The manipulation of being-for-another

Being-for-another, as the philosopher's like to call it, or altruism, has had a long history of manipulation, from the ancient ascetics to the cultural Marxists of today.

Even Darwin had problems understanding altruism. Neo-Darwinist's like the great E. O. Wilson cleared things up by explaining that: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." Individuals in groups work together this way in a co-evolution.

Ascetics did not care at all about material life and actually sought to block material life to reach the god within, therefore they could conveniently call for universalism and egalitarianism because they had no interest in natural material evolution and selection, they saw natural competition as fruitless and only getting in the way of their spiritualism.

Then we had the manipulations of Being-for-another, or altruism, by individuals and groups who promoted universalism and egalitarianism for others for the purpose of weakening the natural ethnocentrism of others so that their own ethnocentric group could prosper---a devious way to operate.

Is all fair in love and war? Not really, if you want to survive and prosper over the long-term.

The biological origin of most of our our social behavior actually ends the intellectual defense of universalism and egalitarianism as well as ending postmodern relativism. As long as we are alive every cell in our body demands survival and reproductive success. This natural activation can be blocked, subverted, or it can be unknown to us, but it can't legitimately be intellectually or instinctively denied.

Existing realistic values come from the various social and cultural methods we try (including postmodernism) to biologically and genetically advance ourselves and our related ethnic group, locality and nation. This affirms in general the populist nationalism now trying to rise in the corrupted West, which needs to eventually develop into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions. Ethnostates could even be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states.

Whatever peace and harmony is possible between different and competing human groups can be best accomplished in an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, that is the political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which remains kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Free-will within determinism

Many people, many liberals, are not happy with the idea that we may not be free to be as anarchic and even nihilistic as they think they want to be. But we are freest when we are aware of the degree of free-will we have within our determinism. Unconscious determinism is not bad, consciousness was not the “fall” from the unconscious direction of life. Animals are not bad because they are unaware of their biological determinism. It is not determinism in itself that is backward, in humans it is unawareness of the degree of determinism and free-will we have that is backward.

We have choices in what we do but they are not unlimited choices. The goal is determined but the path is freer. We can control our actions through values and morals which are or are not in harmony with human nature and the natural laws, and also we can have values more deeply in harmony with the activation of life to evolve toward Godhood. That is not exactly what Nietzsche meant when he said "accept your fate." He more or less thought the will to power was anarchic and nihilistic and we should learn to accept that unfreedom of the will.

This defines a partial "free will," not a complete free will---the large rock rolling down the mountain can take different paths, but it is rolling down the mountain in any case.

Real human nature points toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates

Conservative's like to say that history and experience are better guides for politics and life than the abstract conceptions touted by liberals and neoconservatives---then they stop there. But there is a deeper guide even than history and experience in the biological origin of most of our social behavior, which includes and subsumes history, experience, and abstract conceptions. Experience may be superior to reason in guiding us but biology is superior to experience.

This points toward nationalism but a nationalism that includes an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.  Real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making,  hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other conservative things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. And that real human nature points toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.  Lucky for us, and the wisdom of our Founders, the U. S. Constitution affirms a separation of powers and states which could accommodate an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected also by federalism.

One hopes that both conservatives and liberals will eventually affirm an ethnopluralism of ethnostates as better than any other political or cultural formula to actually bond people together, with fewer civil disruptions and cultural disjunctions. It can and should be done legally without radical revolution.  I think it will be done eventually as globalism literally and intellectually falls, and returns to ethnostates, as it always does.

The self and the group

The idea of "agency" in philosophy seems unnecessarily complicated (surprise, surprise). I think the capacity for individualized choice and action in the world needs to be biologized, which will require a bit of courage by philosophers because it is a "politically incorrect" idea.

Connecting "being-for itself and "being-for-others" means affirming the biological origin of most of our social behavior. That is the"renewal of agency" we need. And it addresses the "alienation" that philosophers go on about.

I think the self and the group are best understood in the following quote by the great father of sociobiology Edward O. Wilson: "Within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals."

No one is more individualistic and self-starting than I am, and if I can accept this explanation of agency then any narcissist, extreme libertarian, or person with authority problems can accept it.

There is great room for individual self-expression in the natural preference for group-selection which evolved over great time in human nature and in human behavior. What we need to do, as the great psychometric psychologist Raymond Cattell pointed out, is understand the difference between social and antisocial individualistic behavior, especially with geniuses, which was Nietzsche's concern.

The neonationalist shuffle

Neonationalists and neoconservative intellectuals don't quite run away from neo-Darwinist information regarding the biological origin of most of our social behavior, they do a kind of neonationalist shuffle and claim that nationalism is "forbiddingly difficult to define," as Samuel Goldman described it (Modern Age, Summer 2018). Then they step in with that shuffle and argue that a nation is not based on common descent but is "unified around cultural characteristics" of language, religion and shared history (Yoram Hazony). Is it the ghost of Hilter, intellectual cowardice, or a more sinister shell game to protect real or, ironically, ethnocentric motives?

The neoconservative's failed, for a time at least, when the new populism surprised the hell out if them and elected Trump---although Trump has since made them happy regarding his policies in the Middle-East.

Nations are not all that "forbiddingly difficult to define," although it is now virtually forbidden to define them. Throughout human history to this day human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. That behavior bonded people together best for survival and reproductive success and from out of that natural foundation nation's formed.

Nations are naturally ethnocentric and even xenophobic and when they are not they tend to fall, and become feuding multicultural societies which eventually break back into an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. So why not head off those cycles and begin to establish, or reestablish, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates? An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established, legally, in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism. No radical revolution is necessary.

It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, and it will not be easy at all, but it is far preferable to radical Marxism or Fascism, or the political dissimulations based on flawed definitions of nationalism and human nature which have brought us increasing civil disruptions, or even civil war, within unworkable multicultural (multi-racial/multi-ethnic) societies.

Is it just ignorance or is it insidious evil that promotes the idea that "diversity is our strength?"

My guess is that it is 97% ignorance and 3% due to the insidious evil of a few people or groups who are aware that diversity weakens and then destroys nations, so that they can take over.

I have actually heard people ask, so what's wrong with that? Really?! It seems people can be suicidal and not know it!  A borderless world with universal values destroys national sovereignty. When the racial and ethnic demographics change, the culture changes to better reflect the character, tone, and guiding beliefs of the prevailing group. That was one of the reasons ancient Rome fell, as did many other nations and empires.

As the courageous Prof. Edward Erler recently pointed out in a speech in "Imprimis," in reality diversity means we have less in common, diversity causes racial and ethnic divisions, diversity dissolves the unity and cohesion of a nation; what works harmoniously with homogeneity does not work with diversity.

There's a special place in the-hell-of-your-choosing for the vile people and groups who are aware that diversity weakens and then destroys nations and for that reason insidiously promote the idea that diversity is our strength. Ignorance is also no good excuse.

This somber reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism hypothesis, often written about here. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---that I see coming, eventually, which will bring about an ethnopluralism of ethnostates carved out of our constitutional separation of powers and states. That is the biopolitical or political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, and healthy for all races and ethnic groups.

A freedom within sacred boundaries we can best live with

Why can't so many intellectuals accept the idea of freedom within boundaries? Even the courageous Nietzsche had problems restricting his conception of a bacchanalian free will. Why not free will within boundaries? And the neo-Nietzschian followers (Foucault, Derrida, etc---and even Heidegger) demanded even more freedom.

Think of how that kind of thinking led to the decadent and degenerate 1960's, with the drugs, the free sex, the disease, the anarchism, the nihilism, and now the debauched Kardashians who have become millionaires exploiting such "freedom," celebrated by the corrupt Big Media. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and anthropologically biased to call reality "restricting" while promoting a Dionysian freedom that human nature does not posses which can destroy us.

Even the sober rational scientists will accept no purpose to life other than blind survival and reproduction. They see material evolution as completely random. I don't. Human nature is free to act, but within the boundaries of the biological origin of our social behavior.

And I don't affirm the "freedom" from material life that spiritualism sells which is a freedom that also moves beyond the boundaries of reality.

Modernity also will not admit the material will to Godhood within material life (here called Tirips) endlessly directing life toward evolving from the simple to the complex and from unconsciousness to consciousness to superconsciousness, and on toward super-material Godhood, while working within the ups and downs, randomness, and restrictions of material selection.

That is a freedom within sacred boundaries we can best live with.

Are the flaws of President Trump necessary to his accomplishments?

Watching President Trump's international reality show made me wonder how Trump lines up with the qualities of the tragic hero. Without Trump's flaws, especially his excessive pride, or hubris as the literary people like to call it, he probably would not have taken on, well, everyone, the whole elite establishment (or the swamp) and moved the U. S. away from the globalism that is killing us, or put up the politically incorrect travel ban---with the whole establishment and the entire corrupt Big Media obsessively against him.

Trump attained the lofty position required for the classic tragic hero to fall from due to flaws, such as having excessive pride, womanizing, and constantly lying. But do his accomplishments justify his punishment, or make his audience sympathetic to him? Could Trump have accomplished what he has accomplished without his flaws? Probably not.

A contrary thought to this is the case of Patrick Buchanan, who seemed to have everything Trump has without the flaws---although one flaw may be his religious objections to the evolutionary sciences.  Both men were conservative populists and greatly appealed to the middle of the country. But Trump took the presidency which gave him the power to accomplish what Buchanan could not do. Was it a flaw for Buchanan to take on the Israeli lobby which destroyed him? Or was it a flaw for Trump to do the opposite and win the presidency? We will see if Trump is destroyed, stabbed in the back, etc, or if he prevails, then we can make another, difficult, assessment.

For philosophy I prefer the patterns of deep-biology to epistemology or psychology

For philosophy I prefer the patterns of deep-biology to epistemology or psychology (although evolutionary psychology moves in the right direction); the biological origin of social behavior better basically explains how and why we know what we know and who are inwardly---deep-biology integrates inward and outward man better than those fields do. Philosophy should at least be considered a branch of deep-biology, which the field of sociobiology points toward.

Unfortunately admitting this means going against the prevailing cultural Marxism which has Western culture in its grip, as tightly monitored as the Soviet Union did or the Chinese now control their cultures, although the West is more sneaky about it.

The old Indo-European ethos of the gentleman warrior mingled with Western Christian virtues has been replaced by an imperial eye-for-an-eye mentality, which, for example, does not see the humane biological advantage of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for everyone, preferring instead a narcissistic, supremacist, resentment of never forgiving or forgetting the past.

Sociobiology even explains why this blockade has happened: people and groups benefit in survival and reproductive power from blocking the truth about the biological origin of social behavior. It's a cowardly, base, and inhumane way to operate in the world, but it has worked, at least in the short term, quite well.

Since I believe biology is ever evolving toward superbiological Godhood I also think the block that these fields have also put up against evolutionary religion has to be unblocked. Synthesizing religion can draw from all these fields. That is the mission of theological materialism.

The manipulating of altruism

In the effort to balance the importance of the biological origin of our social behavior, which is ignored in our culture, we tend to under-emphasize the influence of culture. This is especially seen in the insider/outsider dynamic of altruism, the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others.

Altruism has been manipulated by egalitarian universalist religions and egalitarian universalist philosophies away from its genetically based survival and reproductive value of encouraging bonding with those who share ones same gene pool to demanding egalitarian universalist altruism for everyone and all gene pools.

This has not worked well since distinctly different people with distinctly different gene pools do not assimilate or bond well, and so competition and social disruptions, not social harmony, results, as we are increasingly seeing in our supposedly egalitarian universalist societies.

All the energy spent trying to jam distinctly different people into the same living space would be far better spent allowing distinctly different ethnic groups their own living space in their own ethnostates, where altruism need not be manipulated and the principle of concern for the welfare of others can actually work as it is genetically designed to do.

An ethnopluralism of ethnostates will give us a far better chance to achieve the peace and harmony that egalitarians and universalists endlessly go on about, because it is in harmony with the biological origin of most of our social behavior.

How we can have the most harmonious cultures and the best art

What we have in art now is not moral art but mostly immoral art which not only does not affirm what is sacred but affirms decadence and degeneracy. What bothers me is to see really talented artists, low or high artists, using their talent to create what amounts to immoral garbage. Having attended our bad schools and lived under the sway of our corrupted Media most of them don't realize what they are doing.

So what is sacred? We can describe states and regions as originally formed out of altruistically ethnic sociobiological imperatives. Ethnic groups really are extended families. This is why it makes sense to affirm small virtually independent states; that way you work in harmony with human nature, rather than trying to set up social structures---like egalitarian Marxism---which fight against basic human nature. You can't bond with that nonsense, as Soviet art proved.

I envision a culture where both high and low art are working to affirm whatever is considered sacred by the particular culture, with their folk rock or their symphonies. I see ethnic cultures bonding better than any other kind of culture, because the gene pool is shared---art rises from there.

The Church (In my case the projected Theoevolutionary Church) can then add to or underline culture with the affirmation of the sacred (in my case the sacred evolution to Godhood). Healthy low and high art can affirm these things, and this would apply to all people, all ethnic groups, all states, all healthy cultures---which is how we can have the most harmonious cultures and the best art.

We still won't face what has been done to America, and so we cannot face what will need to be done to save America

I don't think it is a question of whether or not it's too late to save traditional America as we have known it, it is too late. The immigration act of 1965, which was a government sponsored mandate for open immigration, led by one of the degenerate Kennedy brothers, ended America as we knew it, and that is not counting the 10 to 30 million illegal aliens who have entered the country. And it's probably impossible to send them back. The same thing, more or less, happened to the Roman Empire.

But that is almost a secondary problem to the problem of assimilation, because distinctively different ethnic groups do not assimilate, only ethnically homogeneous groups "melt" together.

I don't think the Kennedy's and their modern liberal ilk were so much stupid as they were decadently beholden to those who gained, at least temporarily, from destroying the Northern European character, tone, and guiding beliefs of America. The old guard needed to be shunted aside by those who would not and could not assimilate with them.

But conservatives still won't face what has been done to America, and so they cannot face what will need to be done to save America. The reality points toward the political/cultural solution of the ethnopluralism hypothesis, often written about here. It is a conservative transformation---not revolution---that I see coming inevitably, which will bring about the more humane ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where different ethnic groups can politically and culturally conduct themselves the way they are, and the way they want to, in their own states within our Democratic Republic, perhaps with only a few amendments to the constitutional separation of powers and states. We will need to retain federalism and balance the states together because we need the geopolitical heft of a large nation to defend ourselves in the big world.

That is the sociobiological and political/cultural structure most in harmony with real human nature, which remains kin-centered, gender defined, heterosexual, marriage-making, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. The decadent Kennedy types and not suicidal immigration polices can't change basic human nature, even if they have destroyed traditional America.

I will never forgive the academic world and the Big Media for destroying American culture

Watching the results of the primary election across the America was like watching a perverse off-Broadway play featuring transgender winners, Somali victory-dancing in the Socialist Republic of Minnesota, and media personalities unctuously smiling at the spectacle.

I will never forgive the academic world and the Big Media for destroying American culture. Of course they could care less what I think, just as they care less what America thinks, seeing America only as a dumb reliable source to exploit for money and power.

For a time we had our blogs, Twitter, etc, to vent our dismay at the destruction of our culture, but now Big Tech is closing down free speech, after exploiting the hell out if it for themselves to gain power.

Yes, the WASPS, etc. share some of the blame for being too self-satisfied or ignorant about the takeover of American culture by these vultures, but the academic world and the Big Media first mounted the assault and they are mainly to blame for destroying American culture.

Things look hopeless. But we can't settle for hopeless. I believe the only real long-term way to save American culture, and Americans, is to gradually and legally promote an ethnopluralism of ethnostates within the United States in harmony with the Constitutional separation of powers and states. That would also be in harmony with real kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature.

The transgender political winners, Somali victory dancers, and the corrupt media personalities can have their own states and should be happy they get away with that much.  Allow the rest of us our own ethnostates. Then protect the whole with light federalism. Nothing could be more humane than that.

Omarosa Manigault Newman and the culturally Marxist will to power

The political correctness of cultural Marxism has infected our culture from top to bottom so that minorities now charge employers with being racist if they don't hire them, and charge employers with being racist if employers fire them for any reason. And so work places in America, especially government jobs, are increasingly being gummed up by the incompetence caused by political correctness. Employers often don't fire minorities to avoid the charge of racism, even with good reason to fire them. And everyone is afraid to do anything about it.

So I was not surprised to see former aid to president Trump, Omarosa Manigault Newman, turn against her former employer and call him a racist for firing her (in conjunction with her book tour.) But I was surprised, given political correctness, that she could be fired. Cultural Marxism has become the will to power of minorities in America with great success.  Nietzsche exposed this psychology, seeing it as the will to power of the lower orders against the elite and not really the moral cause it pretended to be.

I see no way out of these racial scams, black or white, as long as we insist on jamming distinctly different people together in the same space in multicultural/multi-ethnic cultures. Real human nature doesn't work that way. Real human nature is kin-centered, gender defined, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection. Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this human nature, with such experiments as cultural Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature.

Anyone with honesty and courage will see that an ethnopluralism of ethnostates better reflects real human nature and is probably the best political configuration for humans beings to live within, even if it is not perfect. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism.

That seems to be our future. We can hope, and even insist, that it be brought about legally and conservatively, and not through civil or racial war. But who really knows how it will go? Look at the way South Africa has gone.

Unblocking the widespread obstruction against real human nature would go a long way toward solving many of the problems of modern philosophy

The alienation and nihilism we have seen complained about by modern philosophers, at least since Hegel and Nietzsche (and especially since the two big World Wars) was largely caused by being unable or unwilling to admit, and affirm, the kin-centered and ethnocentric infrastructure of real human nature, among other traditional traits, like being gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, and even xenophobic.

Was the obstruction against real human nature the result of ignorance, or a lack of courage. Or is ignorance to a degree a lack of courage?

Why did Hitler punish the Jews for being kin-centered and ethnocentric? The big problem is supremacy and imperialism, not ethnocentrism. The alienation and nihilism complained about by modern philosophers comes mainly from people not being allowed to be kin-centered, ethnocentric, and even nationalistic.

Hitler and the Jews should both have advocated an ethnopluralism of ethnostates and the return to real human nature, while making supremacy and imperialism (and now globalism) the real enemy, not ethnocentrism.

So how do we politically balance conservative human nature with slowly changing evolution?

Those of us who see the political inevitability of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates base this on human nature and history. We see empires as the decadent end of civilizations and ethnostates as the flourishing height of civilizations.

But the nature of evolving life changes very slowly. "Major changes in the genetic sequence of the human genome, located in the small compartment inside the cells of the human body called the nucleus, can take hundreds of years---if not thousands or even millions---depending on the current selective pressures and mutation rate." (Eirik Garner.) This is why revolutions don't usually last long and often return to old ways.

Even the smallest change in human nature and our DNA structure, for example, in our immune system, took hundreds of thousands of years (now we have genetic engineering which may be more rapid). Human nature remains 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, followed by individual selection.

So how do we politically balance conservative human nature with slowly changing evolution? How do we balance tradition and progress?

The originalist position on the Supreme Court regarding the Constitution says that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed at the time of its adoption and cannot be changed through judicial interpretation. But this can be balanced with the Amendment process as the formal way to change the Constitution with a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Ratification of an amendment takes three-fourths of the states to approve.

That conservative, legal, and non-radical way to change can eventually lead to establishing an ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions in the United States, perhaps based on our Constitutional separation of powers and states, and protected by federalism. It will not be easy at all, but it is far preferable to radical Marxism or brutal Fascism, or the political fabrications of today based on flawed definitions of human nature, which have brought us civil disruptions, now increasing across the world within unworkable multicultural (multi-ethnic) societies, which demand that distinctively different groups all get along living in the same space. And all for the benefit of a small elite who could care less about the Constitution, the nation, or the people.

It is frustrating to now see even paleoconservative's falling all over themselves to deny kin-centered and ethnocentric human nature in the face of nasty charges that they are "racist." But we need to keep the channeling of human nature and human drives moving in the natural direction of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, where we will eventually go anyway.  How much better if it can happen conservatively, legally, and non-radically.

Sorry about the repeat posts, I've had trouble with posting. Now OK.

Theological Materialism and Philosophical Naturalism Basics

Theological materialism is more or less placed in the worldview of “philosophical naturalism,” with the difference being that philosophical naturalism is generally irreligious, and theological materialism is religious in seeing Godhood as the goal of evolution, first mirrored in the Father-Within of traditional religion.

In a sense it is true that all science is explained by physics and philosophical naturalism, but unsaid of course by scientists is that God or Godhood can also be defined by physics and philosophical naturalism. Causality is part of science, but causality is also part of religion, in that physical events have prior causes that can be explained by the same thing in religion or science. An organism obeys the laws of physics. Life, consciousnesses, motivations, etc. can be explained both scientifically and religiously as caused by the same activation of the material/supermaterial drive within life, which I have called Tirips, which works along with outside natural selection and evolution---religion can join science or science can join religion.

Like philosophical naturalism, theological materialism holds that there is nothing but natural elements, including consciousness and the mind, but unlike philosophical naturalism, theological materialism holds that the activating material drive within life called Tirips consists of a materialism not yet defined by the natural sciences or by religions.

This means that nature encompasses the activity of Tirips and Godhood, as well as everything that exists in space and time, and all of this consists of natural elements, including ideas and mathematics---and they all operate by the laws of physics, discovered and yet to be discovered. Godhood is itself in nature, at the zenith of nature. Godhood is therefore not immaterial but is supermaterial.

This transformation of the material into the supermaterial comes not as some modern physicists have attempted to save religion by turning the quantum world into the spiritual world, but by the opposite, by seeing the spiritual world as the supermaterial world. One day a new theory will reveal the deeper material reality behind the subatomic world. Quantum mechanics is a form of materialism yet to be clearly defined. Some form of matter is all, even beneath energy and the quantum world.

The deepest reading of the Revealed Religions centers on an Inward God not an Outward God, which is limiting. The Inward God is the image or blissful experience of the Outward God (opposite Plato), and outward Godhood can exist as a supreme supermaterial living object, or objects, evolved to in material nature. Both Paths are contained within the Twofold Path of theological materialism. Activating Tirips and Godhood are not immaterial entities, as they are in Aristotle, Aquinas and even Darwin.

Some may be surprised to find that this worldview does not disqualify theological materialism as being naturalistic. Theological materialism affirms religion as well as science. The philosophy of naturalism is necessary for both religion and science, even if science has yet to accept the supermaterialism of Tirips and Godhood.

Human nature has the capacity to perceive some of reality but we will need to evolve much higher to perceive all of reality. Mental properties are derived from non-mental properties, which evolved into mental properties. We will need to evolve higher intelligence and higher consciousness to perceive more of reality.

The cosmos is arranged so as to be able to evolve Gods who must evolve in the natural world, beginning with Primal Matter, from inorganic and natural causes. But those natural causes include the activating Tirips, which ever seeks eternal representation, or Godhood, with many starts and stops and backward goings along the way, shaped by outside selection and natural evolution.

Evolution is a natural fact but this does not preclude Gods in the universe or in a multiverse. Evolution by natural selection eventually creates Gods, Godhood emerges from evolution, activated by Tirips within, yet shaped by outside selection and evolution.

Mind concepts exist as computational constructions in the brain and are not independent of the brain. The mind is the brain, as naturalism suggests, but the mind includes, at its zenith, the Soul and the Spirit-Will, but these are supermaterial and not immaterial. The Soul-Mind is where the mirror image of the outside God exists, and Tirips activates Soul, mind and body as its vehicle to evolve to Godhood. The Spirit-Will carries on through or within material reproduction, propagation, selection and outside evolution, potentially all the way to Godhood, which is its sacred goal of life.

Reason and empiricism are most useful in discovering truths about the world, but information from the Soul-Mind and Spirit-Will, and intellectual intuition, also can be added to the truths found through reason and empiricism. We can intellectually intuit the activating forces within the life we are living, and we do that the way the artist uses intuition as the medium of knowledge, or the way the religious seer uses intellectual intuition as the criterion for awareness of reality, goodness, truth and beauty. This is the way the activating Tirips is seen or understood. After this aesthetic and religious intuitive medium we can apply the more humanly restricted forms of empirical knowledge.

The post-moderns have trapped themselves in Kant's blockade of human knowledge, which has caused them to embrace nihilism as truth. The intellectual intuition affirmed here allows us to break out of the Great Spiritual Blockade so that we may continue, consciously this time, evolving materially and supermaterially toward Godhood. This leads to the foundational values and morals of our lives... This helps explain the aesthetics of how we know.

Humans evolved as social animals, and culture and civilization were evolved as a means to enhance and advance humans. But beneath survival and reproduction is the religious goal of evolving to Godhood, therefore culture and civilization need to take religious values into account, especially the sacred goal of Godhood.

We do affirm the Age of Enlightenment because we affirm philosophical naturalism and materialism. But theological materialism sees the material world evolving to supermaterial Godhood, which most materialists would reject. Modern physics has found that matter is energy, but energy can be supermaterial, therefore materialism as a philosophy remains religiously valid.

The TC (Theoevolutionary Church) which I have been planning seems to have one foot in “analytic philosophy” and the other in religion rather than in "Continental philosophy.” But these distinctions seem to be better understood as philosophy either affirming naturalism or not, as Brian Leiter pointed out.

Theological materialism is an expression of religion in a naturalistic structure, whereas, as Wiki suggests, Marxism is an expression of communist idealism within a naturalistic structure, and Randian Objectivism is an expression of capitalist idealism and individualism (contrary to group selection) in a naturalistic structure. Other naturalists are secular humanists and moral relativists.

We assume, with science, that new phenomenon discovered will obey the laws of physics, and we assume that Godhood has a natural explanation. Nevertheless, human knowledge is restricted to human capabilities, and as we evolve higher intelligence and higher consciousness we should discover new natural explanations beyond present human understanding. It will be difficult to “measure” the properties of Godhood until we have evolved to Godhood.

The abstractions of physics and religion only mirror real objects and cannot fully estimate the truth and experience of the object itself. Some religions and sciences consist solely of abstractions and definitions with no real objects involved, making an idol of abstractions.

When we see two objects with our senses we may not see all aspects of the objects because we are constrained by the abilities of our senses. We see the object different than a frog or an eagle, but we still see the object with our particular senses, as they do. Only later do humans compare, integrate or segregate what we have seen with conceptions and memories in our minds. But our mind's concepts go back to the original object we saw with our senses, or should. We too often escape in our minds and we think of the concepts in our minds as more real than the object we saw with our senses---intellectuals are prone to this. Intellectual's are best when grounded in the reality of real objects, and not merely in the conceptions in their minds.

The real object is more important than the definition of the object, and this realism actually reverses many religious and philosophical views of reality, which worship concepts and sacred words and consider concepts and words as real and real material objects as unreal. Spiritualism comes from considering material objects as unreal and unreal concepts as real. Materialism comes from considering real living objects as real. Supermaterialism, as seen in theological materialism, describes material evolution evolving to supermaterial Godhood. To attain Godhood we must evolve along with the laws of real nature. This can bring science and materialism legitimately back to religion. What has come before in religion and philosophy can be retained but considered incomplete glimpses-experiences of real Godhood.

The basic epistemology of theological materialism is the following:

A---The world of objects is actually out there and real.

B---Our minds developed physiologically to perceive the real world, instigated by the need to survive and reproduce successfully.

C---People, animals, different life forms, perceive the real world at different levels in their varied minds.

D---As we evolve higher consciousness and higher intelligence we perceive the real world better and better with more accuracy.

E---At the level of Godhood, which is reached through material and supermaterial evolution in the natural world, life will evolve the highest level of perceiving the real world, and the highest level of the truth.

F---This suggests that idealism and its relativistic modern disciples needs to change, or fade away. 
 

The living remedy for words and numbers undervaluing life, religion, and philosophy:

Words and numbers operate as symbols. All of the world can be seen as symbols of words and numbers. There are things in the cosmos that we don't know yet and so we may not as yet have attached words or numbers to them. Like numbers, words have “hidden” meanings. But living things are not words or numbers, things are things, objects are objects only represented by words and numbers.

The problem is that we soon start to make sense of the world only through words and numbers, and this is where we can move away from life and reality. If we are not careful, because words and number can be seductive, words and number can seem better to us than living things, or things experienced. This understanding of the world only through words and numbers can be like a musical drug.

Words and numbers can symbolize things which do not exist or exist only in words and numbers in our minds. This can be a fun game and does little harm as long as it is known only as a game. Problems come when fantasy words and numbers are worshiped.

So as not to undervalue words and numbers, it it possible for us to think of things by way of words and numbers that are at first known only in words and numbers and later known as real actual things. Theoretical physics has occasionally done this, or in ancient times the Pythagorean numbers representing actual or projected musical harmonies in the world. The problem here is not that words and numbers can predict future real things, the problem comes in worshiping the words and numbers without the reality of the thing itself.

This is the state of much of religion and philosophy (especially the more esoteric versions) which often represent only words and numbers, however sacred, or worship things that are only fantasy words and numbers rather than real things. Life is undervalued this way.

When Godhood is understood as a living object, or objects, living and continually evolving in this world, and reached through material and supermaterial evolution, this allows us to become Gods through evolution, so then we cannot and will not worship words or numbers alone as God.

This evolutionary Godhood is at the present time thought and known mainly in words and numbers but later must be seen and experienced as the zenith of the evolution of real living things. The tragic mistake of worshiping only words or numbers that define Godhood will not be made in this philosophy of theological materialism, because real concrete life needs to be guided in this world as best we can, through science, religion, and culture in general, toward evolving to real Godhood.

The older traditional words and numbers alone defining God need not be rejected, they can be seen as numbers, words, and symbolic experiences within the Inward Path which now are known as real living objects that we evolve to become in the Outward Path. So conservatism in this transformation can prevail.

In theological materialism there is the real world of becoming and the same secondary world which attempts to define a world of non-becoming, or being, with principles, equations and sacred words. This secondary world of definitions is what has been called “being.” It has been wrongly considered (or trans-valued) as the real world, and the real world has been considered unreal. The principles defining life do not come first, actual forms of life come first. Principles, although important, are vastly secondary. We do not need to distinguish a world of being from a world of becoming.

There are not “two natures” of metaphysics, there is one physical order which includes the higher evolved super-physical order. The split between the material and the spiritual, between Samsara and nirvana, Heaven and earth, Yin and Yang, does not exist. The material in reality defines the spiritual. For example, the experience of nirvana of Buddha, and the experience of heaven or the Father Within of Christ, were just that, a peak experience in the physical mind (or the higher Mind-Soul) after much ascetic discipline in blocking or overcoming material desires. We can conservatively retain the preliminary Inward Path experience of the God Within, but it needs to be transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution to real Godhood.

The physical world and the world that defines the physical world are not opposing worlds, they are the same world. It is possible to have, or be, a material object without defining the object, or without finding a principle which defines the object, but defining the object can help to better understand the object, providing the definitions are mainly accurate or real. Godhood is not a principle. Godhood is a material object or objects at the supermaterial zenith of material evolution. And evolution continues endlessly with starts and stops along the way. There is no first beginning and no final ending, but this cannot yet be proved scientifically, religiously or philosophically any more than a final ending or first beginning can be proved. At this point in our evolution intellectual intuition lets us see that there is no ending and no beginning.

Priests, philosophers, intellectuals, and to a lesser degree scientists, have put up a Great Spiritual Blockade against evolving in the material world to supermaterial Godhood, which must be unblocked if we are ever to revive the Western (and Eastern) world, or if we are ever to reach Godhood.

The naturalist “hypothetico-deductive" method is an important way to find truths, but the religious Inward Path to the Soul and Spirit-Will and intellectual intuition are also ways to find truths. Both methods are applied in TC. This presupposes that the mind can do more than process data.

Most likely there is other life in the cosmos, even if life is rare within the vastness of the cosmos. I assume that life in other worlds is activated by the same Spirit-Will to evolve to Godhood. Some life would be higher evolved toward Godhood than other life. Time and life need to be associated with nature and the cosmos, which is defined in billions of years.

Those who argue that evolved structures are too complex to have evolved will surely be skeptical of a higher evolved Godhood. But when the activation of the Spirit-Will, with the goal of Godhood, is taken into account, then a form of teleology and guided or activated evolution can be added to the shaping of evolution and natural selection, combining naturalism with design.

Tirips is almost immortal, I say “almost” because it is virtually a “self-moved mover.” Both Tirips and the Soul are material and require survival and reproduction to live on in succeeding generations.

If the activating Tirips controls the material body well it may guide material life in evolving toward its destination of supermaterial Godhood, if not, both Tirips and the Soul may die. Life must interact with the natural forces of evolution, even with devolution and death, while it is seeking its sacred evolutionary goal. Our mission is to aid life in evolving toward Godhood.

The Soul is material, existing in the conscious mind, not unlike Plato's idea of the non-material Soul as the totality of the inner being. The Soul, or the highest consciousness, is applied in deeply apprehending religion or art. Unlike Plato's view, and the Hindu view, the Soul is not a non-material Idea or Form, it is the zenith of material consciousness, which can be applied to experiencing the God or Father Within, as well as the highest Beauty in religion and art, if the apprehender follows ascetic discipline, such as blocking material desires in the Inward Path. The Soul can apprehend Tirips at the zenith of the Soul, that is, at the zenith of human consciousness.

This seems to indicate that the activating Tirips somehow has some sort of recollection or knowledge of Godhood. This is related to Beauty defined as the zenith of evolution, or Godhood---Tirips, Beauty and Godhood are the highest consciousness.

Religion, philosophy, art, science, culture, politics, are superficial without including the sacred evolution of life toward Godhood.

In the Twofold Path, the Outward Path of Tirips is how life can reach its destination of supermaterial Godhood, which was first seen or experienced in the Inward Path, as the God or Father Within, at the highest consciousness of the Soul in traditional religions.  Now this is transformed in the Outward Path of material evolution, as described in theological materialism.

Can the dynamics of evolution and natural selection be replicated in voluntarily improving the biological and intellectual standards of the human species (eugenics)? Not exactly, so far, but the dynamics of natural evolution could be followed generally, if we can more accurately define the dynamics.

The artificial intelligence pushed by the trans-humanists seems to be grounded in the belief that natural evolution is entirely random, accidental, for them the evolution of human beings has little or no real direction or purpose other than successful survival and reproduction, if they even admit that. Improving human beings biologically and intellectually is also deeply politically incorrect which blocks such talk and makes the advance of non-human intelligence easier to promote.

The key here for me is that while evolution can be random, it is not entirely random or accidental. Life has been evolving toward increasing consciousness, intelligence, beauty, complexity, and toward the social altruism of group-selection, or goodness, and even evolving toward power. Few people ask the question why are we driven toward success in survival and reproduction? (Francis Heylighen has been one of the few modern scientists to examine purpose in evolution.)

Just as the pleasure or happiness derived from eating food is driven by the deeper requirements of successful survival, the drive to survival and reproductive success is driven by the deeper need of evolving toward Godhood as the zenith of success and purpose in evolution (so contrary to many philosophers happiness is a secondary goal). Naturalism in evolution can therefore include the activation toward higher evolution.

Can perfection be reached? No, just as perfection in evolution is never final, at least not until Godhood is attained, and even then evolution continues endlessly with no ending and no beginning.

The evolution toward Godhood this way includes religion. We need more than science, we need a religious philosophy that sublimates science, as theological materialism does. Raymond Cattell made a brilliant attempt at including religion in science, but he rejected traditional religion, whereas theological materialism retains but transforms traditional religion in the Twofold Path. Teilhard de Chardin also tried to include evolution in religion but evolution for him moved toward a completely non-material God, which is the antithesis of material evolution. It seems to me that even wave/particle quantum change, which some have claimed to be spiritual, is like water changing to ice and then back again to water---it is somehow a material change, and not a non-material dynamic.

Life has been evolving outwardly toward the Godhood first seen inwardly, and our sacred mission is to help it along the way.

Biological, historical, and metaphysical law need not be antagonistic. Life can be defined not merely as living biology but as living biology evolving toward Godhood.

Political principles can be established that honor both religion and evolutionary standards. The particular or historical need not contrast with the metaphysical, both can be synthesized in theological materialism.

The metaphysical world is an approximation of the phenomenal world, not the other way around. The fatal argument for conservatism is to argue against evolutionary circumstances which in reality take us to real Godhood.

Humans find themselves with the establishments they have developed, but also, more fundamentally, from the execution of biological evolution, where the patterns of evolution seek survival and reproductive success in various cultures.

But far more than that, life seeks to evolve to Godhood, the God first seen or experienced and then symbolized in the Inward Paths of traditional religion, which can be retained but transformed.

It is from this deep conservative perspective that the ethnopluralism hypothesis grows, which can be conservatively accommodated by the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and states, where the primary unit of group-selection and all ethnic preferences can be harmonized, including both the laws of nature and religion in political philosophy.

Perhaps the war between Russell Kirk (paleoconservative), Leo Strauss (neoconservative), and Edward Wilson (sociobiologist) can end?

“Freedom” has been vital in the West but it has also been seriously misunderstood in regard to real human nature. The Enlightenment, which our Founders were fond of, concentrated on individual freedom or liberty. And the ancient Greeks, who our Founders were also fond of, sought to constrain vice and folly with virtues which were not always connected to real human nature.

The deepest and real constraints on human nature come from the “constraints” of biology. There is a strong biological component to basic human nature which is mainly denied in the modern world, but was also denied in the ancient world. Freedom without external constraints does not change the internal constraints of human nature and biology, even in the free West.

Real human nature is not evil. Human beings are “constrained” by a biologically determined human nature which includes being 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. These are traditional values. Modern liberalism has needed authoritarianism and coercion to implement the increasing number of “rights” which go against real human nature.

Freedom and virtue have to relate to the biological direction of evolving life, which becomes more of an affirmation than a free choice. Individuals are not really free to do anything they want, even before constraints are put on them by social institutions. Civilized laws need to harmonize with or affirm real human nature, not impede human nature---impeding human nature does not work well in any case.

Even rational judgment which the Greeks liked so much cannot really move beyond the constraints of human nature, although it has often been tried. The highest point of ourselves is not “reason” but is the material/supermaterial Tirips within life, which activates life to evolve toward Godhood, and reason may or may not understand this teleological direction or end-goal.

It is through such sciences as sociobiology more than through moral reasoning that we can understand whatever freedom we actually have, which means an understanding of the choices we may have within the constraints of determinism. Freedom and virtue relate to understanding the choices we may have within the constraints of determinism. When we have “self control” what are we really controlling? We don't govern the passions so much as we affirm determined elements of human nature, which really can't be escaped, and why would we want to escape them?

Politics can pay attention not only to freedom within determinism but to the direction of freedom, which is also largely determined. This brings religion forward as a foundation for politics, because the end of politics is conditioned by the goals of evolving life, which is Godhood.

And this is how ethnopluralism enters the philosophy of theological materialism, as the best way to reach the goals of both politics and religion, while living in a crowded world of competing ethnic cultures, who are basically governed by a human nature designed for survival and reproductive success, but more deeply seeking success in evolving toward Godhood.

Leo Strauss and others were wrong to think that Christianity and philosophy are antagonist when both have the same Gnostic and abstract non-material view of truth and God. Both believed that the highest truth and God are fundamentally beyond the natural world, something better or higher than the sinful material world. That is, Plato and the religious philosophers agree that the non-material is superior to the material.

Theological Materialism does not make that tragic mistake. Truth and Godhood are seen as material and supermaterial. Material life evolves in the material world to Godhood. The real “sin,” or evolutionary mistake, is failing to evolve toward Godhood in the material world. The real, living, material object comes before the abstract, non-material, definition of the living object.

We can give credit to religion and philosophy for finding the God or Father Within, or truth, but this ascetic Inward Path was a symbolic experience needing to be reinterpreted and expanded to recognition of the Outward Path of material evolution to real supermaterial Godhood. This offers not only a settlement between religion and philosophy but a synthesis between science, religion and political philosophy.

Without a material biological foundation defining human nature in religion, philosophy and political culture, we have developed radical ideas about how free we actually are, which has led to hedonism and ultimately to nihilism. The highest virtues, values, and truths have been thought largely unconnected to biological life which led to unrealistic accounts of human freedom and goals.

It is biology that rightly defines human nature as universal. Human nature universally includes being kin-centered, gender defined, age-grading, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. We are only as free as human nature allows us to be free. Religion, philosophy and political culture have feared real human nature, and tried, unsuccessfully, to curb it.

Real altruism, concern and sacrifice for others, derives not from the idea that the individual is sovereign but from the success of group-selection. Within groups selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals. The pull of theses two things is central to the social success of human beings but also to the problems of human nature.

It is more difficult to attain the Christian and Greek ideas of freedom by way of morally curbing human nature than it is to affirm real human nature and real human passions, which naturally leads to group-selection, and altruism, not individual hedonism, mainly because the group has always been more successful than the individual alone. Ethnopluralism this way becomes the way to synthesize universal human nature and human culture.

Freedom not only needs a moral foundation, as the Greeks and Christians believed, freedom needs a biological foundation, which then can lead to a realistic religious and political foundation. This means not coercion into one authoritarian state but separate powers and states designed for distinct ethnic cultures, harmonizing not only with real universal human nature, but with the real evolution of material life to Godhood. 

This new/old religious philosophy boldly says that Godhood manifests its qualities of beauty, truth and goodness not through an existing God beyond the material world, but as a Godhood which we evolve toward becoming in the material or supermaterial world. The old idea of God, which was seen or experienced inwardly by ascetics, is retained but transformed. This is how religion can be saved for the future---it has been dying at least since the Enlightenment.

The big change comes in uniting the old false divisions between the material and spiritual, which has existed since even before the Judaic-Christian tradition, for example, in ancient Asia, Scandinavia, and in native America. There has existed a Great Spiritual Blockade in religion, and in philosophy, against our evolution toward real Godhood in the material world. There is no dualism between the spiritual and material, there is only the material and supermaterial. This can actually unite science and religion.

Godhood is not the geometry of the Greeks or the metaphysical complications of the Middle Ages, which were locked in an inward God thought to not be of the natural world. Godhood is a living object, or objects---or can be---at the highest levels of material evolution.

This religious philosophy stays within nature and remains in nature when it defines Godhood as evolved to in the material/supermaterial world, it does not have to escape nature when defining Godhood or the highest truths. Whatever end-times eschatology there is remains within the possibilities of natural evolution.

This religious philosophy does not point toward a God independent from space or time, which is  thought  impossible, and does not consider the material world to be a limitation on attaining Godhood, other than the natural limitations of nature, or our own ignorance, which can be remedied by further evolution.

This religious philosophy is conservative not merely a radical change, it retains the old religion but transforms it.

Godhood is an “embodied act,” to use the term Mark Mitchell used to describe art, (Modern Age, Summer 2016). Godhood requires evolution in space and time. All is material or supermaterial. It has been a great mystical, theological, and philosophical mistake to think that Godhood is without material embodiment as a non-material spiritual idea.  

This is a view of God that even evolutionary theologians like Teilhard de Chardin and Sri Aurobindo have missed. They see God, as usual, as a non-material, spiritual, un-embodied consciousness to which man's consciousness is supposed to evolve to and  “fuse" with, creating a sort of glorious, non-material, chimera. The “noosphere”is this sort of non-embodied consciousness.

Contrary to Teilhard and Aurobindo, and the whole history of the mystics, evolution does not evolve to a non-evolutionary world of non-material consciousness. A non-material spiritual God is no God at all, it is nothingness, it is death, which oddly is the way some mystics describe God.

Godhood does not 'transcend” the world any more than beauty transcends the world. Godhood and the highest beauty are realized at the zenith of this world's evolution.

Something does not come from nothing, and this knowledge contradicts the concept of the Logos which requires the belief that there is a beginning and an end, where God is found. But there is no beginning and no end, there is only ongoing evolution reaching toward higher levels of Godhood, with only occasional cosmic or local starts and stops. We don't meet with and fuse with a creator, we become Godhood.

We do not return to origins, which would mean a return to the primordial conditions at the lower points of evolution. Theologians and artist do not need to try to return to origins, they need to affirm the evolution to Godhood. This is the only permanent tradition.

“Freedom” can be seen as the freedom to enhance evolution. Freedom cannot be unhooked from materiality and evolution. Why would we want to do so? How could we hate what we are as material beings enough to make our highest ideal, our God, non-materially and reached by blocking all material desires? Godhood is not beyond the material world, Godhood is the supermaterial zenith of the material world.

In theological materialism when we can grasp the direction of evolution toward Godhood we can grasp what to do with our cultural, political, and religious lives, and perhaps actually save the world.

Like many intellectuals Karl Marx twisted the truth just a enough to fit his agenda: the history of existing societies is not the story of class struggles but is the story of ethnic struggles.

History does not move from feudalism to communism but moves from ethnic group to ethnic group applying whatever political philosophy they think best enhances their group.

Social forces relate to real human nature which remains today as it has always been, with group selection as the primary unit of successful survival and reproduction.

As large empires fall, feudalism, capitalism, communism, fascism, and globalism all yield back to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates.

Real materialism leads to theological materialism and not to the dialectical idealism of Hegel or the dialectic materialism of Marx.

Theological materialism does not lead to atheism or toward non-material idealism because natural material evolution moves toward supermaterial Godhood.

The simplest rules of evolution suggest that positive genetic and cultural mutations take place best in smaller ethnostates where separation gives positive mutations the best chance to appear and prosper.

Federalism can protect ethnostates from seriously quarreling among themselves, as all states evolve toward Godhood, perhaps helped along by objective international research centers.

Revolution is not necessary where a constitutional separation of powers and states exist, as in the United States, only a few amendments may be called for, and so legal conservatism remains viable.

Theological materialism and ethnopluralism are not more ideology manufacturing more non-material definitions and abstractions, this is real life, real human nature, and real evolution.

We have nothing to lose but philosophical and political flimflam and decline, and we have Godhood to gain.

---

Religion and philosophy have been "a cloud of obscurity," to use Schopenhauer's description of Hegel's philosophy.

Regarding appearance and the thing-in-itself, the differences reside only in gradations of material evolution, there is not a dual reality. A tree or a frog see less of the real world than a human does due to gradations of the evolution of sense experience. A God, or Godhood, sees far more of the real world than a human does due to the same gradations of evolution.

This means that Godhood is not a non-material, spiritual, or mathematical Thing-in-itself beyond the the material world, Godhood is a living object, or objects, like a tree or frog or human which has evolved to be more or less the Thing-in-itself and Appearance at the same time. Appearance is in the same category as the Thing-in-itself and the Thing-in-itself is the same as Appearance, determined by the same gradations and levels of material and supermaterial evolution. Truth is also this way a living object (not merely an idea) with or having gradations of truth depending on the level of evolution.

Tirips is not the Thing-in-itself either, it is the material activation within life which seeks to activate life toward Godhood and the highest truth by way of material and supermaterial evolution, working within outside evolution and natural selection, or later working with conscious selection by man in harmony with as much as can be known of the real natural world. Tirips is not the last refuge of those who seek or define a non-material source for the sacred, as Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche more or less did.

Ethics, right and wrong, and sacredness need to derive from the real world of material and supermaterial evolution and do so in theological materialism.

Retaining the order of "permanent things" is a central concern of the conservatism of Burke, Eliot and especially Kirk, and it is mainly concerned with "moral order" grounded in spiritual order.

The philosophy of theological materialism affirms the importance of order, including moral order, but transforms or returns spiritual order back to biological order, where Godhood is understood as supermaterial not spiritual or non-material, and evolved to in the material and supermaterial world.

Moral and social order are understood as necessary to retain the best of what has been evolved in the past while seeking higher evolution toward ever ascending levels of Godhood. This is a transvaluation of religious values which retains Godhood and order, unlike Nietzsche who wanted to kill them with an anarchic superman.

The old spiritual view and experience of God and religion can be conservatively retained in the Inward Path of the Twofold Path as the first glimpse of real Godhood reached in the Outward Path of material evolution to supermaterial Godhood.