most.
In the end, man is more homo-evolutus than homo-religiosus, or rather, religiosus is evolutus. Material power is essentially acquired for this religious purpose. The Inward God or Father Within of tradition is included but transformed by the real Godhood we evolve to in the cosmos. It is religion that can hold this all together in strong community, in seeing something higher and sacred which the modern world can strive for.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Human nature does not change much if at all and has not changed since the ancient hunter-gatherer times before large civilizations began. This means we can understand human nature and we can represent human nature in philosophy, politics and art and in our daily lives. Human nature is both atavistic, present and future.
It is astounding how distorted this has become, with modern philosophy even saying there is no human nature, no essence, only changing outer existence. By calling human nature “relative” and not fixed this tends to make life seem meaningless, which is a state actually championed by some thinkers. Even some religions have had problems with human nature calling it evil.
According to sociobiological studies and according to historically observation, human nature is innately conservative and we developed traditional values because these helped us survive and reproduce more successfully than not having these values. But human nature is also more deeply evolutionary, which suggests an Ordered Evolution rather than merely unchanging ordered tradition. There is an underlying telos to human nature and existence, we are evolving to Godhood in the cosmos.
How can you build a culture that ignores what we are, that ignores human nature, and why would you want to ? Modernity doesn't seem to like what we actually are, or they want to distort it so they may advance some other agenda, at least for a time, because then, often after much trouble, societies and human beings go back to what they are, which is not merely “going back” but living in the present and evolving forward.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Evidence is being compiled by sociobiology but it seems likely that successful societies deflect ergic (instinctive) goal satisfaction from selfish impulsive goals, and this seems to happen both genetically and culturally. When this doesn't happen societies tend to destroy themselves by a dysgenic process. Could this genetic/cultural process be made more conscious in our social philosophies?
We can see that it is selfish to talk about individual civil rights without including the rights of the group, and the the state, because individual rights are determined by the survival of the group and the state and the circumstances of the time. Raymond Cattell thought this process was related to vanity and the failure to escape selfish instinctive impulsive demands, which are not appropriate to advanced cultures. Libertarians take note.
Jung thought that our preferred paths toward a given goal are instinctive, he also thought that the more intrafamilial archetypes were innate. It would seem that the sublimating deflection of selfish ergic goals after centuries would lead to humans who innately find the adjustment less difficult. Expanding this forward into future evolution and one sees how evolution slowly progresses toward civilizing of the beast. We can perhaps see an example of these civilizing genetic/cultural changes happening in the way that the glands governing fear and pugnacity are larger in wild than domesticated animals.
I am not irrationally afraid of instinctive drives overcoming the civilizing ego because I coined the idea of a Super-Id, in the form of the activating material Spirit-Will within material life that is shaped by outside evolution, which can be mediated or harmonized by the mind and the ego. But this process of civilizing ergic drives does seem opposite the barbarian instincts of war, which is the usual accusation hurled against the subject of appling sociobiology in our social philosophies.
If we ever want to actually do something about the suffering people in this world, rather than just blaming the downtrodden on the evil rich, we will need to look at these genetic/cultural dynamics.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
I affirm much of Nietzsche and much of Cattell in this blog. Nietzsche was not the libertarian individualist and Cattell not the racist that political correctness or cultural Marxism distort them as. Frankly, I believe Cattell improved on Nietzsche and I believe that the evolutionary religion I espouse improves on Cattell.
We need to evolve and improve both our given genetic nature and our acquired cultural nature, which Nietzsche called our “second nature.” Culture should not be a perversion of our genetic nature. Our actual human nature, where the individual is instinctively tied to ethics naturally created by his specific group-selection, would then tend to lead to many naturally occurring small states or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, each evolving with variety, and having cooperative competition as the international goal.
But that is not enough. We require a transcendent ideal, beyond the individual, beyond the group, beyond the state, an evolutionary conservative ideal that includes but transforms the old order, and which has as its sacred and transcendent goal our evolution to Godhood in the cosmos. I think this is what Nietzsche and Cattell pointed toward.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Raymond Cattell's decades long studies in the psychology of measurement and mathematical modes taught him that IQ differences are not merely culturally connected but are genetically connected. This led to his understanding that IQ differences, as well as emotional control from ego strength, lead to such things as the incapacity to concentrate, which is a poor fit indeed for our complex culture, and this in turn leads to psychological and social problems. However, Cattell recognized that even the criminal element may be with us for the reason that certain traits of criminals, such as self-sufficiency, dominance and fearlessness are also valuable in trail-breaking scientists, inventors and creators. This is bold thinking, backed by science.
Cattell recognized the great value of competition and worried about the “entropy” of human beings in the rush of modern liberalism to end all competition, which would be the worst thing for ongoing evolution. Freedom from all wants and concerns? That “surrenders the ego to the id.” Freedom from fear ? (eg. Roosevelt) That ends the use of the frontal lobes and mankind's progress, since “foresight is substantially fearsight.”
This is courageous thinking in today's world of entropic hedonism. What we need is cooperative competition, ethically directed individualism, ethically directed societies, with more impulse control, and not a state-sponsored forced end to competition. This means we have to deal with nature and genetics, at least as much as we do nurture or culture, and for this we very much need the aid of sociobiological studies from more men like Cattell and E.O. Wilson.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
We may center on evolving great individuals but Nietzsche didn't emphasize enough the idea that individuals live within groups which are even more vital to our transcendent ideals. Nietzsche's program was therefore more revolutionary than the evolutionary conservatism of this blog.
We need to have our eye on our own age, and we shouldn't live in the past or the future, but we require the broader mission in accord with a transcendent ideal. Evolution is the cultural pivot. But this is not the basis of our artificial culture today, we have no culture in this sense, but it needs to begin, even if the first generations are ridiculed by the philistines and pedants. Such is reality.
Culture can either enhance natural human nature or warp or block it, but first we need to define human nature. Sociobiology stands on the shoulders of past great biologists and social psychologists and it defines human nature more accurately than it has ever been defined before. We are here to survive and reproduce successfully and are cultures rise from this motive---but this is not the only motive.
Evolving to Godhood in the cosmos is the transcendent religious goal which needs to be attached to the science of sociobiology. One might ask, if nature is capable of evolving higher men then why is education or culture needed? Nietzsche pointed out (“The Republic of Genius,” Quentin Taylor) that nature has its purpose but nature can be wasteful, nature does not always proceed wisely, man needs to help nature work toward his own perfection---we have become conscious of our unconscious evolution. I see this in terms of the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood which activates material life from within to Godhood, but then life is also shaped by a far less direct outside evolution.
Nietzsche thought that human existence stands in need of “justification,” with Christianity fading. and with secular creeds inadequate to the task. Our evolution to Godhood is the sacred justification, and with the Twofold Path it can work in conjunction with traditional Christianity.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Intelligence alone is not enough, and beauty, truth or goodness, alone, are not enough. Together they are complete, especially when we evolve to the zenith of these qualities, which is Godhood. This also helps define why intelligence or beauty alone are not enough in defining an elite.
An occasional scientist-politician wouldn't hurt rather than so many lawyers, but politicians can mainly use scientists and scientific institutions for research into sociobiology and social psychology, which have substantial knowledge that has been overlooked or buried by politicians, mainly due to political correctness or cultural Marxism. In democracies the people vote on ends which scientists and politicians can find the best means to attain. This also adds meritocracy and slows demagoguery in democracies.
Sociobiological research can help save the population from decline or even disaster. For example, IQ studies have found the law of regression to the mean of the group. A parent with an IQ of 110 will tend to have a child with the IQ of 105 if they are living in a group with a mean of 100. This sort of thing needs to be taken into account with the immigration of large groups of people with lower IQ's than the inhabitants of a country, which eventually has a big effect on the culture and leadership. As the people change the culture changes. Examine the facts and motives of those who deny this.
However, alone, the science of sociobiology is not enough, it can find the means to the ends that evolutionary religion and politics decide upon. Evolving to Godhood in the cosmos is the primary end goal of life which religion and culture can affirm, as we move, hopefully, to the next level of civilization.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The highest goal of politics and culture is more than survival and reproductive success, important as these are, and more than the classical goal of peace and justice. What is missing from science and sociobiology are the more holistic trans-political and religious goals. Science doesn't give a whole enough account of life, but then religion also needs the insights of science.
The science of sociobiology says to me that science can define values, it is not really blocked by the “fact-value distinction,” sociobiology has brilliantly told us about ourselves and why we do what we do, but also sociobiology attaches value to the survival and reproductive success which primarily drives our biologically and culturally behavior.
Modern science is the technical version of old classical reason, even if traditional theology doesn't agree, and science helps us understand the natural laws which can give us universally valid ends. When faith, intellectual intuition and practical thought are allowed into the dynamic of science and natural law, then we can affirm nature evolving materially and supermaterially to Godhood in the cosmos. The “font” of natural law can be seen as the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood which activates life to evolve to Godhood, shaped by outside evolution.
Without revelation, intellectual intuition and faith, science can in fact lead to such things as communism and fascism with life reduced to earthly survival of the fittest, selfish imperialism, or one-race nationalism, because whether it uses science well or not it sees nothing more than the truths that it uses science to discover. Liberal humanism also uses science as its foundation but with with less rationalizing of brutality.
When sciences such as sociobiology are attached to evolutionary religion then the goals of life are transformed from mere survival and reproductive success to long term evolution in the cosmos. This is how evolutionary religion can harness the tension between religion and science, revelation and reason. It can be seen that our evolution requires more than one-race nationalism or egalitarian imperialism. The reality of our populated planet says if we are to survive and evolve out into the cosmos we all need to evolve in our own distinctive ways with cooperative competition between a variety of states and groups. Our goal is Godhood, which ultimately means we are evolving far beyond even the human species or the present races of man.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
How dangerous it has been to human history, and human evolution, to give such power and right to a non-material, non-object, beyond-nature, misinterpretation of God, which often led to hating nature and material life.
Both Godhood and man bend to the laws of nature. Godhood is not seen as beyond nature, which could imply beyond good and evil. The imperatives of nature, the right, power and might of nature should not be seen as evil if even Godhood is subject to its laws. Nature does not overthrow morality, nature created morality. A higher level of Godhood might monumentally manipulate nature but that is not creating nature.
This perspective gives more weight to investigating nature, and the laws of nature. Rationality, science and philosophical naturalism can enter religion. Theological materialism says that we evolve to Godhood materially and supermaterially, and the mystery of defining Godhood is gradually resolved as we evolve higher and higher intelligence, truth, beauty and goodness. This is honorable to life, truth, and evolution. It is respectful of Godhood itself not to make of God an airy nothing.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Living in accord with nature also means human nature as was developed in the Hunter-Gatherer age, a nature which we certainly still possess. This harmoniously tracks, more or less, with traditional conservative values. To our inborn nature, or what we inherit, is added the second nature, our upbringing, our education (ie. nature/nurture), and the second acquired nature must not be a perversion of our inborn nature, as it has largely been in modern culture. More deeply and religiously this means living within an ordered conservative evolution activated by the Spirit-Will which internally activates material life to evolve toward Godhood, shaped by outside evolution. This is fully living in accord with nature.
As to the future, as Nietzsche suggested, the development of great people and not merely cultured people, is the supreme goal of education and culture, this is the political, artistic, and religious goal. In today's language this means the development of great people sociobiologically. And not just one people but many people, grouped in small states and regions of distinct variety, and within the groups great individuals, the Republic of Genius, as Schopenhauer called them, calling to one another across time. If we can survive the present, this is our future, this is fully living in accord with nature and the future...Given who we are, is there a better way?
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Looking backward in history things which appear shocking to our modern political correctness seem almost necessary when we admit our modern perversity. Modern culture, especially pop culture, seems unable to recognize anti-social talent from socially-redeeming talent. Ex-drug pushers, nihilists, anarchists, less obvious cultural Marxists, rapacious self-seeking businessman, and so on, are heavily promoted by modern culture financially and culturally.
What are some of the results of this anti-social promotion? Economic nationalism doesn't seem so shocking now that globalism has destroyed the manufacturing base and jobs in America, and greatly widened the gap between rich and poor. And “minding our own business” doesn't seem so shockingly “isolationist” now that our meddling in the world has cost us so much and brought nothing but trouble to most Americans. Preferences for ones own kind, recognized in the past, does not seem so shocking now after the great trouble caused, without success, in trying to make us all the same. And certainly without condoning the huge number of rapes in the military, perhaps keeping women largely out of the military in the past now seems not so shocking.
All the traits of human nature as defined by classical conservatism (not neoconservative) and by the science of sociobiology do not seem so shocking when we admit the modern perversity which has all but buried real human nature and healthy culture. Who are the promoters and why have they so maliciously promoted this perversity? Is it ignorance? It seems to have simply been the will to power of the promoters, who sought power by way of weakening traditional culture.
This has predictably led to much lower morale in the population, more alcoholism and drug addiction, more law breaking, more prisons, more egoistic consumption of luxuries, which has weakened the nation and denied money and effort needed for self-defense, research, health, and so on.
And thus a nation and a people decline... It needs to be turned around, perhaps beginning with the promoters of our decline.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Nietzsche thought the aim of education was not merely to “know” the past but to produce and cultivate individual greatness in the present culture, which is what the ancient Greeks did so well. But now we need also to be concerned with developing great individuals sociobiologically, not merely culturally. This sounds shocking to modern minds because we don't admit the modern perversities. For example, such things as demanding absolute equality of conditions for all people is now politically correct, a perverse twisting of the idea of the equality of opportunity. This is perverse when compared with real human nature in human history. The frustrating thing is, these modern perversities were often pursued not with real moral concern but as methods to power for those seeking to rise in more fixed cultures.
But history has a way of snapping back to what human nature actually is, as sociobiology and a few courageous historians have taught us. We need a revitalized conservatism, we need evolutionary conservatism, and we will probably get it, if we can survive that long. A nation and even a world of thousands of mostly independent small states or ethnostates protected by a light regional federalism is what humans form into, if natural human nature is allowed to come forward. And this time with the important addition of cooperative rather than uncooperative competition, which humans are capable of if we try. This will also better permit our continuing sociobiological and sacred evolution.
Monday, June 10, 2013
After reading the thoughts of Jack Kerwick (Modern Age, Spring 2013) comparing forms of conservatism here are my thoughts on the subject.
I tend to agree with neo-conservative Leo Strauss that natural law (natural right) has a rational purpose but I take the essential purpose to be material life evolving to super-material life and Godhood in the cosmos, and Strauss does not go there. I also tend to agree with classical conservative Edmund Burke who suggests we need to live according to the tradition and order of the time and place we live in, which does not have a universal rational purpose other than living. However, Burke does seem to see a universal purpose which only God knows.
I remain grounded in universal evolution and the universal purpose of our eventual evolution to Godhood, where the “particular” group, time and place is affirmed in its unique path to the “universal” Godhood of material-supermaterial evolution. “Rights” seem to get complicated or obfuscated and move away from simpler definitions such as, “Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter. “ (James A. Donald) But then, philosophical naturalism will not go beyond empirical proof to see the teleological and sacred goal to evolution, but I do with theological materialism, hoping science will find proof for this in the future.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
In its essential social aspects human nature seeks survival and reproductive success in the world. This behavior of human nature is derived from the laws of nature and the task of government is to protect this natural behavior as much as possible.
When there are large groups of people, and with not all of them culturally and genetically similar, with all seeking to fulfill the natural imperatives of human nature, a civilized way has to be found to reduce the chances of conflict, since war, especially modern wars, often damage success in survival and reproduction for both winners and losers.
Regions and states for this reason need to be protected in their differences and allowed as much independence and freedom as possible so that the people may fulfill the essential imperatives of human nature. Government as a whole is the recognition of this natural behavior, or natural law, and the need to protect and allow it. It seems to me that the original Constitution of the United States could more or less affirm this light federalism.
In the ancient past different groups, or races, were formed mainly from geographical isolation, and ethnics such as altruism were formed in isolated groups to help the groups bond for success in competition with other groups. But in the very populated world of today, present within-group ethics need to adapt to a between-group ethics which affirms our differences. Differences need to be acknowledged with courage and truth; the almost diabolical practice of promoting strong ethnocentrism for ones own group while disparaging and ruling out ethnocentrism in all other groups needs to cease.
In the future, in accord with nature and human nature, I believe we will be more consciously involved in our evolution, in shaping patterns of the distribution of cultural and genetic traits related to our needs and goals, and for this we will need the protection of differences. Religion helps bond people in the deepest way and sets sacred goals with values, morals and rituals. I think governments and religions of the future will apply evolutionary philosophy and sociobiology, with the sacred goal of evolving all the way to Godhood in the cosmos.
Saturday, June 08, 2013
It seems to me that Socratic and post-pagan philosophy and religion developed too much in cities, too much away from nature, and they had a too abstract, almost anti-nature ethos (art too). The re-purposed or revitalized religious philosophy and cosmogony I write about in this blog is the evolution of life to Godhood, a recurring cosmos, beginning in primal matter, activated from within by the Spirit-Will, shaped by natural evolution, falling back, then beginning again with big bang creations, endlessly, no final mover, a recurring endless evolution, no beginning, no end, non finito. We humans are part of this evolution, and our values and morals, and our cultural structures need to proceed in harmony with this endless evolutionary song, not with one song but with a harmony of songs, all evolving, all moving toward the zenith of intelligence, beauty, and noble character, or Godhood.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Raymond Cattell thought we may have reached the level of civilization where we can outlaw war without curtailing evolution.
True there have been many inventions brought about by war, rocketry etc.. which eventually landed us on the moon. Cattell thought that we might think of war as the lower level of testing the power of a group and that groups might assert their power at a higher level of competition, with technology etc.
Sociobiological research institutes could be set up to examine the problems of nations and states, regarding the various stages that societies go through, like the age-categories of individuals, to help us not only outlaw dysgenic wars but insure the future evolution of culture and genes.
Cattell's important hope was that we can outlaw war without curtailing evolution. Can we really civilize the beast to this degree? Perhaps if we are to survive and evolve out into the cosmos we must.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
"Everything is what it is, and not another thing." (Bishop Butler, 1726)
Contrary to Plato, mathematical things, triangles, as well as such things as justice, beauty and love, are human definitions pertaining to actual objects, they do not exists as entities in themselves.
Nonexistent spiritual definitions have been given far too much attention and power in religion and philosophy, which has led to misdefining and degrading the real world. Ascetics even put up a Great Spiritual Blockade against the material world, which actually blocks the real path to Godhood of material evolution. When people like Paul Tillich or Heidegger say such things as, “God is being-itself, not being,” they perpetuate the same belief in nothing but a mode of thinking.
Spiritual definitions need to drop back to their support role or defining role and they need to cease to be Gods themselves. The natural world has to be unblocked if we are to reach real Godhood by way of evolution. The confusing name-games for God will stop when Godhood is seen as existing in the same sense that everything else exists. The exoteric needs to rise again over the esoteric in religious theology, and does so with theological materialism where Godhood is seen as a supermaterial object evolved to in the material world.
The Twofold Path makes room for the traditional, non-object, idea-only definitions of the God-Within, or Father-Within, of the Inward Path of the great religions---this is included but transformed in the Outward Path of the Theoeolutionary Church. This brings the real world into religion and religion into the real world, and most importantly, it unblocks the long-blocked natural path to evolving to real Godhood, the real purpose of existence, which is only reflected in the God-Within. This is a transvaluation of Plato's and i dare say Heidegger's world.
An unmanifest God, which can be seen in Hinduism, and in the Christian Meister Eckart, is a definition, or principle, or denotation, or an intuitive experience of God, but this is not Godhood. Plato too saw an unmanifest God, as did his followers. God or Being has been seen as unmanifest all the way to Heidegger, whose Being remains a hidden Being, or is a process of the human mind where Being needs thought to manifest itself.
Heidegger's chilly Being seems not to be exactly the same as the loving God of Aquinas, but both thinkers see Being as not an object in time but a process happening through human thought or special experience. Aquinas at least does say that even if we can not know God completely, God is there knowing himself, God is a mystery but not to himself. Although the God of Aquinas does manifest the world, his God remains a nonmaterial, unmanifest God, and not a manifest-supermaterial-evolved-Supreme Object-in time-Godhood, as Godhood is seen in the Evolutionary Church.
This God or Father-Within of Aquinas (and the Eastern religions) is found in the Involutionary Inward Path, it is the “unmanifest” God contained in the virtual tabula rasa Soul. This Father Within is attained or experienced by first ridding the body of all material desires and surrendering to the Soul. Nevertheless, it is only through the Evolutionary Outward Path that one can attain Real Godhood in the cosmos. This requires not ridding the body of material desires but fulfilling the goal and promise of material desires in evolving to Godhood, the supermaterial zenith of the material world .
Philosophers and theologians have compressed too many things in God, for example, God as Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer, when these things derive from different things, even if they are related. Primal Matter and the Spirit-Will within Primal Matter seem to be the creator, and natural evolution is, at times, the destroyer, and Godhood is the manifested Zenith of natural and supernatural evolution.
I do allow the ideal to go beyond man's mind alone and beyond man's existence. The ideal meaning can appear within the Spirit-Will which exists within man and within life. But this is a Spirit defined as remaining in the material-supermaterial world as part of the natural world. I think when early phenomenology tried to avoid metaphysical constructions it cut its head off, which is what science did...
This also means that man is not as “free” as Heidegger suggested. We are not “hurled” into the world with no idealistic-natural goal. The goal of the Spirit-Will is to activate our material being at any given stage of evolution to evolve to the Zenith of Beings, which is Godhood. We are determined from within by the Spirit but shaped from without by “freer” evolution.
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, 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 God.
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--- in Godhood's case, it will be Absolute Exterior Expression of Absolute Interior Mind.
No wonder that solipsism rears it's selfish head in philosophy, which seems to me to be a false entrapment of the ego in itself. I find the world real, the Spirit-Will real, and Godhood real, as actual existing objects. Being and being-to-Be have material and supermaterial substance as objects.
I think I also reject Heidegger's definition of Being more or less as time. Profound as this philosopher was, this seems to be a rejection of the actual object in favor of a definition of certain moving aspects of the behavior of objects. Time the definition is not Being the object.
Likewise Plato's Forms are not Being, forms secondarily define Being. In the old paradox, does unity define being or is unity beyond being? I say the form or the thought of unity is only that, a thought in the mind-brain of being or Being, and unity is not a real object. Unity is only part of being as the mind-brain is only part of the body. Total unity, or Absolute Unity would happen with Godhood attained at the zenith of material evolution (with supermaterialism). That is, Godhood's mind knows, but only knows within the united Body of Godhood.
Now if philosophy wants to try to define this real world just described in epistemological detail it is welcome to do so. But I think Being has to be rescued from such things as Heidegger's definition of Being as the history only of Being. Being and being are more than any kind of definition of Being.
Is this “faith” I am applying in defining reality, the leap of faith? Theological materialism is a religion after all, a religion with a kind of idealistic materialism, but an idealism grounded in the projected goal of an evolving living object with immanent and transcendent real substance.
I am beholden to no one for this “heresy” which allows me more freedom than most---some would say perhaps too much freedom. Is my perspective really “poetry” or does it move outside of philosophy? Like a pre-philosopher I see no difference between existence and Being and I see no separation between essence an existence. Essence would be the Spirit-Will within the existing real object being.
Time follows Being, time defines the existence of Being, time is not Being, as Heidegger seems to suggest in “Being and Time.” Time is not an object, but Being is an object.
Thinking of time as Being is like thinking of God as beyond the object, beyond materialism, even beyond supermaterialism. This is making an idol of denotation and definition.
“Being” doesn't mean unchanging “permanence,” Godhood Itself seems to transform into a new cosmic Godhood, the old cosmos continues to be activated by the evolutionary Will To Godhood, or Spirit-Will, until it has reached its final goal of Godhood, then it seems to begin again, or continue on to even higher Godhood.
Being does not “stand outside” of existence, even speech and thought are part of Being, as the mind is part of the body.
I think that in standard ontology, Being (big B) is the definition or denotation only of being (small b) as in this the brain defines the body. Even in Godhood Being is the mind of God (being). Being depends on being and being depends on Being.
This suggest to me that the being of ontology deserves the large B of Being because the overall total being is superior in its totality to the Mind or Being. Being is never separate from being. Being never “emerges” away from being on its own. Being or Godhood simply exists as a supermaterial object who knows itself fully as it exists.
This relates to what I see as the false separation between “essence” and “existence.” The essence, or idea, is never separate from the existence of the object in the same way that Being is not separate from being.
Aquinas, the central philosopher of Catholicism, sees Being as act, to be is to act, and this I can agree with. But Being also exists as a living being that has evolved to Godhood, which is the potential of all other objects in the cosmos. Being then transforms, or continues evolving as other lesser objects transform, into the next cosmos or the next being.
There is no It or Being left behind when being emerges from being, or Godhood. Only the Spirit-Will remains within matter activating the next cosmos.
It should be understood (it may be obvious) that my thinking on Being and being, like Aquinas, is ultimately mystical, “ratio” knows its place. I conceptualize a mystical view of Godhood (intellectual intuition) but I consider conceptualization a lesser instrument than knowing or being the total Object Itself.
In the tradition of trying to understanding Being historically comes the next stage of understanding Being in an evolutionary way, this is the “metaphysics” of theological materialism.
But traditional metaphysics sees Being as eternal, always existing outside of history, so it is really ahistorical, not unlike much of modern philosophy, in seeing Being as withdrawn from the world.
There is a separation between what I call the idolatry of denotation and Real Godhood. The denotation and defining becomes the idol, the God, is given eternal life outside of material and even supermaterial life.
Being does not “withdraw" from the historical or evolutionary “sending” (Heidegger's term) of life, time and history are only denotations, definitions of actual living and transforming Being and beings, which do all the sending and begetting---nothing outside of living objects does the sending or transforming.
There is no “oblivion of Being” (again Heidegger's term), there is only the transformation of Being or the evolution of beings.
I do not think we should feature the “principle” of substance, called “form” by Aristotle, who thought form was the highest principle of substance. This is how religion and philosophy veer off beyond reality, beyond the object, beyond the truth of the object. Truth is an object first, a principle second.
Godhood or Being should not be envisioned as form or principle or abstraction but as a Supreme Object, a Supermaterial Object of substance, or super-substance.
The Spirit-Will is the acting animator of material-supermaterial being, all the way to Godhood, whereupon Godhood is transformed into a new cosmic Godhood containing the animating Spirit-Will within each material being.
For St. Thomas, Being is act, not substance, which would be like saying God is Spirit-Will (although the Spirit-Will is an acting substance). The Spirit-Will, which is material, is not Being or Godhood, the action of the Spirit-Will is part of evolution, Being is a Supreme Acting Living Object.
To Heidegger, Being is also not causality or actuality but the radiance of what shows itself to us (Caputo, “Heidegger and St. Thomas"). But Being is the Zenith of Causality and Action, more than “mere” radiance which is “only” a property of the Object Supreme Being.
Truth is found in objects, in things, which are then seen and described by minds. Minds require bodies, just as the Soul and Spirit-Will require bodies. A Divine Mind exits in the Divine Body of Being.
Transcendence is another word for evolution, the transcendence of being to Godhood is evolutionary, and the transcendence or transformation of Godhood into a new cosmic Godhood is evolutionary.
As to proof, describing this ontology and metaphysics corresponds to Heidegger's preference for the poet's way of naming Being, as poets and thinkers who have been touched by It (in older words, faith and intellectual intuition). I am waiting for more concrete “scientific” proof, for example, proof of the Supreme Substance of Being and proof of the evolution of beings to Being or Godhood, which will come in the future, I believe.
I see it as a device, an abandonment, to say, as Heidegger said, that Being is time, or more precisely, that Being gives Itself to man in the form of time, because our senses operate within the horizon of time. This way one doesn't define the ground of Being.
The way to ground Being is to secure Being in materialism-supermaterialism, to define the Spirit-Will as Essence, which is also supermaterial. One then can define Existence as a material-supermaterial Body, activated by the Spirit-Will, and shaped from without by evolution.
Godhood is this way grounded in Its own Essence and Existence, as all other causal life is, only Godhood or Being has evolved to the Zenith of the material-supermaterial world.
The problem seems to stem from the old duality of material/spiritual and the inability to see God as material-supermaterial, along with the insistence on a wholly spiritual God with no “confinement” in anything material or supermaterial.
Creation is “mutatio,” nothing can be created out of nothing. This is causal thinking, this is theological materialism. It is time to end the battle between spirit and matter, religion and science. At this time, reason and science can take us to the gate, and intellectual intuition and religion can pass us through the gate, until reason catches up.
Heidegger thought that Scholastic metaphysics constitute an oblivion of Being (“Heidegger and Aquinas,” Caputo), but I think religion and philosophy in general have created an oblivion of Being.
How much simpler, elegant, to suggest that all is materiality and supermateriality, which can even explain Angels and Godhood, as well as human life. The lower material evolves to the higher supermaterial. Hairsplitting arguments about “form” and “substance,” “Potentiality,” “purity” and “spiritual versus material” no longer apply.
Angels would be Penultimate Gods, made of nearly the same supermaterial substance as Godhood, which are not non-material pure spirit or pure act. Angels and Godhood are the highest evolved Beings in the cosmos, yet made of the same material and supermateriality as the rest of the cosmos.
As above, so below.
If only “beings” are, what does “Being” mean, asks John Caputo (“Heidegger and Aquinas”). I think Being in this sense is meaning only, and far secondary to so-called lesser “being.”
If you need to give being a capital letter then Being is at the Zenith of Evolution and being (small b) is all evolving life leading to Godhood.
In this way both Being and being are actual physical objects with material and supermaterial substance, in the world, of time, and belonging to causal laws. To “define” these things is far secondary to their actual existence.
Definition is not worthy of the terms being or Being, these are not abstract concepts. Essence is in existence and existence is in essence. This suggest a rejection of any real distinction between essence and existence---this is not Thomist. I uphold the Involutionary Inward Path to the God Within, and I uphold upward evolution in the Evolutionary Outward Path to Godhood without, which is the Twofold Path of the Theoeolutionary Church. Heidegger's teacher, Braig, seems to have been closer to our way of thinking about Being than Heidegger.
For me the subjective/objective-ideal/real arguments come down to how much of the actual object we can subjectively see. The higher evolved we are---that is, with higher consciousness and higher intelligence---the more we can see of the actual object. We see differently from a dog or honeybee but we also see more of the actual objective object. Heidegger and Husserl seem to deny the whole idea of seeing an objective being-in-itself, and so they deny realism. (“Heidegger and Aquinas,” Caputo)
Seeing more of an actual objective object has apparently enhanced our success in survival and reproduction. Evolving to much higher consciousness and higher intelligence will allow us to see more and more of what is real and actual, and eventually our evolving to the highest consciousness, or Godhood, will allow us to see all of reality and truth, which is the goal of our evolution, activated by the Spirit-Will within life. I do not think it is enough to center on advancing machines rather than genes, as the Singulitarians do in their political correctness, which avoids biological evolution.
I can at least agree with Aquinas in defining Being as the very act of existing, Being as Being, rather than merely defining Being as Being. But I do not think that only in God are essence and existence identical, as Aquinas seems to have thought. Essence and existence are never separate in any life form, the difference is that in Godhood essence and existence have evolved---together never separate---to their highest form. Essence (Spirit-Will) activates existence (material/supermaterial body) all the way from the simple to the Supreme-Being-Actual-Object-Godhood.
Heidegger sees Being as rising up out of concealment (Caputo), but this looks to me like the old metaphysics, making Being pure Spirit separated from the rest of the world. I might interpret this “rising out of concealment” as a description of the creation of the world, but I see no real concealment, I see only different levels of evolution where only a God could be evolved high enough to understand the formerly unconcealed God, who is necessarily concealed from the lower evolved by levels of intelligence and complexity. I doubt that Heidegger meant “unconcealed” in this way.
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, 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 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.
When both beings and Being are known and seen as material and supermaterial existing objects, and not as immaterial word-creations or definitions, then the language describing these objects can 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 Object Godhood attained--- Godhood's Mind existing in Godhood's Body will describe Absolute Reality with Absolute Language.
The “unconcealed” which seems to define truth in Heidegger's ontology (and in Ancient Greek philosophy), is defined in theological materialism as an Object. “Unconcealedness” is attained when life evolves to its highest truth and beauty, which is not a definition or denotation but is a supreme supermaterial object called Godhood. Theology and philosophy always end up perpetuating the same belief in nothing but a mode of thinking, definitions and denotations of God. Definitions wrongly become Gods themselves.
A key idea is to define some “truths” as “unconcealedness,” as the Greeks supposedly did, and as Heidegger did after them, but then go on from there and define unconcealedness as a living object, not an idea or math symbol.
If Heidegger was right that the Greek word for “truth” means “unconcealment,” then I would define truth as a material or supermaterial object released from the concealment of nonmaterial, traditional metaphysics, and mathematics.
I could agree with Heidegger's idea that the history of metaphysics is the history of the “oblivion of Being,” but I would put it another way: the history of religion and philosophy is the history of the oblivion of the real object. Given the oblivion of the real object it is no wonder that materialism rejected religion and much of philosophy. In rejecting religion, materialism and philosophy ended up with empty materialism.
In the theological materialism of the Theoeolutionary Church, the real object of materialism is seen as hypertrophied or evolved into the Supermaterial Supreme Object, or Godhood, attained through evolution. This retrieves religion and philosophy and even science from the empty oblivion of Being.
The real object has been lost in almost diabolical abstractions, which means that Real Being is lost in abstractions. Yes, we must use mathematics to technically run the world, but mathematics does not replace real objects and does not replace the Supreme Object of Real Godhood.
We know that living objects exist in the world from the simple to the complex, and it seems possible to think, without abstraction, that a hierarchy of living objects exist in the cosmos, and this evolution could evolve up to the Supremely Complex, with a highest level of evolution, where Godhood would dwell.
A child knows that what he sees is real, without abstractions, even if he does not know that he will see more of the object as his senses and consciousness and intelligence advance. This is basically all that needs to be said regarding how we regard the real world. The emperor of abstract definition has no clothes.
It seems that St. Thomas shifted from Aristotle to Plato in describing abstract God which I don't go along with. This becomes a God of definition.
The abstract idea of “pure perfection” always blockades the real material world, as if the world is evil. But when the material is seen to evolve to the supermaterial then this Great Spiritual Blockade of the material-supermaterial evolution to Godhood will be opened, and true Godhood can be reached.
“...If metaphysics is the summit of philosophy, it is necessary to look for the root outside of metaphysics.” (Gilson)
Generally, both religion and philosophy have been a philosophy of Being without existence, or Being is considered beyond at least material existence. This has been a great error. This has defined God as a non-object, or even as “Nothing” in relation to material life, which is often the way mystics define God. Philosophers and theologians have seemed to “animate concepts,” as John Caputo put it, with “absolute idealism.”
Godhood is a supreme object with essence, existence and being, and not Being without existence as we know it. Godhood is not beyond the material, Godhood is supermaterial, which is not the same as nonmaterial spirit. Godhood is in the world as we are in the world, but Godhood is at the zenith of evolution in the world. The Being of Godhood has existence in the cosmos, as all other objects do.
If metaphysics kills the material world then science should be the science of Being, seeking to discover the substance of the supermaterial. Until then, until science knows it has to be thus, by deepening its search to religious subjects, I have to define idealistic materialism, which seems contradictory but is not.
Heidegger said Being “rises up into unconcealment,” but being is never concealed, although at this stage in our evolution it may be concealed from us. In all life, all the way to Godhood, being is not merely the definition of the object, being is the existing object, from the material to the supermaterial.
Posted by Kenneth Lloyd Anderson at Thursday, June 06, 2013
Labels: Contrasting Heidegger and the Philosophy of Theological Materialism, Philosophical sociobiology
“We want to serve history only to the extent that history serves life.” (Nietzsche)
Pro-social and anti-social genius needs to be distinguished in relation to advancing evolution. I affirm some of the early Greek philosophers, perhaps Goethe, Schopenhauer and later Nietzsche and Cattell in seeing a graded reality from lower matter all the way to Godhood, a dynamic natural world with all forms striving upward, all levels of nature directed toward compounding consciousness, all evolving toward the zenith of intelligence, beauty and noble character, which is Godhood. Natural evolution may be beyond good and evil but not beyond good and bad---it is not value free.
Finding and assisting genius needs the help of our institutions. Working in isolation happens in any case, but genius and the works of genius lead human culture, culture follows genius and lags behind both culturally and genetically, and it is the task of culture to manage the under-emphasized cultural frustrations which are caused from the lag. This can anchor educational philosophy which has all but abandoned these ideals in regressively centering on the less talented rather than the most talented. Culture needs to promote the greatest number of exceptional people whose inventions can help the less exceptional. The great culture of the Renaissance was developed by only about one hundred men!.
The idea is that we don't study for the sake of studying as “idlers in the garden of knowledge” (Nietzsche), we study as the attendant of the great current of evolving life. Life precedes knowledge. We study past greatness to help ourselves become great.
Philosopher Frederick Nietzsche and psychologist Raymond Cattell more or less agreed with this assessment of future education, two outstanding masters, although neither essentially acknowledged evolving to Godhood in evolution, and certainly not in terms of transforming the God first seen inwardly by the great religions to Godhood evolved to outwardly. What is vital is faith in evolution, in its continual possibilities.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
The modern world asked the question, should we try to revitalize the collective, or try to heal far fewer individuals? It was predicted that an inward spiritual age was coming requiring near-total libertarian freedom for the individual.
Modern psychologists and philosophers, in line with Eastern religions, largely dismissed the collective modern world as hopeless and they centered on the individual, especially following the second world war. This was mainly the Involutionary Inward Path to the God Within which says there is danger in applying myth-religion politically. But there may be more danger in not doing so.
Sociobiology, a universal science, has overcome the fragmentation and individualism of postmodernism in defining the group as the main unit of selection. Even individual genius, which has been so vital to human progress, must harmonize with the group to have any affect. The evolutionary metanarrative has a universal theme of evolving to Godhood, with particular cultures and people as the central units of selection.
Science examines the world while religion unifies the world. Science for a time buried myth-religion but it can now be an aid to religion in the myth-religion of our evolution to Godhood.
Theological materialism harmonizes religion and science and can make religion accessible to the modern secular mind. Humans are capable of universal evolution toward Godhood, along with the parallel evolution of a wide variety of individual small states or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, and with cooperative competition affirmed.
I see an outward, not inward, evolutionary religious age coming. Religion, influenced by the East, has gone inward for most of its long history, mainly denying the material world. In the future we may see the material world as evolving outwardly to supermaterial Godhood, the Godhood first glimpsed inwardly. This is creative myth-religion as cosmic salvation, which can heal both the individual and the collective.
Monday, June 03, 2013
The supreme goal of education and culture for Nietzsche, especially early Nietzsche, was the genius, and the works of genius, including noble character. The more individualistic superman later was the culmination of this philosophy.
The supreme goal of the Twofold Path and the EC is primarily the evolution of life to Godhood, and it follows from this that the evolution of genius, the works and noble character of genius, and the genes of the genius, can help us along in our evolution.
Nietzsche might not have approved of the goal of Godhood as understood through intellectual intuition and proportion, which he might have called an illusion, however necessary, but Nietzsche might have acknowledged the grounding of Godhood in in material-supermaterial evolution, and philosophical naturalism.
Sociobiology (E. O. Wilson) has affirmed group-selection as the primary unit of selection, with the individual relating primarily to group selection. The academic world now needs to have a more transformable cultural role for sociobiology, which could then influence high and low culture.
Cooperative competition in evolution in a world of variety and evolving small states, while affirming ones own particular people and state, might not have been highly valued by Hellenic-loving Nietzsche, but the world was smaller then.
Long term evolution will need the help of international institutions working with national institutions. We can surpass the Ancient Greeks, which might have made Nietzsche happier. But we will need cooperative competition and not imperialism to do it.
Sunday, June 02, 2013
If it is possible to have proportion and beauty in political order as it was conceived in classical architecture then political order is not only an empirical thing, it is also art, and seems to also call for the eye of the artist, at least the kind of artist who sees beauty in proportion and proportion in beauty. (see “Beauty and Proportionality in Architecture” by Carroll William Westfall).
Proportion and beauty is the blending of opposites and the ordering of different things, not merely by empirical mathematics but by artistic proportion. Although proportion has its own numbers, classical architect's adjusted proportion to fit the eye, not to fit the abstract facts in building the structure.
Thinking of a nation or world containing small states, or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, with a variety of different groups and environments, and with the universal goal of evolving toward Godhood in their own particular ways---this seems like beautiful proportion to me, even before you track it down empirically, which you can also do with the science of sociobiology.
Beauty and proportion are related to aesthetics whereas you track the good in the moral and philosophical field, but if you think of Godhood as the zenith of beauty, truth and goodness which we evolve to in the cosmos, then Godhood is where truth, beauty and goodness attain their connected proportion, blending together in absolute beauty.
Saturday, June 01, 2013
By seeking beauty art affirms Godhood. Also evolving increasingly beautiful, intelligent and noble things is closer to Godhood, which is the zenith of these things.
Frederic Turner wrote, “ ...the artist must sail into the unknown, cutting blazes as he or she goes along, blazes that consist of a combination of some symbols already known and some open to question, a grotesque paradox, that opens up the new territory of perception...”
Turner also quotes Shakespeare from “A Midsummer Night's Dream”:
“The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven.
And as imagination bodies forth
The Forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”