All Harmony

Culture can be beautiful, which means harmonious, if the various parts of culture are working together, just as a woman can be beautiful when her looks are symmetrical and harmonious. Why is harmony and symmetry considered beautiful? In humans, it tends to indicate all around good health, in nature, it indicates an ecological harmony of the parts, which seems to enhance the survival of nature.

So what is a harmonious culture? The ethnopluralism hypothesis suggests to me the most harmonious culture possible, given human nature. In every human culture ever studied human nature included, among other things, kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, ethnocentrism, even xenophobia, and with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. If culture proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things. These things also happen to be at the core of conservatism and tradition, whereas many of these traits are missing in, say, communism, modern liberalism and post-modernism.

How close culture, politics and religion should be is perhaps debatable, but I favor the separation of powers and states, as seen in the original U. S. Constitution, but with separate states and regions for ethnic cultures.

When the religious philosophy of theological materialism is added to the harmony of man, nature and culture then the evolution of life toward Godhood can continue with an all around harmony. Politics isn't the heart of culture, religion is (and the West has all but lost its heart), but at the heart of religion is the material and supermaterial evolution of life toward Godhood, which can also harmonize religion and science.

Saving capitalism from hyper-indivualism

Randian libertarian's think that capitalism and altruism are incompatible, which is a major mistake in their philosophy. They place the highest value in the individual and not the group, thereby devaluing or even ignoring group-morality and group-selection, which has been and remains the central unit of human selection. Ayn Rand seems to have been unknowingly blocked by experiences of violent collectivism in early life. Her hatred of altruism seems to stem from this block, as well as from her dislike of religion, and her apparent ignorance of the science of sociobiology

It is not a “constraint” or “unnatural” to obstruct hyper-greed in individual capitalists, it is the unchecked individual who is doing the constraining and obstructing of natural group-morality and altruism. When the capitalist wants all the property for himself he is as much an enemy of property as the state, which also tends to want all property, as Chesterton pointed out. The individual who is in harmony with real human nature will see that group-morality and group-selection are vital in the survival and reproductive success of both the individual and the group.

Economic nationalism and ethnopluralism can curb anti-social marauding global corporations, which have been destroying American jobs and manufacturing to enrich a tiny one-percent of greedy individuals. Capitalism always ends up in league with government power, if you let it, creating monopolies and hurting innovation and competition. Certainly capitalism achieved in a very short time in the United States the highest standard of living ever achieved in human history, but human beings remain kin-centered, ethnocentric, and even xenophobic, with group-selection as the main unit of selection. With this in mind unchecked individualism can be seen as almost always damaging to both individuals and groups. I affirm capitalism, but we have to tell the difference between social and anti-social capitalism.

How real objects exist and evolve toward real Godhood

Some epistemology...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.

Demand understandable intellectuals

America has tended to be anti-intellectual, which has been thought of as a bad thing. But the presumptuous abstractions of many intellectuals have not been as wise as the practical populism of the people, so this seems to affirm their anti-intellectualism. To change Henry Ford's conclusion on history: intellectuals have offered more or less bunk.

It seems to me that the best and deepest ideas can be understood by a non-elite public. When an idea is difficult it probably needs more refining by the author. Sloppy writers, selfish writers, make the reader struggle through the author's unclear thoughts to make them understandable.

This is not to say that I don't believe in deep genius. I would increase the number of geniuses. And I certainly don't believe all opinions are equal. But many or most intellectuals deserve the anti-intellectualism of the people.

So, carry on America, demand understandably intellectuals.

Upgrading Aristotle

Aristotle affirmed particulars (what I call particular objects), and he saw universals (what I call abstractions), as merely aspects (what I call definitions), of existing concrete objects, so I am in good company. But Aristotle did see a metaphysical essence within concretes, and I don't, other than a non-metaphysical material activation within life to evolve toward supermaterial Godhood, which is as close to an essence as I come. I add the evolutionary religious view of life evolving toward Godhood, which is examined in theological materialism.

Reality is real objects---not religious or Platonic abstractions that are definitions only---and all obey the laws of nature, if we can perceive it. Our knowledge comes mainly from sense experience which we turn into human concepts, but knowledge also comes from inward intuitional genetic inheritance, but I am reluctant to put an abstract logical system to this creative process, although there might be one working.

Politically, ethnopluralism is the upgrade of ancient political philosophy, based on knowledge of evolution and human nature which has been coming in since Darwin and sociobiology. I tie this to the conservative tradition of localism, with ethnostates for all ethnic cultures, in harmony with group-selecting real human nature, keeping the best of the past, protected by a light federalism, while we ever evolve toward Godhood in the future.

The group as the real genius

Who is the highest type of civilized person? Are they a full combination of religious, military, artist, and scientific individual? Can such a person exist?  Very high ability in one area often comes at the expense of other areas. This may be why group-selection, group bonding, became the main unit of selection. Individualism follows in a secondary way.

This suggests that it is the culture, the group, which has that full combination of real genius among highly talented individuals. Edmund Burke thought of traditional social institutions something like this, which has been more or less affirmed by sociobiological studies of the group as the main unit of selection.

Individual genius can greatly help the group, and is often rewarded by the group, but the group is the real combined genius. When the group is declining that full combination-genius is declining.

Updating the Southern Agrarians

The Southern Agrarian's thought that with the traditional bonds dissolved society would become anarchic or be forced together by a central state. Force, not love of place and culture would hold things together. This more or less is what happened. But I don't think the Agrarian's emphasized enough the importance of ethnic cultures and groups. The other problem with the Agrarians was that they thought science was a threat and that the idea of  "progress" only dissolved traditional social bonds. They also disliked "industrialism" for the same reason.

However, the science of sociobiology affirms localized and ethnic bonding, which brings science into traditionalism, whether it is accepted or not. The loss of religion due to science is also updated, which is a central theme of this blog: we evolve in the material and supermaterial world to the Godhood only symbolically experienced as the God or Father within of traditional religion. Science this way enters religion and conservatism.

The ethnopluralism hypothesis, which proposes regional, state, and local control against big-government central control, along with the bonding of separate ethnic cultures and the right of states within our federation, is in line with real human nature, which is kin-centered, even xenophobic, and group-selecting. But the measure of any political system is related to its evolutionary path, which leads to the bonding of groups and cultures, keeping the best of the past as we evolve toward Godhood.

Theological materialism describes religion as bringing ourselves in harmony with the evolutionary intention of life to evolve toward Godhood, and it seeks to define our role in this sacred path. The idea of "original sin" kept the Agrarians from affirming science, evolution and progress. When Godhood is understood as that which we evolve to become in the material and supermaterial world, then "progress" certainly enters religion. 

Future Order, Progress, and Evolution

Timothy Fuller (Modern Age 2015) writes of  J.S. Mill, who thought that order preserves the various goods, while progress increases the good. Order supplies stability and preserves what good has already been attained, but order is more the staging area for subsequent advance. Both order and progress can be good, but order is subordinate to progress, keeping open the way to the next stage of improvements. The danger is that we humans become too relaxed with what we have so far achieved and we slack off.

We need a catalyst for reaching toward a new level of achievement. Christianity once supplied that catalyst for new levels of moral achievement, but it no longer does. The next religious stage of progress comes from our material/supermaterial evolution toward Godhood. We need to take better care of our destiny, keeping open the way of evolution, while employing conservative order as an instrument in the service of evolutionary progress.

"Progress includes order but order does not include progress." Order stands as part of the prerequisites of good government but not for its essence. Order is seen as part of the means of progress. In theological materialism, conservatism, paleoconservatism, relates to the structure of order, and material/supermaterial evolution is the means of progress---that is evolutionary reform not radical reform.

In religion, this defines the Twofold Path of theological materialism, and in government, ethnopluralism defines the next stage of conservative order. This brings the order and human nature of ethnostates to the separation of states and powers seen in the original U.S. Constitution, as well as the more sacred and constant evolution of all ethnic groups toward the Godhood first only symbolically seen as the God Within of traditional religion. 

The death of group-morality

The absolute liberty of the individual has all but overcome other values in the U. S. and in the West and it is destroying us. Deep studies in sociobiology, as E. O. Wilson has recently and bravely pointed out, have shown that group-selection comes before individual selection in survival and reproductive success. With our if-you-don't-like-the-program-turn-it-off  hyperindivualism, public morality has all but disappeared. This is the biggest problem I see with the libertarian's who are otherwise quite sane.

I find it interesting that those who do sustain group-morality, especially ethnically, find individualism easier to exploit or dominate, and they tend to promote individualism for others or other groups but not for themselves---they see the success that comes from bonding together.  Humans can be diabolical can't they?

Translations of nothingness and new affirmations of the living, evolving, object

It is true that art translates the laws of nature into images and language, but so does religion, philosophy, and science. Is the translation good, is it true? Some abstract religions ban visual representation of the sacred, but then they also ban material life in general, and art and truth disappear down the spiritual hole into nothingness. I believe this leads to a God that does not really exist. Yet Godhood can exist in material or supermaterial form which life can evolve to become.

This means sacred goals, sacred paths, need not disappear in radical, postmodern, Nietzschian minds. The affirmation of the sacred can continue to inspire in art. And truth can be represented by real evolving living objects in philosophy and science as well as in religion. Empty translations and empty abstractions need to fade away in this evolutionary reform. Too much has been made of the distinction between the object in itself and the object humans see, which is often the desire to prove the existence of something that does not exist.  We see enough of real objects, we see most of real objects, and we will see and know more of reality when we evolve higher consciousness and higher intelligence.

The Precedence of the Founders and Ethnopluralism

Clyde Wilson writes about the war of independence and the establishment of 13 free and independent colonies in North America (Chronicles, April 2015). Wilson reminds us that each colony developed its own society.  The debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution were often against the centralizing of power and keeping the independence of the states. The best men feared "consolidation." The United States was a plural---the United States are, not the United States is, was the universal usage, as in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson was not an advocate of "one nation indivisible," he would not be called a nationalist, it was the principle of self-government that was important to Jefferson. The union could be changed, it was not eternal. Toward the end of his life Jefferson wrote that it would be better for Virginia to secede than to succumb to the centralization pushed by Northern interests.

The states united together did not forfeit their sovereignty, they were not reduced to one and the same people. The union was "a compact between separate communities." An alliance was created in 1776, not really a "nation." When Jefferson looked westward he saw American's creating  a new self-governing commonwealth joined in such a way as they wished.

This precedence, this character, this tone and guiding belief in affirming non-centralized states (but with a lightly protective federalism, and in today's world with a protecting economic nationalism) could be applied to ethnopluralism, and could be done with conservative reform, not radical revolution. We have gradually learned more about real human nature over the years and we see that human nature remains biologically and often culturally kin-centered, ethnocentric, group-selecting, even xenophobic, which means that in our crowded multi-ethnic world we will need to find a way to accommodate ethnopluralism, to keep whatever peace and harmony is possible between humans.

Establishing, or reestablishing, virtual ethnostates in the United States, where distinct ethnic cultures can thrive and evolve as they wish will probably happen anyway as multicultural empires always break back down into ethnostates. It would be better to do this consciously, rationally, rather than by way of civil war, given human nature---and our Constitution, with its separation of powers and states, could accommodate a natural and moral ethnopluralism if we would choose to do so.

Back soon

I've been gone due to a family illness.  Back as soon as possible.

Radicalism versus Reform

Serious reformers don't wish to weaken the struggle, as the radicals accuse them of doing, but they do usually wish to remove the radicalism from the struggle. The path of reform is the path of legality, the path of radicalism is often illegal and self-defeating.

The West has deteriorated so far that quick radical solutions are not deep enough or long-term enough, and they often hinder the solutions. There is so much to correct that endurance and patience are needed.

The rise out of degeneration may take several generations or more, since religion, philosophy, art, etc., all need reforming. No civilization ever lasted long without a religious foundation, and religion is largely lost in the West, and new and reformed religions take generations to establish.

For example, two deep reforms I advocate here are Theological Materialism in religious philosophy (material life evolving to supermaterial Godhood), and Ethnopluralism in political philosophy (grounded in group-selection as the primary unit of human selection), both of which could take generations to establish given our present indirect cultural Marxism (“It is forbidden to forbid” ), and rule by global corporations.

Saving religion and philosophy from abstract principles

God is only an abstract principle in most religions, and Being is only an abstract principle in philosophy. When this is more or less realized, people often become atheists or postmodern Nietzscheans.

But God, or more precisely Godhood, can be retained when Godhood is understood to be a living supreme object, or objects, which we can evolve to in the material and supermaterial world.

The Twofold Path retains the old abstract inward God or Father, which is transformed in the outward path to Godhood attained through evolution.

The Inward God is sought by way of the ascetic denial of human desires and is seen here as the symbolic experience, often blissful, of real Godhood reached through evolution.

Central values and morality are transformed to outward evolution rather than toward the inward denial of instinctive drives. This can save both religion and philosophy from mere abstract principles.

Science can this way enter the province of religion and be guided by the goals of religion and philosophy rather than by amoral technological progress.

What was the goal set by the program of creation at the beginning of the cosmos? I believe the activating goal---defined here as the Activation To Godhood, or the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood---is for life to evolve in the material and supermaterial world to Godhood.

Various early and later religious and scientific myths have developed sometimes beautiful attempts to portray the creation and goals, or lately non-goals, of the cosmos. The more intelligent we can become the greater will be our understanding in pursuing the sacred evolutionary goal toward Godhood.

Gay marriage?!

If traditional marriage, reproduction, and family are the foundation from which all cultures have grown, what kind of foundation for culture does gay marriage bring? Ask the Postmodernists. Their belief in no-belief, other than the belief in no-belief, and their belief in no fundamental human nature, no absolutes, stunningly includes not believing in the vital foundation of human reproduction which naturally cannot happen in gay marriages.  With gay marriage now made legal by the highest court in the land, the Postmodern intellectual leadership have sunk us even deeper into their degeneration... This won't last, real human nature, real reproduction and survival always rises, even if a nation falls first...Our slow decline has sped up.

The origin of ethnopluralism in the material activation to Godhood

The morality of religion and philosophy have been mostly organized from within in the desire-free value of attaining truth or reality, or the God or Father Within, which was a symbolic experience of the real Godhood attained in the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution. The Twofold Path retains but transforms the restraining goal of the Inward Path to the evolving goal of the Outward Path.

In evolving toward this sacred goal of Godhood, human communities and groups, usually arranged as ethnic groups, can do more for individuals than individuals can alone, which is the origin of altruism, vital interest in the genetic and cultural welfare of others. And so over the course of evolution group-selection became the central unit of selection, and this behavior became the basic orientation of human nature and evolution, which we still retain within us today.

The point made here is that harmony in political philosophy and culture in general works better when humans arrange themselves in an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which corresponds best to human nature. That is, ethnic regions and states, usually protected by some kind of federalism. This allows real human nature to function best, each in his own way, with the separation needed for variety in evolution, along with the deeper goal of long term material evolution to Godhood.

Time and again throughout human history empires have broken down into ethnostates and ethnopluralism due mainly to the real human nature mentioned above. So the action proposed here is to consciously and rationally move toward ethnopluralism, but do so legally, conservatively, keeping traditions even as we transform them. For example, the U.S. Constitution separates powers and states which could accommodate a future ethnopluralism, thereby seeking to avoid civil disruptions and even civil war between increasingly contending ethnic cultures.

The origin of ethnopluralism in the material activation to Godhood sanctifies the human behavior and political form which is essential to our survival and well-being, and our deeper evolution toward Godhood.

Goals and sub-goals in deep conservatism

“Conservatism” has goals and sub-goals and I think this requires an evolutionary conservatism, a deep conservatism in view of the final goals here defined as as material evolution to supermaterial Godhood. This also applies to politics, religion and philosophy, where traditions can be maintained, as in conservatism, but transformed, as in theological materialism.

For example, I think the U.S. Constitution could accommodate ethnopluralism, with regions and states for distinct ethnic cultures, grounded in the tradition of the separation of powers and states, which could help the increasingly feuding ethnic groups in America, and the unending legal and illegal immigration into America, and do so in a realistic way that does not counter real human nature, which remains group-selecting.

Deep conservatism could also apply the Inward Path of traditional religion which is designed to reach the symbolic experience of the God or Father Within and retain but transform it into the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution to real Godhood.

This helps define a deeper conservatism with final theological goals and sub-goals. The more we know the better we can adjust the sub-goals to the goals. Human genetic and environmental improvements can improve our decision-making---it is not only artificial intelligence that requires enhancement.

What Can Mediate Modern Life?

Religion no longer mediates much of modern life, philosophy doesn't, science doesn't (other than a sort of technocracy), and politics doesn't, not in meaningful ways. What seems to lead us now, as Pierre Manent pointed out (Modern Age, Winter 2015), is conquest through expansion of the human commercial empire and the claim that it “lifts all boats.” That is how we try to relieve the tensions and mediate between everyone, rich, poor, different ethnic groups, nations, etc, this is our modern “universalism.” This has left modern man, individuals and nations, without much deeper meaning and direction.

The proposed form here of mediation or “political science,” between “what we are and what we do,” is the following: We start with the universal activation of life to survive, we include universal human nature as being essentially group-selecting, then following real human nature we separate ourselves politically and culturally into a natural ethnopluralism of ethnostates, protected by some form of federalism---which can be accommodated by many conservative traditions, then we mediate our biological and cultural evolution with the evolutionary and sociobiological sciences, and finally more deeply we mediate with the religious philosophy of theological materialism, which specifies that material life is universally evolving to supermaterial Godhood, with starts and stops along the way, and we consciously, religiously, philosophically, scientifically, politically and culturally help that sacred evolution along.

Final goals at the activation of creation

Supposedly at the primordial creation a goal-system of life was present. Some think there are no such goals, but it seems to me that the definition of life itself suggests that life requires at least the goal of living and surviving.

I think the zenith or final goal of evolving life is for life to evolve materially and then supermaterially to Godhood, which is the greatest survival, and I think this goal was there from the primordial creation of life, even if life has been created many times over in many cosmos.

To reach the final goals of life it would seem that the more intelligent we are---which might include beauty, truth and goodness---the better we will see and reach the final goal, and so these traits and values could be consciously pursued in consciously helping to direct evolution.

Final goals in this sense might be said to constitute a key aspect of survival, and have been present with the activation of life in the first place, and present as the activation within life, called here the material/supermaterial Spirit-Will-To-Godhood.

The method we use to deal with change is the central political question

Culture and politics need to be compatible with human nature or we end up getting nowhere. Prior to the central question of political change the question is: what is human nature?

As Paul Lewis pointed out (Modern Age, Winter 2015), Edmund Burke's rising Whig bourgeoisie could have created a revolution against English feudalism if England had not already gone through centuries of change, such as the so-called “Glorious Revolution” against the Stuart kings, which brought about more press freedom, annual sessions of Parliament, and a more limited monarchy---although the “revolution” also included some violent change as well.

Those who think America was not class conscious because we had no feudal past don't define the Civil War as a northern bourgeoisie revolution against a feudal South, which it was in many ways. Now we have seen the rise of another feudal-like system, global capitalism, with the one percent controlling more and more of the wealth and the people becoming more like serfs.

So we can anticipate revolution against the one percent, as well as disruptions, civil disorder, and even revolution resulting from multiculturalism and contending ethnic groups, which is increasingly seen. And here is where the method dealing with change becomes vital. I think we need a combination of conservatism, modern liberalism, and the evolutionary science of human nature, a combination of Burke, Thomas Paine and Edward O. Wilson.

Contrary to Burke, human nature is not a “mere abstraction,” human nature is the state of nature that preceded the creation of culture. But contrary to Paine, human nature is also much influenced by the environment, social groups, habits and traditions, which depend on the time and the place. It is true that abstract ideas have often led to radical revolution, but social traditions have often led to stagnation. So, again, how political philosophy deals with change is vital.

I believe human nature is now defined by the evolutionary sciences more accurately than ever before as including kin-selection preferences, incest taboos, marriage, hierarchy, division of labor, gender differentiation, localism, ethnocentrism, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection. If culture or political philosophy proposes to not include these things, the culture does not last long and it will always return to these things.

I believe this view of human nature leads to the ethnopluralism hypothesis, and so I think we need to apply the best methods to deal with the changes needed to establish ethnopluralism. Will it be revolutionary or conservative change? As mentioned above, I think a combination of conservatism and modern liberalism grounded in the evolutionary science of human nature—a combination of Burke, Paine and Wilson---is the way to change.

In the United States the separation of powers and states seen in the original Constitution could legally lead to an ethnopluralism of regions and states with ethnic cultures, protected by a light federalism. I think this might better avoid radical revolution against the new feudalism of the global one percent, as well as avoiding civil disorder and revolution from multiculturalism, with contending ethnic groups, which is increasingly seen.

With a deep conservatism, I would hope that the religious foundation required by any long lasting civilization would, gradually, change toward the philosophy of theological materialism, which retains but transforms past religion, as we all evolve materially in our own ways toward supermaterial Godhood.