Caustic Ramblings

I'm of the mind that it's becoming clear that so-called "Secular ethics" has no coherent metaphysical foundation. At the end of the day, it just ends up being each proponent of secular ethics attributing their own particular views/opinions on what constitutes proper secular ethics to "human reason"...which is really silly, because anyone can claim their opinions are based on reason (well, because reasons). In effect, what we end up with is an anarchy of competing "human reason"(s). Which begs the obvious question: "by which objective standard do we employ to determine if this or that value/view/doctrine is based on reason?" Ayn Rand and Karl Marx both attributed their respective hot takes on reality to "human reason." And anyone with half an IQ point would probably know that they would agree on very little, if anything at all.

The final result of this almost three century game-of-sophistries is an eminently-arrogant and dizzingly-anarchic clash of mere human opinions whereby there are no universal values but rather a Nietzschean battle of competing wills. The Postmodernists were quite right on this. Secular Liberalism as some sort of universal value system is a complete farce, and anyone with an ounce of philosophical literacy coupled with intellectual honesty should be able to reach that conclusion rather quickly. Without religious scriptures or philosophical treaties based on some conception of Natural Law, all we really have to work with in terms of determining right from wrong is something along the lines of, "This is the truth because I say so!! And I have an army behind me to force everyone to bend the knee to thing thing I claim to be the truth."

The secular morality project has a whole whoppin' 250 or so odd years behind it. (vs. many millennia of stable, religion-based cultures and civilizations). Chronological pissing contests aside, for most of this period a bulk of the western populations were still firmly Christian. Anyone adhering purely to secular ethics would have been a very tiny minority of educated intellectuals. Up until the most recent time period, these intellectuals still would have been paying some degree of lip service to Christian morality and Christian-Western cultural heritage in general. In retrospect, this whole project of trying to power a morality engine using a fuel input of secular rationalist doctrines, ended up being little more than a long protest movement against Abrahamic theocracy (IMO, Abrahamism is another affront to Natural Law, but that's a whole different topic for a different time, lol)

The long and short: A culture cannot sustain itself on an anarchy of values and principles. Let's hope some day we can get something more nuanced and philosophically-competent than Biblical religiosity.

Long live Natural Law, or Dharma, or whatever else you might want to call it!

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.

The is the first installment in a new Comment Of The Day (COTD) series. These will be comments I find posted in various placed around the internet, usually from topic-specific message boards. It shall be known that the comments I quote here are not my wholesale endorsement of the content within, but rather just an indication of what I find to be very thought-provoking and relevant to the overall theme of topics I talk about on this journal. Anyway.....

Today, OH says:

"Monotheism is a vulgar exoteric version, one might say, of transcendental monism, ready packaged for the masses. That is the main fundamental problem of the Abrahamic faiths and that was, more or less, the main argument of pagan philosophers of late Antiquity against Christianity - that it vulgarizes the deep truths of the Mysteries and in trying to bring to the masses that which has ever been hidden in the Mystery Schools, it denigrates those Mysteries.

The best system in this regard, truth be told, is Sanatana Dharma of Hindu India. It follows what once was common to the Aryan primal Faith of the [Indo-European] Urheimat - the multiple levels of religious reality - from the very basic animistic and fetishistic notions, through popular cults of the gods (popular polytheism), through polytheism of the higher classes, through various henotheistic (and in some interpretational frames even "monotheistic") currents (that define the three main branches of current Hinduism - Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism) up to the Monism of the Upanishads that is beyond any exoteric trappings."