Nietzsche's mistake led to Freud's mistake

Freud took Nietzsche's psychological/philosophical study of releasing humanity from the ascetic blocking or repression of life and the passions, and turned it into a therapy. What Nietzsche and Freud missed or greatly downplayed was the central unit of group selection in human behavior, with individual selection only following.

Nietzsche released egocentric philosophy and philosophers on the world, and Freud tried to show people, in long costly therapy sessions, how to affirm what amounted to egocentrism, especially freedom from Christian moral restraints. Later Ayn Rand took up the same egocentric cause in economic philosophy.

Individuals are of course important, especially individual geniuses, but individuals need to be helpful to the advancement of the group. Egocentrism, as well as the Inward Path to the symbolic God Within of religious asceticism, need to be integrated into the Outward Path of group selection and the material evolution to real Godhood. Given human nature this would be healthier for individuals and for the culture.

There will be survival benefits if we can respond with ethnopluralism

Ethnopluralism comes from adaptive political philosophizing. Political theories, like storytelling, can be positive preparation for the complexities of living, and therefore have survival benefits. Multiple perspectives can be examined to develop sophisticated responses to new political and cultural dilemmas.

Abstract and emotional parts of the mind can come together in political philosophizing, which can give advantages to those who can plan ahead in imaginative detail. We have grown beyond the direct responses without forethought of other animals, supposedly.

The ethnopluralism hypothesis is just such an advance notification of adapting to the modern world, and responding to new dilemmas, political and cultural, while living on our now crowded planet. There will be survival benefits if we can respond with ethnopluralism, as well as evolutionary advantages.

This is the future, assuming we survive the present

Denis Dutton and others define natural selection as the development of species by a process of random mutation and selective retention. But something is missing from this account, as expressed by Doran McCarty: “Chance and natural selection do take place, but there is a guiding force in the selection process.” It is the Spirit-Will-to-Godhood within life, not yet acknowledged by science, that is activating life to evolve toward higher consciousness, intelligence and beauty, all the way to Godhood, which is the virtual eternal retention or representation of the highest evolved life. This worldview is contained in the next religion, while conservatively retaining elements of past religions (see the Twofold Path).

For life to evolve to Godhood a natural, positive eugenics (yes, the dreaded word) can be applied, along with genetic engineering, and not merely development toward intelligence machines. It will be a conscious selection process making up for the reduced natural selection of modern times, which has brought an increased genetic load of disadvantageous genes into the gene pool---since we don't want to go back to primitive times and the primitive selection process.

We can now deal with cultural and ethnic diversity not with multiethnic states, which Pearson described as trying to impose a fabricated cultural homogeneity upon members, usually with some version of force, which doesn't work for long in any case. A better way for real human nature, all gene pools, all ethnic groups, all small states, is to keep the diversity, which is good for evolution, and learn cooperative competition within a general ethnopluralism. As Cattell, an early scientific advocate of future human evolution said, we want “Federation not hegemony.”

Outsider thinking? Of course, but this is the future, I am sure of it, assuming we survive the present.  I think many people sense intuitively that this is the future, even when they feel that they must disagree with it.

Ethnopluralism as the new/old conservatism

Burke's conservative view that “political institutions grow from customs and conventions cultivated through long generations” needs also to include the long biological origin of much of cultural behavior, or the sociobiology perspective, which can go deepest. Then we can more clearly see that some of the promotions of universal abstract conceptions, for example, by the global desiring neoconservatives, are impossible---impossible abstractions would include not only the quixotic extremes of Marxism but libertarianism, more or less, which has been preferred by many American conservatives. The group remains the central unit of selection, individualism follows.

The power of history (historicism) can and does limit politics and abstractions, as Burke believed, but biology circumscribes politics even more so. People and their genetic traits are the founders of our cultures, culture doesn't found people. Biology is more a “universal” element than the Platonic abstractions of Leo Strauss.

Burke would have opposed the Straussian dominance of universal classical “natural rights”over living Christian morals, but the concept of natural rights can adjust to universal sociobiology without losing Anglo-American Christianity, which many say is at the foundation of the West. To understand Christianity in the face of the biological origin of much of cultural behavior, including religion, requires a theological shifting, not abandonment, from emphasis on the abstract and symbolic Inward God of Christ to the Outward Godhood of material and supermaterial evolution, which is the realization of the Inward God of Christ. Religion can join universal evolution and science this way, then both can embrace the world.

Our evolution toward Godhood requires the Ordered Evolution of conservatism, because improvements are slow, stable conservative societies are needed, nine-tenths of mutations are unfitting.  And we should not bypass the evolution of life for the evolution of intelligent machines, which almost seems to be a sly way of avoiding the touchy but vital subject of human evolution.

This sociobiological political understanding also revives Southern Agrarian ideas of the land and localism, and shifts the bigger Burkean political and cultural institutions toward the side, but not out of sight. What then appears is Ethnopluralism, many states that are virtual ethnostates, which can live within the classical conceptions of human rights and republicanism, on the Left or the Right, protected by a light federalism, even within the U. S. Constitution.

How to prevent falling like the Roman Empire (it's politically incorrect)

Ancient Rome fell in Ad 476 when massive immigration lost control of its borders, rather than from barbarian warrior invaders. Before that Rome controlled immigration letting in fixed amounts of people, and telling them where they could settle. It looks like the U. S. will not control its borders either, and we really don't want to become a police state to do so. This means we will have no choice, a wide variety of people, and ethnic cultures, will enter the nation, even though many recent immigrants have not been assimilated.  Then the founding culture changes, laws change, cultural wars naturally take place. This has been happening in Europe too.

Short-sighted and greedy businessmen are mainly responsible for our open borders, they seek cheaper and cheaper labor costs, and they largely control the government and elected officials. Then other individuals and groups ride the tide of open immigration with their own schemes and wills to power.

The hard fact is, in modern times, assimilation has not worked, when ethnic cultures are too distinct from one another they simply don't assimilate, the melting pot hasn't melted. Assimilation only really works when groups are fairly closely related, and even then unassimilated pockets remain. The question not asked is, why should very different people melt into one people, even if they could, which they can't, when that motley condition largely led to the fall of Rome, as well as other great civilizations?

Otherwise it looks like we will fall as the Roman Empire fell. Ironically, we will then most likely split into ethnostates---because real biological grounded human nature works that way. Throughout human history, right up to the present time, human nature has been kin-centered, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among many other traditional things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.  Homogenization and assimilation won't happen unless we genetically change human nature, which is unlikely, since the modern liberals don't like to think about biology or genetics, even though changing human nature would be the only way their quixotic, egalitarian, totalitarian, we-are-all-the-same utopias might have a limited chance of being realized.

Passion and reason and reviving the dignity of life

Reason has usually been preferred to passion, but as Nietzsche pointed out, reason is not an independent entity, it is the relationship between the various passions and desires; passion has its own quantum of reason.

Power grows around the forces of passion, which don't need enfeeblement but need to be enlisted in the cause of our evolution, not as individuals but as groups, as a species.

In the Twofold Path, the passionate Outward Path of evolution toward material/supermaterial Godhood supersedes, but does not get rid of, the Inward Path of involution to the God Within, which necessarily enfeebles the passions so as to experience the Father Within, as a hint of the Godhood reached in evolution.

Religion has tended to disable life in seeking only the Inward Path.  Modernity and non-religion have released chaotic passions with no sacred goal. There is great positive power in the forces of nature. Life, that is, evolving life, needs to revive its dignity.

Philosophers as gamers

Skeptical thinkers often seem to rely only on “bad-move” elimination of what they consider unscientific or irrational, the way a chess-playing computer works, and they don't seem to much include assessing new positive interacting ideas, there is little scrolling for new ideas, its all defense on their part, often a sort of snotty or snooty negativity.

Philosophers are also gamers in the sense of practicing moral or value games, as military strategists practice war games, which ideally prepare for real world morality or real wars. But then philosophers seem to forget that they are playing moral philosophy games or using fantasy and they battle other philosopher-gamers for real world turf. The moral games tend to get far removed from real life that way.

I would like to see sociobiology introduced more into philosophy, and science, and into their games, which is a winning strategy for finding the healthiest values and morals for humanity. Leaving sociobiology out is like military strategists leaving human behavior out of their war games. Military strategists seem to have a better grasp of real human nature than many philosophers. Fantasy games in the Humanities in general do really seriously need sociobiology, with such things as their latest fantasy of cultural Marxism and political correctness.

Nietzsche's big mistake

The important cultural and religious question is moral: will civilization help evolve mankind toward higher man and ultimately to Godhood? Everything of value in art, history, science, technology, and yes, religion, need to be shown to have advanced man along the great path to higher man, but in the direction of Godhood, defined as the zenith of evolution. This sounds Nietzschean but Nietzsche was bitterly against setting moral conditions, he claimed to be an immoralist.

What was missing in Nietzsche, leading to his affirmation of immorality, was evolutionary or sociobiological respect for group selection as the main unit of selection, which requires morality and altruism, which was codified in religions.. In dismissing morality Nietzsche gave carte blanche, free rein, to aristocratic radical individualism, and to individual geniuses creating their own individual morality, of their own will, and that was Nietzsche's big mistake.

Yes, we certainly do need individual geniuses, culturally and genetically, to help advance mankind, but the works of genius require the group and group morality to fully realize evolutionary advancement. We need to tell the difference between social and anti-social genius, both in the humanities and in the sciences. I believe this, along with theological materialism, is the way out of the nihilism that Nietzsche saw coming with the fall of traditional religion, but which he couldn’t realistically prevent with his philosophy.

How art can imitate and expand life

In the experience of beauty is “existence suspended,” and do we become “detached” from immediate desires, is “disinterestedness” the central idea, all of which Kant suggests regarding art?

There is adaptive value to beauty which can be seen in both art and religion. One of the primary attributes of Godhood in theological materialism is ti attain the zenith of beauty, along with the zenith of intelligence and the zenith of noble character. These higher values are here understood as evolved to in material and supermaterial evolution, which is where their adaptive value resides.

Contrary to Kant the “imaginative experience” of art is not detached from real biological life, it intensities, enhances, and expands life. Works of art do happen in the mind but they are not removed from biological drives and instincts. The fiction-drive relates to the beauty-instinct in the biological ways of desire. Beauty in human beings is related to good health and good health has survival and reproductive value.

Only when we trans-value and remove the definition of God from material and supermaterial life do we define beauty in art as suspended from life, after which art can only be seen in disinterestedness. When Godhood is seen as a non-material, spiritual-only construction in the mind or soul, that is when art and religion depart from the real world.

We drifted away from didactic and moral art as we became more literate, but as evolutionary psychologists point out, story-telling had survival benefits in the Pleistocene. It still does, when we relate beauty to real biological life, evolution, and religion. There is no need to use a hammer to didactically or morally inspire, art is usually best when it is subtle. Imagining Godhood attained in future evolution has religious and artistic value, but it also has survival and reproductive value.

Healing broken instincts: removing the lies about human motives and history

Nietzsche pointed out that we falsify great periods, great men in history to enhance various moral perspectives and to disguise, often unconsciously, our wills to power. Even the Reformation was a disguise for the agitators and their own, natural, wills to power (although there was corruption in the Church). Was the disguise necessary? Nietzsche saw nothing wrong with lies and was very skeptical of the “truth”, seeing the truth as merely relative to the will to power.

But why not tell the truth about the will to survival and reproductive success, which is at the foundation of human behavior and human culture.? I think we can do this now, we can stop lying about history and human motives, we can heal the broken instincts. Political structures can be openly set up, for example, as the Ethnopluralism Hypotheses suggests, which can affirm the natural will to success and survival of the various ethnic cultures within their own territories, minus the lies about motives. The truth about human nature is becoming clearer with each new era.

Even religion can affirm the biological origin of much of cultural behavior, now seen as having a goal, a sacred goal, of evolving all the way to Godhood in the Outward Path, the God first seen in the Inward Paths of traditional religion,which Nietzsche, and later modern science, did not affirm. This is the “common” goal of mankind, living separately, but fully capable of cooperative competition, sharing evolutionary knowledge. If this sounds like a dream, another utopia, it is a dream with no real need for gross historical lies, and based in not having to lie about real human nature.  The lies are more obvious now, even if some of them are quite elaborate. Who still wants to lie about human motives and history?

Unifying conservative order and progressive evolution: reform over revolution

Speculating on future reform---which is always preferred over revolution---suggests that elite scientists of sociobiology and psychometrics would not rule democracies with elite technocratic dictatorships, but would be utilized by democracies to help guide the evolution of man toward Godhood. Why would we prefer to go to non-doctors or non-automobile mechanics to fix our problems? Evolutionary religion and the church would also not rule with theocracies but would guide and give solace within democracies. Reform not revolution is also philosophically seen in in the theological materialism of the TC, which synthesizes the Inward Path to the Inward God, first seen within tradition, with the Outward Path of material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood in the cosmos.

Order is defined as Ordered Evolution and not as the ordered but almost total freedom of the libertarians, since there is a sacred evolutionary goal within the order. Present and future generations are both important considerations because evolutionary change requires the order and the time of the present generations to find and select desired real improvements, genetic and otherwise, for future generations. Free choice remains but there are obligations of the present generations toward future evolution.

The U. S. Constitution with its separation of powers and states would be a good territorial configuration for the variety of states that could accommodate the Ethnopluralism Hypothesis, which real evolution prefers, and here too reform rather than revolution applies. Civil disturbances even civil war become more likely if we try to change basic human nature and force homogeneity upon distinctly different people and territories. And the world seems to be going in this natural direction of separation and the devolution of  large empires, as it always has in the past.

Feeling and thinking and being yourself

It seems obvious that feelings are as important as thinking, but many people block their feelings of love, anger, rage, perhaps because they were hurt or damaged in their past by showing their feelings. The old cliche, which is now considered sexist, that women feel and men think has some truth in it, like most stereotypes. But both genders need to better balance feeling and thinking, giving serious time to both.

Thinkers, philosophers tend to think that they can discover reality best through reasoning, rationality, whereas artists and mystics tend to think they can discover reality better through feeling and intuition. To discover the same reality using either reason or feeling is the ideal proof.

To be yourself in both feeling and thinking takes strength and even courage, more than most people realize, weaknesses and strengths present themselves in trying to be yourself, anxieties show themselves---and tyrants or bully's who tend to block people from being themselves also show themselves---but being in the open these things can better be dealt with, one way or another.

This of course does not mean that the group is not important (and I am not advocating narcissism), healthy, self-realized feeling and thinking individuals enhance the group.

The adaptive value of using fantasy for truth-seeking?

Speculation: some people, or even groups, have more of a distaste for fantasy and fiction and more of a devotion to truth than others, which developed like most of human nature back in the Pleistocene. This would not mean that those more devoted to truth can't plan ahead or strategize using fiction and stories, it would mean that the strict truth had more adaptive value for some groups more than others.

A Contrary Thought: As Denis Dutton pointed out, other animals don't create fictional stories, they are naive realists, responding directly to immediate threats, they don't create future scenarios, they prefer the direct truth. This makes a distaste for fantasy seem less advanced.

Response: It seems to me to be a newer adaptation to use fiction more in the search for truth, so that truth-lovers in fact do use or apply fictional fantasy, but mainly the better to get at the truth, and they use fantasy less for its own sake. This might explain differences between, say, advances in science on some continents more than others. But there is no better/best here, just different survival strategies.

The "transmutation" of man to Godhood is accomplished through evolution

God or the Father Within was first experienced and defined as “spiritual” by sages and saints who were required to block or become unattached to all material desires in order to experience the God Within. This is where and why the material world began to be thought of as “dark” or evil.

What has been formerly thought of as spiritual is supermaterial. Enchain man to matter? The problem here, and with occult metaphysics in generally (and also seen in the revealed religions) derives from the perpetuation of the material world as dark, and the so-called non-material spiritual world as light. This duality does not really exist, material life evolves to supermaterial life and eventually if successful to supermaterial Godhood at the zenith of evolution.

Radical revolution, occult or otherwise, is not necessary, the new is enfolded in the old. It is through the material and supermaterial evolution of life that real Godhood is reached, which is far beyond the inward, human, experience of God, blissful as that is. Calling the material world or material evolution evil or dark actually blocks the Path to real Godhood---if anything that is evil. But we do need to distinguish between ascending and descending evolution.  The Paths find balance in the Twofold Path where the Involutionary Inward Path is seen as only the symbolic-experience of the supermaterial Godhood reached in the Evolutionary Outward Path of evolution.

There is no need to waste time trying to untie the various still-existing Gordian Knots of the occult world.  The "transmutation" of man to Godhood is accomplished through evolution. This is the real "alchemy", and it is the central concern of the Evolutionary Outward Path. The Inward Path contains the ancient version of the alchemy which attempts to transmute man inwardly to at least mirror the Golden Soul-Within. Material/supermaterial evolution applies the real, not symbolic, “elixir of the philosopher's stone,” which includes man evolving beyond man to Golden Godhood.

Reverse engineering human culture back to real human nature

Steven Pinker and other evolutionary psychologists see the mind as a neural computer fitted by nature with reasoning about plants, animals, people, used for goals that served biological needs in the ancestral Pleistocene environment. The question I ask is, are the goals that served biological needs in the ancestral Pleistocene environment still relevant, or is our modern culture mainly a corruption of our neural computers and human nature?

I think the answer is generally that, yes, modern brains and human nature have been corrupted by the cultural Marxism of political correctness, which has less and less resemblance to what human beings actually are. That is, we possess basically the same neural computer and human nature that evolved in the Pleistocene. We remain essentially kin-centered, gender defined, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.

But we don't have to get involved in the arguments about whether culture is all biological adaptation or all the blank slate by-product of adaptations, we can, as Denis Dutton pointed out regarding art, define these things as enhancements, codifications, intensifications of our ancient and still existing human nature.

The task, or the mission, is to bring human culture back in harmony with human nature, so that culture and human nature will be healthier and more in accord with Nature itself. This suggests a kind of reverse engineering back to...wait for it: a new kind of revitalized conservatism, this time grounded in the science of sociobiology, which includes such passe things as religion.

Then, the new psychology can be evolutionary psychology, philosophy can be philosophical sociobiology, and theological materialism can be the next theology, with ethnopluralism as the next political philosophy. That would be healthier for us all in the long term, if I do have to say so myself.

Examining the harmony behind rising ethnopluralistically

Tyrannically promoting one wing of human evolution, one group, over and against all others, and using extreme methods to do so, does not seem to be the best means in the ascent of evolution, even if Nietzsche, for one, thought that using extremes was justified in the cause of the ascent of mankind. All other groups not included in the ascent often gang up on any one-group supremacy, eventually, which usually means evolution stops or descends during dysgenic wars, and upward evolution is not served.

With the same reasoning, attempting to force various, different, ethnic groups into one homogeneous state does not work for long either, since people prefer their own groups, with their own territories, in accord with real and basic human nature.  Even now the latest empires are breaking into ethnostates.

On the other hand, if we all rise together, separately, in evolution, promoting ethnopluralism, as real human nature has historically preferred, while making cooperative competition the watchword, that is, helping one another by sharing evolutionary knowledge---this does seem to offer the best chance for the continued ascent of mankind in the evolution toward Godhood.

Digging deeper, the activating Will-To-Godhood, or Tirips, does not appear to be a tyrant either, although it is a sacred instinct with a sacred mission. Tirips seems to be more a delegator, portioning off its drive to other parts of the body, the brain, the mind, reproduction, each of which ideally harmonizes with the Godhood goal of Tirips in evolution. But natural living needs to harmonize as well with the environment in natural selection, which also has a strong hand in shaping evolution... If the sacred activating Tirips in life is not a tyrant, this is another reason for the harmony behind rising ethnopluralistically.

Our ignorance regarding human nature has nearly destroyed us

I suppose there has been a steady improvement in defining human nature over time, with the biggest problem coming from the biased will to power of human nature itself.

People began to see their way out of the strict ancient paternalism of containing human nature when Adam Smith and others began to use individualistic greed, etc. for public benefit, as long as rules were in place to counter such abuses as monopolies, etc. The U.S. Constitution was much influenced by this in its balancing of the separation of powers.

But individualism was too much emphasized, and it was then countered with the Marxist emphasis on classes, which in turn was then countered with nationalism. Nationalism moved us closer to accommodating real human nature than is usually acknowledge in this age of political correctness.

The new Darwinism of sociobiology is perhaps the most accurate view of human nature so far. Human nature began to be redefined in a basic way as being kin-centered, gender defined, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things,with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. But there has been much hostility and corruption regarding sociobiology, and it seems to have receded....such things as misnamed “neoconservatism” and religious fundamentalism block its view.

Human nature as proposed by sociobiology strongly suggests that the ethnopluralism hypothesis defines the best method over the long term for us “all to get along.” That is, the separation of powers, regions, states much more in terms of ethnic cultures, not unlike the separation of states and the protecting federalism of the U.S Constitution, which could accommodate this real human nature, and help save us from destroying ourselves.

Rather than uniting with God, “theosis” is evolving to Godhood

Uniting with God or the Father Within can be experienced in the Involuntary Inward Path while one is still human, whereas to reach real Godhood we must evolve many species beyond human beings to the zenith of evolution in the cosmos, which is the sacred task of the Evolutionary Outward Path. These Paths are called the Twofold Path in the Theoevolutionary Church.

The Inward Path toward experiencing the God Within, as sought in the revealed religions, requires blocking or non-attachment to all the desires and instincts of life. The Outward Path is the refining and evolving of the desires and instincts of life all the way to the highest consciousness, intelligence, and the supermaterial zenith of material life. Evolution, not devolution, is the process we undergo to become advanced enough to reach the intense brilliance and power of Godhood.

The fault is not in religion but in reducing serious religion to the Inward Path of material blockade, while seeing the Outward Path to real Godhood as sinful or evil, rather than as the sacred path of evolution to divine life.

This vision of theosis brings real life to religion, while retaining past traditions. Nonreligious people should realize that the God Within is a real experience felt by many generations of saints and sages across the world, but it is the symbolic-experience of real Godhood reached by material and supermaterial evolution. The God Within is not a perversion of the Godhood reached by evolution, it is a first preliminary experience of the power and beauty of real Godhood.

Evolution beyond nature/nurture

Adapting a clue from Denis Dutton's writing on art, I'm thinking that it might make sense to drop the nature/nurture arguments of evolutionary theory and say this: culture is an enhancement or codification of natural ancient genetic traits, influenced by the environment. Not a duality but a whole. Culture can then in turn influence genetic traits. Biology leads this dynamic. So the Wilsonian definition of sociobiology as the study of the biological origin of social behavior still stands.....Now if we can get people to take a serious look at activating purpose, along with random selection in evolution, toward higher and higher consciousness and intelligence, all the way to Godhood, then the duality between religion and science can also be made whole.

Private and Public Morality and Hollywood

What Hollywood especially likes to do is take beautiful, innocent, young actresses from the hinterlands and gradually, sadistically, encourage them to play low-lifes and prostitutes, and then lavish them with awards for their debasement. There is something especially vile about this, it has gone on for many years in Hollywood, and it is repeated with each rising actress---the list is long.

Nietzsche thought vice was not a cause but an effect of some sort of physiological degeneration. In any case, a healthy culture would not put up with Hollywood. The usual defense of the right to private expression and private morality does not trump public morality, group selection is still the central unit of selection. Not licentious individualism or tribal choseness should be free to destroy the health of a culture.

Curbing Hollywood will not be easy of course since virtually the entire media, and their unctuous lawyers, support Hollywood. If in the future our country returns to or separates into a constitutionally valid ethnopluralism equivalent to our present regions and states, then the rights of the states could better curb the  monopoly of Hollywood.  California could then, unfortunately, debauch itself and the public as it pleases.

Altruism, Egoism and Nietzsche

I don't see Nietzsche finding the loop back from egoism to altruism and the group, he advances individualism, especially superior individuals, but seems to fail to see that superior men need the group as much as the group needs superior men. This could relate to Nietzsche's big hatred of Christianity, which he sees as anti-life and unnatural, and supposedly blocking men like himself.

Nietzsche is correctly sensing the non-material elements required in the Inward Path to the Father Within---this is an actual blissful state attained by ridding the body and mind of all attachments to the material world of desires, which is seen in all the revealed religions. This path in fact is unnatural and anti-life. A whole theology, or ontology, or theory of Being, grew up around the attempt to add life, real desiring life, to the basically anti-life path to the God Within. Think of the elaborate work of St. Thomas Aquinas using Aristotle, or the great Hindu thinkers who try to synthesize real living and life into a totally ascetic path, even to the point of fighting wars with disinterestedness as advocated in the the Bhagavad Gita.

But when the Inward Path and the Father Within are seen and understood as the symbolic-experience of real Godhood only reached in the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution, then Nietzsche's concern regarding the anti-life elements in religion can be resolved. Altruism and egoism can work together in the Twofold Path, as humanity evolves upward toward Godhood in the cosmos, first seen in the Inward Path.

The group remains the central unit of selection. Anti-social criminal-type geniuses can bring the whole group down and  they need to be differentiated from socially redeeming geniuses whose creations enhance both the individual and the group. It is already becoming possible to identify individual social and anti-social traits with various forms of psychometrics and genetic studies.

It is not the either-egoism-or-altruism of Nietzsche's vision that we need, we need both. We don't need genius dictator emperors, we have seen where that leads, we need genius altruists.

Modern culture does not relate well to real human nature and ultimate causes, why?

“Proximate causes,” such as universal equality, are confounded with “ultimate causes,” such as group survival and reproductive success. Long evolved behavior is subject to misinformation and corruption by culture. The human mind and its cultural creations ultimately had and continue to have survival as their design or purpose, but with political correctness (cultural Marxism) proximate causes are confounded with ultimate causes and ulitimate causes are virtually banished.

Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology may one day turn this around, if they themselves can avoid political correctness. E.O. Wilson called for sociobiology to enter the Humanities forty years ago, but not much progress has been made. Postmodernism rules our colleges and universities, with its proximate causes for everything. This still needs to be turned around.

Then the sacred cause of evolving materially and supermaterially to Godhood in the cosmos can enter the worldview; but here sociobiology and evolutionary psychology will need to see beyond proximate causes and ultimate causes to sacred causes.

Human nature and culture

“Culture” can be defined as the response to the environment which basic human nature makes mainly to enhance survival and reproductive success. Cultural responses to the environment are restrained by a human nature mainly fixed since Paleolithic times, which has many universal elements among all people. A human being reacts to the environment the way a human does and not the way another animal does. But there are ethnic variations of cultural responses to the environment do to slightly different genetic traits within basic human nature, which developed with adaptations to different climates and geography.

80 thousand generations of humans and protohumans evolving in the Pleistocene made us what we are today, with the past 50 thousand years forming our modern nature. The brains that our genes built for our Pleistocene ancestors helps explain our cultural creations. Basic human nature can be defined as kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things,with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.

It happens that not all culture is beneficial to survival success and can develop misinformation, and human nature can become corrupted. And this has happened in many ways with modern Western culture, which has in its cultural creations lost sight of real human nature, usually corrupted by the very real human will to power of various nontraditional groups. The Ethnopluralism Hypothesis has been proposed as the way to reverse the misinformation and corruption of modern culture. Ethnopluralism allows small states or virtual ethnostates to flourish, usually within a protecting federalism, more in line with what human beings actually are. Then, given real human nature, cooperative competition can be the civilizing value to follow, rather than trying to completely uproot real human nature by conjuring up more corrupting and misinformed cultural lies about what people really are and what they can harmoniously be and do.

Military Keynesianism : Never Ending War

 Never-Ending War: An Economic Policy, Pdf, by Joseph Fallon, from Chronicles.

Contrary to Nietzsche, how the hero and the saint can harmonize

Nietzsche rejected the saint as the most powerful type of man, saying that all the other values crystallized around the saint, dragging all the senses and passions of life down, which Nietzsche rejected with his aristocratic radicalism. This was overbearing it seems to me and overcompensating and probably quite revengeful of Nietzsche, even though he otherwise saw through the revenge motive in others.

It would have been psychologically (and culturally) healthier to accept the saint as the religious type seeking the God Within in the Inward Path---by way of the conquest of the senses and passions---which can then be seen as a symbolic-experience of the real sacred goal of the hero type, who seeks Godhood in the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution---while applying the senses and passions to do so, in an evolutionary way.

Tradition and conservatism and Ordered Evolution---which are the the long term reality of successful human behavior and culture---can harmonize or synthesize with the revitalized religious goal of evolving to Godhood. The Hero (Pagan) and Saint (Revealed Religions) can even bring science and religion together, with no need to radically annihilate the religious ideals in revolution.

Nietzsche later said that we need our enemies to make us stronger, perhaps seeing that he sounded too much like a moralist in his call to eliminate the competition, when he preferred to be known as an immoralist, not a moralist. It seems that Nietzsche was more a radical libertarian promoting or validating only those individuals he deemed to be superior. But the individual requires the group, and group morality, to successfully survive and evolve.  And the old needs to be brought along with the new.

Libertarians don't understand altruism

Altruism is not necessarily as enfeebling as Nietzsche thought it was---and as some of his libertarian followers think (eg. Ayn Rand). Within groups, altruism help lead to success in survival and reproduction, which is why it evolved to be part of human nature. Egocentrism tends to develop with individualism. This does not mean that the individual is not important, individual selection does take place, but within groups, and the primary unit of selection is group selection, as the great E.O. Wilson has recently affirmed. If libertarians fully understood this they would be conservatives.

Values and morals developed out of the survival needs of group selection, and not merely so that the “weak” can enfeeble the “strong” as Nietzsche claimed. Universal human nature is centered in these selection strategies, but human nature can become corrupted in various ways, such as survival values being distorted to advance (at least temporarily) anti-social elements within society, or only individuals, etc.

Art and Identity

Art may not always be created to affirm the identity of the culture the artist lives within, but in art history the best art did this. It's true that Shakespeare was interested in theatrical entertainment, but he was also affirming Elizabethan culture. Great art, in my opinion, affirms the sacred elements within the culture, and low art does this too in a less sophisticated way, or art used to do this, before globalism and internationalism made people and cultures less isolated.

It is mainly that old cultural Marxism behind the modern Western denial of differences in people and the rejection of any biological or ethnic connection with the creation of cultures, even as it demands no comparison with “evil' Western culture in the art of non-Western people, which contradicts the idea of there being no differences between people. This leads to a jumble of art, at least in the West, with no discernible cultural identity and it certainly does not reflect what is sacred in the culture---modern art reflects the chaos of the relativity of modern culture, and that does is not even art.

 

Modern art philosophers want to leave biology out of art philosophy (and everything else) and say that culture alone creates the differences in identities. Art is a universal instinct and contains many of the same elements in all cultures, even so, the genetic traits of the artist, and his ethnic group, affect the kind of art the artist creates.

Every person and every culture at least unconsciously seems to want to claim what works for them to be good for everyone---this is the natural will to power working.  The way to deal with it is not to deny it, or call it evil ethnocentrism, but to allow the natural separations of people and cultures, where each people can affirm their own people, culture, and art.  This is what developed the best art overall in human history.

Civilizing the Will To Power

Turning away from the following deeply politically incorrect statement by Nietzsche from “The Will To Power” doesn’t make it go away: “Any species of men seems to be doomed as soon as it becomes tolerant, grants equal rights and no longer desires to be master.” Nietzsche downplays or rejects altruism and prefers the individual (at least the superior individual) to the group. This seems to miss the fact that altruism is usually the best way to advance individuals, even though group-selection remains the main unit of selection, as his statement suggests. Sociobiology has recently affirmed that human nature in fact is kin-centered, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other things,with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.

Some groups respond to this “predicament” of human nature by trying to create imperialism and the dominance of one people over all others. But imperialism never lasts for long because all people, all ethnic groups, contend against their own demise, whether this natural will to power is hidden in the words of religion, political correctness, or not.

It seems that the rational and emotional way to deal with the politically incorrect nature of human nature is with some sort of ethnopluralism, allowing small states or virtual ethnostates to flourish, usually within a protecting federalism. Then cooperative competition seems to be the most civilizing value system to follow, given real human nature, rather than trying to completely uproot real human nature by conjuring up more lies about people being all the same, with no legitimate group-selection instincts. It needs to be seen more clearly that those who preach the loudest about all people being exactly the same and demanding equality are usually advancing their own group above others in the hypocritical process.

Beyond this, the sacred mission---and a sacred mission has upheld all successful civilizations---needs to point toward evolving to Godhood in the cosmos, all of us, in our own ways, and sharing knowledge as we evolve. If this goal seems like a dream, an ideal, a faith, it is at least grounded in nature itself and real human nature.