Pico Ultraorientalis

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

In Defense of “Man”

Posted by nouspraktikon on July 15, 2017

Not Even Wrong

Suddenly.

Not suddenly as you or I measure time, but suddenly according to the stately cadences of historical events, we have lost, if not yet our species, at least, and ominously, our name for it.  At some point in the not very distant past, “Man” vanished…not extinguished as an  organism, but as an object of consciousness.  For where there is no name there can be no consciousness, where there is no consciousness there can be no science.  Today there is no longer a science called Anthropology worthy of its name, for the name has been banished.   I don’t mean the entertaining science of bones and basket weaving and many other shining objects which is offered in college curricula as “Anthropology.”  I mean Anthropology in the most specific of species-centered meanings, inquiry into that simple question….”What is…what is…[bleep!].”   It is a question which can scarcely be asked today, let alone answered.

This masking of “Man” strikes me as an important development which deserves an extended and serious discussion.   To that end, some ground rules are necessary, concerning which I have some good news and some bad news.  Here goes both:  Sex will not be mentioned in the course of this article.  I have no interest whether the reader be sex-crazed or celibate, male or female or anywhere on the spectrum in-between.  I am only interested in whether you think this Anthropological murder mystery is worth of your time and consideration.

If you concur, then the omission of sex and his/her ugly sibling “gender” is good news indeed, because these things are monumental and, I would argue, intentional, distractions from the difficulties involved in Philosophical Anthropology.  Those bad news bears,  non-adults who think sexuality is the central, nay exclusive, issue in life, can adjourn to their favorite safe space, the Reading Room on Gender, where they can reinforce their own bias among those vast collections of literature which are supplemented daily by our subsidized scholars and their media mimes.

Now to be sure, there are other rabbit paths leading away from the essential inquiry, its just that sex and gender are the most obvious, if not the most obnoxious, and hence need to be eliminated first.  However, those other anti-Anthropological rabbit paths, though less celebrated, become increasingly subtle as the core of the problem is approached.  In any subject, the task is hard enough when we have been force-fed the wrong answers…the real difficulties start when we realize that we started off on the wrong foot by asking the wrong questions.  Today, when we encounter the fundamental question of  Philosophical Anthropology, to paraphrase the incidentally sexy but essentially humane Erin Brockovitch, “..all we have is two wrong feet and damn ugly shoes.”  We don’t know”bleep!”…and the absence of the word doesn’t help.

If we wish to restore that lost science, it will prove necessary to go back and wrap our brains around that simple word “Man” which was once the standard English term for the class of all human beings, much like its French equivalent “l’homme” etc..  Man has long since disappeared out of scholarly, correct and polite language , which means pretty much everywhere, since in casual idiom, if we discount “Man oh man!” and similar oddities, the universalizing nomenclature of Philosophical Anthropology is worse than useless.  After all, you can tell a good joke about Poles, or rabbis, or priests, or homosexuals, or women, and yes, even about “men” qua the male gender, but its hard (short of aliens or the envious algorithms of The Matrix) to envision a “Man” joke.  However, while the comedians won’t notice, there might be a few instances where, for the health of civilization, the ability to have a word for the human species could come in handy.  From this, we can derive another important consideration, once “Man” has been abolished, it  is unlikely to be missed by the broad masses.  The only people who are likely to be bothered are a few specialists in what it means to be a unique species, and these specialists are generally regarded an over-serious, isolated and boring bunch.  Likewise, if the word “epidemic” and all synonyms for “epidemic” were outlawed, the only people likely to get in a panic would be epidemiologists.  Everyone else would get along quite splendidly…at least for a while.

To be sure, the abolition of “Man” and the Abolition of Man, as per the essay by C.S. Lewis are not identical.  The latter concerns the weakening of the species, the former concerns the loss of its name.  Indeed, the distinction between signs and things signified is another treasure which must be jealously guarded against the ravages of post-modernity, which is trying to slouch its way back towards a magical worldview.  Be that as it may, we can still surmise that in the defense of something it might prove essential to be able to speak about it.

On the other hand, we have to make especially sure we don’t get lured down another popular rabbit path, a highly respectable path none the less leads away from the Anthropological core: The path of language.  For example, we could easily lump this abolition of “Man” (the word) together with similar language “correction.”  Pointing out the absurdity of these corrections is the strategy of many conservatives, such as British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton who talks about the way that gender neutrality reforms have “violated the natural cadences of the English language.”   On an esthetic level, there may still be some residual irritation at “people” (or similar substitutes) in lieu of “Man”.  Yet, while this is good Edmund Burke-vintage common sense, it heads off in a trivial and logic mincing direction, of the kind favored by British analytical philosophers and American word-pundits in the Bill Safire tradition.  It expresses a futile, rearguard, hope that inane reforms, like the substitution of his and hers by “hez” can be reversed by a return to  convention, or even mutual rationality.  Rather, the Postmodernist hoards are not likely to be stemmed by a grammar policeman, policewoman, or even policeperson holding up a gloved hand, shouting “Stop!”  Its not that the “reforms” can’t be exposed as illogical and unappealing, its that they are just the tip of the spear carried by acolytes in a far deeper struggle.

Whether the war over language is winnable, I maintain it is the war against Man (as a concept) which is primary, a battle with ideological motives rooted in the hoary past.  Call it a “conspiracy” if you will, keeping in mind that conspiracy is just  popular philosophy prosecuted by cadres of minimally educated but highly motivated minions.  The generals in this conspiracy knew that they could not launch a frontal assault on Man (a.k.a. the human race), so they focused their attention on “Man” at first as a concept and then as a word.  This history of this war is better measured by centuries than by decades and has taken many a convoluted turn.  Hence my belief that contemporary Feminism is, at best, a secondary effect.  It is the Amazon battalion thrown into the breach of the citadel after the the groundwork had been patiently laid and the initial battlefield secured.  That crucial battlefield was anthropology, and not what one is liable to think of as the field of anthropology, but its philosophical cousin, that key science of all sciences, namely, the “Philosophy of…[bleep!]…”

A good “Man” is wrong to find

One can admit something exists and is important without idolizing it.  There was all too much idolization of the human race after the Renaissance and building up to the Enlightenment, a period bookended by Pico de la Mirandola’s On the Dignity of [Bleep!] and Alexander Pope’s Essay on [Bleep!] tomes which style and economy have rendered, perhaps mercifully, unreadable today.  In those days, whenever errant scholars ventured too far from the Pauline/Augustinian double anthropology of fall and redemption, it spelled trouble.  However, personal repentance generally put a  limit to the damage which could be inflicted before the toxic juice of self-worship became endemic to society.  Mirandola befriended and was converted by Savonarola, that misunderstood Catholic puritan, while at least Pope never became the Pope nor were his verses rendered into binding encyclicals.  Savonarola taught the early humanists the secret of Christian Anthropology, that Man is both sacred and bad.  For his tuition, and other causes, he was burned at the stake.

The last child and virtual apotheosis (that is, one “made into God”) of the early modern period was Voltaire, who’s hatred of religion was legendary.  None the less, even Voltaire had too much common sense to think that his animus towards Christianity could be transmuted into a new and living faith.  He noted that “It is easy enough to start a new religion, all you have to do is get yourself crucified and then rise from the dead!”  In recent years, the late Rene Girard has documented Voltaire’s insight with numerous case-studies, illustrating how most human religions originate in scapgoating, death, and subsequent apotheosis.  However the wily Voltaire could see where all this was heading, and limited his disciples to the “cultivation of  their gardens” i.e., the enjoyment of a quiet and restrained sensuality.  We might call this soft-core Humanism, or the humanism of the self.   This early modern Man-ism, which today is probably the most popular (albeit unconscious) religion on the planet, is little more than a recrudescence of old Epicurus, whose famous doctrine Paul once debated on the field of Athenian Mars.  At worst the virtues of this philosophy, such as conviviality, apolitical repose, refined aesthetics etc., are disguised vices, vices centered on feelings.  Think of the the steriotypical Country Club Republican of today’s America.  Such people are pathetic, but not in any superficial sense of the word, since the purpose of their  life is “pathic”…that is, to have feelings, high quality feelings.

Hard-core Humanism was a novelty of Voltaire’s rival, J. J. Rousseau.  In contrast to the soft doctrine, here the object of action is the ideal of Man, not the feeling-satisfaction of individual human beings.   It was Rousseau who managed to transmute the Enlightenment’s carping animus against Christianity into something resembling a true religion.  As the founder of this new religion, which has variously been termed Modernism, Humanism, Socialism and much else, Rousseau should have found himself subject to the pitiless Law of the Scapegoat.  However he eluded martyrdom, and not just because he died a natural death nineteen years prior to the outbreak of the revolution he had inspired.  Rousseau’s Man differed in important ways from both Christian and Renaissance conceptions, which were predicated on either a personal God, or at any rate, a hierarchy of beings of which the human race was but one link in the chain of existence.  Although initially disguised by Deistic code-words, the new religion lifted up Man as the Head of the Cosmos.  Since this Man was a collective, it was not expedient that any individual anti-Christ need suffer the Law of the Scapegoat.  If there were to be any suffering, it would only be in accord with the tyrant Caligula’s wish for the Roman people, “If only they all had but one neck!”  In principle, the head which lifts itself too high gets chopped off.  Caligula himself  proved  no exception to the rule.

At all events, by the 2nd or 3rd  year of the Human Revolution (c. 1793AD) modern technology had outstripped antiquity, democratizing death and allowing Caligula’s dream to come true.  The guillotine enabled the disciples of Rousseau to liquidate the old political class en mass, and then in a predictable turn of events, those disciples themselves mounted the scaffold, suffering a kind of mechanical crucifixion to the god whom they had lifted up, Man.  It was a collective crucifixion to a collective god, for this “Man” was not the same as in the soft Humanism of Voltaire, which was just a category designating a collection of individuals.  Rather, this post-Rousseau “Man” was, if not quite a concrete organism, at least cohesive enough to have a single will, a doctrine as lethal as it was democratic.

The carnage of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic period was not repeated in Europe until 1914 and thereafter, after which great quantities of men and women again began to be killed as a consequence of political and military action.  Here  we would like to inquire whether this carnage (lit. carnal death) was in some sense related to the death (or life) of an abstraction.  Is there a relation between the death of humans and the death of “Man” as a concept and a word, and if so, is that relation positive or negative?  The example of the French Revolution would seem to caution us against a laudatory Humanism, on the suspicion that the higher the ideal of “Man” is lifted up, the more human individuals are likely to be subjected to political violence.

At this point in the argument however, such a conclusion would be premature.  The period between the exile of Napoleon and the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand in Bosnia, which saw relative calm in European politics was conversely that period which witnessed, for good or ill, a wholesale revolution in popular concept of “Man” under the impact of Evolution, Marxism, and Psycho-analysis.  However none of these epicenters of scientific upheaval were directly concerned with Anthropology, at least Philosophical Anthropology, rather they were centered on the cognate disciplines of biology, economics, and psychology.

More to the point, none of these revolutionaries set out to solve the problem, “What is… [bleep!]…”   However others took up that now forbidden question, and we should try to pick up their tracks from where they left off in the tumult of 19th century thought.

Philosophical Anthropology: The Conspiracy Thickens

Today if you mention “Illuminism” it is likely to conjure up secret societies, occultism and political skulduggery, critical investigation into which is no doubt important and proper.  However in the literary salons of Europe and America during the 1840s and 185os Illuminism had a second, though in all probability related, meaning.  It referred to the then-novel research which today’s theologians refer to as the “Higher Criticism.”  If you know about, say, the “Jesus Seminar” then you pretty much know what Illuminism a.k.a. “Higher Criticism” was, except that the contemporary Seminar is pretty much an isolated rehashing of themes which were treated with greater plausibility and seriousness 170 years before.  Those earlier 19th century critics of religion were advancing along the front of a broad intellectual movement which was in the early stages of transiting from spiritualism to materialism.  The cynosure of the movement was Germany in the years following, and in reaction to, the death of philosopher G.F.W. Hegel.  To simplify a very complex way of thinking, many people of that time had accepted Pantheism, the idea that the universe and God are the same thing.  Since most people are not very quick on the uptake, and are willing to sign on to a belief systems before they grasp all of its correlative implications.

Thus, many a happy Pantheist, circa 1840AD, was surprised and saddened to learn that their system no longer permitted them to believe in the personal divinity of Jesus, whom they had hoped to retain as a spiritual hedge in spite of their infidel inclinations .  They should have figured this out from reading Hegel, but it took the shock treatment administered by some young, radical, German intellectuals of the time (a.k.a.,  the Illuminists, Higher Critics etc.) to rub the noses of these au currant ladies and gentlemen in the compost of atheism.  After a halfhearted embrace of Pantheist ambiguity, some among the elite classes of Europe were again courting hard-core, Rousseau-vintage, Humanism, very much along the lines of the original French Revolution of 1789, albeit the European political revolutions of the 40s didn’t amount to much.  This time, humanism broke out with more scientific rigor and less heartfelt enthusiasm, “Man” was made the vehicle of those hopes and dreams which had previously been invested in God.  Moreover, the unprecedented technological progress of the times were conducive to putting faith in human works.

Yet those works, splendid as they might be, begged the nature of their creators.  What was the essence of Man?  Or as we would say today, “What is the essence of….[bleep!]?”  Amazing though it might seem in retrospect, some people of that era actually took the time and pains to ask the Anthropological question.  The man who best serves as archetype of those questioners, actually proposing and discarding several solutions over the course of his life, was the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872).  One thing that can be said of Feuerbach, even if we dismiss him as a serial wrong-guesser who justly earned posthumous obscurity, was his persistent and scrupulous engagement with the Anthropological question.  His best remembered quote,”You are what you eat!” might ornament a nutritionist more gloriously than a philosopher.  Yet we must consider that, as a thinker, he was an anvil and not a hammer, pounded left and right by forces which were not just making Modernity but shattering the classical mirror of Man (better known to us as “bleep!”).  Feurerbach’s lifetime bracketed an epochal turn in human self-definition, a turn which Feuerbach didn’t initiate so much as chronicle.

Therefore, meditate on the chronological sketch below and notice how the the turn from Anthropology to anti-Anthropology transpired in the space of a specific, species-haunted, generation.  I know this narrative will be easy to dismiss as a curmudgeon’s rant on “the origins of the left”  but if you visualize the broad movement behind, and independent of, individual intentions will you grasp  its Anthropological significance.  In spooky confirmation of a simultaneous and  universal (or at least pan-Western) turn of thought, the history of early Positivism could be adduced as  a development in synchronicity with Idealism, but in this case the decapitation of Man being conducted by French, and allegedly “conservative” social scientists from August Compte to Emile Durkheim.  But I rather prefer the bold and brooding history of Anglo-German radicalism.

1804  death of Immanuel  Kant, birth of L. Feuerbach

1806 Hegel publishes his Phenomenology, consciousness posited as the motive force in the history of the world, subjective (individual) consciousness conditioned in a “dialectical” relationship to objective (collective) consciousness.

1818-19 Lectures on the History of Philosophy, S. T. Coleridge introduces German Idealism to the English reading public, slowly Idealism will replace the reigning Scottish “common sense” philosophy in the English speaking world.

1831  death of Hegel

1835 Life of Jesus, by Strauss

1841 The Essence of Christianity by Feuerbach

1843 The Essence of Christianity translated by George Eliot

1844 Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, critical of objectivity and lack of political engagement in speculative Anthropology

1847-48 Revolutions in France and central Europe

1848 The Communist Manifesto

1850 The Great London Exposition, popular vindication of applied technology over philosophical and scientific theory

1854-56 Crimean War (only major European war between 1815-1914)  Nightingale, progressive transfer of humane care from family and church to state

1859 Charles Darwin, the Origin of Species, natural selection adduced as motive force in natural history

1860 Essays and Reviews, English theologians embrace the methods of Higher Criticism

1861-65 American civil war, first modern “total” war

1861 Marx, Capital vol. 1 published

1871 Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man

1872 Death of Feuerbach

Note that at the outset Man was The All-In-All, but at the end of the period, not even the  child of a monkey, rather, a scion of some anonymous animal.

In The Essence of Christianity Feuerbach attempted to equate God with “good.”  In his view all the things which were posited of a Supreme Being were actually virtuous attributes of the human species-being.  Justice, mercy, love, fidelity, etc., were human characteristics, which had been mistakenly projected on to an alienated figment of the collective imagination and deified.  However, and here’s the rub, the human individual had no more ultimate reality than God.  Feuerbach’s Man was not men, or men and women, or even people, but the species as a collective.   Individuals were mortal but the species was immortal.  Man was God, Man was good, and Man would live forever.  At the time it seemed like a grand faith, a devotion to something tangible which might give meaning to the limited and fragile life of individuals.

Feuerbach’s intention was  to make a smooth transition from the crypto-Pantheism of Hegel, to a less infatuated, more earthy, Humanism.  Yet  his critics were were more likely to see this continuity with idealism as contamination by unrealistic nonsense.  As thinkers more cunning and sanguinary than Feuerbach were quick to point out, this alleged Human species-being never managed to will anything concrete and  unanimously, but rather, all real  history has been the history of antagonistic groups engaged in fratricidal strife.  For the critics, the ultimate meaning of history was far better illustrated by victorious parties dancing on the graves of the defeated than a universally inclusive chorus singing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.  According to Karl Marx the antagonistic parties were economic classes, and to some extent nations.  Today we would add genders, races, religions, and even sexual orientations.  Under fire from its radical critics, Human species-being quickly melted into the solvent of class analysis.

Small wonder that Marx happily discarded Feuerbach’s anthropology for the naturalism of Darwin, at one point seeking (and being refused) permission to dedicate Capital to the British naturalist.  Darwin’s system was founded on the assumption of conflict and competition, not the deduction of human from divine virtues.  Feuerbach continued to revise his system in the direction of increasingly consistent materialism, but was no longer in the forefront of a generation which had jumped from philosophical speculation to natural science, now that the latter was backed up by the prestige of  rapidly developing technology.

More significantly, the capital which Darwin did not endorse was the capital M in Man.  In classical anthropology Man had been one of the primordial kinds, as in Spirit, Man, Animal, and Mineral.  Naturalists from Aristotle to Buffon had recognized that  qua organism, the human body was akin to other mammals, and especially to apes and monkeys.  However in a consistently despiritualized science, the one human species was no longer set apart from the myriad of other animals, but rather fell under the same biological and ethological constraints as any other organism.  This reduction may have deeply bothered Darwin personally, but as a scientist he never really posed the Anthropological question the same way that Feuerbach had done, rather he was resigned to viewing homo sapiens as a single object within the purview of the natural science.  In spite of the title, after The Decent of Man, Man ceased to exist as a problem for natural science.  Or more precisely, from a Darwinian point of view, Man, as a unique aspect of the world, had never existed to begin with.

From Man to “Man”

We began by hinting that the loss of “Man” was a harbinger of the death of our own species.  After some clarification we can now understand that the situation is rather worse than we had initially feared, in that, conceptually, Man was killed off sometime in the middle of the 19th century, while “Man” (the word) actually survived the concept by more than a hundred years.  To maintain clarity, we must remember that there are actually three deaths.  First, the death of the concept, second the death of the word, and third, and yet to happen, the actual species extinction of homo sapiens.  That the third death is yet to happen should not imply that it necessarily will, it is only a hypothesis.  None the less, the three deaths are cognitively related.  In particular, the death of Man (the concept) at the hands of Darwinism, is strongly associated with the putative mortality of the species.  If Man is subject to species extinction, as are all organic taxa according to the laws of natural selection, then Man cannot be considered a primary aspect of the world.  As an analogy, consider the concept of “states of matter” which are generally accepted as uniform, or at least ubiquitous, aspects of nature.  If, say, all liquids could disappear from the cosmos, it would put the schema of “states of matter” in serious doubt.  Something of that nature is what has happened with Man, due to the anti-Anthropological turn circa 1860.

Now, would it be too wicked for me to suggest that while Man is not a “species” in the same sense that felix domestica is a species, none the less Man bears an uncanny resemblance to the cat, that enigmatic creature of the proverbial nine lives?  Not only did the word “Man” persist far longer than one might have expected, but Anthropology entered a period of great fruition after the death of Darwin.  Here I’m not referring primarily to what people ordinarily think of as “Anthropology”, the post-Darwinian people-within-nature paradigm which covers everything from bones to basket weaving.  Be wary that, just as in politics, where the nomenclature for everything gets twisted around to its opposite, and we now are forced to call socialists “liberals” in similar fashion those post-Darwinian scholars who no longer believe in a human essence are liable to call themselves “Anthropologists.”  In fact, they are mostly anti-Anthropologists who just want to study the secondary attributes and accidental properties associated with human beings.   Granted, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and on the whole these so-called Anthropologists are not a bad lot, being no more consistently anti-Anthropological than the other professionals who have have inherited scattered fragments among the human sciences.  If the so-called Anthropologists have any besetting sins, those would be 1) they stole the name away from genuine Anthropology, 2) some sub-schools were virulently anti-cognitive, for example the ethnologist Franz Boaz who never saw a theory that he didn’t want to grind down into a powder of facts, 3) others, notably the Structuralists, were hyper-cognitive, and sought to gin up a Theory of Everything, based on some attribute (usually kinship or language) of human thought or behavior.

The anti-Anthropologists who called themselves “Anthropologists” loved “Man” (the word).  After all, it was their schtick, and made a nifty title for textbooks, even textbooks written by sophisticated Darwinians and Marxists who knew that human species-being had gone out of fashion with Feuerbach.  In the meantime, anything on two legs with an opposable thumb would do, and it was all great fun until Feminism put the kibosh on that particular branding.  None the less, so-called  “Anthropology” took the ban on “Man” in stride, since their usage of the term was based on a consistent nominalism, if not on a conscious memory of the anti-Anthropological roots of modern natural science.  Fortunately, due to the exclusion of classical languages, undergraduates could still take “Anthro” and not worry their heads that banned “Man” had never meant just  andro…indeed, that it had meant much more than both andro and gyno put together.

Yet, I wanted to mention the 2oth century miracle of Anthropology, not so-called “Anthropology” but genuine Philosophical Anthropology, as it flourished after, and in spite of, the anti-Anthropological turn of the previous generation.  If I thought that Man were a mere species and not an attribute of Created Being, my inclination would be to classify it somewhere within the family Leporidae, as a mammal with a capacity for making unexpected intellectual leaps, and multiplying thoughts faster than other species can reproduce their genes.  To that end, what great broods have been spawned, not just among the anti-Anthropologists, which is only to be expected, but even among genuine Anthropologists during the 20th and even 21st centuries!

Now remember, when I heap praise on the battered remnants of genuine, philosophical, Anthropology, I’m only lauding them for asking the right question, namely: “What is…[bleep!]”  And by now you understand what “bleep!” is and that a Philosophical Anthropologist is one who would know and say that “bleep!”=Man, and that possibly we should even come out and say “Man” when we mean Man.  I am not saying that many, or even any, of these Anthropologists have answered the question correctly, although I think there is an answer, and that some have made a closer approach to the correct solution than others.  Naturally I have my own views, but I would consider anyone a legitimate Anthropologist who asked the question aright.

There are schools of Philosophical Anthropology of every description.  Some are religious, some are frankly atheistic, but even the most starkly atheistic Anthropologists demure from post-Darwinian naturalism in positing something unique and essential about the human race.  In that sense, all Anthropologists, from atheists to Christians, are tendering a kind of “minority report” against the consensus view of modern science and society.  An atheistic, but genuine, Anthropologist might posit that the human race has a unique responsibility to conserve the cosmos and bring it to its best potential.  Countering this, the consensus view would maintain that such an assertion was errant nonsense, an arbitrary projection of human values into the unthinking and unthinkable void.

In a brief treatment, it is impossible to do more than allude to all the speculative “minority reports” which have been filed by Philosophical Anthropologists against the hegemony of post-Darwinian naturalism.  No doubt many of these speculations have been wrong-headed, but they have at least kept a window open to world-views outside the standard narrative.  If I had to pick a representative of the type it would be Max Scheler(German, d. 1928).  Feuerbach’s anthropolgy began with materialistic idealism and sloped inexorably down to idealistic materialism, however Scheler’s thought described a parabola, which at its height sought the divine in Man.   Personality, both Divine and Human, was arguably Scheler’s main concern, however his reluctance to deal with the limits imposed by a temporal creation, as per the Judeo-Christian scriptures, subordinated individuality to the vague infinity of deep time, a dilemma similar to that encountered by the ancient Gnostics.  Abandoning his initial, and intentionally Christian, viewpoint, Scheler made the alarming discovery that, in precluding a personal God, the amoral instinctual urges of the Cosmos were far stronger than  any principle of spiritual form or sentiment.   The intellectual public in Germany and beyond, repelled by such otiose metaphysics embraced existentialism, a doctrine which gave up on the reality of anything but individuals.  Anthropology once again retreated to the shadows.

In retrospect, Feurebach and Scheler seem like tragic figures who lifted up Man, in one or another guise, as a god, only to see their systems crushed down by more consistently nihilistic doctrines.  However it doubtful whether their contemporaries saw the loss of Anthropological hegemony as something to be lamented.  Rather, they were relieved to be unburdened of Man, just as they had greeted the earlier, and logically prior, “death of God” with satisfaction.

The return of Man, and the return of “Man”…which, both or neither?

The operational assumption is that people can get along perfectly well without a conception of their own species occupying a special place in the system of the world.  Underlying this assumption is the more fundamental axiom that the natural science narrative is our default outlook on the world.  After all, its “natural” is it not?

However the “minority report” of Philosophical Anthropology raises the  specter of a completely different world, a world in which the unique bearers of the divine image have been persuaded that they are but one of a myriad of animal species.  By this account, the conceptual framework of natural science within which the image bearers were circumscribed, was not so much a “discovery” as the imputation of a belief-system.  From this perspective, it is naturalism, not the classical Man-centered cosmology, which is fabulous.  To get the masses of humanity to believe such a deflating fable in the course of a few centuries, has been a superbly effective triumph of propaganda.  Although we have some hints as to who has disseminated this propaganda, the question of in whose interest it was disseminated remains enigmatic.

Within the English-speaking world, the banner of the old classical Anthropology (Christian or secular) was “Man.”  The banner was not furled up until long after the cause was lost.  Yet the banner itself was essential, so essential that the high command of anti-Anthropology decided to send in the Amazonian battalion to haul it down under the pretext of the gender wars.  Lost in the confusion of that particular skirmish, was the deep import of having a proper name for that key nexus of Creation through which the Divine, ideally, was to communicate its dominion over the visible world.  “People” is more than just an innocent substitute for “Man”, since, being a plural, it serves as a pretext for importing the entire philosophy of nominalism into the human sciences.  Nominalism views entities (you and me and the cat and the carpet) as capable of being grouped into any category which happens to be convenient.   Who’s convenience?

It can be safely inferred that this is a view well suited to those who want to abolish the boundaries between species.  Perhaps now the reader can see the relevance of all the preceding esoteric Anthropology, for looming on the event horizon of our world are a thousand crises brought about by relation of the human to the non-human.  Indeed, we are conjuring up new categories of non-humans day by day.  AI and aliens, robots and Chimeras, not to mention all those entities of the natural and spiritual world who are ancient in human lore.  I eagerly await the rebirth of the “dinosaur” from its amber-encased DNA.  Or will it be a dragon?   Names make a difference.

None the less, we proceed without caution, for the night-watch has been relieved of its duties as the evening of human history encroaches.  Isolated voices cry out, “There may be a problem here!” and anxiety is ubiquitous, but few are willing to “get real.”  This is not an accident.  The “real” tools, nay, the “real” weapons with which we might have fought were long ago taken away and beaten, not into plowshares, but into the bars of zoological confinement for what remains of the dignity of Man.  The “real” tools were realistic in a properly philosophical sense, exalting created kinds as the unalterable building blocks from which God created our world.  Such was Man.  Hence the necessity of having a personal name for the species.

Will Man come again?  I think so, but more on the basis of faith than calculation.  In the meantime others look towards a rapidly accelerating future, and begin to realize that “Nature” is hardly a better idol than secular Man, that the sense of “nature-in-itself” is an illusory effect of what psychologists call normalcy bias.  None the less, something is approaching, we know not what.  Intellectuals call it “the end of history” while technologists speak of “the singularity.”  Most just ignore it, but it will come nonetheless.

Suddenly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Anthropology, Art, Christianity, Culture & Politics, Esoterism, Evolution, History, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Politics, Traditionalism, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Slouching towards the Post-Legal Society (Introduction: “The Beast”)

Posted by nouspraktikon on June 23, 2017

Cultural Marxism:  From show trials to no trials

If property is the proverbial nine points of the law, it is not surprising that Marxism, its frontal attack on property having stalled out (NB: ideology aside, we all like our “stuff”) would have eventually gotten around to launching a second front against law itself.  The total annihilation of law never succeeded with Communism Classic (Stalin’s version), since the Soviet state needed a judicial apparatus to highlight its superiority to “bourgeois law” …not to mention providing a half-way house on the way to the Gulag.  The nightmare of totalitarianism having been quietly put aside, if not entirely exorcised, we have emerged into the glaring, and presumably lawful, light of the Global Village.  Or have we?

Today, the legal “reforms” of the (allegedly) defunct Soviet state are held to be little more than antiquarian curiosities.  However this does not mean that “bourgeois law” a.k.a., classic legal principles of the Civil and Common law, have triumphed throughout the world.  Rather, the struggle against law has gone underground, or rather above ground and hidden in plain sight.  It dares not risk exposing itself, and therefore avoids clear opposition to the institution which makes civilization possible: Objective Law.  Since it eschews both thesis and antithesis, running for the dense cover of ambiguity, it must be tracked like a beast…by locating and examining its spores.  We know not what it is, but like W. B. Yeats, we can at least pose the question…

And what rough beast, its hour come at last

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

But at least we have a track, where the beast has digested large swaths of civilization’s foliage and left us a species-specific excrement where form has been neatly reduced to matter.   If we can track the down the spoor-dropper, perhaps it can be slain.  Or perhaps not.  But at least we may come to know who, or what, our adversary is.

Antinomianism

We must pick up the beast’s trail in the foothills of religion, and especially false religion.  The journeyman tracker will think that we have found the beast itself, and with a gleeful cry of “Antinomianism! Antinomianism!” presume that they have him treed, when in fact it is just a spoor, albeit very a significant find.  Actually the beast has moved on to an entirely different part of the forest, since the “true” false region of today is not a religion at all, but science, or rather scientism.

However there are enough who still believe in ersatz-Christianity to cloud the contemporary scene with a subtle contempt for law.  This is an Oedipal Christianity in which the God of Law is slain by the Son of Love, a doctrine preached by a vague figure named Jesus something or other.  Scientifically this is supposed to be Yeshua ben Yosef, but it really doesn’t matter, since this ersatz-Christianity has been purified of all but universal truths which all good natured people ought to be able to agree to.  Among these is that law is mean and should be dispensed with in favor of good will.

Yeats was assuming that the reader of his poem knew that he was talking about the “Antichrist.”  However if we get too hung up on the idea of the Antichrist being an ugly, brutal, beast then we are likely to be deceived.  Granted, there are many cults which like to dress up in spandex costumes, going about sporting horns and tridents.  They may even enjoy frightening middle-class people on Halloween and sundry sabbaths with their clownish antics.  But this is all an exercise in misdirection.  Such cultists may be “anti-Christs” but not the final beast who arrives at the end of history. The real threat to our spiritual well being doesn’t come from avowed nihilists who dance around impersonating a cartoon Satan.

The real threat comes when the world-system (what the Bible calls the “Aeon”) proceeds to abolish law in favor of a “higher morality.”  In today’s virtue-signaling pseudo-saints we see a harbinger of the real Antichrist.  The real Antichrist will not look evil or demonic, in fact the real Antichrist will try to resemble Christ to  whatever extent that might be possible.  After all, Christ did transpose law-abiding to a higher abiding in Him.   Call that a “higher morality” if you will.  However the “higher morality” of the Antichrist will not be based on fear of the Creator, but fear of the creatures.  Specifically, it will involve fear of the Human collective, a fear that will initially manifest itself as virtue-signaling, but in fact will rest upon appeasement of human (and ultimately demonic) lusts.

Having broken through the firewall of law (whether we choose to call such formal restraints law, culture, morality, ethics, or whatever) the direct confluence of collective human lusts and fears will create a Democracy of Desire.  Initially such a state of affairs may not seem ugly to behold.  It may even appear to be morally beautiful.

A beautiful beast.

 

Posted in Anthropology, Appologetics, Charismata, Christianity, Constitutionalism, History, Law, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Trump fizzle….the R3volution that wasn’t (and the one that was)

Posted by nouspraktikon on May 27, 2017

Trump’s non-revolution as an educational device

As of this writing pretty much everything which was promised in the salad days of Mr. Trump’s MAGA tours has been either hung up in pending legislation or put on the back burner.  Nobody, at least nobody who wasn’t born yesterday, really expected Ms. Clinton to go to jail or a physical wall to be built on the Mexican border, even assuming such things were desirable.  However few anticipated that  the President would morph into a double of his worst enemy, a.k.a., Sen. John McCain, which is pretty much what happened on foreign policy.  On the domestic front we now hear that refugee resettlement, something which is very different from voluntary immigration, can be expected to reach record highs.  The politics of blow-back, “invade the world and invite the world” is still as much the order of the day as it would be under any hypothetical Democrat administration.

I still retain a basic gut-level sympathy for Mr. Trump and his family, and a chivalrous disdain for the libelous attacks of the old-line media on their reputation.  None the less, I have lost any sense that a Trump revolution is afoot, unless that means a rebellion of Trump’s subordinates against their titular boss.  In place of a revolution, the most that conservatives and libertarians are likely to glean from this (possibly short-lived) administration is what, in patronizing terms, we refer to as a “learning experience.”  Yes, we are getting “a-lot-a-learning” taught to the tune of something far worse than a hickory stick…a broken heart.

On a deeper level, anyone who thought that a “Revolution”  was possible at this stage of American history is deluded.  However if we spell it R3volution, on the understanding that this is a counter-counter-revolution ( and if you see where the “3” comes in you are very clever!) then perhaps we have the basis, if not for hope, at least for a coherent narrative.

Put into schematic form that would be.

1.The original (libertarian) revolution against state absolutism. (a.k.a., the “Spirit of ’76)

2.The counter revolution of the administrative state under the pretext of various ideologies (egalitarianism, socialism, scientism).

3.The various attempts at counter-counter revolution launched against the New Order of the administrative/managerial state, usually labeled with that awkward term “conservatism.”

Basically, we are stuck at item 2, since we live in a historical situation where the administrative state has entrenched itself to the extent that most attempts at push-back fail before they become a credible threat to the New Order.  Mr. Trump’s revolution-manque is only the most recent and glaring example of this process.  Probably the best description of this situation was a series of essays written by an ex-editor of the Saturday Evening Post around the mid-point of the 20th century.

The Revolution Was

The man was Garet Garrett, a curmudgeon of the anti-New Deal resistance.  His thesis was that conservatives and moderates didn’t need to fear the advent of socialist revolution…since it had already occurred.  Of course by “revolution” he meant the authoritarian counter-revolution, not the American revolution, let alone any R3volution to restore the ideals of ’76.

Furthermore, Garrett underscored the permanence and near irreversible nature of the administrative state by articulating three reinforcing spheres in which the state made itself dominant and absolute. The welfare state, the system of international managed trade, and the system of collective security.  These were all solidly in place by the end of the Korean war.  These were each covered by an installment in his trilogy of essays, The Revolution Was(1938), Ex-America(1951), and The Rise of Empire(1952). (Note: the whole trilogy was packaged as The People’s Pottage , 1992)

Subsequent to Mr. Garrett’s analysis, but implicit in it, we see that so-called conservatives cavil at the welfare state, but accept it as the price of empire, while so-called liberals cavil at the empire, but accept it as the price of the welfare state.   Thus the people, through their representatives in Congress, were not liable to overrule the autonomy of the state bureaucrats, since the policy outcomes were always amenable to one or other section of the politically active classes.

A New (albeit false) Hope

Garet Garrett pointed out that at no specific point was the system of Constitutional government abrogated.  Rather, the Constitution was simply ignored and a substitute system of norms evolved to face changing contingencies.  Mr. Garrett dubbed this “Revolution within the form,” or in more exact nomenclature “counter-revolution within the form.”

The remedy therefore became opaque, since it was not a question of  legislating a new constitution, but of reasserting the salient provisions of the original, but neglected, law.  At the time of FDR the judicial branch occasionally still used it powers to limit the scope of the federal administrative state, a stance which was commonly thought to be the main justification for the doctrine of judicial review.  However, since that time, and especially since the ’60s the courts have become progressively (pun intended) subversive of the idea of any sphere of authority outside the administrative state.

An alternative to judicial redress was the possibility, however unlikely, that the American people would elect a libertarian president, or at least a kind of anti-FDR who would restore the Republic to its original vitality.  I had occasionally heard such sentiments voiced in libertarian and conservative circles prior to the election of Mr. Trump, however most people were surprised when the scarcely hoped for became incarnate in the form of a celebrity non-politician.  Or as it turned out, not.

We are left with what we should have started with, the prospects for political education and its impact on the legislative branch.  We now know that the “Hail Mary! pass” to a heroic chief executive doesn’t work.  Why? Because the theory of the unitary executive only works when it is in the interests of the administrative state.  When the chief executive opposes the interests of the (albeit “his own”) managerial class, the unitary executive crumbles like a sand castle at high tide.  We are at the high tide of statism.

If there is a silver lining to the present circumstances it is that the legislative branch can still throw a monkey wrench into the works, for good or evil.  In theory, a legislative branch that responded to the long range interests of the people, which is not that of the managerial state, could reverse the (counter-) revolution.  In theory, the right way to the right kind of freedom can be found…if only after exhausting every other way first.

 

Posted in Constitution, Constitutionalism, Culture & Politics, Economics, Libertarianism, Philosophy, Politics, Traditionalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Dammit Man!

Posted by nouspraktikon on May 18, 2017

A Pickup Placard Peccadillo

Driving along a trunk route of my community I was “shocked, shocked I tell you!” (well, kinda) to see an advertising placard on a pickup blazoned with the unique corporate moniker Dammit Man!  Dammit Man?  Not, mind you, a bumper sticker, but the name of the firm!  Well, context is everything, and from the barrels and tools in the back of Dammit Man’s pickup, it was evident that the  cussing commercial was advocating the services of a lawn care and cleaner-upper specialist.  Since my town is full of trees, deciduous and otherwise, there is a huge market for lawn waste removal.

Thus it took me less than two seconds to figure out the reference, which is a mark of good ad copy in itself.  Clearly, Dammit Man! was an unexpurgated expletive prefacing the tacit, but easily guessed proposition: “Dammit man, how did you get that lawn cleaned up so well…and in record time!”  Perhaps a local ordinance needs to be passed prohibiting foul language appearing as part of a corporate logo.  I suspect that most of our churches would line up in support of the motion.

However that really misses the point, both of the joke and the phrase itself.  Somehow I suspect that the Dammit Man, whether or not he can dispatch decaying vegetable matter with the celerity implied by the slogan, is a better Christian than most of us.  He has that seldom mentioned but welcome Christian virtue: Hilarity…or in plain language, a sense of humor.  It is the note of the pilgrim who is both seasoned and sincere on the spiritual path.

(And , incidentally, since I can’t resist a snarky soliloquy, this virtue was notably absent from the recently trounced politician who bore the name!)

On a deeper level, “dammit” is not an obscenity but an imprecation, and since we really don’t want to send our lawn-care specialists to the infernal regions, at least if they have done a good job, the expression in context has to be taken as an effusion of rare praise, not condemnation.  Therefore, since the vendor is praising himself using a curse word, the ultimate intent is humorous, even if the humor doesn’t exclude the likely “damn” goodness of the lawn care specialist.

But of course, real damnation is no laughing matter.  By “damnation” I don’t just mean the final, definitive judgement of sin before the throne of God, I mean condemnation in the broadest sense.  Every atheist dog-and-pony show purports to demonstrate that “damnation” was an innovation foisted on mankind by the God of Abraham, or rather by His ameneusis.

However damnation, in the broad sense of condemnation, is not something which we would have to wait on revelation before we learned of it.  True, when we consider “last things” there are some elements which natural reason could never have guessed, such as the immortality of the resurrected body, either for good or for ill.  That knowledge only comes from revelation, and admittedly it complicates things.  But that is not what we are concerned with at present, however much atheists would like to “put God in the dock.”

Rather, we are talking about what happens when human beings put each other “in the dock” or to paraphrase what Voltare said of God, “If damnation didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

My contention is that we did.

 

When Man Damns

Indeed, damnation, rather than being fostered upon the human race by bad religions (Abrahamic or otherwise, indeed, there are Buddhist hells, and nasty ones at that) is an intrinsic category of the human mind.  Just as Adam Smith told us that “humanity has an intrinsic propensity to truck and barter,” likewise there is an “intrinsic propensity to damn” which has been shared by all human beings since the time of that Adam who was the progenitor of Mr. Smith and the rest of us.  For though the human race has no brimstone (or at least it didn’t prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) it has the faculty of condemnation in abundance.

Consider that we get our English word “damnation” from Latin.  Now in secular history the most revealing instance of total condemnation is the custom of damnatio memoria which was exercised from time to time during the Rome’s late republic and empire.  After an unpopular politician or emperor had been removed, either by natural causes or assasination, the Senate, by official decree, would order the erasure of all inscriptions mentioning the tyrant, and the removal of all his statues from public view.  Historians dispute how often and how effectively this rite was observed, but the intention was clear.  The victorious party in the Senate wanted to consign all memory of the condemned emperor to oblivion.

This desire to condemn and erase the past, or at least that part of the past connected with unpopular personalities, was by no means a uniquely Roman obsession.  Rather, contrary to the intentions of the Senate, the abundance of historical records during the Classical period, combined with a human delight in monstrosity, has assured an unwonted immortality to such “damned” creatures as Caligula and Nero.  Among more ancient civilizations, the local equivalent of the damnatio memoria was more effective.  Until Carter’s discoveries in 1922, Egyptologists had no more than an inkling of King Tut’s existence, since the boy monarch and his heretical Sun-worshiping dynasty had been rubbed out of the historical record by pious defenders of Egypt’s polytheistic faith.  This remarkably effective act of collective forgetfulness endured for three thousand years.  But as the saying goes, truth will out.

However we must go beyond the early civilizations to primordial times if we want to find the origins of damnation.  Was it not Cain who first issued a decree of oblivion to his brother?  He did not just murder, but buried Able, for we know that “his blood cried out from the ground.”  The mind of Cain, full of wrath, was inconsolable at the offense of Able.  And what was that offense?  Surely that his brother had been judged acceptable in the eyes of God, while he had been found wanting.  Cain had the choice of repentance…or, or what?  The only way to restore reality to its pre-judgement status was to erase the very idea of Able as an alternative to Cain.  It wasn’t enough to just terminate Able’s existence (murder), it was necessary to deny that Able had ever existed (burial).

If there had been no outside observer, it would have been the perfect crime.  However the Holy Spirit was recording the incident for our benefit.  Cain did have a brother, and though he failed as his “keeper” neither did he succeed as his “thrower-awayer.”  In this first case, and ever since, it has been hard to make the damnatio memoria stick.

If there is a God, history is for keeps.

The Rise of the Orwellian Memory Hole

As God-centered world views have been nudged aside by various forms of Humanism, especially the most consistent form of humanism, Marxism, the damnatio memoria has experienced a modern renaissance.  Instead of statues of Caesar being removed from the Roman forum, the images of Stalin’s rivals were airbrushed out of the picture.  Before…

And after…

This process was frequently repeated until only the reigning god, “Uncle Joe” himself, remained.

Marxism is not only the last stage of humanism, but it brings to moral completion the views of time that are implicit in all forms of secularism.  According to this world-view, only the visible world is real, and all unseen worlds are either imaginary or manipulable fictions.  This means that the present always has domination over a past which has disappeared from sight and only exists in archival or artifact form.  Thus the past is worse than non-existent, it is plastic in the hands of the present…liquid, and ripe for liquidation.  To the primordial animus which the human mind harbors towards its rivals, past, present, and future…Marxism has added a theory of history which grants moral superiority to whatever faction has most recently emerged from the struggles of time.  Add to this a penchant for organization and propaganda, and one gets a veritable “science of damnation.”

As Marxism has become the hidden, but hegemonic, ideology of America’s academic and journalistic institutions, this penchant for damning the past, rather than trying to understand it, has ascended to power.  Today, in the world of Photo-shop, Stalinist airbrushing seems crude and cartoonish.  But what can be done with the more substantial archives of the past, those made of bronze and stone?  Sadly, we discover that they are scheduled for removal in cities across the nation.

Like the busts of Caesar, the generals of America’s public squares are disappearing, and not just those who fought for the South during the disturbances of 1861-65.  One wonders how long Andrew Jackson, who conquered New Orleans from the British, will be left unmolested.  Certainly, Jackson was a flawed man, but none the less a man whom it is important to grapple with in order to understand vast chunks of American history.  He is now high on the list of those scheduled for the damnatio memoria.

And who shall replace General Jackson?  Dr. King perhaps?  Whomever it might be, it will not be someone who will be able to escape the gnawing criticism of the future.  New values and new demographics will come to the fore, and then the politically correct heroes of today will themselves fall victim to future damnatio memoria.  I believe it was Chateubriand who observed, “Like Father-Time, the revolution devours its own children.”  And what does this devouring consist of but a desire to see the past as totally evil, and the present as justified by its condemnation of the past?  However this is ultimately a suicide pact and a self-imprecation, since time flows onward, and in the Marxist view this flow is not morally neutral but a process of continuous judgement and re-evaluation.

History, thus construed, becomes a pyramid of skulls with a small band of executioners at the top.  From time to time there is a new work shift and the past shift’s executioners become the next band of victims, hence providing more skulls for the pyramid, ever growing in height and volume.  This is as good an illustration as any of the human form of damnation.  It is a damnation which, if not eternal, is at least infinite.  For time has no end.

Except that, in the Christian view, it does end, and the infinite damnation that humanity wished upon itself is eclipsed by eternity.

It makes me sad.  And I wish I had the innocent guile of that bold lawn-cleaner to say,  “Dammit man!  Stop your damn man-damning man!  Just look, listen….and repent!”

 

Posted in Anthropology, Christianity, culture, Esoterism, History, Philosophy, Politics, Theology, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How Churchmen are changed into Ducks

Posted by nouspraktikon on May 9, 2017

George Whitfield (1714-1770)

Among the more formidable characters in church history is George Whitfield (sometimes spelled Whitefield but pronounced without the “e”) the preacher who spread a Calvinistic variety of Methodism in colonial America.  You must understand that at the time Methodism was, as the very name indicates, a methodology and not a sect.  It was Whitfield’s aggressive preaching method, not to the taste of some, which had such a tremendous effect on forming the unique spirituality of early America.

His odd looks (he was cross eyed) and forceful rhetoric must have convinced many that Whitfield  was more an angel than a man.  It was related that he could pronounce a word as neutral and exotic as “Mesopotamia” in such a way as to draw tears from his audience.  For some this was sorcery, but for others it was salvation, and the crowds that he was able to gather were a mighty tributary in that powerful river of revival which we call America’s Great Awakening.

Like his rival in preaching the good news, John Wesley, Whitfield was a life long clergyman in the Anglican church.  Oddly enough, this evangelist with Tory sympathies earned the esteem of freethinking Benjamin Franklin, and the two struck up a friendship which lasted throughout their mature lives.  None the less, it is hard to imagine Whitfield, who died five years before the outbreak of the American Revolution, throwing in his lot with the founding fathers.  For Whitfield being an Anglican was not a doctrinal affirmation, and indeed he despised most of what today would be called “Anglican theology.”  For him, membership in the established church was just the normative state of being born into the British branch of Christendom.  In the Whitmanian view, the established church didn’t get you into heaven, but you couldn’t get out of the established church.  A questionable deal, but a deal nobody could refuse in Britain or its colonies.

To Whitfield’s amazement, many of the Americans whom he had converted on matters spiritual in the 1740’s were loath to join his church, preferring to form into autonomous assemblies, notably Baptist associations.  Whitfield sighed, in reference to the immersion of his converts, “It seems that my fledglings have become ducks!”  From our modern perspective this seems odd as well, why would someone get evangelized by a preacher from one denomination and then go out and join another denomination?  Why did the Whitfield Christians “become ducks”?

Erastianism

To begin with, “denominations” in our contemporary sense didn’t exist, although there were already a multitude of sects.  What did exist was a passionate clash of opinions over ideological and theological issues which today seem obscure and unimportant.  A key word in these debates was “Erastianism” which dropped out of our household vocabularies a century and a half ago and has not been missed yet.

However, unless we know how this “Erastianism” could get people hot under the collar (both clerical and lay collars) we wont understand how churchmen became ducks.  Fortunately there is a term of  recent coinage which conveys much the same meaning to modern ears.  Among libertarian, Constitutional, and conservative circles “statism” has become the contemporary opprobrium of choice for what the colonists called “tyranny.”  Today we can define Erastianism as “statism applied to church governance”, or church-statism.  Keeping that in mind, and equipped with a Bible in one hand and the Declaration of Independence in the other, we are well underway to unravel the ecclesiastical conundrums of 18th century America.  We know what the outcome was, the rise of the Methodists and Baptists and the decline of the Anglican/Episcopalians.  Was this due to the vagaries of demographics or was there some underlying principle working itself out in the lives of Christian men and women?

Going back to the mid-18th century British America, one must keep in mind that Erastianism was not just a theory but a practice.  Take the colony of North Carolina as an example.  The Church of England was established as a public institution, essentially an arm of the state.  Did this mean that those early Tarheels were enthusiastic Anglicans?  Hardly!  In fact the region was largely unchurched during its early history.  None the less a system of church vestries (lay committees) was established paralleling the civil administration, and all subjects were required to pay taxes to maintain this apparatus.

As in all monarchical church-state systems the organization was pyramidal.  Yet, curiously, within British North America this was a truncated pyramid.  Above the vestries and the occasional parish priest, there were no high church officials.  North Carolina, and all other colonies (mostly outside New England) where Anglicanism was established, reported to the Bishop of London.  This led to a curious ambivalence on the part of the colonials.  Some persons, of an Episcopal persuasion, were eager to have cathedrals and bishops established on American shores.  They blamed the crown for foot-dragging on this issue.

Another, and presumably larger, party was heartily glad that the bishops had not yet arrived.  Their fear was that the crown was scheming to impose a hierarchy on the colonies, a hierarchy which would coerce believers in matters of doctrine and impose heftier church taxes.  This was a major item of contention among the colonists in the run up to the revolution, and the fact that it was not directly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is, like the dog that doesn’t bark, rather a testimony to the seriousness of the issue than the contrary.  It was, like slavery, one of those issues that divided the Founders at a time when it was crucial to present a united front against the crown.

Voting with their (webbed) feet

Keeping these things in mind, perhaps it is easier to understand why the fruits of the Great Awakening, sparked by the evangelism of Anglican priests, did not redound to the Established Church.  Again, taking North Carolina as our example, there are records of a great increase in the membership of Baptist assemblies, while the Established Church remained largely a bureaucratic skeleton.  Converted by the Spirit (through the preaching of Whitfield, Wesley et al) the rustic colonists saw no need to perfect their salvation through works, where the “works” in question were attendance on the ceremony and obligations of local established parishes.  Moreover, such were were added on top of (prior to the revolution)the “work” of paying the church tax…that is regardless of one’s belief, atheist, dissenter or whatever.

Really, Whitfield ought not to have been surprised, for the Spirit was working through his eccentricities, not his Anglicanism.  The crowds swooned at his uncanny words such as “Mesopotamia”…I know not whether they would swoon at “Mother England.”

We too should cry when we hear the world “Mesopotamia”!

These things are of interest to me since I am persuaded by a kind of Calvinistic Methodism myself.  Albeit that I am only a Calvinist in supposing that all people are sinners, while my Method has little in common with that of the Wesley brothers.  Rather, the method consists in this, that (at least under ceterus paribus conditions, a.k.a., all things being equal) freedom is a good thing and coercion is wrong.

Now today in Christendom (or rather post-Christendom) we are no longer so clearly divided into and Established Church and Dissenters.  However the same perennial urges resurface under different guise.  Thus today we have Liberal churches and Conservative churches.  In both these “denominations” there are churches and individuals who seek to become an Establishment.  Both seek to establish a church-state, albeit according to a different view of what the proper function of the state might be.  The liberal churchmen, and churchwomen, want to be the altruistic cheerleaders of the journalistic-academic-welfare-health complex, while the conservatives want the church to be an official apologist for the military-industrial-banking complex.

However there is always a remnant which has been granted the wisdom to understand human folly.  Among the greatest of follies is what has been called “the tyranny of good intentions.”  This is when we try to force something good on someone.  If we try to force Christ on someone we get the Inquisition.  If we try to force “democracy” (a problematic concept in itself!) on a people we get…well, we get something like the contemporary Middle East, a region in constant turmoil where two thousand year old Christian communities are today on the verge of extinction.

It is we, not Whitfield’s auditors, who should weep when we hear that old name for Iraq and its neighbors…”Mesopotamia”!

Yet through the gloom of it all, let’s remember that Jesus loves us.  I’m afraid I may have increased the gloom by throwing a heavy theological tome at your head.  But at least I warned you…

Duck!

 

 

Posted in Appologetics, Charismata, Christian Education, Christianity, Constitution, Constitutionalism, culture, Culture & Politics, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Politics, Traditionalism | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The Gun You Should Reach For When You Hear the Word “Culture”

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 24, 2017

Why “Culture” is a loaded word which needs to be disarmed

All advocates of a civilized world, and most emphatically all Christians, need to be skeptical every time the word “culture” is mentioned.  Evolution and culture are the two key concepts which have destroyed genuine anthropology, anthropology in the Christian sense of the word.  If today we live in a world where the barbarians are at the gates, it is only because the vital distinction between civilization and barbarism was first erased from the scholarly vocabulary in the name of an ambiguous and relativistic understanding of human nature, an understanding which is encapsulated in the term “culture.”

The word “culture” (an otherwise unobjectionable term) was adopted by secular anthropologists as the label for a mental package deal known as “the culture concept.”  The essence of this concept is that human beings create their own mental reality.  Even humanists are humble enough to realize that human beings do not create their own physical reality.  That sort of thing went out of style with Renaissance magic.  Humanists claim that the universe has arisen through something other than human agency, and since human agency is the only rational design they recognize, they conclude that it is a result of chance plus vast quantities of time.  This is the celebrated theory of evolution.

There is another sense in which Humanists exhibit a minimal degree of humility.  The culture concept implies that “Man Makes Himself” to quote a title  from V. Gordon Child, from a day when even left-wing scholars could use masculine pronouns.  However the culture concept admonishes the would be Ubermench that human individuals do not make themselves, only groups have the power to shape the mental environment of their members.  Since the culture concept derives ultimately from the thinking of Immanuel Kant, this is an important revision in the theory.  Kant asserted that the human mind creates its own reality, but he was very abstract in his presentation.  He didn’t stress the role of groups in forming their own environments.  This was worked out in the century after Kant by various neo-Kantian scholars and passed down through the educational system in the form of anthropological dogma.

This formula, that 1) evolution makes the physical environment, and 2) culture makes our mental environment, is the one-two punch of all Humanist thought.  It is diametrically opposed to Christian anthropology, which sees the human race as part of creation dependent upon almighty God.  To be sure, in the Christian view the human race occupies a unique role in creation, as the thinking and governing part, just as in Humanism the humans are unique in possessing “culture.”  However there is a world of difference in these two forms of uniqueness.  The first uniqueness is related to something personal outside itself, a condition which renders objective morality possible.  The second uniqueness, the uniqueness of “culture” is purely self-referential.  It cannot be brought to the bar of any moral standard higher than itself.  From the Humanist viewpoint, this isolated uniqueness reflects the principle of human autonomy.  From the Christian viewpoint, it is an illusion resulting from sin.

Culture as the moral ultimate means that culture itself cannot be judged, and implies relativism.  The history of the culture concept is the progress of increasingly consistent forms of relativism.  In the 19th century anthropologists tried to rank cultures on the basis of degrees of civilization, or put negatively, emergence from barbarism.  However as the relativistic implications of the culture concept were systematized, notably by Franz Boaz and his followers, attempts at judging cultures were suppressed.   Today, all judgments of different cultures according to some objective standard outside culture are considered prejudicial.  However this moral conclusion is the consequence of the supposed impossibility of any objective standard.

When the Nazi German Propaganda Minister Goebbels famously exclaimed, “When I hear the world culture I reach for my gun!” he was diametrically opposed to the cultural criticism which we are trying to undertake.  Like Franz Boas, Goebbels was aiming for the idea of “high culture” as opposed to barbarism.  We should translate his words as “when I hear the word ‘civilization’ I reach for my gun.”  Both Nazism and cultural relativism have tried to make it impossible to isolate barbarism as a descriptive category and set it over against civilization.  Of course there were profound moral differences between Boaz, the liberal Jew, and Goebbels, the German fascist.  The latter went beyond theory and was determined to normalize barbarism by acting it out in real life.  However in the long run it has been the gentle scholar who has been more effective in destroying civilization, first as an ideal and then as a reality, among people of good intentions.

Yes, traditions exist

The major opposition to a frontal assault on the culture concept is the contention that culture aptly describes the variety and richness of human traditions found throughout the world.  However this diversity has always been recognized, certainly prior to the academic hegemony of the culture concept.  Some of these traditions were instituted by the Most High God, some are human innovations, and some have been inspired by lesser spirits.  Human innovation is not to be gainsaid, either for good or for evil, and neither is the vast diversity of traditions.

The culture concept adds nothing to our understanding of the richness of human institutions.  However by insisting on the human origin of our mental world, the culture concept begs one of the most significant questions which can be asked about history: Who, or what, instituted institutions?  Its long range effect is to flatten out the mental world into the single, flat, plane of human reality.  Cultural Humanists boast of having an “immanent frame” in which they are free to make any judgement they wish about human affairs.  However “any judgement” ultimately means that no judgment is authoritative, and hence that all are meaningless.  This default to meaninglessness and nihilism is the next to last stage in the decline of cultural relativism.

The final stage occurs when “culture” having outlived its usefulness in the promotion of nihilism is reabsorbed by “evolution” the master-concept which required culture as a temporary supplement and diversion.  When the ideals of humanity have lost their charm, the spiritual descendants of Goebbels will round on the spiritual descendants of Boaz, with guns metaphorical or otherwise.

It is to save these people of good intentions, these so-called “Humanists” from the fate which dooms their concepts, their bodies, and their souls (not necessarily in that order) that we must insist on a God beyond culture.

Posted in Anthropology, Appologetics, culture, Culture & Politics, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Politics, Theology, Traditionalism, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Dear Michael Savage, here is your prize-winning proof of Human Stupidity (which assumes the existence of God)

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 12, 2017

Dear Michael Savage,

First of all I want to let you know how much I enjoy your program.  After taking a lot of guff and being called a deplorable, you have now dumped the Trump train over Syria.  Just goes to show, that for true blooded deplorables, it was more than just a “thing” about the orange hair.  Oh well….

So much for WWIII and the other small stuff.  Now getting down to that proof of the existence of God!  As you and I and everyone else knows, God exists.  However there are a certain class of scholars, known as apologists, who go beyond just knowing that God exists to trying to prove that he exists.  God must love these people very much, since he doesn’t blast them out of existence for doing something which is ultimately blasphemous.  I love them too, especially the really complicated ones like Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz, who’s thoughts are as intellectually challenging as they are useless.   These are the people who attempted  a frontal assault on human infidelity and ignorance, which in itself is rather stupid.

The correct procedure is to reverse the question and ask why human beings reject God and all knowledge of His existence and character.  In scholarly circles this method is called “presuppositionalism” and if left to run amuck it will lead to academic disputations as obscure as anything spawned from the pen of Thomas Aquinas.  However the basic insight perfectly simple.  We all live in a world which is screaming at us 24 hours a day seven days a week, “I am God’s creation!”  Yet there are two classes of human beings, those who accept the Creator and their creaturely status, and those who feel that both the universe and they themselves are self-made.

Since both the believers and the God-rejecting people live in the same world, a world in which we are nurtured and have our being, there would not seem to be much ground for metaphysical disputation.  Even rather evil people such as Martin Heidegger have never doubted that existence exists, although that benighted philosopher expressed great surprise that Being had managed to nudge out non-existence in the contest for reality.

No, both classes of human beings inhabit the same life-world, but they think according to different principles.  As scholars would say, they adhere to different epistemological systems.  The believers see themselves as mentally naked in front of God and the world.  For them there is no “problem of knowledge” per se, since the  information we get from our world is abundant and, except in limiting cases, generally reliable.

However, in the case of the non-believer, one must have an epistemology before venturing into the wilds of the universe.  For such people, there is a gap between the ego and reality, a gap which can only be bridged through strenuous philosophical or scientific investigation.  However this plight of inadequate knowledge is not just an epistemological inconvenience, but rather grounded in the moral attitude of the non-believer him or herself, since before staking any claim to knowledge the non-believer has already declared a state of ego-autonomy.  This declaration of independence has the unfortunate consequence of stranding the ego on a deserted island of his or her own making, from which venturing out into the world of bruit fact, governed only by the laws of chance,  is a perilous adventure.

Well now Mr. Savage, even if you accept all that I have written above, it certainly doesn’t present a “proof of the existence of God”…at least in the classic sense.  However, from a forensic point of view, it ought to make us suspicious of of the non-believer’s motivation.  Why the insistence on autonomy?  Why the cumbersome epistemological apparatus?  It would almost seem as if there were something or Someone out in the wilds of reality whom the non-believer was afraid of, and for whom this gap between the ego and the Other was improvised.

Indeed, there are grounds for supposing that the gap between the ego and its environment is not a fact of nature, but an improvisation designed to suppress the original confluence between the human mind and God.  This would also explain the general uselessness of “proofs of the existence of God” since these are attempting to employ a metaphysical tool in order to solve a moral problem.  The “proofs” usually only work on people who are already believers.

To conclude, Mr. Savage, I know that this is a rather bleak judgement, and furthermore begs the question, “What is to be done?”  After all it implies that humanity is divided into two non-communicating epistemological camps.  Instead of offering you an inductive or deductive proof of God’s existence, all I have done is explain the irreducible ignorance of a vast segment of humanity.  Or as you would say, the reason why “they are stupid.”

Well, I suppose prayer wouldn’t hurt.

Blessings upon you and yours,

Mark Sunwall

Posted in Anthropology, Christian Education, Christianity, Culture & Politics, Paleoconservativism, Philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

From Old-papers to Lie-papers, this is what the media calls “progress”

Posted by nouspraktikon on April 7, 2017

Newspapers never used to contain “news”…but now the situation has been corrected

Decades ago when I heard an old monk exclaim, “These things you call newspapers…they contain nothing new!”  it was more of a self-evident truth than a revelation.  Aristotle, writing 2400 years ago, observed that if you read one book by Thucydides you didn’t need to read another history book for the rest of your life.  A lot of history has been written since then, but the principle still holds, for while the specifics of time and place may bear recording, the human comedy (or perchance tragedy) recapitulates the same old themes in every generation.  As “Rick” (portrayed by Humphrey Bogart) asked Sam the piano player to croon…

Its still the same old story,

A fight for love and glory,

A case of do or die

Of course if you really want to known the specifics of what was happening in North Africa c. 1942, Thucydides isn’t of much help.  That’s not what Aristotle or the old monk meant.  For “as time goes by” the concretes of time, place, and technology alter, but the human passions which animate the historical drama remain constant.

So I became rather casual in my attitude towards the media, deeming the daily old as soon as it was printed, and even before it redeemed its paper-value as a wrapper for the remains of maritime edibles.  Looked at in that way, there was something quaint about the Old-paper, as it regurgitated the same facts about different people while the generations cycled through their time on Earth.  To epitomize, the Weather section was paradigmatic of all the other sections.  Sun and storm might iterate through the seasons, but one never expected an entirely new form of weather to emerge.

This is not to say that novelty was entirely absent.  There was technological innovation and discovery of remote locations.  However these were like gardens which were expected to grow over time.  If there had been no innovations or discoveries, that would have been a far greater novelty. Moreover, since it was just the same expansive human nature which motivated the discovery process in accordance with human needs (or curiosity) even the greatest innovations lined up with the same doctrine of human nature.  Yet most importantly, even the greatest changes were reported on, as if they were a part of a natural order, they were not…what shall I say…they were not “promulgated.”

However I must now confess that, either I was wrong in my assumption that “no news is new news,” or something has changed.  I suspect the latter.  At some point the media moved from reportage to promulgation.  One suspects that deep in the heart of the media complex, people no longer recognize a distinction between journalism and fiction.  Selective reportage, outright suppression of facts, story-crafting, and agenda-fitting have replaced investigation.  The archetypal media man or woman no longer aspires to uncover a great story so much as to become the Great Novelist, rewriting reality according to the inspiration of their genius.  Today the newspaper has at last become a novelty.  Indeed, it has become “poetry” according to the Greek root of our word, i.e., total innovation.

In Journalism and elsewhere, Post-Modernism is past Marxism

How has this odd situation come about?  We are all aware of that confluence of factors which has changed “the news” in the past several decades, from the rise of social media to corporate concentration of the older journalistic outlets.  None the less, I am inclined to count what men and women have in their heads at the salient factor, in accordance with the principle “ideas have consequences.”  Journalists don’t just bloom like lilies of the valley, and before they are recruited into the media complex they must matriculate from the academic complex.

If it ever were, the academic complex is no longer a free marketplace of ideas.  Rather certain ideologies have gained an ironclad ascendancy on American campuses.  The most general and erudite (were it not elitist to admit) of these ideologies is so-called “post-modernism” which claims that human minds can have no contact with anything remotely resembling objective reality.  Rather, particular humans spin out their narratives, much like a caterpillar weaving its cocoon around its body.

Taken at face value, this sounds like a formula for toleration and harmony, such as was claimed on behalf of the ancient skeptics and cynics.  Those ancient “know-nothings” professed not to care about social opinion, to the point where whether a person wore clothes or not was a matter of indifference.  Whatever the merits of such skeptical liberty, it is a far cry from the atmosphere which surrounds post-modernism.  As anyone who has contact with modern academics is aware, hypersensitivity and condemnation are the qualities most apparent on university campuses today.

In reality, the hippy-like indifference on the surface of post-modernist thought masks a deeper level of ideological doctrine.  This doctrine is invariably Marxism of one or another ilk, but most especially the cultural Marxism associated with the Frankfurt school or the ideas of Antonio Gramchi.  The idea is not just to create novelty, but to create novelty which is subversive of the present state of affairs.  A new idea or a narrative which created greater harmony in society, though superficially compliant with postmodernist thought, is not sufficient.   The new narrative must be destructive of the old narratives.

This is the ideological reason why today’s media not only embrace new perspectives on human nature, but why these new perspectives are designed to create conflict and chaos.  To be sure there are other, simpler, reasons.  The most evident is the standing insight of yellow journalism that disasters sell newspapers, and that while natural disasters can’t be conjured up to order, wars and riots can be.  So today conflict, both domestic and global, is not just reported on, but spawned by the media itself.

The idea that human beings can create their own world ex nihilo is, of course, blasphemous.  But this is an attitude which goes back, behind even the Marxists, at least to Kant and the way modernity defined “culture” in opposition to nature.  Ultimately it goes back to Adam, or whoever that human was who first knowingly spit into God’s eye.  Unfortunately today’s corporate journalists are not such of whom one expects genuine, Godly, repentance.  Rather, and unlike wise King Canute, they are apt to stand stubbornly on the shore of their own subjective fancy, until engulfed by an objective tsunami far beyond their reckoning.

 

Posted in Culture & Politics, History, Media, Philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or, how to turn Normal People into Leftists

Posted by nouspraktikon on March 16, 2017

Seen the movie?  Now enjoy it in 3-D!

Well no, I’m not exactly claiming that your friends are being steadily replaced by zombies from outer space hatched from gigantic zucchinis.  None the less, something is definitely going on.   It is often revealed in the most ordinary of encounters.  Of course I don’t recommend dangerous inquiries.  Today we all know that complementing a woman on her good looks or remarking on the weather are inherently political topics.  Let’s just say, for example, you ask someone,

“How do you think the brackets in the College Basketball finals will work out?”

You may get, “The dialectical forces implicit in late capitalism will enable the proletariat to seize the commanding heights of socio-political dissemination.”

Or, desperate in search of an ice-breaker, you pipe up,”I like yogurt, what about you?”

Response?  “If it were up to me I would take the Bulgarian line on everything.  The Stalinists failed because they fell into a reactionary respect for national self-determination.  Zinoviev was right, all of Eastern and Central Europe should have been directly incorporated into the Soviet Union.”

Or, thinking that being trendy will get you somewhere, you venture, “Do you like the most recent album by Bruno Mars?”

“No, his most radical work is found only in the Grundrissa!  Later work such as the second and third volumes of Kapital were already infected by the bourgeois economics exemplified by Ricardo.  Genuine radicals will skip from the youthful essays directly into the Gramchian corpus in order to elucidate fault lines in the cultural meta-structure.”

Ok, sure, I’m exaggerating!

Worse, I’m cribbing from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where he lampoons the tendency of every layperson of the era to put on theological airs.  Moreover, since I reside in a college town the leftward drift is more apparent.  But don’t get apathetic about the leftward-ho tendency of the present, since the politically conservative to moderate educator is today’s “canary in the mine-shaft.”

They came for the teachers and the guest lecturers and I did nothing….

None the less, despite my motto “Ideas have Consequences,” I want to briefly play the Marxist.  Ideas alone don’t have legs.  They are embedded in and transmitted through an institutional context.  It isn’t just bad ideas and bad teachers which are raising a generation of leftists.  There are other factors at work too, factors which the left knows about and you should too.  Yes, it has to do with education…but in a very different sense.

How to mass-produce a generation of leftists

This might not be the only or even the main causal chain, but it is of major significance any way you look at it.  By the numbers…

  1. Hire more university administrators and non-teaching staff, invest in elaborate infrastructure, increase tuition exponentially.  (N.B.: At the risk of extending the causal chain back ad infinitum, the attractiveness of this “industrialization” of education was stimulated by the expenses incurred by the tenure system and teacher unionization.)
  2. Make student loans available and the default option in financing the impossibly expensive university experience.
  3. Continue to promote the idea that a university degree is essential to getting ahead in the world even as an increasing number of graduates fail to find jobs in the workforce.
  4. Cultivate an ever larger debtor class among graduates who owe money for their college financing while not being able to make ends meet.
  5. Moot about the idea of debt forgiveness.
  6. Change the idea of debt forgiveness from a proposal (if a left administration were in power) to a demand (if a conservative administration is in power).
  7. Obfuscate the fact that the college loan system was a progressive idea that failed, emphasize that it involves “money” and hence is symptomatic of late capitalist decadence.

Note that during the campus protest movement of the 1960s the students were motivated by idealistic devotion to causes: i.e., Pacifism, civil rights, drug normalization/legalization etc..  However the left never was able to capitalize on these movements because the idea of turning the United States into a Soviet republic was so obviously against the practical interests of most people looking to graduate from an American university.

What has changed between 1967 and 2017 is that socialism is now arguably in the “class interests” of prospective (indebted) college graduates.  However the moot point is that this was not the determined outcome of impersonal economic forces a.k.a. “the dialectical contradictions of late capitalism.”  Rather, it is a crisis which has been deliberately engineered by the self-styled progressive forces in education and public finance, to create a debtor class.  (And by the way, isn’t it interesting how central bankers and leftists think along more or less the same lines?)

So the next time it’s necessary to buttonhole a stranger with the standard inquiry,  “What time is  it?”  you have the right to be amused if they reply, “Time is a function of labor multiplied by material costs when expressed as an inverse of objective material value.”

But if they go on to say, “…and soon it will be the centennial of the October Revolution.  It has taken us bourgeois Americans a hundred years to catch up to the heroic vision of Lenin,”  please remember the adage, fooled once, shame on you, fooled twice, shame on me.

There are no “iron laws of history.”  The would be world-controllers are just making history up as they go along, to suit their fancy.  That is to say, they are changing the cosmetic surface of reality.  The core of reality is controlled by Someone Else, but they don’t want to think too deeply about that.

And what about you and me?  Are we just passively watching as the alien zombies hatch out of their giant zucchinis?  Could it be that we are watching the man in the mirror?

Gottcha!!!

Or we could wake up and do something….

 

Blessings,

Mark Sunwall

 

Posted in Christian Education, Constitutionalism, Culture & Politics, Economics, Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

You are a bottom dweller!

Posted by nouspraktikon on February 26, 2017

Where do we live?  How do we live there?

In the year 1911, the French science fiction author Maurice Renard produced a literary oddity entitled The Blue Peril.  It is written in an irritating, aphoristic style which I fear has scarcely been improved by the diligence of the translator.  None the less it is a masterpiece of originality, being a predecessor of the alien-abduction genre, a disgraceful progeny to be sure…but a theme which was no doubt thought provoking at first telling.   In 1911 the human race was still awed by the atmosphere, it was the “outer space” of then current science and technology.  So Renard’s tale of creatures who navigated the upper stratosphere and fished for humans and their artifacts was sensational at the same time that H.G.Wells’ stories alternatively amused and horrified the English reading public.

I recommend The Blue Peril, not because it is easy or satisfying to read, but rather as a disorienting reorientation to who we are and where we live.  For indeed we are bottom dwellers, fish in an ocean of atmospheric blue.  To be sure, we are confident that we are “on top of things” and unless we are mariners we reassure ourselves that we live our life on solid ground.  Yet what we call the oceans are just deeper, more viscous fluids below the top layer of our atmospheric sea.  Like marine mammals who cannot venture into the blackness of the seams between the continental plates, we are out of our depth even in the shallows of the blue-green seas, none the less we make our dwelling far below the true surface of the planet.

We do not think this way normally, but that is the reality of our situation.  More importantly, it is our situation from the point of view of our Heavenly Father.  Honestly, I know nothing about the religious opinions of monsieur Renard, and would not be surprised if he held atheistic views similar to those of Wells.  None the less, what he wrote is as much science fact as science fiction, and as always science and religion are in much closer conjunction than the enthusiasts of either are willing to admit.  For there are certain characteristics of the ocean which everybody, scientist or not, is compelled to admit.  Let’s list just a few of these characteristics.

*It is a place which teems with life.

*It is a place of death, a death which feeds upon the teeming life in its bosom.

*It is a place of immense pressure.  This pressing-down and pressing-in of the surrounding fluid is not normally sensed by the creatures, since each is provided with a frame which equilibrates the  interior and the exterior of the organism at its normal depth.

*It is a dark place, and its opacity increases with the depths, none the less all the sentient creatures who dwell therein have some sensory apparatus which they feel gives them an perfect representation of reality.

*It is a place of constant flux.

Indeed, these things are as true of our own world as they are of the world of whales and fish.  We tend to overestimate the solidity of our own environment when we consider it otherwise than as the shallows of a planetary ocean.  Granted, at our lubberly depths the barometric pressure is less and the intensity of light is somewhat greater than in the submerged shelves, let alone the trenches.  These are things which science can measure.  However there is no meaningful measurement of “flux” if by that we mean change in a generic sense.   Until there is a storm we think of the air as empty space, and until there is an earthquake we are unimpressed by the slow drift of the continents.

Yet with the human race there is a further complication.  For we are not just ordinary fish, but amphibious hybrids composed of matter and spirit.  Thus we are doubly submerged, living not only beneath the currents of the sky, but also trapped inside a creature of our own making.  This latter is even less tangible than the air, since it is mental rather than physical.  There is no name for it, or rather, there are too many names, and each school of philosophy cleaves to its pet nomenclature.  We might call it civilization, or culture, or history, and while the old philosopher Ibn Rushid (a.k.a. “Averroes”) called it the world-soul, the more recent theologian Telliard du Chardan called it the “noosphere.”  I would like to call it the “Anthrosphere” but perhaps we should hew close to scripture and think of it as a great Leviathan in who’s belly we dwell, mistaking the phosphorous of its interior for the stars.  But they are not the true stars, even if fixed stars are only an idea…for the entire animal  is in constant motion.

I know this is a grim analogy, but there is worse to come.

The “Sauvants”

In Renard’s fiction these were the criminal fishermen of the air who fetched up terrestrial samples (animals, plants, minerals, and humans) into their floating continent.  Here science fiction and science fact part company.  Atheism declares that there is nothing but the void above us.  Revelation disagrees, without endorsing Renard’s fantasy.  How so?  According to Christianity we need not fear being “caught” by malevolent entities above our heads.  Rather, we were caught long ago, and not through some cruel accident but rather by entering into an agreement with our common ally against the Creator.  All of us since Adam have been born into the belly of the Leviathan!

Rather, it is our Heavenly Father who deigns to fish us out of our delusional heaven, out from the bottom of our invisible ocean.  Moreover, this invisible ocean from which we must be liberated is not so much the physical atmosphere as the mental “anthrosphere”…our perverse insistence that we are the masters of reality dwelling on an illuminated summit.  This hubris is made even more pathetic by a fallen humanity’s tacit cooperation with equally or more fallen spirits.   Here again, the actual situation is worse than that confronting Renard’s horrified Frenchmen and Frenchwomen in the (fictional) year 1911.  At least the “sauvants” were corporal in a bizarre fashion, but the spirits are not just external threats.  They are potentially internal, and far from being recognized as threats, are either ignored or welcomed.

In reality, the danger is not that we will be “snatched up” like the protagonists of Renard’s fantasy.  On the contrary, the danger is that in our fallen state we see no necessity of being “snatched up.”  Fallen man and fallen woman are happy dwellers on the bottom of this thin blue sea that we call a world.  Habituated to flux and the companionship of delinquent spirits, the thought of a heavenly firmament afflicts such creatures with vertigo.  Their perversity will not admit a cosmology where Heaven is more substantial than Earth, they conceive what is above as vapid and trailing out into a void.  Thus they cling to the ocean floor like snails, like shellfish.

Yet there are others who feel out of place in this invisible abyss.  The pressure of the waters is palpable to them, and at last becomes insufferable.  They seek out the mercy of the Compassionate Fisherman and suffer themselves to be entangled in His net.  They perceive that their fellows are in great danger, but stumble when they try to speak of a place beyond the surface of the sea, indeed, a place beyond the allegory of surfaces and substances.  They view with apprehension how those habituated to the bottom have become at home in their shells.   Indeed, like snails.

Perchance, escargot!

 

 

Posted in Art, Christianity, Fiction, Novels, Philosophy, Theology, Traditionalism | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »