| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2005 11:45:45 PM |
| Object: |
Postmorality |
Postmorality
If there is one thing humanity needs to hear right now, it is this:
"Grow up!" However, this is not the form of maturity of which is
commonly spoken, by which they mean a certain docility and resignation
that allows one to call a job and servitude to social prestige a
meaningful life. The usage here refers to the ultimate maturity, which
is an ability to accept reality in all of its positive and negative
dimensions, and resolve to act upon it as is necessary.
We could call this ultimate maturity "realism," because when all the
semantic arguments are brushed aside, and all the ontological concerns
shown to be aspects of the same question, we realize that most of human
discourse centers on objects of perception without stopping, first, to
form a comprehensive system. Since there is no explanation for our
world as a whole, what replaces logic is an ability to analyze details
intently, without ever discovering the interconnection between data.
This basic failing is akin to us as humans selecting to believe only
that which originates in a human mind, and to relegate reality - the
interaction of beings, natural forces, and objects in our physical
real-time world - to second-class status. Whether we pick materialism
or dualism, both extremes serve us badly by taking our attention away
from an observation of life and pointing it toward arbitrary linguistic
problems that do not necessarily related to reality.
As such, realism is the king of all scientific outlooks, and herein is
its paradox: although we all live in the same world, not all have the
fineness of perceptual analysis to understand realism. Most people not
only "would prefer to" cling to stolid absolutes that require no
interpretation or context to be applied, but also cannot conceive of
any other form of belief system. It is only in our recent (400 years)
mania for new customers to not offend that we have made the presumption
that all people, if "given the same advantages," can understand the
same complex thoughts.
Thus we have a troubling situation, onto which another is rapidly
piled: a nearly indefinable belief based upon a reality in which we all
live, but which we perceive to different degrees. Luckily, nature makes
this easy for us, and the best-bred among us are the ones who - owing
to greater intelligence, health and moral character - are able to
perceive not only what is, in an immediate sense, but its function,
even over time. These are realists who often move to the next level,
which is idealism.
Idealism in the vernacular means something different from philosophical
idealism; in philosophical idealism, one suggests that the world is (a)
composed of thought or (b) operates in a similar method to thought; the
two are roughly conflatable, in that if the world operates as thoughts,
on the high level of abstraction at which philosophy works, it might as
well be thought. Still, even the most spacy of the idealists affirm
realism as the basis for their idealism. How does this work?
What we call science is the process of deducing structural functions to
our world, and then using those to in turn predict responses to certain
events or actions. When we understand how our world works (realism), we
can then turn toward the question of its manipulation (idealism), which
is subdivided into questions of how, which relate directly to our
degree of realistic perception, and why, which are more akin to the
goal-setting tendencies of idealism. Realism is perception; idealism is
a study of design both in perception and moral action.
Of course, balancing these two ideas is quite a challenge for almost
anyone, and only the smarter ones among us can do it - but among
Indo-Europeans, this is not as small of a population as one might
think. Although the dumbest among us make themselves known as the
loudest, there is usually a silent group who function at a high level
of efficiency and care deeply about doing the right thing; these
however lack the impetus to draw attention to themselves, as they
already understand a spiritual principle by which self is secondary to
whole. These people understand the secret of nihilism.
Unlike most philosophical systems, which are based on achieving an
ideal or asserting a value as higher than others, nihilism is a
discipline. It's a way of training your mind to look at the world, and
from it, as in any fully-developed philosophical system, comes an
explanation of the entirety of philosophy as opened for us by the
initial realizations of nihilism. Once again, it's not for everyone; if
you don't get it, you might not be ready, and many among us will never
be ready, as they literally lack the circuitry to understand it. Much
as you cannot educate a kitchen blender into a supercomputer, you
cannot make a philosophical genius out of the average mind.
Nihilism seems a paradox. It denies all value, thus obliterating the
objective/subjective and mind/body divisions favored by dualists, yet
it upholds the idea of abstract structure ("design") behind our cosmos,
as when one denies value one turns to function, specifically function
of the physical world. It is not, however, materialism, as materialism
champions a faith that material comfort and individual survival are the
highest goals that exist; most likely, those who are materialists lack
the circuitry to go further. Nihilism is a form of idealism, in that it
posits an order to the universe that can be understood through logic,
but rejects value-judgments as a method of doing this; don't categorize
and classify, suggests nihilism, but describe. Describe structure, not
physicality or emotionality.
In this we achieve the beginnings of a fully mature philosophy,
something akin to the "pragmatic idealism" Nietzsche described or the
pessimistic Hindu-inspired idealism of Schopenhauer; it is reminiscent
of the beliefs of early Greco-Roman civilizations, where the gods
personified natural forces and were beyond any form of "moral
judgment," or classification into good and evil. When the ashes settle
over the last thousand years of Western civilization, it will quickly
become clear that moral classification led us to a kind of linear
thought that detached us from a study of systemics, and thus allowed us
to do ludicrously destructive things in the name of details - the
individual, an absolute moral principle, or the need to make some cold
hard cash.
One of the best aspects of nihilism and cosmic idealism alike is their
rejection of absolute moral judgments, meaning any type of rule that
applies without context and to all people alike. The simplest example
is the hypocrisy over murder in the West; we say murder is wrong, and
then murder people for committing murder. A nihilist avoids the initial
error by never saying "murder is wrong," but instead, electing to
murder those who threaten whatever values are held dear. A rapid
stratification appears among human beings at this point, because
depending on where we are on the intelligence-moral character scale, we
value different things. Those who are at the higher end of such a scale
have valuable opinions, and the rest... should probably be oppressed.
All philosophical concepts are interrelated, and every philosophical
system uses a core concept as an introduction to all other parts of
philosophy; if your system is idealism, for example, you translate all
other philosophical questions into idealist vocabulary, and then
analyze them and synthesize responses from that point. A nihilist
system is no different. Nihilism is both radically different from
Christianity, but agrees with it on many points, much as it does with
Hinduism and other cosmic idealist systems. If it has an enemy, it
would be the lower-level systems, like materialism and superstition,
which rules out Judaism and Voodoo.
However, any good nihilist does apprehend quickly why in ancient
societies the principle of karma/caste was rapidly attached to a
postmoral system: if there is no prohibition against killing, one had
better limit that function to those who know enough to handle it. In
the same way we do not give firearms to three-year-olds, certain
privileges must be earned by those who show aptitude and character for
them. As most of the questions of philosophy are complicated enough to
take a lifetime, ancient societies tended to breed people for these
roles, thus producing the original definition of aristocracy: the
philosopher-kings and warrior-kings who knew how to wield the power
they had.
A modern comparison to this is any form of martial art. The students
are taught slowly to take on the powers of a fully capable fighter, so
that alongside raw technique they may absorb years of wisdom - and be
sent away by their teachers if they are psychopaths or otherwise
defective. Just as one does not teach post-911 Arab students to take
off in planes but not land them, one does not teach nutcases to kill
with a punch. The caste system is part of this karmic order in that it
is recognized that, with each advance in breeding, the design of the
next generation changes; those designs are most likely to function as
their ancestors did. As a result, one creates groups like aristocracies
which are bred for the finest traits and pass them along to their
offspring.
This system works surprisingly well. Outside of a few defectives, most
people have the abilities of their parents, if developed by education.
Even more importantly, they have the moral inclination and traits of
their parents, and therefore make similar types of decisions. The power
of nihilism and postmorality in ancient societies was kept among those
who had for generations proven themselves able to wield it; this is a
more effective system than our modern one, which supposes that "anyone"
could be effective with this kind of power, so we give it to them and
hope they don't screw up. Remember that during election year.
What we refer to as postmoralism was designed for elites by breeding,
as it is a complex system. Essentially, traditional "Western"
(Judeo-Christian) morality is designed around simple rulesets: evil is
bad, murder is evil, therefore if you murder, you are evil and we
should murder you. Postmoral tradition, as mentioned above, does not
waste time banning murder. It asks, simply, was the murder fortunate?
which means: did the murder increase the elegance and graceful function
of a natural order? If one has murdered a child molestor, order is
increased and made better; if you murder a child who otherwise would
likely done great things, you are probably a psychopath and should be
murdered.
In warfare, for example, murder was viewed as glorious in the
idealistic tradition, as those who lost lives had done so in fulfilment
of their place in a natural order, and in doing so, had risen a level
in the karmic cycle by not shirking from what must be done. Even more,
victims were sacrifices to the gods of the nature, and had fulfilled
their own role; material fortunes came second to spiritual ones (a
complete reversal of the modern logic). One did not weep for a
conquered enemy, but sang for the whole of nature, as in the growth of
better people a more logical order was instituted.
Other examples come to mind. Idealists tended to treat their women
better than any other group; they gave them privileges, had laws
against their mistreatment, and tended to murder and mutilate those who
committed rape, incest, and assault in peacetime. In war, it was
different; rape of a conquered enemy was viewed as a chance to increase
the breeding potential of that tribe, and was thus a joyful occurrence.
If a warrior with IQ of 140 raped a woman with IQ of 85, the logic
went, she received an upgrade (payable in next generation) of some IQ
points, thus all was cool. It's important to note, of course, that
idealists did not engage in world wars for economic and political
commodities, thus it's impossible to compare their actions to those of
a modern time.
Another example is money. For those who deserved money as a means of
achieving their function, it was viewed as a natural right and
something not to be questioned; for those who did not have such a use,
it was seen as suspect to care too much about it. If you have enough to
live and retire, what is the need for desiring more? - they viewed it
in the same way our current society views people who spend their entire
income on pornography and lubricant: obsessive. Money was something
granted by the gods for a purpose, not a purpose in itself, as it is in
modernity.
Unfortunately, this system was replaced with a one-size-fits-all
system, in which postmoral rules cannot apply, because they must apply
to everyone, equally, in order to be "fair." As one might guess, such a
system was not created by the few highly intelligent ones, but by the
masses of unstable and unspecialized people who inherently fear those
who might be more capable than they. The masses won by numbers, and
overwhelmed their leaders and aristocracy, and that brought us the
downfall of Greece, of Rome, and the future downfall of America. It
also brought us absolute moral judgment and "good"/"evil."
Now that America has run its course, and it has become clear to even
liberals that the system is collapsing under its own weight and
paradox, the idea of a postmoral society is again considered. And, as
all concepts are linked, people are again considering the concept of an
aristocracy of our most capable to wield the kind of unfettered power
that such a civilization allows. Creating rigid moral rules, and then
having checks and balances on leaders, hasn't worked; not only has
corruption flourished, but we've been unable to make necessary
long-term decisions.
While our system is reassuring to those who fear they are inadequate,
it has traded sanity for the accomodation of those who are defective or
underperforming, and not surprisingly, the results have been terrible.
This is why humanity needs to "Grow up!" and realize that we're not all
equal, and we need some qualified leaders fast, before we make
ourselves miserable and then in short order, exterminate ourselves and
all that we care about. To take that step, we need to go down the
winding path from realism to idealism through nihilism, and in doing
so, to cultivate in ourselves a new maturity.
July 18, 2005
http://www.*****.com/zine/articles/postmorality/
.
|
|
|
