Wednesday, September 16, 2009

One Cʘsmos: Mapping the 4-Dimensional Soul Space of Politics

Now this, by far:

One Cʘsmos: Mapping the 4-Dimensional Soul Space of Politics

Is the best explanation and graph I have ever seen, regarding not only politics but moral and spiritual progress.

Some excerpts from Gagdad Bob:

"I wanted to establish this notion that there are two general types of men, the worldly and the spiritual. However, this is not strictly an either-or proposition; rather, this duality exists on a vertical continuum. Let's call this the y-axis.

With this in mind, we need to immediately amend our definition, since there exist "infrahuman" states that are spiritual in the negative sense. As such, the saint would be situated at the top of the y-axis, whereas the common man would be at the zero point. The real evildoers are situated in the minus space below the horizontal axis. More on which later.

Now, later in the day I was reading The Road to Serfdom, which is all about... well, about the left-wing collectivist road to serfdom. I don't think there's any need to rehearse all of his arguments here, because if you don't already understand them, you probably never will.

At the time Road to Serdom was published, it was still thought that fascism and socialism were somehow opposites rather than two forms of the same underlying assumptions. To place these on the horizontal continuum is pure nonsense -- as if fascism is somehow an extension of the classical liberalism of the free market!

No. The only logical way to understand the horizontal continuum -- and to chart "progress" -- is to place "collectivism" and "individualism" on the x-axis; conveniently, collectivism (and serfdom) is to the left, while individualism (and liberty) is to the right."

Please check out the link to see the graph, I couldn't copy it for some resason.

The graph represents three dimensions, incorporating the horizontal (secular) and vertical (spiritual). Indeed, all of Bob's posts revolve around the horizontal and vertical, and can get quite esoteric, but I can find few examples of folks that can write about esoterism in such a way as to make it more
understandable. Not that I understand everything Bob writes about, but I can say every post is worth reading. Often, I'll understand and realize something Bob wrote a few years ago, when I'm "ready" to know it. When I see it. So, if you are ready, you will see the graph not as it appears on Bob's blog, but as it really is, beyond two dimensions and within your self.

What I like most about Gagdad Bob's excellent post (and virtually every post he writes) is the clarity in which he writes. In this post he clarifies and explains how fascism is a leftist creation. When you think about it, it must be because leftists are collectivists (slavery) while those on the right are individualists (liberty), to paraphrase Bob. Therefore, a conservative, or classic liberal would never be attracted to collectivism (fascism, Communism, Socialism).

I know that really pisses off those on the left, but it's true. They can't see it, or if they do they won't admit it. That's why it's useless to "debate" leftists. It's like trying to describe colors to a blind man. So better to simply clarify, rather than argue with them, as Dennis Prager suggests.
When you clarify a leftist position, more often than not it's looks silly. Besides, when a leftist of any degree see's clearly what they really believe it can be far more compelling than debating them.

1 comment:

Jimmy J. said...

Leftism, statism, fascism, or other collectivisms are all about tribalism.

We lived in small tribes of hunter-gathers for hundreds of thousands of years. These tribes were all about the community. The survival of the tribe was always more important than the survival of any individual. This spirit of submerging the individual to the needs of the tribe was necessary in a hostile world where dangerous animals and dangerous other tribes could only be defended against by the collective efforts of the group. To be cast out of a tribe in those days was a death sentence, so the need to belong to the group was deeply imbedded in each person's genes. Those instincts toward tribalism are still deeply imbedded in our genes. And we see it in those who believe in the power of the group (state) over the individual.

It has only been 7000 years since humans began living in villages and practicing agriculture.
The history of individualism is even shorter. It began in Greece, but did not make much headway until the Magna Carta was signed a little less than 800 years ago.

The drive toward individualism has been the story of the Anglosphere. Individualism and freedom have reached their highest levels in the countries that have sprung from the British Isles. But that progress has been gained only through many blood soaked chapters where the forces of tribalism have tried to bring the drive toward individualism to heel. Only through the strongest of efforts can the forces of individualism continue to hold because the instincts for individuality are not as deeply imprinted on our genes.

So, yes, the horizontal axis has tribalism (collectivism) at one pole and individualism at the other. In spite of all the evidence (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, West Germany -all properous under representative government and free, open markets where individuals control their destinies)
(the USSR, China, Cuba, Burma, and North Korea reaping the bitter harvest of collectivism), the instincts toward tribalism(collectivism) are still very, very strong. And it is on this horizontal axis that this battle will be waged

Whereas the individual is free to find his/her way along the vertical toward Gnos, the collective (tribe) must all worship the same diety, which is finally the tribe, state, or collective. They are not free to move toward the vertical.

At least that's my take.