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).
I've read political ponerology and thought it was quite good. It seems that the only way to get rid of the tendency of sociopaths to conquer institutions is to do away with belief-based institutions.
>You mentioned Dabrowski
I included his ideas in my fiction, I've never pulled him into my blogging to date.
Ahh, cool. I'd be interested in reading your fiction too.
Re: Lobaczewski, he also wrote a book called Logocracy, his proposal for a new system of government for Poland, which he wrote in the late 80s and early 90s. Hasn't been translated into English, but I've been reading it using DeepL. Not sure what I think of it yet, but will probably write some stuff about it eventually.
Logocracy is only in Polish as far as I'm aware. I have vague plans to produce an English translation for publication, but not sure if/when I'll do it.
“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.
I surmise that your knowledge of the Ancient world comes from the Classical Greek and Roman Antiquity. Their societies were based on small cities with small hierarchies and remained close to their tribal ethos. However the majority of humans lived in the large societies of China, India, Near and Middle East, where the conditions were as I described them. As Athens, Corinth, the Ionian cities, and Rome grew they introduced large scale slavery, concentrated land ownership, pushed masses of citizens into poverty, and gradually restricted political rights to the upper classes, thereby evolving into the bleak world that I described.
The Vedic religion and Hinduism, its scion, have shaped the Indian mind for nearly 3000 years. Both the religion and the climate made India into what it is.
As to where I learnt about this, I cannot point you to precise internet resources. I read in some books about the Chinese social structure in the Spring and Autumn period and in the Warring States period. I read in some other book about the hierarchy of the Incas. I gleaned more in the Golden Bough by James Frazer. Mario Liverani's "The Bible and the invention of history" was useful for the Near East.
>However the majority of humans lived in the large societies of China, India, Near and Middle East, where the conditions were as I described them
Well, there's your problem right there. I'm talking about our people, not their people.
I think Churchianity killed off hands-on spirituality - that's my main critique. I don't really care about morality one way or another. Morality has to be built on spiritual values, otherwise it's literally just all relative, man. Also, I believe that you need to castigate the ancient world because it justifies Churchianity coming onto the scene to supplant it.
If you get a chance, you might find interesting 'The Magical Battle of Britain' by Dion Fortune (Author), Gareth Knight (Editor). It suggests how a 'group working' of a 'mystical/magical' nature could be organized (and quasi-tested).
Youth, being dependent and not fully formed physically or intellectually or spiritually, tend to identify with victims and underdogs of all kinds, projecting their own sense of vulnerability. Humans usually outgrow this, under the right conditions. Unfortunately, our (Liberal) society prolongs childhood—for some indefinitely. The idea that one’s soul is not fixed, that one is surrounded by other marvelous and mysterious souls (e.g. one’s elders!), that one is not necessarily condemned to unending childhood, that possibilities for growth and being defy imagination—that could, indeed, change everything. For one thing, it would fill people with wonder. For another thing, it would engender solemn humility and respect.
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.
Agreed. He’s damn good.
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.
I don't think I mentioned Dabrowski, but I should. I've read his personality disintegration work. It really struck a chord with me.
Yes, Paul's gnosticism seeps through the edited letters that we have. Ah, what could have been if Marcion had prevailed against the Petrine Church.
Paul mentions the need to provide some with milk, but others with the actual meat.
> Lobaczewski
Don't know about him?
Lobaczewski wrote the book Political Ponerology - the book that inspired my substack.
You mentioned Dabrowski, but only in passing, here: https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/short-stories-anyone
I'd really enjoy reading your thoughts in his work. BTW, Bill Tillier just made his books available for free online: http://www.positivedisintegration.com/all.html
My bad, I always forget names.
I've read political ponerology and thought it was quite good. It seems that the only way to get rid of the tendency of sociopaths to conquer institutions is to do away with belief-based institutions.
>You mentioned Dabrowski
I included his ideas in my fiction, I've never pulled him into my blogging to date.
Ahh, cool. I'd be interested in reading your fiction too.
Re: Lobaczewski, he also wrote a book called Logocracy, his proposal for a new system of government for Poland, which he wrote in the late 80s and early 90s. Hasn't been translated into English, but I've been reading it using DeepL. Not sure what I think of it yet, but will probably write some stuff about it eventually.
I wonder if its in Russian.
Logocracy is only in Polish as far as I'm aware. I have vague plans to produce an English translation for publication, but not sure if/when I'll do it.
“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...
"Trust, but verify" - some Greek probably.
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.
I don't know where you got your information on the ancient world, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of it.
India is India because Indians live there, not because of Hinduism.
I surmise that your knowledge of the Ancient world comes from the Classical Greek and Roman Antiquity. Their societies were based on small cities with small hierarchies and remained close to their tribal ethos. However the majority of humans lived in the large societies of China, India, Near and Middle East, where the conditions were as I described them. As Athens, Corinth, the Ionian cities, and Rome grew they introduced large scale slavery, concentrated land ownership, pushed masses of citizens into poverty, and gradually restricted political rights to the upper classes, thereby evolving into the bleak world that I described.
The Vedic religion and Hinduism, its scion, have shaped the Indian mind for nearly 3000 years. Both the religion and the climate made India into what it is.
As to where I learnt about this, I cannot point you to precise internet resources. I read in some books about the Chinese social structure in the Spring and Autumn period and in the Warring States period. I read in some other book about the hierarchy of the Incas. I gleaned more in the Golden Bough by James Frazer. Mario Liverani's "The Bible and the invention of history" was useful for the Near East.
>However the majority of humans lived in the large societies of China, India, Near and Middle East, where the conditions were as I described them
Well, there's your problem right there. I'm talking about our people, not their people.
I think Churchianity killed off hands-on spirituality - that's my main critique. I don't really care about morality one way or another. Morality has to be built on spiritual values, otherwise it's literally just all relative, man. Also, I believe that you need to castigate the ancient world because it justifies Churchianity coming onto the scene to supplant it.
Nonsense
If you get a chance, you might find interesting 'The Magical Battle of Britain' by Dion Fortune (Author), Gareth Knight (Editor). It suggests how a 'group working' of a 'mystical/magical' nature could be organized (and quasi-tested).
Youth, being dependent and not fully formed physically or intellectually or spiritually, tend to identify with victims and underdogs of all kinds, projecting their own sense of vulnerability. Humans usually outgrow this, under the right conditions. Unfortunately, our (Liberal) society prolongs childhood—for some indefinitely. The idea that one’s soul is not fixed, that one is surrounded by other marvelous and mysterious souls (e.g. one’s elders!), that one is not necessarily condemned to unending childhood, that possibilities for growth and being defy imagination—that could, indeed, change everything. For one thing, it would fill people with wonder. For another thing, it would engender solemn humility and respect.
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.