causticus: trees (Default)
2019-06-01 10:47 am

The 4 Productive Natures of Civilized Man

In these notes, I propose here a Western take on the old Indian Varna categorie. These were originally supposed to denote innate personality types and inclinations. These categories eventually got conflated with social classes and the whole thing together became an ossified social hierarchy based almost strictly on heredity.

The 4 Productive Natures of Civilized Man

1. Intellectual
2. Martial
3. Acquisitive
4. Supportive

These categorizes should be seen as broad generalization of in-born human tendencies, not absolutes or deterministic shackles. Secondly, these natures are only really concerned with the the traits and tendencies which lead an individual toward having a productive role in the social order they belong to; for obvious reasons, dysfunctional, aberrant, and eccentric inclinations won't be included in in this scheme. Thirdly, we should say that human individual is NOT defined entirely by just one of these categories. In fact, we are all a mix of all four in various combinations. But more often that not, one or two of these will stand out the most in an individual.

Having said that, we can now describe these four fundamental natures in more detail:

1. Intellectual (Brahmin/Aristocracy) - People of this nature feel an innate attraction toward various areas involving knowledge, ideas, science, religion and spirituality; things like: philosophy, natural phenomena, literature, logic, mathematics, culture, art, rhetoric, languages, history, psychology, ect. People of the Intellectual nature will be the most interested in exploring the various facts of the human condition and searching for higher meaning that allows us to understand the higher Truth of the human race and our place in the universe. The highest calling (Dharma/Logos) of the Intellectual type is to both pursue spiritual knowledge and teach Natural Law (Dharma/Logos) to his or her community. Since the so-called "enlightenment" period of early modernity, the higher aspects of the Intellectual type have been denigrated and reduced in scope of mundane material concerns. Today, the Intellectual type often finds their only livelihood-viable outlets to be stuffy careers in a much corrupted and compromised academia. Others may end up pursing sterile and nihilist forms of art which have snuffed out most genuine and beauty-driven types we can can traditional art. The so-called "stuffy intellectual" (really just a form of Sophist) is a well-known, current-day degraded version of the Intellectual nature.

2. Martial (Kshatriya/Timarchy) - Those born of the Martial type will be quite action-oriented by nature and feel an innate draw toward service-oriented ethical concepts like honor, duty, heroism, ect. The Martial type will find this decisiveness comes easily and may have a natural knack for delegating tasks to subordinates. This is the ideal temperament for leaders, magistrates and administrators. Other people may quickly notice that the person of the Martial nature can be quite "fiery" and "hot-headed" at times. The Martial type who follows a wise and productive life-path, will naturally pursue their dharma, which is to value the leading of an ethical and moral life and practicing sound and temperate community leadership over wielding power for its own sake or getting caught up in any kind of single-minded pursuit of material rewards. Wrath and pugnaciousness are examples of negative traits that can plague troubled people of the Martial nature: they must work hard to contain and channel their hot-burning inner fire into productive and socially-beneficial outcomes. Martial Arts and mundane types of physical fitness are both great examples of good ways to channel this fire.

3. Acquisitive (Vaishya/Oligarchy) - Like the Martial type, those born of the Acquisitive nature are naturally ambitious and action-oriented. However, the Acquisitive person will naturally gravitate toward things of a material nature before they pursue intellectual and ethical matters. In short, the Acquisitive type has a knack for making money and excelling at commercial, mercantile and entrepreneurial endeavors in general. Those who have the discipline, drive, persistence and general conscientiousness and cognitive aptitudes required to gain employment in the higher professions, could also be said to be of the Acquisitive type; this would include specialized professionals like lawyers, accountants, middle managers, many medical doctors, and perhaps some scientists and engineers. Intellectual types of a spiritual orientation may fall into the trap of looking down upon Acquisitive types as greedy materialists who are hyper-obsessed with accumulating as much material wealth as possible (at the expense of all other concerns), but dharma-seekers must realize that Acquisitive person is an invaluable asset to a properly-functioning economy and that dharma cannot be pursued on the macro level if the whole social order is living hand-to-mouth day-in and day-out. A healthy and vibrant economy is a must for any great civilization. However, when men of the Acquisitive nature assemble into Oligarchic cliques, and subvert and hijack the social order, and eventually place themselves in charge of everything, then the process of social degeneration starts setting in; all social imperative eventually get reduced to a constellation of petty, greed-based material concerns. And thus, in a healthy dharma society we can see that the role of the Acquisitive type must be place in a subordinate role to that of both the Intellectual and Martial types. When the Acquisitive is supreme, then economic imperatives override all others. Such is the sorry, decrepit state contemporary Western civilization has fallen into as a product of centuries of Oligarchic rule. The proper dharma of the Acquisitive person is to keep the economy healthy and properly functioning, and to tithe a portion of their surplus earnings toward the upkeep of thought higher institutions which supersede mundane economic concerns.

4. Supportive (Shudra/Democracy) - Simply put, the Supportive nature can be generally applied to everyone else who does not fit into the above three categories. In a more specific sense, the Supportive nature describes those who lack both ambition and a pronounced interest in intellectual and spiritual matters. The Supportive type is the more relaxed of the two material-oriented natures. The Supportive type type is that person who is said to "go along to get along." In other words, they are content doing just enough to enjoy life's simple comfort and pleasures. Often, they value simple human companionship over more specific yearnings. The Supportive type will however usually be interested in cultivating a practical skillset and gradually working at becoming a competent practitioner at their respective area of expertise, most often through a clearly defined vocational training program. In more traditional societies, Trade Guilds provided the perfect institution for Supportive types to learn and excel at becoming successful rank-and-file trade practitioners. However, this age-old arrangement has gone by the wayside in our modern industrial-society. With mass mechanization and automation, so many old trades have been rendered obsolete and the tradesman or artisan of old has become reduced to the pathetic station of an industrial proletarian who must spend his or her day performing mindless, repetitive tasks. And with even more automation in the affluent West, the industrial worker has largely transitioned into the service worker. Fortunately, in the so-called "information economy" many Supportive types have found decently-paying salaried positions in a wide assortment of businesses and organizations. Ideally, Supportive types are able to find meaningful work that carries some sort of productive social value. The proper dharma of the Supportive type is to render service to their community, help keep the economy running smoothly, and most importantly: to help others in a way that's within their practical means.

...I'll probably update this later with more things that come to mind.
causticus: trees (Default)
2018-12-31 10:20 am

Yeoman Mannerbund: A New American Nobility?

By "American Nobility," I of course don't mean those people belonging to the Neoliberal Mandarinate (see: 'The Cathedral' a la Mencius Moldbug) who fancy themselves as the legitimate and rightful guiding force of American society. What I've been thinking about is the concept of how a nobility might evolve in a future American society; one that done away with foolish egalitarian fantasies and returned to a natural social order.

This hypothetical future American nobility (after the collapse of the current mess we have) would probably not utilize the sort of fancy hereditary ranks and titles of Medieval Europe's nobility. America's founding cultural ethos absolutely rejects the idea there should be a hereditary parasite-landowner class or really any pompous aristocratic overlord class. Many of the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, envisioned America as being a nation of independent yeoman farmers. According to this general spirit, civic recognition is earned through hard work, virtuous conduct, patriotic loyalty, and of course the ability to generate wealth. This is really little different than the civic ideals of the Roman Republic. In ancient Rome, a person's (really, their family's) worth was measured by how much agricultural land they owned. This system of course degenerated into abject plutocracy and urban supremacy, as the lower ranks of the Roman nobility were permitted to engage in commercial activities and thus accumulate far more wealth than if they were restricted to just land ownership. The American system succumbed to the same degenerative pattern, but perhaps at a faster rate; as from the beginning of our republic there was never any real distinction between farmer and merchant; in fact, there were usually one and the same.

Right now, the entire Western world is undergoing a rapid collapse of the now 1,000-year-old Faustian culture that originally emerged out of Germany. This collapse will probably have less of a destructive effect here in America (we were never the Faustian epicenter; that would be in Western Europe), though we might see a significant contraction of the hyper-inflated urban economies of the coastal regions. After a period of economic shrinkage and depression, we might see cultural power shift back to the hinterlands; the so-called "Middle America." In those regions there will be a renewed focus on small towns and rural life. Ecologically-destructive and monolithic factory farms will give way to the small family farms of yore. Whatever pieces of high technology of this boom era that can be salvaged and reworked into the new decentralized context will be reintegrated into the new system. The section of the American people who place the most importance and family values and self-sufficiency will be the inheritors of whatever remains of today's technological bonanza. The people who double down on current-era hubris and fail to adapt will become tomorrow's peasant class.

The hypothetical future American nobility will be a new Yeoman Mannerbund. Service guarantees citizenship (see: Starship Troopers). The USA may even break up into independent regions. There may even be "kings" governing these regions; though probably kings in an elective rather than strictly hereditary-monarchical sense. That would simply be quite "un-American," to use an old out-of-style buzzword. The American Spirit tends to reject all-things-pretentious. And let us remember that the archaic Roman "kings" were more elected dictator-magistrates than men who happened to be the great-great-great grandson of someone supremely important at some point in time.

A threefold class structure like this may emerge: (1) Yeoman Nobles, (2) Townsfolk specialists, (3) Workers/Laborers who lack specialized skills and expertise for whatever reasons.
causticus: trees (Default)
2018-11-22 01:50 pm

The Indo-European Tripartiate Class Structure

Within many of the historical IE cultures, we find a vague tripartiate class system alluded to in old texts and traditions. The Hindu Varna structure (which Westerners call 'Caste') seems to be derived from this. Though in the most common system there tends to be only three main categories, as opposed to the four we find in classical Indian civilization. These three are:

-Priests
-Warriors
-Producers

In the most conceptual terms:
-Ethical/Cultural Domain
-Political/Military Domain
-Economic Domain

Similarly in the Varna system:
-Brahmins (Priests/Teachers)
-Kshatriyas (Warriors/Governors)
-Vaishya (Producers: Farmers/Merchants)
-Shudras (Producers: Laborers/Peasants)

Among the ancient Iranains:
-Priests (sometimes called 'Magi')
-Aristocracy (Warrior-landholders)
-Commoners (Producers: Farmers/Merchants/Craftsmen/Peasants)

Plato, in his great work 'The Republic' ressurected this ancient form and incorporated it into his concept of an ideal state:
-Guardians (Philosopher-Kings)
-Auxiliaries (Warriors/Soldiers)
-Producers (Farmers, Merchants, Artisans, ect.)

And finally, in Medieval Europe, we find a similar social structure:
-Church Clergy
-Landholding Nobility/Aristocracy
-Commoners (Merchants, Artisans, Serfs/Peasants)

---

So we can see that this tripartiate class structure is a primordial form and perhaps we could say it's the sanest way of organizing society. The greatest sages and seers existed in this ancient societies (not so today!) and must have provided intellectual and spiritual support for this basic system many times over. Contrast this to the modern, industrialized West where any type of formal class distinction has been tossed to the wolves, under the guise of buzz-concepts like "liberty" .. "freedom" .. and "emancipation." Of course most liberals today will agree this dissolution has been a great thing, without of course providing any coherent metaphysical arguments to justify this position, besides maybe a "muh freedom is good and class is bad" utterance. Of course, merely getting rid of a formal social classification system does not make it go away, rather it simply remains in a less formal, less acknowledged state. So today the default system we have today, ranked in order of power, is something along the lines of:

-Capitalists/Investors, Businessmen and Merchants
-Celebrities, Mass Media Personalities and Tenured Academics
-Public Servants (i.e. Career Politicians)
-Producers (Professionals, Workers/Laborers)
-The Underclass, which includes anyone living in a community with a critical mass of people lacking a marketable skillset or ability to find steady work that pays a living wage

What we have here is a totally lopsided hierarchy (relative to the historical examples above) where various grades of apex Producers are on top, and everyone else gets sorted out in the lower layers. The "Cultural Domain" is in the second ranking and must serve the dictates of the ultra-wealthy Investor class. This cultural layer has no overarching spiritual imperative but instead is subject to the ever-shifting collection of fads that known modern pop culture and whatever ideological trends conform to this always-morphing mass culture. And of course pop culture is largely a function of big money. The old "Warrior class" no longer exists under this new arrangement, as modern armies are fully professional armies and there is no official nobility or aristocracy that exists, much less one that comprises the military's top officer corps.

Those who are well-read on Oswald Spengler and the Traditionalist authors (Guenon, Evola, ect.) will probably agree that Western European ('Faustian' as Spengler termed it) had already entered its decline phase and thus all the symptoms associated with a declining culture are loudly manifesting themselves here in the West of today. A lopsided class system is one of the primary symptoms of a culture circling the drain. Let us go back to Plato for a moment and note how he lucidly explains this decline process using the allegory of the 5 Regimes:

-Aristocratic Man: A Philosopher/Sage/Priest class guides the state according to a series of spiritual virtues.

-Timocratic Man: Landholding nobility rules and guides the state according to virtues like honor, duty, solidarity and patriotism.

-Oligarchic Man: An urban merchant class rules the state according the demands of material self-aggrandizement.

-Democratic Man: An assortment of citizen representatives from all parts of society rules the state according to a set of ever-changing popular opinions and whims, with "majority rules" being the determining factor, regardless of whatever system of morality or lack thereof the majority values; all that matters is quantity.

-Tyrannical Man: Owing to the state of total chaos Democracy ends up wreaking upon the whole of society, a single strong-man or small clique rises to the occasion promising to restore order to the state, usually employing rather draconian and bloody methods.

---

We can clearly see how the above has played out in the modern West. IMHO, only a return to the ancient arrangement (1. Ethics, 2. Politics, 3. Economics) will restore true order to our disintegrating mess of a society.