One of the underlying assumptions of modern metaphysics is the equality of all souls. This means that within a nation or an ethnic group, and between nations and ethnic groups, all people have souls and all souls are created equal. Jews, of course, do not believe this to be case and quite emphatically believe that they are superior on a metaphysical level to all other peoples, because they are a nation of priests chosen by Yahweh, their ethnic egregor/deity, to rule the world, as chronicled in the Old Testament, then the Talmud and the various Kabbalistic teachings.
Thanks for putting this all together so well. I noticed in another post you mentioned Dabrowski. He was the first "scientific" source I found who said something similar, but without bringing out the implications as you do. He called it "developmental potential." Some have lots, many have none.
You can see some hints of the later-developed gnostic take in Paul's letters. While he appears to be a universalist, there's still strong hints that Paul understood that while the doors were open, some could never walk through. Not being systematic, that left the doors open for a one-size-fits-all Christianity to develop. I'm sure that aspect had its advantages, e.g. in relation to the monolatry of James's group, it also stunted Christianity's understanding of human nature (something Lobaczewski attributed more to Roman influence).
“The faith-based religions of the world, however, demand that the faithful believe the mystical experience of people that have come before, and trust the religious authorities to accurately convey their findings to the flock. It boils down to a matter of trust in the experts, really.” > This is exactly why I’ve never found a religion to follow. I just can’t because at the end of the day I’m trusting people to tell the truth and that’s not something I do easily and with something as important as my beliefs about God. I guess it’s the esoteric route for me, just because I dont trust easily really...
Your posts are quite good. I am glad I chanced upon you. Now the matter at hand.
Metaphysical inequality was the norm in the Antiquity. The rulers ranked with gods, the royal family were demigods, the priestly families were sacred, the nobility had its own privileges, the rest of society formed a more or less strict hierarchy, depending on the size of the polity. The outcome for most was bad : brutish lives in servitude and squalor. The worst part was deprivation of offspring : kings had harems with tens or hundreds of women and each privileged group had its lot of women ; the lowest quarter to third had no access to women except some vile prostitutes hence little sex and no offspring. Homosexuality was common because there was little else for the meek. Drugs were common too : toadstool, cannabis, magical powders. Hardly a good society.
Variations on this prevailed from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia to China and India and in the New World as well. These societies were mostly stable. On occasion invaders would beat the army and the lower classes would have their revenge. Until a new iron order was put in place.
An ancient metaphysically unequal society that has survived to this day is Hindu India. Not exactly an appealing model. Unless a country of wealthy enclaves in a sea of street shitters appeals to you.
Christianity with its emphasis on equality and charity considerably improved the fate of the common man. Metaphysics predicated on inequality would bring back the social model of Antiquity. Let us not walk that road.
You posit a hierarchy of three metaphysically different types of people, and at the same time complain about outsourcing your spirituality to a caste of priests.
Sometimes I feel we're like children, arguing over what the stars must be, before we have any inkling of what they actually are.
Similarly, speaking for myself, I know NOTHING of spirituality, I only have a sense of someone groping in the dark trying to make sense of vague shapes and occasional noises. Sure, I'd like to have a clue as to what these hints mean, but at this stage it's all speculation, making up stories that fit my preferences more than my spirit.
So I expect that metaphysical equality is less of a point of departure than an open question. I'd be overjoyed (if that's the right expression) to attain enough insight to have a clue as to whether it's an operaative principle. Like the persons in God, I expect that if I got close enough to the truth to discern what it means, that it won't be anything like the way I think of it now.
So I think that identifying mettaphysical equality with left politics is jumping the gun a bit, though I can see its potential for creating doctrinal arguments that could go on for ages into wars. Few of us react gracefully when our presumptions are challenged, and there's much fodder for vigorous disagreement here.
This is some of the smartest blogging I've read in more than 20 years of surfing the Web. Please, do keep up the good work. Spacibo.
Thanks for putting this all together so well. I noticed in another post you mentioned Dabrowski. He was the first "scientific" source I found who said something similar, but without bringing out the implications as you do. He called it "developmental potential." Some have lots, many have none.
You can see some hints of the later-developed gnostic take in Paul's letters. While he appears to be a universalist, there's still strong hints that Paul understood that while the doors were open, some could never walk through. Not being systematic, that left the doors open for a one-size-fits-all Christianity to develop. I'm sure that aspect had its advantages, e.g. in relation to the monolatry of James's group, it also stunted Christianity's understanding of human nature (something Lobaczewski attributed more to Roman influence).
Anyways, I'm enjoying this series.
“The faith-based religions of the world, however, demand that the faithful believe the mystical experience of people that have come before, and trust the religious authorities to accurately convey their findings to the flock. It boils down to a matter of trust in the experts, really.” > This is exactly why I’ve never found a religion to follow. I just can’t because at the end of the day I’m trusting people to tell the truth and that’s not something I do easily and with something as important as my beliefs about God. I guess it’s the esoteric route for me, just because I dont trust easily really...
Hi Rolo,
Your posts are quite good. I am glad I chanced upon you. Now the matter at hand.
Metaphysical inequality was the norm in the Antiquity. The rulers ranked with gods, the royal family were demigods, the priestly families were sacred, the nobility had its own privileges, the rest of society formed a more or less strict hierarchy, depending on the size of the polity. The outcome for most was bad : brutish lives in servitude and squalor. The worst part was deprivation of offspring : kings had harems with tens or hundreds of women and each privileged group had its lot of women ; the lowest quarter to third had no access to women except some vile prostitutes hence little sex and no offspring. Homosexuality was common because there was little else for the meek. Drugs were common too : toadstool, cannabis, magical powders. Hardly a good society.
Variations on this prevailed from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia to China and India and in the New World as well. These societies were mostly stable. On occasion invaders would beat the army and the lower classes would have their revenge. Until a new iron order was put in place.
An ancient metaphysically unequal society that has survived to this day is Hindu India. Not exactly an appealing model. Unless a country of wealthy enclaves in a sea of street shitters appeals to you.
Christianity with its emphasis on equality and charity considerably improved the fate of the common man. Metaphysics predicated on inequality would bring back the social model of Antiquity. Let us not walk that road.
Nonsense
You posit a hierarchy of three metaphysically different types of people, and at the same time complain about outsourcing your spirituality to a caste of priests.
Sometimes I feel we're like children, arguing over what the stars must be, before we have any inkling of what they actually are.
Similarly, speaking for myself, I know NOTHING of spirituality, I only have a sense of someone groping in the dark trying to make sense of vague shapes and occasional noises. Sure, I'd like to have a clue as to what these hints mean, but at this stage it's all speculation, making up stories that fit my preferences more than my spirit.
So I expect that metaphysical equality is less of a point of departure than an open question. I'd be overjoyed (if that's the right expression) to attain enough insight to have a clue as to whether it's an operaative principle. Like the persons in God, I expect that if I got close enough to the truth to discern what it means, that it won't be anything like the way I think of it now.
So I think that identifying mettaphysical equality with left politics is jumping the gun a bit, though I can see its potential for creating doctrinal arguments that could go on for ages into wars. Few of us react gracefully when our presumptions are challenged, and there's much fodder for vigorous disagreement here.