New Blog

I was on hiatus for about 2 years, but I have decided to make a new blog, so go check it out. I was searching for what I call a "more unified project", and I think I have it.

http://slavicaryantraditionalist.blogspot.com

Buddhism

Buddhism, a Rational Religion?

There is the view that all religions are the product of superstition. That is that all religions have their foundations in miracles and purport a creation myth which clearly goes against any intelligent understanding of history. This line of reasoning is argued using a fallacy of composition by assuming that certain features that are essential for Christianity have their counterpart in all of the other religions. This view is false, and it will be the purpose of this paper to defend a certain religion as having a basis in a very strict epistemology. That religion is Buddhism. I will show that it is very close to Transcendental Idealism, which is the philosophy of Kant and Schopenhauer. I will compare these to both Christianity and materialism, which I believe to be two very common metaphysics in the present society. The reality is the religion of Europe and the European peoples has been Christianity for almost two millennia, and since the time of the Enlightenment the materialist metaphysics of John Locke enjoys the status of being perceived as both philosophically sophisticated and not betraying common sense. In this paper I will critique both the Christian and materialist position as lacking the philosophical sophistication of Buddhism. I will critique Christianity by showing that some of its core tenets are superstitious, and thus disallows it from being a philosophical religion. I will critique materialism by showing that the epistemology is not as developed as it should be. I believe that this epistemology was thus developed throughout the history of Modern Philosophy through both the Rationalists and Empiricists, and receiving its culmination in Transcendental Idealism which will be shown to be similar to that in Buddhism, thus showing the philosophical sophistication of Buddhism.

The standard view of Christianity states that Jesus is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the grave to overcome “death”. Thus by having faith in “Jesus rising from the grave”, we are “washed in his blood”, and expiated of sin. This original sin was caused by Adam disobeying God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Through this act, both sin and death entered the world, and is the reason for us experiencing death and being in danger of damnation. To put it very simply, we must believe in Jesus’ resurrection and the reason for that is Adam’s disobedience. Without Adam disobeying God, there would be no reason for Jesus’ death and resurrection; it would be an absurd event. The verses establishing the necessity of Jesus’ death and resurrection are 1^st Corinthians 15:14, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”(1), and 1^st Corinthians 15:17, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (2). This states that the miracle event of Jesus’ death and resurrection is essential to Christianity. The verse elucidating the need that the Genesis story is factual, since the cause of sin was Adam is Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (3). The key phrase of this verse is “just as through one man sin entered into the world”. This one man is clearly Adam, so the Genesis story must be believed to be factual so that the resurrection of Jesus has a reason, without that it would be absurd. To reduce it to a more critical analysis, Christianity rests on a miracle event, and a mythological view of history that has no evidence to support that the events did happen. The epistemological problems associated with miracles we dealt with in the period of Modern Philosophy. Both Kant and Hume’s critique of miracles articulates that it is impossible to reason justly to believe that a miracle happened. It would be a great misunderstanding of Hume to assume that just because his skepticism attacks the concept of a necessary connection between events, for example if one billiard ball strikes another and that the other billiard ball moves it was the previous billiard ball that necessarily caused the other billiard ball to move, that we live in a universe where anything ridiculous can be believed. The skepticism of Hume does not in any way diminish from the firm and unalterable experiences of nature than we have had to be the foundation for the regularities that support the idea of laws of nature. It is the uniformity of experiences that give us these natural laws. The supposed justification of a miracle is that that of a testimony of witnesses. Here we have two contradictory sources of information, that of the firm and unalterable experience of nature versus the testimony of an individual or group of individuals. The argument of Hume against miracles is that a wise man proportions his believe to the evidence given, so when someone is making an outrageous claim that goes against our experience of the uniformity of nature, the evidence given must be so overwhelming that it surpasses the evidence given by the uniformity of nature. The question then becomes what is more reasonable to doubt, the laws of nature based upon uniformity of experience, or the testimony of witnesses. Since it is a common experience that people lie or are mistaken, we can always doubt the good sense, integrity, or education of the witnesses. We can also think of many other factors that are involved in human testimony that forces us to doubt whether that testimony is correct. There are no experiences that cause us to doubt the laws of nature since firm and unalterable experience has given us these laws if they are firm and unalterable experiences. This being said, the criteria that would overcome the problems of lies or mistakes from human testimony to make it more believable than the regularities of nature would be something like a large body of independent scientists who have no agenda, and are in a position where they have a lot to lose if they are caught lying, and then confirm the even. The supposed resurrection doesn’t even come close to this. The argument against miracles by Kant deals with the notions of possibility and impossibility. Miracles are logically possible, they are also theoretically possible, but they are practically impossible. Practical reason operates according to universal laws. For example, when constructing a scientific theory to explain the phenomena, I can only do so if the phenomena operates under universal laws. It would be impossible to test, falsify, or have any repeatability if scientific laws were not universal. Miracles are by definition seldom occurrences which are not part of the universal laws of nature, therefore they cannot be falsified, tested, and repeat ably tested. The key issue is that we cannot determine this on the knowledge of the object, it is theoretically possible, but only on the principles that are necessary for the use of our reason, which operates on universal laws, and therefore it is practically impossible. Since we are rational beings who are free based upon that rationality, our greatest freedom results in the ability to be rational and hold to these universal laws which is the basis for both our scientific and moral knowledge, any assault on that attacks our dignity. The interesting thing is that this individual, who operates according to universal laws, would be equivalent to who Kierkegaard states is in the ethical sphere. Kierkegaard realizing that the demands that Christianity puts on people is incompatible with a rational worldview, stated that the true Christian is the one who transcends the ethical sphere into the religious sphere through an absurd leap of faith. Also, the Genesis story has no evidence to support it as being true, and based upon our knowledge of history it is ridiculous. Christianity does have these superstitious elements as an essential feature, but it would be a great error to assume that of all religions.

The next critique I have is against materialism. The problem starts out as one of undetermination, which is having two contradictory theories that both explain the evidence given. All of our scientific data is based upon a spatiotemporal reality where objects in this reality are related to each other through the principle of causation, or structured through categories that quantify, qualify, relate, and apply modalities. Both materialism and a Buddhist, Vedantic or Transcendental Idealist metaphysics use this structuring. Therefore, they both explain all scientific data with equal certitude. The assertion of materialism is that the above articulation of reality is descriptive of the only substance, whereas the assertion of the Buddhist, Vedantic, or Transcendental Idealist metaphysics is that the above articulation of reality is not that of the absolute substance, but a manner of knowing this reality, a “veil of Maya” to speak. The difference is one of an ontological versus an epistemic condition. Materialism states this is an ontological condition by taking our experience and reducing it to primary and secondary qualities. The primary qualities are those that are mathematical, extension in space, and motion of these extended substances. The secondary qualities are those of sounds, colors, textures, odors, and flavors. If I was to take all that constitutes my sense ideas, and assume that it was representing reality, I would rather naïve. The extreme subjectivity amongst sounds heard, colors perceived, textures felt, odors smelled, and flavors tasted would make any reflective person think about these actually being purely objective. The reality is that people will see differently if they are colorblind, people might taste sugar differently if they are sick shows that a heavy subjective element is found within these perceptions. The materialist then states that these qualities are caused by powers of the object on the subject, whereas the primary qualities that are mathematical accurately describe external reality. Therefore space as an extended substance reduced to the smallest possible particles is what is ultimately real. The Transcendental Idealist which the Buddhist or Advaita Vedantist is as well, states that just as the secondary qualities are subjective, so are the primary qualities. The key thing is that they are not arbitrarily subjective, but caused by necessary processes within the ultimate structure of reality resulting in how we must know empirical reality. The non-absolute nature of space, time, and atoms has been shown by Kant in two of his four antinomies, the other two dealing with causation and necessity and contingency. If the universe is infinite in time then up to any point in time an infinite sequence of events must have elapsed, since it is impossible that an infinite sequence can elapse, the universe must be finite in duration, but if the universe is finite in duration, then what was before the universe was an empty time in which all points in an empty time are the same, so there is no reason why time began when it did. There is a similar argument for space, and that is if space is infinite it would require an infinite successive synthesis of parts which could never be completed, and that if space is finite then what is beyond this space is an empty space which would make objects related not just in space, but to space, and make the universe related to this empty space which would be in relation to no object. The antinomy of atoms deals with the contradictory nature that when we take apart a substance, there are still smaller particles that make up that substance, so any process of taking apart results in particles, whereas it can be equally argued that this process can be done infinitely considering that space is infinitely divisible resulting in the impossibility of atoms. These arguments of the Transcendental Idealist state that the above conditions are not that of an absolute substance, but an epistemic condition on how we know reality, thus demolishing the foundation for materialism. I will next argue for a synthesis of Buddhism and Transcendental Idealism. The reason that I will not be doing this for Transcendental Idealism and Advaita Vedanta is because Advaita Vedanta starts from the speculative metaphysical principle of maya, whereas Buddhism’s method is more epistemologically oriented, in taking experience as the foundation for the system.

The Buddhist metaphysics is the paticca sammupada, or conditioned genesis, and this metaphysics is very compatible to that which is in Transcendental Idealism. I will show how many of these conditions have their parallel in the philosophy of Transcendental Idealism, and then argue for the additional conditions that Buddhism has. First, I will explain the paticca sammupada. The paticca-samupadda is an articulation of the second noble truth of samudaya, which is the origin of dukkha (1). The Buddha has called this doctrine “profound, hard to perceive, hard to understand, peaceful, elevated, not reducible to discursive thought, subtle, accessible only to the wise” (2). This doctrine has also been stated as being the premise for both the third noble truth of nirodha and the fourth noble truth of magga (3). Nirodha is the possibility of overcoming the state of existence caused by dukkha, and magga is the practical method to do so. The pattica-samupadda or “conditioned genesis” is a series of twelve conditioned states. These conditions are avijja (ignorance), sankhara (formation or predisposition), vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa (name and form), sad-ayatana (sixfold sense sensation), phassa (contact), vedana (feeling), tanha (thirst), upadana (to embrace), bhava (becoming), jati (birth), and jaramarana (old age and death). I will start with the end of the paticca-samupadda, and then work myself back to the beginning, since I believe it is the beginning of the chain which is important for the point that I wish to argue.

The last conditions are those of jati and jaramarana; that is birth, old age, and death. These last two are quite self-evident, things are born into this world, then decay. The conditions previous to this will be seen as the a priori categories of experience that we have when we are born (5). The condition prior to birth which is tenth on the paticca-samupadda is that of bhava, which is literally translated as becoming (6). By stating becoming as the condition for birth and then decay, the Buddha is asserting a metaphysics where the world is one of flux and change, where everything is impermanent. The prior condition to that of bhava (becoming) is upadana, which is literally translated as “to embrace” (7). This condition is responsible for the associating of an I that is in relation to being attached to a non-I. The self is perceived as that which desires this, and then desires that, which then results in this is my self, that is my self. This is important since detachment is considered to be a very important concept in Eastern metaphysics. It is stated in the Dhammapada that through detachment, Indra became king of the gods(8). The condition priori to upadana is that of tanha, which is thirst in the metaphysical sense (9). This condition of existence states we are going to experience feelings that are pleasurable, painful, and indifferent. This will create in us a thirst for those pleasurable feelings, a thirst to go away from those painful feelings, and a thirst to go from the indifferent to the pleasurable feelings. At all times we are bombarded by sense impressions which cause a feeling in us, and then we thirst for things in this world based upon that feeling. This then leads us to the previous two conditions of phassa, and vedana. Phassa is translated as contact, whereas vedana is translated as feeling (10). Our immediate experience is one of sense impressions, which are sounds, colors, textures, odors, and flavors. This immediately causes us to associate a feeling in response to these impressions. This then leads us to the prior condition of sad-ayatana, or the six fold sex sensation by which we experience these contacts(11). Since our experiences are those of sounds, colors, textures, odors, and flavors, there must be something that allows for the experience of these impressions, and that is sight, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting. There is also the “sense” of mind that along with coordinating these impressions allow us to receive contacts from a more subtle source.

The important thing to note is the phenomenological certainty of this. It accurately describes our experience in this existence, the experience of birth and death, the flux of becoming, the embrace of existence that follows from the flux of becoming, the cravings we experience, the sense impressions we experience, the feelings associated with those impressions, and the senses that allow us to receive these impressions, including the “sense” of the mind that explains the ideas we have that do not originate from the other senses.

The previous condition on the nidana chain is nama-rupa, or that of name and form(12). The truth is that our knowledge of reality is mediated through our thought or our language. For Kant we know this empirical reality through twelve categories, and for Schopenhauer it is through the principle of sufficient reason. The name and form that we apply to experience does give us knowledge of objects, but it is also a limiting factor, as the antinomies earlier showed. Wittgenstein also had this insight, thinking that we could not know anything outside of our language, though for Kant and Schopenhauer it does give us knowledge of empirical reality, just not what is transcendentally real. The Buddha’s insight is closer to Kant and Schopenhauer since this point in the nidana chain is where the “vertical” meets with the “horizontal”, stating what is transcendentally ideal is also empirically real. The previous condition on the nidana chain is that of vinnana, or consciousness(13). This is defined as the I-sense that goes along with perception. It is similar to Kant’s Transcendental Unity of Apperception that there must be a unified consciousness to perceive a unity in space and time. The similarity with Transcendental Idealism is that this I-sense is not taken to be a mental substance as it is in Descartes, but the result of being conditioned. The previous condition in the nidana chain is Sankhara, which means formation or predisposition in regards to a particular aim(14). This states that we have certain character formations that will cause us to act in certain ways. This is also expressed in the philosophy of Schopenhauer where we are essentially directed by our specific character which is generated by the Will. I can look all over the world and see different types of being ranging from plants, animals, and humans, and see that a different “character” informs all of these objects. These “characters” are expressed in the more simple ones expressed in the stimuli of plants all the way to the most complex expressed by the specific character motivations of humans. This can be articulated very well using the metaphysical insights of Schopenhauer. If I reflect upon my nature, what I know is my will, and that will I apply to other beings in lesser or greater degree based upon their level of being. The immediate awareness of my own character allows me to ascribe a character to other objects, similar to the awareness of my own mind allowing me to posit other minds in similar beings. These conditions from nama-rupa to sankhara are known through a more reflective phenomenology based upon transcendental conditions. The awareness that I know reality through a rational structuring is one of the great insights of Transcendental Idealism and the Buddha. The awareness of the “I” as an experience necessary for perception but itself also conditioned is another insight of Transcendental Idealism and the Buddha. The awareness of our nature being expressed by the actions that are deep rooted in our character and will is a great insight of both Schopenhauer and the Buddha. This being said, there is one last condition which is in the metaphysics of the Buddha, and fits very nicely in the system of Transcendental Idealism.

The first condition in the paticca sammupada is that of avijja, or ignorance. It can also be described as unawareness, mania, or intoxication(15). Describing this as a form of mania sets up the conditions that will follow. It determines the type of existence that we lead on this samsaric plane. Also, describing it as a form of ignorance shows it as a privative state that must be overcome, hence the truths of nirodha and magga that the Buddha had. For all of the different beings that roam on this world, the reason for the difference in knowledge and actions results in greater and lesser degrees of ignorance and mania. The knowledge that we are limited in our intellect to know and limited in our ability to act presupposes an ignorance to explain that limitation in knowing and a mania in out limitation to act. This existential insight of the Buddha takes the previous knowledge of our character and then truly reflects on what it will be like to be in this world. This truly adds an existential dimension to what is the philosophy of Transcendental Idealism, giving it a sense of completion. From the theory of the absurdity in existence to the Superman, these theories also agree with the mania and unawareness that are at the root of our existence. This is also embodied in the angst that one feels when reflecting on our existence. This being said the doctrine of the Buddha is that of a solid metaphysics, not one of superstition based upon miracles and prophecies. It is also a metaphysics that is more epistemologically precise and more existentially insightful than that of materialism. Both the intense reflection on our knowing and being make Buddhism a sophisticated metaphysics that can rival other theories. Let me end with a quote on Buddhism by George Grimm, “The Buddha has not merely awakened to the supreme reality: he also presents his higher knowledge that is superior to that of "all gods and men" most clearly and free from all mythological disguise and mythical clothing. Here, however, it is given in so cogent a form that it presents itself as positively and self-evident to the person who is able to follow him. For this reason the Buddha does not demand any belief, but promises knowledge.(16)”

Notes

1) Evola, Julius. The Doctrine of Awakening. Inner Traditions (1995) p 57

2) Samyutta Nikaya 6.1

3) Evola, Julius. The Doctrine of Awakening. Inner Traditions (1995) p 58

4) Ibid p 59

5) Ibid p 68

6) Ibid p 68

7) Ibid p 67

8) Dhammapada verse 30

9) Evola, Julius. The Doctrine of Awakening. Inner Traditions (1995) p 66

10) Ibid p 66

11) Ibid p 67

12) Ibid p 62-66

13) Ibid p 62

14) Ibid p 61-62

15) Ibid p 59 – 61

16) http://www.buddhanet.net/budintel/belief/bnotdemb.htm

Philosophical Terminology

The question has been brought to me before, why use all of this philosophical terminology? There is a reason, and that reason is to write with the necessary degree of precision for the best possible elucidation. Take these two examples, the first one I wrote with very little thought behind it, and the second I wrote after further reflection.

I would also like to add that the extremely subjective view of truth that Bill O'Reilly espouses will result in a form of relativism that O'Reilly seems to dislike when it goes against his version of "Traditionalism".

I would like to add that the epistemological relativism that Bill O’Reilly espoused during his interview with Richard Dawkins will contradict the ethical absolutism that he espouses all of the time.

The first statement of mine is written in such a manner that people will be able to pick it apart. To start out with, “extremely subjective view of truth” is not very clear. It could be said that just because truth is subjective, that doesn’t negate it being objective. I could have subjective contents of consciousness which correspond to an objective epistemic ground. Also, adding the adverb “extremely” will not help, it adds nothing to the meaning of subjective. Also when I said relativism in the first sentence, I was not clear in describing what type of relativism he is espousing. Also, it was a problem to use Traditionalism for a theoretical backing to explain the type of relativism I meant. When O’Reilly uses Traditionalism, he is clearly using it as a persuasive definition; he doesn’t have any of the theoretical backing that Evola does when he used the term Traditionalism. The problem in the first statement is that it is open to heavy interpretation, because of the lack of precision that comes from the words used.

The second statement of mine escapes many of these problems. The first is that epistemological relativism has a very precise meaning because of both the words are part of a tradition in which a heavy amount of philosophical theory gives meaning to both of the words, and there was a sophist named Protagoras whose philosophy has elements which give an exact meaning to the terms. The reality is that epistemological relativism is univocal in its meaning. It is also true of ethical absolutism that it has a very precise meaning because of the philosophical theory behind these two words. It is true that there are different proponents of ethical absolutism ranging from Kant to supposed divine commands. Though for the sake of the argument, it is clear from watching O’Reilly that he has an ethical absolutism based upon this black and white view of reality that reminds me of a 1980’s wrestling match. The main point is that the language used in the second statement is very precise, and that is due to the use of philosophical terminology.

The goal is to write things in such a way that an educated audience will be able to discern the meaning. I was reading The Principle Upanishads yesterday, and I read a section which compared the Vedantic metaphysics to the Neoplatonic metaphysics. If I remember correctly it saw the Brahman as equivalent to the One, Ishvara was seen as equivalent to the Nous, and Hiranya Garbha as equivalent to the World Soul, and the Viraj as the World. Would I expect people to know what these words mean? The answer would be no, these words are part of a very specialized metaphysics, both the Vedantic and Neoplatonic. That doesn’t excuse people from being lazy and not referencing the meaning. Though I could see how it would be hard to read a text if almost every other word was part of some hermetic jargon. I would like to end it with saying that words like epistemology and metaphysics are not part of some hermetic jargon; these are words that you should know if you happen to take part in academic discussions.

I strongly defend the use of philosophical terminology, since these words were originally coined so that we might have the precision necessary to adequately express our thoughts. If I wanted to tell somebody to go to the store to get me some food, I wouldn’t say to that person, go to the place to get me some things. That is entirely too vague. By the same token, I do not need to use philosophical terminology when telling people to go to the store to get me some food. Those simple words adequately express my thoughts for the purpose at hand. The reality is that the philosophical words are necessary to explain philosophical concepts. This is something that I felt needed to be said.

On a side note, here is a good example of what I had to make sense of when I wanted to understand Vedantic and Buddhist metaphysics seriously.

Buddha taught that - everything is kshaNika, sva-lakshaNa, dukha, and shoonya.
This upadEsha of Buddha that everything is shoonya, was understood by yOgAchAra as external bAhya-artha is shoonya but the internal knowledge is not.

The point is that if I wanted to take a serious approach to their metaphysics, I would have to understand the language.

Richard Dawkins versus Bill O'Reilly

I was listening to Bill O’Reilly interview Richard Dawkins on Atheism, and though I respect his civility, I must say that he was intellectually outclassed by Richard Dawkins, and his basis for belief in god is based upon ignorance. Please click here for the link to the discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI

Bill O’Reilly starts by asserting what seems to be either a prelude to an argument by design or a god of the gaps argument, when he states that we could not have had natural phenomena like “the tides coming in, and the tides coming out”, and “the sun goes up, and the sun goes down” without god. Richard Dawkins then states that science can give good explanations for all of these natural phenomena. Then Bill O’Reilly states that it must have come somewhere, and to Richard Dawkins that he has to make a leap of faith, since he cannot explain "how it all got here". Richard Dawkins then responds that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, which in this sense is the positive claim about the existence of god. This could have been fruitful if the discussion proceeded towards the argument by design, and its philosophical merit. But instead of that Richard Dawkins then responds by saying to Bill O’Reilly that he could believe in an infinite number of gods, and why choose the Judeo-Christian god out of all of these. This is where he “checkmated” Bill O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly responded that Jesus was a historical figure whereas "Apollo doesn’t look so good". First of all, being a historical figure is a ridiculous criteria for truth about a transcendent being, and secondly, this would justify contradicting claims on the nature of god, since there are many historical figures that founded religions, like Buddha, Mahavira, and Mohammed. This is where O’Reilly starts to develop his comment of “you guys can’t tell me how it all got here”, to more of a god of the gaps argument, rather than an argument by design. The reason for this is because Richard Dawkins very rightly states that science is ever waxing in knowledge of reality, and though we still don’t know everything, we must allow this method to understand more and more of reality, and the response of Billy O’Reilly was until you guys figure all of it out, I will stick to Judeo-Christian philosophy. The discussion then proceeds towards the cultural value of atheism versus religion.

The problem with this argument from Bill O’Reilly is that it boxes any spiritual or theistic outlook into a little corner. Since god is all powerful, he can be used as an explanation for natural phenomena yet unknown. This will limit the concept of god to what is beyond the terminus of our knowledge to explain things in our ignorance. This appeal to ignorance will get constantly weakened as we increase in knowledge of the natural world. What Bill O’Reilly is attempting to do is no different from explaining the lightning bolts as arrows from Perun or the weapon of Zeus. Also, I do believe that no serious adherent to a form of a pre-Christian European paganism presently holds to this explanation of natural events, except in maybe an allegorical sense.

There is also the fact that Bill O’Reilly seems to have a bad understanding of the word truth when he claims that his religion is true for him, whereas it might not be true for Richard Dawkins. I don’t like to think of truth as entirely subjective. Though I do acknowledge that it is important for the human mind to form correct beliefs about things, I believe it is equally important for those beliefs to correspond to an epistemic ground that justifies them. I do know that Kierkegaard uses the phrase, truth is subjective, to support his existentialism. Kierkegaard needed to find a new term to get at what he is meaning, rather than truth. For example, it has little existential meaning for a human that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, though it is true, whereas the religious belief of a person can have great existential meaning for them, even though it is not proven true. So Kierkegaard has point to make, though the term he uses only creates confusion. Does Bill O’Reilly have the philosophical sophistication to explain his point in this Kierkegaardian manner? He probably does not. I will be honest, much to the shock of people, I don’t dislike Bill O’Reilly, and I do find him very entertaining. I just don’t see him as a towering intellect.

After watching this discussion, I believe that it is an imperative that we must develop an intelligent metaphysics. I believe that the Aryan metaphysics we see in Vedanta and Buddhism would not experience the defeat that Bill O’Reilly did from Richard Dawkins. In either the next or next after posting, I will do this by writing my long overdue paper on the Paticca Sammupada and Transcendental Idealism.

I would like to add that the epistemological relativism that Bill O’Reilly espoused during this interview with Richard Dawkins will contradict the ethical absolutism that he espouses all of the time.

Cultural ideal

I ended the last article by saying that substantial freedoms are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for happiness. The reason that I say this is because substantial freedoms give us the capabilities to pursue our projects. What they don’t give us is the will, motivation, and perseverance to achieve those projects. This is where we need both an ethical and aesthetic ideal that see both excellence and beauty in human projects that center around health, art, and intelligence. If a person does not have an ethos that sees excellence in knowledge, and he does not see the sage or philosopher ideal as beautiful, no amount of substantial freedoms will promote this ideal. This is where I am “conservative”; this is where I side with people like Nietzsche and now the European New Right. This is where I see the most glaring error in Marxism, which believes that economic conditions alone will cause a society to thrive. It is not just the poverty in the inner cities which creates a vile type of human; it is also the ideals that are sought after. How can people thrive when pimps are the ideal type of man, and a whore is the ideal type of woman? The reality is that this cancerous culture has spread to all of America, and will only serve to degrade people further. I do agree that we need an economic system which is more just than the present one, and that consumer capitalism promotes this wretched ideal of a human, since this debased being tends to be a prodigious overall consumer, so he is good for the economy. It is just as important, if not more so important, no! I would say definitely more so important that we embrace the ideals that core to the Indo-European / Aryan Weltanschauung! The overall meaning that is derived from us being in the world needs to be grounded in the ethics, aesthetics, and religious sentiments of the ancient Indo-Europeans.

Also, I know that some of you might be critical of me for asserting that substantial freedoms are necessary for the flourishing of man. You will base this upon Stoic morality which sees wealth and health as preferred indifferents, not absolutely necessary for virtue. Interestingly, this is probably the main point of contention between a Stoic and an Aristotelian. I don’t want to make this an imaginary debate between a Stoic and an Aristotelian.

Capitalism - Part 2

In the previous essay, I dealt with the erroneous idea of most Libertarians that property rights as defined by Locke are based upon these eternal verities of truth and justice. There is another way that proponents of free-market capitalism try to justify their outlook, and that is through a utilitarian method which sees the ultimate good in society as produced wealth, and states that capitalism is the most efficient system of producing wealth. This can be done through an appeal to history which states the all the nations that have embraced capitalism have thrived, whereas those that have not have remained in stagnation. The problem is that we can't determine the absolute success of a system by an appeal to history. We have no knowledge of multiple human histories to create some type of criteria to judge this history upon, and because of that we don't know both the time period to determine the absolute success of a system, and all of the other societal factors that an economic system is contingent upon for its success. Just as proponents of free market capitalism claim that the success of corporatism in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy cannot be attributed to only the economic system, because there were so many other factors, like a war time economy, and it was only established for such a short time, that is the same argument that the Marxists use against capitalism, mainly the argument that capitalism has only been around for a short period in history, and there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. The proponent of capitalism will have to resort to associating the multitude of societal factors in a way that will always explain away a present problem of capitalism, but will always posit capitalism as the ultimate economic system. This is no different from the Marxists who don't disagree with the proponents of capitalism as far as the historical facts are concerned, but posit different historical theories to explain these facts. I am reminded of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" claim at the demise of Soviet Union, when he stated that we have achieved the end of history in liberal democracy and a free-market economy, only to have Radical Islam creep up on the world stage, but I am sure he would explain that away. To try to assert that capitalism is the most effective system because of the last 200 years will be a futile attempt. The conservative position of somebody like a Hume will just say that it works, and that we must use the "wisdom of tradition" for our judgments. This is limited in that it doesn't allow us to make claims that capitalism is the most successful system, it is limited to just that it works, and if it is "not broke then don't fix it". This doesn't allow for any sort of human innovation as far as economic policies are concerned, there would be no method to deal with present problems like environmental ones. The other way is to posit some meta-history like Fukuyama does, but this always runs the problem of when new factors and problems come to play, how are they explained. Do we use the meta-history of Fukuyama, or the meta-history of Marx to explain them. As I said, we do not have knowledge of previous human histories to determine the veracity of Fukuyama's theory, or that of the Marxists, and yes the present day Marxists have adapted to explain away the problems that history seemed to give to Marx's initial theory. The other way that free-market capitalists try to defend their position is through a philosophical discipline of human action called praxeology. I am new to this disclipline, but from a very cursory understanding it doesn’t seem to have the needed level of explanatory power. I say this because from what I read praxeology sharply distinguishes itself from psychology, in that it makes no claims on human motivation, just on human action, and the consequences of these actions. But for the sake of the original argument, let us assume that capitalism generates the most wealth.

The argument would be something like this, if the ultimate good to be maximized is overall wealth, and capitalism as a system generates the most overall wealth, then it would be the best system. This does not take into consideration how that wealth is distributed; it is true that we are experiencing greater and greater polarization of wealth amongst the members of society. This also does not take into consideration the rights of workers as far as putting a limit to the hours a week they can work, so they can pursue activities necessary for the flourishing of a human being. This includes both the social, creative, physical, and rational dimension of man. Why would overall wealth be a good thing? The proponents of free-market capitalism would throw a whole bunch of reasons, until it is viewed from the human level, then they would say that it allows for humans to pursue projects that were never before possible. This is where the argument lies, because one of the main criticisms of distributism against capitalism is that is creates conditions in society where people are not free to pursue these truly human projects. Thus the goal would be to produce these substantial freedoms that allow for people to live flourishing lives. The way to do this would not be to increase wealth indiscriminately, but to produce goods and services that add to human capabilities. The bring this back to the Kantian perspective of the last essay, to have these substantial freedoms that allow for both these imperfect and perfect virtues to be manifest from the Kantian view. There are two questions that arise from this. Is free market capitalism the best system at the overall distribution of substantial freedoms, and will substantial freedoms alone create the conditions for the flourishing of the human being? I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. The answer to the first would be based in the some of the economic principles of corporatism and distributism. I would urge my readers to look into those economic systems. The answer to the second would be in the notion of an aesthetic-ethical cultural ideal, which I will go into this in the next essay. Substantial freedoms would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for human flourishing.

Capitalism - Part 1

I have been told at times that I have this irrational hatred of capitalism that is based upon a misunderstanding of economic principles. My experience has been that people who place this accusation against me have little or no understanding of the philosophical principles of property rights, systems of justice, and an intelligent understanding of history. I do believe that capitalism can be defended on utilitarian grounds, because it has been shown to be effective at producing wealth. This then brings up the question of what is the ultimate good to be maximized. This good could be overall wealth, it could be substantial freedoms, or it could be technological advancement. Without defining what this ultimate good is to be maximized, we are left to be skeptical of capitalism’s defense on utilitarian grounds. In this posting, I will not deal with capitalism on utilitarian grounds, but I will deal with how the people who defended capitalism as a “natural system of liberty” tried to establish the moral justification of property in an of itself independent of the utility it produced. I will deal with the utilitarian aspect in the next posting.

It is true that Adam Smith saw free market capitalism as the “natural system of liberty”. This is true of other classical liberals, though they might have not used these exact words. Their belief was that it is the morally correct system, and that other systems are unjust. In this society, the government clearly promotes the interests of the capitalist classes, but this was not always the case. Previous forms of governments used to promote the interests of regal or sacerdotal classes. It is a historical fact that land used to be allotted to warlords so that they would provide military service when the king so required. Their property was allotted to them through a title. It is also stated in the second chapter and 100^th verse of Manu Smriti, that the Brahmins are entitled to everything, that all the property is theirs. The reality is that the system of justice of those societies had justified property rights in a way that the classical liberals would have thought to be unjust. So they will not like arguments that it is the state and its system of justice that gives moral sanction to a person owning specific property. They will not like the approach of either Hume or Hobbes who both see the state or sovereign as the ultimate justification of property. Here is a quote from Hume to show his argument.

Our property is nothing but those goods, whose constant possession is establish'd by the laws of society; that is, by the laws of justice. Those, therefore, who make use of the words property, or right, or obligation, before they have explain'd the origin of justice, or even make use of them in that explication, are guilty of a very gross fallacy, and can never reason upon any solid foundation. A man's property is some object related to him. This relation is not natural, but moral, and founded on justice. Tis very preposterous, therefore, to imagine, that we can have any idea of property, without fully comprehending the nature of justice, and shewing its origin in the artifice and contrivance of man. The origin of justice explains that of property. The same artifice gives rise to both.

If I was to analyze the sphere of activity that man operates in, there are certain things that can be strongly associated with him and other things that cannot be strongly associated with him. The association of the person with his actions is so strong that many philosophical issues are brought up, including that of free will, responsibility, and intentionality. The same can also be said of mental states, the association of a person with his memories and experiences are so strong that it brings up the philosophical question of personal identity. This is not the case with property; there is no immutable bond between an object in nature and a specific person. That bond can be easily disrupted at anytime, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it is vulnerable to a disruption that never is the case with personal actions or mental states. Therefore the goal of the classical liberals, the most paradigm example, that of John Locke was to justify property through a person mixing his labor into an object. Here is Locke’s argument.

Though the Earth…be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.

The argument to make any sense is that somehow when I mix my labor into an object in nature, its arrangement is based upon a force that is part of me, and thus it belongs to me. The reality is that this argument from labor which was held by most proponents of free market capitalism is either reduced to an absurdity or ironically has become ammunition for some of the most ardent anti-capitalists, which are communists. The reality is that there is no magical force that emanates from me when I alter something in nature, the form that it presently has is not dependent on me, or is part of me. If I die, then the form of that object still remains. This argument is also used by the Marxists in defending the worker as constantly mixing his labor in the world, and the capitalist classes just functioning as exploiters who cease to mix there labor into object. This argument also leads to absurd conclusions like me dropping my sandwich on a person’s car, and thus mixing my labor into it, and it then becomes mine. For the Lockean to defend this argument he must add aspects that come from other justifications of property that I am more sympathetic towards. The first is the difference between me dropping my sandwich on a person’s car versus me creating something productive like a chair out of wood. This distinction tends to invert this process, thus not seeing the person as developing property, but property as the development of the self. It is the person that creates, and thus is able to engage in giving and exchange, and thus is able to further his existence as an ethical being. The same aspect is necessary for the classical liberal to provide a distinction between him and the Marxists, in that once the labor has been mixed by the original person, the people that work for him respect his property, and have engaged in a contract with him. This then leads to the Kantian view of property as the substantial aspect of free agency, and then it forces other into duties, in this sense the duty to uphold contracts, and not steal. Therefore if duties are imposed on others, they have a right in determining how property rights are established. This is the point where I disagree with liberalism; people are not on islands that exist separate from other people. The fact that you have property forces ethical duties on me to respect your property; it is a community of free and ethical beings that validate your property rights. If the community of free and ethical beings comes to the rational conclusion to redistribute wealth so that many people will have substantial freedoms like health care, proper nutrition, and education so that some girl does not get her sweet 16, then it is justified, because your wealth is justified in the sense that an ethical community justifies it. The ethical community should clearly not justify this, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1065908992986670309&q=mtv+sweet+sixteen&hl=en

when there are many that do not have the substantial freedoms like proper nutrition, health care, and education.

The Kantian and Hegelian basis for property rights will lead us to a different system. Property in this sense will not be seen as something which can be attained through the vicious means, and then can be used indiscriminately for activities which serve only to degrade overall humanity. Property will be seen as the substantial aspect of a free being, which will allow him to pursue truly human projects. In the next posting I will deal with economics from a more utilitarian perspective, in where I will go into the good that is to be maximized.

Manu Smriti II – 100. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is indeed, entitled to it all.

Point of Clarification
I have had a friend tell me that the sandwich example is bad because it doesn’t show intention, and a sandwich is not a tool like a wrench, therefore there is no labor being done. The point was to reduce it to an absurdity. For Locke it is the person affecting the object, so if he is the first person in the line of efficient causes, it doesn’t matter whether he had intention or the intermediate causes were done through tools. This was to contrast it with the Hegelian notion of property as affecting the self. For Hegel it is property that will allow us to get outside of pure-subjectivity, what is in the mind gets actualized. Think of the Aristotelian example of the artist and the granite making the statue. The final cause which is in the mind of the artist is the manifest in the formal cause of the statue. This creativity and embrace of rationality ties in very strongly with the Kantian idea of property as the substantial form of free agency. What that means for Kant is that the freedom of the will which is necessary for a moral being inwardly finds its outward expression in property for a system of laws. To put it in a different language, the Self is not enlarged by some physical imprint on a natural object that bears resemblance to the person. We are not like male cats spraying an object. It is the Self being enlarged through his rationality being expressed upon nature in a technical manner, and thus using that same rationality in an ethical manner with other rational beings. It is that the rationality of man is the foundation for the Geist that is expressed in the technical and ethical nature of man.

Duke Rape Case Scandal - My analysis

The news has presented us with an interesting case study for further analysis. That is the Duke Rape case. The three parties that I wish to focus on in this incident are the Black “Social Justice” organizations, the District Attorney Michael Nifong, and the accuser in the case.

I was watching the O’Reilly Factor last night when Bill decided to give his two cents on this issue. Because of the “mental state” of the accuser, he felt it would be cruel to attack her, and so he directed his attacks to Michael Nifong. As much as I believe that Michael Nifong is a despicable individual, there are still some things that need to be said about the accuser. It is possible that she isn’t morally blameworthy in this situation because she might not qualify as a moral being. Considering the circumstances that she was raised in, the behavior that she learned to imitate is not that of virtuous people. Also, she probably does not have the intellectual ability to morally reflect on situations, and thus is unable to adjust accordingly to what practical reason should dictate. I will let my readers interpret what should follow according to their own value system, whether that is one of the bleeding heart liberal, or possibly the classical wisdom of Aristotle.

My next analysis will be that of the Black “Social Justice” organizations. From the start we saw the New Black Panther party protesting at Duke. Jesse Jackson also made comments against the lacrosse players. To really understand this it is good to take into consideration the O.J Simpson case, just as the evidence clearly showed his guilt, and the case against the Duke Lacrosse players was terrible, the mindset of Black America was to free O.J. Simpson and skewer the Duke Lacrosse players. Why is this the case? I believe this is because of the way that Black movements see justice. Rather than justice dealing with individual persons, which deals with their individual actions and punishes or rewards them accordingly, the Black movements like the Feminist movements see justice in a Marxist way. From this Marxist outlook, what really matters are these classes or power structures, and the conflicts between them. From the perspective of the Black movements, there is perceived to be this class that holds too much power, and oppresses other people. Let’s call him “whitey” or “the man”. Well anytime a big name case involves both blacks and whites; it ceases to be about the individuals and their actions, but that of a way to defeat “whitey” or “the man”. It is not very important that O.J. Simpson murdered two people, why is justice important on an individual level. It is also not important that these Duke students were innocent; if it is a good way to attack this white power structure. It is all about weakening the white class, and strengthening the black class to try to achieve their desired equilibrium, that is where true justice lies. This is important to understanding these ideologies, whether they be Black or Feminist, justice is not important on an individual level, it is all about “social justice”.

I will end with my analysis of Michael Nifong, someone who should be seen as a failure of a human being, and should live in public shame till the day he dies. This is a man who saw as his only good in life that of his career goal. He was willing to destroy the lives of three students and their families so that he might retain his position as District Attorney. There used to be the distinction between techne and praxis. That is the distinction between being good at your technical skill, and being good at being a human. This person did not value the end of a being virtuous human being who promotes justice, but rather a career goal in which any means to achieve this end, no matter how vile, were justified. Michael Nifong is a paradigm example of the problem of the “career mentality” that exists in this country. Many people have chosen to pursue a wretched human existence if it means the goal of economic success, because the notion of the good life is seen as too anachronistic.

Nietzsche and the Sky Father

In the same book where Nietzsche declares that “God is dead”, there is also a passage that reads like a prayer to the highest Aryan deity, Dyaus Pitr, who is the Shining Sky Father.

O sky above me! O pure, deep sky! You abyss of light! Gazing into you, I tremble with divine desires. To cast myself into your height---that is my depth! To hide myself in your purity ---that is my innocence! And when I wandered alone what did my soul hunger after by night and on treacherous paths? And when I climbed mountains, whom did I always seek, if not you upon mountains? And all my wandering and mountain climbing, it was merely a necessity and an expedient of clumsiness: my whole will desires only to fly, to fly into you!

Even though I believe that the notion of autonomy articulated by certain dialectical philosophers is superior to the notion of liberty that is expressed by individuals like Locke, I also believe that the notion of the Nietzsche’s Sovereign Individual is superior to that of autonomy. Nietzsche also lists two more affirmative types in that of the Noble and the Artist. In the above paragraph with great artistic reverence Nietzsche saw the shining sky father, and it will be through the ancient Aryan religious sentiment that both our sovereignty and nobility will be realized as well.

A Martial Spirit, Part 2

I decided to look into some of the more martial aspects of Hinduism, and I came across some very interesting speeches taking place in Gujarat. The one that I felt was the most passionate was given by a spiritual leader called, Sadhvi Rithambara. She had a fire that the other male leaders of this organization could not match. It is this aspect of Hinduism along with its deeper philosophies that need to be given focus. I heard in Gujarat it is Muslims who live in terror, not like it is in the European countries, where it is the Europeans that are in terror of the Muslims. I watched a rally by a radical imam in Britian, and he mocked the British so bad, telling them not to interfere with the Muslims, or they will pay. His tone was a sardonic one, and at this moment I said that in this respect America is superior to Europe. We commanded the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, and their defiance was met with punishment. I would like to say that I am not a big fan of the Neo-conservatism that America wishes to spread, I would much rather see this martial spirit exemplified in a more traditional Indo-European system.

Here is the speech by Sadhvi Rithambara, it is a sign of the martial virtues returning to the Aryan Vedic Dharma.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8817218285615987893&q=vhp&hl=en

I find many parts of this speech beautiful. The comment about planting the flag of India into the chest of Islamabad, and destroying Karachi and Rawalpindi evokes images of the ancient Aryan warriors. I also liked when it was chanted, "Victory to the Lord's Holy Army", and the crowd responded by what seemed to be a hail of some sort. This aspect of Hinduism is definitely more pleasing to serious minded people than the form which the hippies promulgated.

A Martial Spirit

I was reading an article by Koenraad Elst, and though I greatly respect him, I feel that his criticism of the Nouvelle Droit requires a response. The article in question is located at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/Nazi5Poewe2.html, and though the criticism of the Nouvelle Droit is a side issue from the main topic, this is what interested me about the article, and warrants a response. More specifically, my response will be to two points that he had about the Nouvelle Droit, because these are important issues.

5) its sympathy for Islam, one element which it does indeed have in common with Hitler and Himmler and the authors discussed by Poewe, and strange for alleged neo-Pagans given that Mohammed’s career consisted in the extermination of Paganism from Arabia; (6) its lack of a credible philosophical or religious backbone, compensated for with restless explorations of Pagan mythologies and frivolous exercises in aimless erudition or contrarious rhetoric (the annual conference in Paris is called Journée de la Pensée Rebelle, “day of rebellious thought”, a sign of prolonged adolescence), which struck me by its contrast with the solid philosophical and religious grounding of modern Hindu thinkers whom I had read, such as Sri Aurobindo, or whom I knew in person, particularly Ram Swarup and Sita Ram Goel;

The sympathy for Islam is not because of Islam per se, but because of two features which are present in Islam to the exclusion of other religions nowadays. Islam has a martial spirit, and it seems that other religions lack this martial spirit. Though Koenraad Elst admires the Vedic Dharma for its sophisticated philosophies, I think that it is equally important to revive the martial spirit of the Vedic Dharma. It is time that verses in the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna it is his duty to fight gets as much attention as the verses dealing with its advanced metaphysics. It is time that songs are sung about concepts of the warriors engaging in activities like a Rakshasha Vivaha as a privilege of warriors. It is time that the Vedic Dharma is stressed by figures like Bhima with his awesome mace, rather than people singing mantras while throwing flower petals around each other. It is time the martial spirit awakens in the Vedic Dharma. Islam also seems to have a spirit that is moving history at the moment and is opposed to liberal democracy and global capitalism. Though I am opposed to sharia law in any Aryan land, the Muslims have stood up against liberal democracy and global capitalism. There are political and economic ideals that mirror the Aryan Dharma, and these are found in autonomy and economic justice, not the empty notion of negative freedom and economic liberty, which just results in the exploitation and reduction of man. A follower of the Aryan Dharma must have the same spirit to reject liberal democracy and global capitalism for something clearly better as the Muslim does for his sharia law. I also would rather lament the conquest of Zoroastrianism by Islam more than Arabic paganism. Though I sympathize with the past Arabic pagans to have their traditional religion, it is more important that we associate ourselves with an Aryan Dharma more so than a general paganism.

As far as the second point is concerned, I do agree that it is imperative to have a sophisticated metaphysics. This is what I greatly admire about Vedanta. It is also equally important to deal with the cultural aspects of the present world, and show how a traditional Indo-European pagan outlook could help. This I believe is the project of Alain de Benoist. Also, I will reiterate my previous point because it is of grave importance. Though the Vedic Dharma has a metaphysics which is superior to the Christian or Islamic, it needs to reassert its martial spirit.

The warrior's look is like a thunderous rain-cloud's, when, armed with mail, he seeks the lap of battle. Be thou victorious with unwounded body: so let the thickness of thy mail protect thee. With Bow let us win kine, with Bow the battle, with Bow be victors in our hot encounters. The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the foeman: armed with the Bow may we subdue all regions.

Rig Veda Hymns to the Weapons of War 1-2

Minor Analysis of Christianity

The question is, why was Christianity defined in this positivistic manner that is overly concerned about doctrine and dogmas, and not a spiritual outlook based upon intelligent metaphysics and a genuine religious sentiment? This has to do with the nature of Jesus, and then in turn the nature of man. When the doctrine of Athanasius won out over that of Arius, the Christian faith defined itself in such a way that would lead to Augustine, Tertullian, Luther, Kierkegaard, etc.. Athanasius defined Jesus in such a way that his spiritual nature was eternal, of the same substance as the father, and the logos, which for the Greeks permeated all reality, became restricted to a man in Palestine for a short period in history, now in control by the church. What was spiritual in Jesus was the essence of God which we as creatures can never imitate. Salvation is a product of God’s grace which is given through the church. Though if we follow the position of Arius, and Jesus was created, and achieved his status as God’s son through participation in the Logos, then we as human could do this as well. It would be through the logos, which is all pervading, then swelling in our soul that we would achieve salvation, moksha, nirvana, etc., and Jesus would be a role model, not a guilt sacrifice. The key here is that a God-Man creates a gulf between him and the rest of us, that doesn’t allow for the spirituality of emulation, but that the eternal deity is the only one that can satisfy this debt through sacrifice that we humans can never pay, except in the infinite interest of guilt. This works perfect for institutional control of the human soul. The church now through being the bride of Christ on earth becomes the one who is in control of how this grace is given. All of our spirituality is lost; it is only through obeisance through the church, that we are saved. The Protestants are no better, they have replaced the sacraments of Catholicism with the degrading level of guilt that we see in Luther and Calvin and the ridiculous fanaticism and silliness that we see in Pentecostalism. This is because they have the same core theology of Catholicism, no matter how much they protest. Catholicism flourished when there was the need for a strong monolithic religious institution that could give stability to a strong monolithic political institution. The political institutions and culture do not have the need for a Catholic presence to invigorate it; the theolgia gloria is a dead theology. Christianity is in the process of greater and greater dissolution, and is being more and more spoken in a Protestant voice, a Protestantism that is Baptist and Pentecostal.

Christianity has never really been productive in the spiritual sense, it is not productive in the cultural sense anymore, and is not necessary for political reasons considering the infrastructure of the “Christian world”. This spiritual vacuum must be filled, because the vulgar hedonism that I see in consumerist atheistic materialism absolutely sickens me. My opinion had Arius won over Athanasius, Jesus would have been a spiritual figure which would of led to a greater figure that would of have had his birth in Europe, who would have been Aryan.

Some Religious Sentiments

In the previous article, I was critical of Christianity being a positivistic religion. I still hold to this position, but the reality is that Christianity is still the dominant religion amongst people of European descent, so I feel it is necessary to take some of its key figures and reinterpret them to create what I called in the previous article, a metaphysical religion. The attack in the previous article was centered on Jesus as rising from the grave to conquer sin and death, and Adam as responsible for this sin and death by eating from an apple from a tree. Taken literally this is credulous and superstitious, but allegorically, I believe it represents a schema for a good metaphysics. When Kant reinterpreted Christianity to fit his moral religion, he also got rid of any elements that were superstitious. In his moral-religious philosophy there was the aspect of free choice that had the propensity to sin, and there was the aspect that chose to act according to the categorical imperative. This propensity to sin was seen as coming from the heteronomy that acts according to immoral imperatives to achieve a desired end in this world. The figure that will exemplify this behavior is Adam; he is the propensity to sin. The pure and moral activity of the categorical imperative is characterized by Jesus. Jesus is the ideal and autonomous self that acts according to the dictates of practical reason. This can be further developed by Schopenhauer in which we have an empirical and noumenal self. The empirical self is that which is conditioned by space and time, limited by the present events of the world, where the noumenal self is our ideal nature, our eternal character. This is also a good heuristic for understanding Heidegger, in which Adam can be seen as the inauthentic self which loses itself in the interconnected network of beings, whereas Jesus can be seen the authentic self which is truly searching after Being.

The point is that we are in a world where there is ceaseless activity, and we feel trapped and powerless. This is especially true of our modern capitalist society. We have the choice of living an inauthentic and heteronomous life, where we are acting according to desires that seek limiting ends that are part of our empirical existence, or we can have an authentic and autonomous existence where we act according to our eternal and spiritual nature. The reality is that this is a more Gnostic interpretation of Christianity that is in line with the Pagan mystery religions, but the positivism in Christianity has been disastrous for the spirituality of the European peoples.

To give an explanation of what I mean. The reality is that the world is radically contingent. When we seek after meaning in a career, all of the factors that surround our career goals are contingent upon many factors. There are stories of people who worked in the IT industry for many years progressing on their career then losing their job during the dot com debacle and experiencing miserable depression. There are also people who seek after ultimate meaning in life from a significant other, and then upon this relationship failing, they experience miserable depression. They then seek after anyone to give them meaning, allowing themselves to be exploited. I used to work as a floor host in a strip club while I was in school, and these people are prey to the girls, the girls give them a false sense of self esteem while they foolishly hand over their wallets to them. What is your ultimate nature, and what does your ultimate nature relate to?

We have serious problems. We have allowed economic and romantic interests to dominate our entire life. This society has idealized the man of economic success, and the woman who believes that she is entitled by the cosmic laws of the universe an existence in which all of her romantic desires are fulfilled, and her man sees her as the most meaningful aspect of his life. While we are obsessed in all of these contingent aspects of life that do not deal with the ultimate nature of man, there are a group of people that still hold to this world being radically contingent, that all of our activities will expand into nothingness. There is one divine source that unifies all of these activities, and this divine source gives all meaning, and deals with the ultimate nature of man. Their career does not give ultimate meaning, their relationships do not give ultimate meaning, and their very life does not give ultimate meaning. It is what they believe to be their eternal self relating to the Absolute. I am talking about a more traditional Islamic perspective, which realizes the radical contingency of this existence. I personally would like a position that comes to these conclusions through more of a path of illumination as opposed to fanaticism, but that is a problem inherent in a revealed religion as opposed to a metaphysical one. I have given two links to show what our society idealizes and what their society idealizes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQy3BWj8FgA http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1065908992986670309&q=mtv+sweet+sixteen&hl=en

For all of the many benefits that this society has, we have lost our sense of nobility. From this perspective, the Islamic world is right to reject Western Society. The glamorization of the materialism and the existential solipsism in the sweet sixteen clip versus the spirituality and the sense of higher ideals in the video of Hajj prayer shows something that we lack, and what they still have. This is where I see possible value in certain teachings of Jesus. There are verses in the Bible which Jesus is critical of those who place economic concerns, relationships, and corporeal existence over spiritual concerns. I will list a few.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”, Luke 14:26.
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. Matthew 21:12
And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? Luke 12: 22-24

I believe that the only way that this can be taken intelligently is as hyperbole, the reality is that man is a political animal and his existence cannot be a solitary one. The point is what in life has ultimate meaning. I do believe that the message of Jesus was a particular one that dealt with the conditions of Judea at the time, and not universal to the general condition of humanity. This is where I like the message of the Buddha, it deals with the human condition, and its most fundamental level. I do realize that my outlook on Christianity is unorthodox, but that is only because of the Trinitarian version that won out. I will deal with this in the next article.

Metaphysical Religion

I was reading the review of Keys of Gnosis by Robert Bolton on the Integral Tradition Publishing site, and it had an interesting insight. That insight was what is called Metaphysical Religion. Here is the section of the review that spurned my interest, “For a long time now, religion in the West has been polarized between a democratic kind of faith meant for simple believers, and divine mysteries so high that hardly anyone can claim to know much about them. The vital connecting link between them, that of metaphysical religion, is all but lost…”.

What he exactly means by this, I do not know entirely because I have not read the book, but nevertheless has given me ideas, and also strongly interested me in this purchasing this book. Even though Robert Bolton seems sympathetic to a sort of Platonic-Christian outlook, I assert that there is a problem in Christianity that comes from accepting an idea of a “metaphysical religion”. Christianity is a positivistic religion, and by that I mean that its focus is on supposed events in history and the dogma associated with them. Christianity asserts that man fell from grace through the sin of a historical figure called Adam, and that a historical figure called Jesus died on a cross, and rose from the grave three days later, and faith in this Jesus figure forms the essence of this faith. This is asserted in the Bible itself, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain”, from 1st Corinthians 15:14, and “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins”, from 1st Corinthians 15:17. Also it seems that a very literal belief in the creation story is needed, because of Adam’s role in all of this, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”, from Romans 5:12. This creates a religious outlook which is so superstitious that it is tantamount to extreme credulity. There are many epistemological problems associated with miracles. There is no criteria to determine the veracity of them, since they go against what we know of the laws of nature, and since miracles are common in many religions, there is no reason to believe the Jesus miracle over others, except if you were to create the epistemological conditions centered around supposed Christian history, and thus be engaged in horrible question begging. There is also no reason to believe that our original ancestors were Adam and Eve over those purported in other creation myths, and the creation story in Genesis is ridiculous, but necessary to believe in for this Adam character to be given the necessary significance. I can go further into this, but for the sake of brevity, I feel my point has been made. This is where I like the idea of a “metaphysical religion”.

From the perspective of Advaita Vedanta, it is the metaphysical principles of Maya and Avidya which are the foundation. From the perspective of Buddhism, the metaphysical and phenomenological outlook in the paticca sammupada correlate very strongly with the Transcendental Idealism of Kant and Schopenhauer, which is far superior to the materialism that is still the common viewpoint. The runes of Nordic mysticism can be seen as extra dimensional principles which manifest themselves into this reality through natural processes. The only possible critique would be of speculative metaphysics, but then everybody outside of Hume could be accused of this, and that form of skepticism leads into many problems. The reality is that these metaphysical principles allow our consciousness to grow and develop; our consciousness is in the process of always appropriating more and more knowledge, rather then coming up to the roadblock of superstition and credulity that is in the Christian religion. This I believe is the reason for the interest in Eastern and pagan religions, that being religions based upon metaphysical principles that the intelligence of man has an affinity towards rather than supposed historical events that clearly are absurd, and repulsive to the intelligence of man.

Technology, Good or Bad?

There is a spurious view that an essential aspect of the Pagan Weltanschauung is a “Back to the Earth” philosophy that rejects technology and a lifestyle that incorporates technology. That being said, I do assert there are two characteristics of this “Back to the Earth” philosophy that are essential to the Pagan Weltanschauung that can be incorporated very well with technology. The first is a rejection of the Last Man ideal in which comfort, ease, and pleasure are valued more than struggle, overcoming and excellence. In a technologically advanced society it is possible for people to live a lifestyle where they can have a sedated existence in relative comfort while they are easily entertained. A good example of this is an episode of Friends where the two characters Joey and Chandler sit on their lazy boys then order pizza and have it delivered to their neighbors apartment so they do not have to leave their chairs, and then cancel their order of pop out of fear that they will have to go to the bathroom and thus be forced to get up off of their chairs. This would be impossible in a society where they are out in the cold and they must be hunt or gather their food or die. There is also the aspect of technology that allows easy access to information, thus helping people increase in knowledge. There is also the aspect of technology that allows for the creation of gymnasiums and superior nutrition so that people might attain a higher degree of athleticism. Right now the fact that I am at my computer with internet access gives me access to a virtually endless source of knowledge, and also the fact that I have a proper lighting so that I can read this information helps as well. This would not be possible if I was in a cold hut in a society where candles are luxury due to a paucity of them. It is also a great boon to have access to a gymnasium with a good weightlifting facility and cardiovascular training equipment. I am also fond of the fact that nutritional labels list the macronutrient profile of the food, that I can buy a multivitamin that has an amount of vitamins and minerals that could not obtained from whole food sources, and that I can purchase supplements that make my brain and body work better. I know a possible response can be technology created hydrogenated fats which are extremely unhealthy. This is true, but hydrogenated fats were created out of economic concerns to have fats that have a longer shelf life. It is not a question of technology here, but a responsible use of technology. Technology has also created protein powders that are essential to a serious bodybuilding program. The reality is that technology has created the conditions to achieve a physical and mental excellence that could not be achieved in more primitive conditions, even though it has created the conditions to allow for the Last Man. The evil is not technology itself, but a cultural value system that utilizes it for purely economic concerns and promotion of base utility.

The second point is that “living close to Nature” will open up the deeper aspects of reality through an aesthetic appreciation of nature. I agree with the feature of this view that nature has a deeper aspect that speaks of forms and principles that transcend our common perspective. This is why a walk through a forested area, gazing at the night sky, beholding the expansive sea are experiences that I feel to be good for the development of our being. I just would like to have these experiences after a nutritious meal and a hot shower after a good night sleep in a bed. There is a possible response that technology is destroying our environment, and thus depleting it of its aesthetic value. My response would be for the promotion of a proper use of technology that does not abuse our environment, but uses our environment intelligently and also cherishes it for its aesthetic value.

Christopher Langan's challenge

I was listening to an interview of Christopher Langan on youtube, and I must say that he has some very interesting ideas. I am in total agreement with him as to redefining and reshaping what it means to be human. I am saddened by the view of man that is prevalent in modern society as a consumer who only exists for toil and amusement. This idea of man needs to be overcome. I am also in agreement with the idea that we need to develop a more advanced ethic. I will go into this in a later article, possibly the next one, so I will halt on developing this concept of an advanced ethic. What I want to focus on in this posting is his challenge of intelligence. He states very clearly, that if someone states that they are more intelligent than him, he would like them to present their view of reality. He would ask the other person how sophisticated a picture of reality he developed, all of what he was holding in his mind simultaneously, and what he could construct with these ideas. The question then arises, am I capable of understanding his view of reality, and he is he capable of understanding mine. I also believe that implicit in this challenge of sophistication is not just complexity, but also consistency, since an inconsistent outlook of reality is not the hallmark of great intelligence, no matter how many grand ideas are thrown out. All of what a person is able to hold in his mind must be coupled with the ability to develop them consistently. I like this challenge. This is how I will approach people in determining their intelligence. I would like to know their picture of reality. I would like to know their metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, theory of aesthetics, politics, economics, existential outlook, scientific outlook, etc.. You tell me yours, and I will tell you mine. Let us see who has a more sophisticated outlook.

I would like to state what I believe to be his argument. To use a computer analogy, he sees intelligence as the amount of human RAM and the quality of the human operating system. Imagine a computer that can run a multitude of applications that are very advanced versus a computer that can only run a couple, and has an operating system that cannot handle some of the more advanced programs. To apply this back to the human level, the simple tasks that involve normal everyday activity that make you functional in society do not require an “advanced computer”, but having a sophisticated view of reality does.

My Blog

I would like to spend this time to describe the format of my blog. The topics will be whatever thought happens to grab my attention, and then being able to build upon that thought to such a degree that it will in the end be a sufficiently elaborated topic. I will also try to maintain a schedule of one posting per week on every Friday, unless conditions dictate otherwise. For example, I am starting a paper on the Paticca Sammupada of Buddhism and Transcendental Idealism. This will force me to spend the next two weeks on this paper, so I will be unable to post on my blog. This is an unfinished project of mine, and it is time that I finish it. I am also going to edit some of my previous posts so that they are worded better. I appreciate all of readers, especially the return visitors who I see spent good time reading my postings. It is because of you, I will post my paper on my blog, and hope that you find it great reading.

Erromenon Se Hoi Theoi Diaphulattoien

300

I must say that I am very excited about the movie 300. It is a movie based upon the novel 300 by Frank Miller, which in turn is based upon the historical event at the Battle of Thermopylae in which an army of Greeks, mainly Spartans held off the massive Persian army to such an extent that Xerxes was unable to conquer the Greek states. At first glance this movie seems to have elements of both history and fantasy. There was the Battle of Thermopylae, Emperor Xerxes, and King Leonidas. Also some of the characters in the movie look like they belong in a fantasy movie; the previews have shown certain forces in the Persian army to look monstrous. I applaud this use of historical facts with fantastical elaboration. The reason is because this event is best described by what Nietzsche called the monumental method, since the antiquarian and critical doesn’t do full justice in describing this historical event. The monumental method shows that the greatness that surrounds that event was possible, and thus can be possible again. It affirms the greatness of the human spirit. The antiquarian method lacks the ability to generate new life and will new things, since it doesn’t stress the relevance of this event in history relative to the condition of humanity in the present. The critical method with its focus on over-analyzing details will tend to miss the forest for the trees. The message that this movie sends with its focus on the small number of Spartans battling the immense Persian army is that it is not numbers that ultimately matter, but strength of will, force of intellect, and a spirit of artistic reverence. The human condition today is very sad, we are treading the path of the last man, and we need a role model like King Leonidas to show us what we as humans are capable of accomplishing. I only hope that this theme for a movie is developed again and again. I would love to see a movie about the Emperor Julian in which he is portrayed as a sage and warrior who has scenes in which mystery and magic surround him and other pagan sages, and which the opposing Christians are seen portrayed very mechanistically eroding the mystery and magic in the world. It could end with his death being the death of something greater, the death of the mystical worldview which gave birth to centuries of darkness.

Epistemology and Metaphysics

I just got done reading about both epistemology and metaphysics and I really believe that I have gained an insight into how to think about certain aspects of philosophy better. The main issue that was brought up was whether epistemology should be based upon metaphysics or should metaphysics based upon epistemology. After I get done giving an explanation of what I read, many will say, “but isn’t that obvious”. I will agree that it is something that those with a philosophical background know (including me), but it is not a philosophical tool that we actively apply to understand philosophical issues that it would be relevant towards, and I believe that it should be.

The reading was mostly about the nature of words being able to give truthful statements about the Brahman; this book is about Advaita Vedanta and its application to religious discourse. The part that I really cogitated upon was the beginning in which it was stated that certain philosophers and philosophies have based metaphysics on epistemology, and certain philosophers have based epistemology upon metaphysics. The philosophers that based metaphysics on epistemology were Descartes, Locke, and Kant, whereas the philosophers that based epistemology on metaphysics were Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. The philosophies that based metaphysics on epistemology were the Carvakas, Baudhas, and Vaisheshika, whereas it stated that almost all other philosophies of India based epistemology on metaphysics. It was stated almost exactly like this, with no explanation of their philosophies. Fortunately, I am familiar with all of these philosophers and schools of thought with the exception of Whitehead; therefore I was able to understand what was meant. What was instantly aroused was a mental activity that put a lot into perspective.

The common classification of these above philosophers does not fit into the mold of basing epistemology upon metaphysics or vice versa, with the exception of the Indian philosophical schools. It seems that the nastika schools seem to base metaphysics on epistemology whereas the astika schools base epistemology on metaphysics, I know that Vaisheshika is an astika darshana and it listed as the former, but besides this anomaly the above point still stands. The reason is obvious, if the Vedas and its derivatives (Upanishads, Aryanakas, and Brahmanas) are the highest source of knowledge then whatever metaphysical principles derived from these texts would clearly have veracity. The astika schools have their name from the fact that they don’t see the Vedas as giving ultimate knowledge; therefore they must get their knowledge from another source. This is my personal opinion on the difference between Buddhism and Vedanta, the Buddha relied mostly on his phenomenology, whereas the Vedantists relied mostly on Shruti and the Vedanta Sutra. I do believe that the Buddha understood his experience using the religious language of India, which included Vedanta, and that the Vedantists like Shankara meditated and reflected on what is real, but I am only saying what I believe to be their foundation, what I believe to be their starting point. I apologize if I am going on a tangent now, but there is so much that I want to say, but I promise to stick to my point now, and not deviate from it.

When Descartes, Locke, and Kant are classified in the history of philosophy, they are not grouped together, except under that title of Modern Philosophy. Descartes is labeled as a rationalist, Locke is labeled as an empiricist, and Kant is labeled as a transcendental idealist. The same goes for Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. Spinoza is labeled as a rationalist, Hegel is labeled as a German Idealist, and Whitehead’s system as process philosophy. Anyone understanding their philosophy will see that these labels make sense, and I am not trying to redefine how Modern Philosophy is articulated, I will just try to give an additional insight. The method of Descartes was to use methodological doubt to question everything until he could find that one certain bit of knowledge that could not be doubted, and build his system from there. For Descartes this was the cogito, the fact that he thinks. Even if one was to doubt consciousness, they have just affirmed it through the conscious act of doubting. Then Descartes attempts to build a system based upon what he “proves” to be true using reason. The reason I placed the quotes around proves was his fallacious attempt at proving God via the ontological argument. Locke started from our experience of sensory ideas as knowledge, and then analyzes them into primary and secondary qualities, and builds a system based upon this. Kant sought out to determine what the necessary conditions of experience were and then determine based upon this epistemic condition what is the extent of out knowledge. Spinoza started from the metaphysical premise of substance as that which exists which has infinite attributes and then elaborates upon it. Hegel’s Absolute from which his system rested upon was a meta-consciousness which proceeds to lose itself in nature and then regain itself in spirit. I am unfamiliar with the philosophy of Whitehead, but I should start to study him, because from the little that I gleaned, his system could probably answer the dilemma that arose in the previous post.

The reason that I write this is because if one starts from epistemological premises, then having an actual metaphysics is problematic. Descartes’ insight has been the foundation of phenomenology, and Husserl has taken shown most metaphysical positions that he held to be in doubt, though his cogito as a phenomenological foundation is bedrock. Locke’s empiricism was used against him by Berkeley to destroy his materialism, and then later by Hume in which any metaphysics is impossible. Kant’s system divided reality, or aspects of reality, into both phenomena and noumena, leaving the ultimate nature of existence unknown. The problem with the rationalists tends to be of a different sort. Since they start with a metaphysical principle that has no ground of correspondence outside of their reason, and use reason beyond its scope to construct how this principle develops, they are accused of speculative metaphysics. The main problem is that if we start with what we know we are unable to get to knowing what is, but if we start from what is we really having now way of knowing that this is what is. I have methods that I use to try to solve this problem; it is a synthesis of transcendental idealism, phenomenology, and mysticism, which is for a later date. I leave you to do your own cogitations upon this.

Note: I will try to maintain a structure and life for this blog, and rather than having 40 posts the first month, and 1 or 2 in the sixth (I have seen this in other blogs), I will post one article every Friday, possibly two. I know that seems much less activity that its inception, but I do have other projects.

The book in question was Problems and Perspectives in Religious Discourse: Advaita Vedanta Implications by John Grimes

I am in the process of editing this post

This is the Immortal, The fearless. This is Brahman

The title is taken from the Chandogya Upanishad in which a very insightful sermon on the nature of the Brahman and Atman are expounded. This article will deal with these two notions central to the Vaidika Dharma. To get things started, I will comment on the writings of Julius Evola from Revolt Against The Modern World, in which he describes the historical development of the Brahman from the original Aryan view to the pantheistic interpretation of later Vedanta.

Julius Evola asserts the spiritual Weltanschauung of the Aryan declined when the Brahman and the Atman were conceived in pantheistic terms as the primordial principle from which all life proceeds and into which all life is reabsorbed. This he sees as lamentable due to the corollaries of this position which erode at the foundation of the noble path. These include the loss of spiritual personality, and the doctrine of the equality of all creatures rooted in this pantheistic interpretation. Also, asceticism now is seen as a method of escapism rather than true transcendental fulfillment. This is contrasted to the original Aryan view in which the Brahman is seen as a magical force or power described in the Atharva Veda and Brahmanas that the Aryan directs through his rites. Also the original doctrine of the Atman is reaffirmed in original Buddhism when the atman is seen as nirvana, which is the state to be ultimately achieved. What was promoted was a heroic theme in which the attainment of immortality was to be won.

I have two perspectives on this, and I will use Kantian philosophical language for the purpose of elucidation, not for the purpose of expounding an actual doctrine. From a practical perspective, I find the original Aryan Vedic view to be ideal. The original ideas of the Brahman and Atman are very affirmative. The Brahman as the ultimate force or magical power that is so strongly tied into the Dharma of the Aryans lays the foundation of a religion in which power, mystery, beauty, and wisdom achieve their crowning glory. It also confers an ontological status based upon what conditions of existence attract the Brahman. Therefore conditions of Aryan birth, male birth, and attachment to the Eternal Way allow us to be conduits for this Brahman. The Atman as the highest goal to be attained gives us the psychology of striving to further and further perfection. These doctrines should be core to the traditional Indo-European perspective.

The problem is from a theoretical perspective. From a theoretical perspective, I have a strong desire to posit a first cause. This first cause will be seen as the necessary being through which all contingent beings have their being. There is this strong desire to see the Brahman as both the necessary being and how the Brahman was described in the previous paragraph. The dilemma that arises is if I posit the Brahman as a necessary being then I create a metaphysics that leads to one that Julius Evola was critical of for practical reasons, and if I retain the Brahman in the manner that I want, and also posit a necessary being, then this necessary being will overshadow the Braham, because there can only be one necessary being, and the Brahman must be contingent upon it, therefore lowering the power of the Brahman.

The way that I am thinking about proceeding is to take these original ideas of the Brahman and Atman and work them into a phenomenological description of reality, and thus interpret other phenomenological experiences around these to get to a greater insight of what is, and how it is, and why it is. I would like to end with a war hymn in the Atharva Veda which is a battle charm for confusing the enemy.

Agni shall skillfully march against our opponents, burning against their schemes and hostile plans; Gâtavedas shall confuse the army of our opponents and deprive them (of the use) of their hands! Ye Maruts are mighty in such matters: advance ye, crush ye, conquer ye (the enemy)! These Vasus when implored did crush (them). Agni, verily, as their vanguard shall skilfully attack! O Maghavan, the hostile army which contends against us--do ye, O Indra, Vritra's slayer, and Agni, burn against them! Thy thunderbolt, O Indra, who hast been driven forward swiftly by thy two bay steeds, shall advance, crushing the enemies. Slay them that resist, pursue, or flee, deprive their schemes of fulfillment! O Indra, confuse the army of the enemy; with the impact of the fire and the wind scatter them to either side! Indra shall confuse the army, the Maruts shall slay it with might! Agni shall rob it of its sight; vanquished it shall turn about!

The State - What is its Foundation

I was reading a compendium of Kant’s political philosophy, and though I have issues with his morality, both his rabid deontology, and the fact that he asserts that duties are universal to all of humanity and not based upon the qualities inherent in the person himself, I do find many healthy ideas in his political philosophy. This is basically set around nature of the state. To elaborate upon this I will have to explain the more perverse ideas of the state that are contained in the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau. For Locke the right to property was prior to the state, and the justification for having property came from the original act of appropriation. Since I have mixed my labor into the world, the object created through this labor becomes mine. The next issue is how to coordinate the entirety of the individual wills of the members of society. This is where Rousseau comes into play with his notion of the general will, which is the collective will of all the members of society. For me to take part in this social contract, I must place my individual will under the authority of the collective will. Since this social contract is based upon a historical fact rather than an unassailable principle, it creates a condition of members in this society being obliged to follow the state’s laws rather than obligated to do so. We now see how the state is justified. It is through property rights in and of themselves with no corresponding responsibility and duty, and with a contract based on set of historical circumstances which do not create conditions of obligation. For Kant, it is not a historical fact that justifies a social contract, but a regulative idea of reason. For all of us unfamiliar with Kantian philosophy, what he could not prove using epistemological means, which were ideas of God and the soul, were affirmed based upon moral reasons. God is postulated as the synthetic a priori between justice and happiness, and the soul is postulated as allowing us to achieve the summum bonum of virtue. The idea of the state will be seen as a requirement of reason to establish a government based upon the notion of the universal will. This universal will is not the will of the collective, but an idea of practical reason. It is this state based upon the universal will which creates the necessity of property for members of this society to be free.

The main problem with a government based upon these principles of Locke and Rousseau is that they tend to reduce government to the lowest common denominator. Basing a state upon property just creates a state that serves the interest of those with more wealth. Also basing a social contract upon the will of the majority tends to reduce agreement to the lowest common denominator as well. The leaders will just pander to whoever controls the majority viewpoint. If we start with the idea that it is the state that justifies property, then property seems to be based upon an ethical ideal. Property now has a moral burden in that those with more property have a stronger duty to promote this ethical ideal and aesthetic ideal of the state. This can be seen in the notion of the aristocracy who felt it was their duty to fund the arts and other forms of high culture. If one has received a lot, much is expected. The notion of a universal will based upon a regulative idea of reason rather than the whims of the masses will create a bedrock from which intelligent policy can follow, rather than appealing to the whims of the masses.

To put all of this into a more layman’s perspective, think of lowering oneself into the depths or rising up into the mountain. The excessive focus on purely economic interests and plebian desires is tantamount to going deeper and deeper into the swamp, whereas higher ideas and the notion of the universal will seem like a sacred object on top of a mountain. To develop these ideas further and better we will have to pass beyond Kant to the German Idealists and Traditionalists. The Hegelian notion of the State as the Divine Idea on earth will unite both the regulative ideas of God and the State. This object spirit is delineated thoroughly in law, morality, and social ethics. The ideal development of this is in the book Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola in which many principles of the Traditional State are explicated. To quote Julius Evola, “The Idea is our Fatherland”.

Proper behavior and method of arguing

I can’t help but watch the news and be bombarded with details of this petty argument between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. Out of curiosity I decided to do a search for the video clips of their argument, and then determine who is at fault. I have come to the conclusion that both of them are acting juvenile, and should be publicly chastised as terrible examples on how one should argue. The major problem in this specific case involving prominent members of society is indicative of a larger problem, and that larger problem is people trying to win an argument through a force of their personality rather than the substance of their argument. The truly sad part is that this confrontation goes far beyond the bullying tactics of a Bill O’Reilly to the level that one would expect at a middle school playground.

It has been stated that Rosie O’Donnell is a comedian therefore she is permitted to argue in this fashion, whereas Donald Trump is a CEO of a major corporation and should behave in a much more dignified manner. This view is entirely plausible if Rosie O’Donnell was to say what she did at a comedy nightclub entertaining customers, but the View is supposed to be serious, and therefore she should act in the manner of a proper host and try to foster good discussion. I will outline the basics of their conversation, and then respond with what and how they should have stated their points.

It started on the View with Rosie O’Donnell commenting on the situation of Tara Conner and her “lewd” behavior, and whether she should retain her crown as Miss USA. She started by putting this in a proper perspective, albeit her tone was rather condescending, by stating that this girl is acting like a normal 20 year girl, and "partying like Paris or Lindsay". She then started to belittle the Miss USA pageant by stating in a dismissive manner “her crown”. She then made fun of her acts of contrition by stating what Tara Conner said by making weeping sounds. Then we get to the main part of her diatribe, which included her making fun of Donald Trump by flipping her hair to one side of her head, and then repeating his statements about people deserving a second chance by speaking in a tone that a dullard would use. The only substantive comment in the whole argument was whether Donald Trump is capable of being a moral authority. She states that he is not able to be a moral compass because of his prior acts of marital infidelity which she believed were more vicious because he had kids with both of these women. Then she ends with a verbal attack.

Now Donald Trump responds. Rather than dealing with the issue of the morality of giving Tara a second chance, he calls Rosie names like “disgusting”, “a slob”. He then takes a perverse pleasure in her bad fate by gloating over her failed ventures. He insults her again by calling her fat and unattractive, and ends by stating that he will have his friend steal her girlfriend.

This whole situation has been a circus. The fact that adults have behaved in this manner is atrocious. The way this should have been handled was by Rosie describing her behavior in a manner that is not condescending. She should then have stated respectfully that she does not believe he is qualified to be a moral authority due to his vices. That still doesn’t address the morality of his decision; it is true that immoral people can make moral choices. If she believed that he made a bad decision she should have given reasons why. Donald Trump should have responded by stating I am not going to respond to these ad hominems, but I will defend my judgment in allowing her to retain her crown. His reasoning seems to be utilitarian in that if she keeps her crown she will be a role model to other young girls in similar circumstances, and these other girls will have a person they can identify with, and thus have a motivating factor to overcome their adversity. This is what he should have said, not spouting childish insults.

Again, I wish to state that this specific situation is indicative of a larger issue, and that is people winning arguments through strength of personality rather than the substance of their arguments. Take a look at "the number one rated television show on cable news", and look at the host of it. This is a man who sees reality in a degree so black and white that it reminds me of 1980’s professional wrestling. He also leads the discussion to areas and phrases things in such a manner that anyone disagreeing with him will seem wicked. Case in point, he one time asked David Letterman if he wished that America would lose the war in Iraq, and David Letterman was hesitant with an answer. He stated that it is an easy question, just answer with a “yes or no”. David Letterman responded that he is not a simple person, and that things are inherently complex. Bear in mind, that I am stating this all from memory, so I could be unintentionally altering the details a bit. A valid response could have been that I have different motivating factors which I both believe to be based upon good reasons, but which conflict as far as the final decision is concerned. From the perspective of world civilization, I wish that Iraq will become a stable democracy which will then cause a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. Though from the perspective of Bush's hubris, a loss will only serve as good punishment.

Planet Fitness - A Celebration of Mediocrity

Planet Fitness claims to be a gym that is a “judgment free zone” and also free of the “irritations” they believe to be commonplace in hard core gyms like grunting, heavy breathing, and the sounds of heavy weights making contact with the ground. I assert that this ideology is a front for their real intentions, which is a profit making venture based upon the celebration of mediocrity.

Planet Fitness purports to have a “judgment free zone”. The policies that Planet Fitness sets to create this “judgment free zone” are to ban certain activities. These activities range from the banning of large compound exercises like squats and deadlifts, to the banning of grunting, heavy breathing, and other activities that a lifter may do to get psyched up. They do this for the reason that a novice lifter might feel intimidated by this behavior. If these activities intimidate a novice lifter it is only based upon his or her insecurity. Intense lifting does not equate to the degrading and insulting of novice lifters. The opposite is actually the case. From my experience, serious lifters have the mindset of wanting to give their knowledge and expertise to novice lifters, thus helping them. They see it as an affirmation of their accomplishments. The problem is that the policies to protect members from being judged by serious lifters are based upon a spurious assessment of the behavior of the serious lifter. The irony is that Planet Fitness is judging serious lifters based upon ridiculous stereotypes, and they claim to create a judgment free zone. Just go to their site, and listen to the commercials they have. These are silly parodies of the serious lifter (http://www.planetfitness.com/pffun.asp).

Planet Fitness also creates these policies with the supposed intent of removing irritations that are detrimental to exercise. One of the methods that they use is to sound an alarm that sounds like a siren during an air raid (http://www.planetfitness.com/lunk.htm). The reality is that a gym is not a library; the sound of heavy breathing is in no way detrimental to the other people performing their exercises properly. If this activity was a detriment, then serious lifters would not have achieved the physique that they did, considering they exercise in conditions of other people breathing heavy. I cannot say the same of an alarm that sounds like an air raid siren, that would be extremely distracting.

I have shown the policies of Planet Fitness to be absurd. Planet Fitness attempts to create a “judgment free zone”, by using means that portray ridiculous stereotypes of serious lifters, thus being horribly judgmental. Planet Fitness also creates a circus atmosphere by sounding an alarm that sounds like a siren. I and others will question what their real agenda is. I believe it is a profit making venture based upon the celebration of mediocrity. For this consumerist society that we live in, a good deal of people will want a gym that is more of a social outlet that will not challenge them, and will promote their mediocrity by making their insecurities look like virtues. A perfect example of this is the commercial that caricatures a serious lifter by stating that he spends an inordinate amount of money on supplements (http://www.planetfitness.com/sound/Pf1.mp3). This is a clear distortion of the truth. To put this in a more realistic perspective, the need for supplements is very important. Supplements will both facilitate weightlifting goals and allow one to cross physical barriers through the promotion of muscle recovery, fat loss, post workout nutrition, pre workout boosts, etc.. I know people who will spend 300 - 400 dollars on a Friday or Saturday night. By going to less expensive places on the weekends you can easily afford the costs of supplements. It is all a matter of priorities, and to excel at something, you must set activities around that as a higher priority. To ridicule the choices of those that excel is clearly a celebration of mediocrity, a vice that Planet Fitness has capitalized upon for profit.

Where the Runes Still Speak

In the Apology, Socrates makes this assertion about the poets of ancient Greece. “For after the politicians I went to the poets both tragic and dithyrambic, and also others, expecting that I should here immediately find myself to be less wise than these. Taking up, therefore, some of their poems which appeared to me to be the most elaborately written, I asked them what was their meaning, that at the same time I might learn something from them. I am ashamed indeed, O Athenians, to tell you the truth; but at the same time it must be told. For, as I may say, all that were present would have spoken better about the things which they had composed. I discovered this, therefore, in a short time concerning the poets, that they did not effect by wisdom that which they did, but by a certain genius and from enthusiastic energy, like prophets and those that utter oracles.”

This above statement can appear to be somewhat critical of poets. One must remember the context in which this statement of Socrates was spoken. He was accused of corrupting the youth and altering the state religion. This criticism of the poet’s lack of wisdom was part of a larger dialogue in which he was showing that he was the wisest because he knows that he knows nothing, whereas all of the other members of society believed themselves to be wise (politicians, poets, artisans). This is all part of Socratic irony. Instead I would like to focus on the positive comment about the poets for the sake of this posting. A good poem or set of lyrics does seem to have been inspired by a certain genius. The poet or lyricist is like a prophet, oracle, or seer. This being said, there is a song by Candlemass which I believe to have been inspired by a genius or daemon. The words speak to my soul.

Where The Runes Still Speak

Rain and thunder, fire and wind
Come with me, I leave with the tide
I wrap my cloak closer 'round my shoulders
To keep me warm from the raging storm

The spirits are here to guide my journey
Over the edge of the world
A thousand wounds cry in my soul
Love and pain, a bleeding heart

Where the runes still speak
I 'm coming home
Where the runes still speak

Alone I stand on this stony coast
Winds of spring whisper through the trees
The grey horizon gives me life again
Ice and stone, the voices of the gods

No woman can show me where the fire burns
No preacher can tell me who I am
My blood is calling me from Asaland
I'm on my way home in the end

A homeward son will claim his heritage
walk the soil of this earth
The pen will be his mighty sword
And the truth his defense

I've traveled roads that lead to wonder
I've seen cities rise and fall
The burden, the cross of a pilgrim
I bear no more, the son is coming home

You closed the door, but I won't give
Somewhere my new life will begin
Countless treasures I shared with you
The only one left is my solitude

I would like to end by giving my interpretation of the first and second verse after the first chorus. A stony coast represents the angst that one feels due to this world seeming alien. Stone as inorganic matter and the expansiveness of the coast create the mental images that articulate this angst. Now the image goes to winds, spring, and trees which all center on life. The wind has been associated with breath or life, and the spring with a new life, being reborn, and finally the trees as forces of life that grows upwards that overpowers the mechanistic laws of gravity pulling downwards. The mental image of the “grey horizon giving life again” alters the perception of the world retreating into nothingness to an approaching numen of a god, which is now heard in the ice and stone. Then the focus is on the essential nature of the person, which can not be realized from the present religious institutions, “No preacher can tell me who I am”, to the perfection and realization which cannot be found in woman, “No woman can show me where the fire burns”. There is the passion and eros found in the flame of romantic love, but this is weak compared to the divine fire of the gods, which is illustrated in “My blood is calling me from Asaland”. If one takes the etymology of Asaland it is broken into asa and land, the word asa comes from Aesir, which are a race of gods in Norse mythology. I see this as saying that my whole being (blood) is calling me from the land of the Gods (Asaland). I am no longer in angst from being in a world which is devoid of meaning, but on the path to my eternal home. The question is when I will be able to say with assurance and a truthful realization, “cursum perficio”.

Human Sacrifice

I have always been intrigued by human sacrifice. Let me state from the start that I have always found gore movies to be disgusting and serial killers to be vile and deserving a cruel death. So why do I find human sacrifice so aesthetic, when I see a meaningless murder as so offensive. I remember when I was younger, when a movie or TV show depicted a monstrous villain that kills because it is in this villain's nature; I hoped that this villain would meet his just demise. But when a human sacrifice was the scene, there was something mysterious and sublime. I am reminded of two such scenes. One is an episode of Friday the 13th the series in which a Satanic witch has this “good witch” on the altar ready for the sacrifice, and the "good witch" that is ready to be sacrificed cries out, "but you made a pact". She then responded, "but I made a higher pact", and then proceeded to stab him in the heart. I am basing this all on memory, so the exact words might not be right, but even in a partially incorrect representation of the abovementioned scene; I still have presented what I believe to be a paradigm case of human sacrifice. I also remember a scene in the Highlander series when a Viking called Kanwulf is ready to perform the Blood Eagle on a victim. This character had a piety to Odin that spoke of passion, devotion, and heroic action.

This is the key to these sacrifice scenes. There is a sense of piety and sublimity that speaks of a transcendent realm. The sacrifice seems to connect us to the more primal principles of our cosmos. The sacrifice seems to open the door to something greater. What I am reminded of here is Kierkegaard’s interpretation of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, when Abraham is ready to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham will be committing a murder. From the ethical sphere, he is in the wrong, and what his deity asks him to do is wrong. Though from the religious sphere, Abraham is a knight of faith. He suspends his ethical obligation not to murder, but for a higher act of faith. This activity is named by Kierkegaard as the teleological suspension of the ethical.

This brings up a question of metaethics. What is right and wrong based upon the convention of society has its uses, but the ethical codes that have practical value for a functioning society, do not necessarily correspond to the inner workings of the universe. There is the belief that the universe came into being through sacrifice, and the performing of sacrifices maintain and preserve our universe. These sacrifices are dealing with a different set of standards that transcend common moral dictates. Therefore when I watch the sacrifice scenes of Apocalypto, it is not horror and disgust that fill my soul, but a sense of mystery and fascination. Please click on this link for a visual of what I mean. http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/mf/frame?theme=minfo&lid=wmv-56-p.1528961-179912,wmv-100-p.1528962-179912,wmv-300-p.1528963-179912,wmv-700-p.1528965-179912,wmv-1000-p.1528966-179912,wmv-28-p.1528961-179912&id=1809249345&f=1809249345&mspid=1809798308&type=c&a=0,15