Civilization and Abstraction

Western Civilization is unique. It is the only civilization that developed a non-traditional paradigm. By traditional paradigm what is meant is the top-down paradigm. The fact that Western Civilization developed a different paradigm than the traditional has become a source of conflict in the world. This is the reason we can ask the conflicting questions. Does Western Civilization need to be protected from attack? Does the world need to be protected from Western Civilization? Both questions can be answered in the affirmative; depending on one's point of view. It must be said it is the Islamists in the present world that believes the world needs to be protected from Western Civilization. Even though China and India started out as traditional societies, they are making peace in their own ways with the Western paradigm. It is of course, obvious that members of Western Civilization need to be protected from Islamists. The trouble tat the Islamists has is that even though they can kill many people, this does not kill the paradigm that developed in the West. The strange thing is that Islam at one point in its history had a choice to turn towards the traditional East or to the new paradigm developing in the West. When Islam put down its movement of neoplatiomism it turned towards the East, and away from the West. To understand the conflict between the traditional paradigm, and the Western paradigm, we shall turn to the insights of Rene Guenon expressed in his book: "The Crisis of the Modern World." Before examining the coflict between paradigms, we shall briefly sat something about Guenon. Guenon is not a familiar name to most people. Guenon was the last representative of the French Occult Revival of the nineteenth century. Guenon turned away from the Western paradigm, to embrace the traditional paradigm. This gave him an almost unique insight into the conflict of paradigms. It also must be said Guenon's basic position and mine are antithetical, but this should not prevent us from making use of his insights. We shall break down his insights into three: contemplation versus action, a stratified society versus individualism, and the conflicting theories of truth of the two paradigms. Of course these issues are all interwoven; we break them down for the sake of clarity. Let us begin with contemplation versus action. Traditional societies put contemplation above action. This is because traditional societies are top-down both metaphysically and socially. We shall examine the metaphysical first. In the traditional paradigm the eternal and immutable are higher, or more real than the material world of change. This can easily be observed in the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. All of the above thinkers are associated with the West, but as we shall observe the West started out as a traditional society. In Plato's philosophy the divinized ream of the Forms is the superior to the material world of change. In Aristotle, we find Aristotle's conception of God is as an unmoved mover. God is eternal and unchangeable; the material world of change is dependent on God for movement. In many ways Plotinus combines Plato and Aristotle. We find the eternal immutable One and a divinized realm of Forms. Again the material world is dependent on the eternal. So for traditional societies contemplating the eternal is always superior to action. In the Middle ages in the West, the priestly class was considered superior to the warrior class of Knights. In India the Brahmans were considered superior to the Kshatriyas. In traditional societies action is to support contemplation. In the Western paradigm contemplation is to support action; this shall become clear as we proceed. Traditional societies all hold to the theory of the microcosm and macrocosm. So the social structure is supposed to correspond to the metaphysical paradigm. Since the metaphysical or macrocosm is eternal those that contemplate the eternal are the superior class or caste in society. For many traditional societies the material world is considered less real or illusion. The warrior class, or the class that supports action is there to serve the contemplative class. The brings us to our second issue: a stratified society versus the society based on the individual. Traditional societies have classes or castes. This is because a traditional society is organized around castes or classes, instead of individuals. Each class or caste has both privileges and duties. Each class must fulfill its function in society for the society to function. The priestly class or Brahman caste are the guardians of the tradition. They are the ones that contemplate the eternal, unchangeable truth. It is the function of the priestly class to keep the tradition pure and to pass the tradition on through education and religion. The function of religion is to educate and cultivate the emotions of members of society. This done through the rituals and observances of religion. The right emotions must be cultivated to carry the right emotion. So each member of society feels the same about the symbols and beliefs of the traditional society. It is shared emotion that bonds people together; to cultivate this bonding is the function of the priestly class. To make sure the right emotions carry the right emotions. This is why the priestly class is supposed to resist innovation and change. The warrior class is supposed to protect the society, but be subservient to the priestly class, and so on down the ladder of society. In other words members of traditional society participate in their society through their class membership. A member of a traditional society always represents his or her caste or class; they are not individuals. In the paradigm that developed in the West, members are all equal citizens of the society, with rights.They do represent their class or caste. Instead they are supposed to have equality under the law, although privileges can be earned. Citizens of the Western paradigm also have social mobility; one is not destined to be in the class that one is born into for life. This is because the Western paradigm is built from the bottom-up not the top-down. Every member of society is a potential member of the ruling class. I have speculated elsewhere this is because the West embraced the doctrine of exemplarism instead of ontologism. In exemplarism each person is unit because they are confined to their own mentality; in ontologism a person can directly enter the mind of God, thus becoming one with the mind of God instead of being a unit that correspond to God's mind. All this should become clear in the examination of the next issue: the conflicting theories of truth in the two paradigms. In the traditional paradigm truth is the correspondence or vision of a timeless, changeless truth. In Plato's language truth consists is in a vision of the Forms. This is of course, where a traditional society of the top-down type derives its moral authority; it is following the vision of the truth. This of course, the typical top-down paradigm where abstractions are more real than the material world. Society is supposed to conform to the eternal and immutable truth; abstraction. A perfect society would have perfect correspondence with a divinized mental realm of the eternal. This is of course, the theory of the microcosm and macrocosm in political form. A more stark contrast could hardly be imagined to the western paradigm of truth. We can do no better than turn to the founder of pragmatism: C.S. Peirce. To begin the contrast Peirce states "Truth is public." Truth is not a matter of trying to gain a vision of the eternal, instead truth needs consensus. There is no eternal metaphysical realm; truth is found in the material world of change: therefore even truth is subject to change or revision. Peirce's pragmatism is meant to clarify words and theories; it does this by examining results. Again, we can observe in the Western paradigm action is prior to contemplation. We reflect on our experience to the material world, and thin use techniques to determine the truth. To be true results must be able to be duplicated by anyone who cares to take the time and trouble to make the experiment. An example would be Peirce's definition of Lithium. To define "Lithium" Peirce uses a description of how to isolate Lithium. Truth must be accessible. The Western theory of truth demands results. Again, we can observe the Western paradigm is bottom-up. Truth is not eternal, and able to be contemplated. Instead truth is found in the material realm, and it demands action to the part of the seeker of truth. In the words of Francis Bacon: "nature is to be put to the question." Of course, "being put to the question" is a polite way of saying "torture." In contrast to the traditional paradigm, truth is public, it is not eternal, and must be gained through action. Pierce is no fringe figure, but in the mainline of western epistemology. It is amazing how western thinkers have sought to deny the obvious about the western theory of truth. This is because western thinkers have not found a way to translate the western theory of truth into moral and political authority. Let us take a brief observation of some of the attempts. the utilitarians tried to make happiness or pleasure the measure of moral and political authority. William James said truth is for edification. John Rawls thought political and moral authority translated into equality. All these theories miss the obvious: truth equals power. The only two thinkers that saw this clearly were Bacon and Peirce. This leads us to our last issue. Remember the title of Guenon's book is "The Crisis of the Modern World." So what is the crisis of the modern world? The crisis is that Western civilization has lost its moral authority and political will. This is because as I said before Western civilization started out as a traditional society. It developed the new bottom-up paradigm by incorporating the advances made by Classical civilization (Greece and Rome). The advancement made by Classical civilization was the invention of reason and the objective viewpoint. Even though Classical civilization started out as a mythological society it transformed into a top-down society; it did not make the leap to a bottom-up society. Western civilization started out as a traditional society that developed the bottom-up paradigm. The thing is Western civilization did not abandon the top-down paradigm instead it worked out compromise: the Cartesian compromise named after Rene Descartes. Descartes worked out a double theory of truth. The odd thing is the Islamic neoplatonist Averroes was the inspiration for the double theory of truth. As I said before Islam turned toward the East instead of the West when it put down its philosophers. In the Cartesian paradigm both religion and science are true in their own spheres. This is why there is a crisis in Western civilization; the compromise has broken down. Western civilization never developed a morality to go with its new theory of truth. As I said before both the utilitarians and Rawls and his followers have tried, but it was very bad try on for both. Let us take a brief look at Rawls and his followers. Rawls and his followers are instructive, because his errors are so big and obvious. As I have said elsewhere Rawls is a substandard intellect. Rawls is of course a top-down ethics masquerading as a bottom-up theory. It is surprising that his followers and other "enlightened" academics have not claimed a vision of the Form of equality. The reason that Rawl's theory is top-down is that equality is an abstraction; an abstraction that Rawls wants society to conform to. In Rawls's writings and his followers it seems to view equality as an eternal, immutable truth that shall produce the perfect society if it was implemented. This is the top-down view. One more interesting blunder of Rawls and his followers is there misunderstanding of Kant's ethics. Rawls was supposedly a serious student of Kant's ethics; Kant's ethics was supposedly one of the main inspirations for Rawls's theories. Yet, Rawls social philosophy violates Kant's third formulation of the categorical imperative. In the third formulation of the categorical imperative: people are to be treated as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end. Yet, in Rawls's thought people are to be treated as a means to the end: equality. The government is supposed to use coercive legislation to achieve equality. As I said elsewhere never underestimate the stupidity of Rawls. So where does all this leave us? A.N. Whitehead taught that when an advancement in civilization takes place it wrecks the society that the advancement happens in. This can be observed in Classical Greece, where the invention of reason and the objective view wrecked Greek society, but the advancements were incorporated into Roman society. A new bottom-up paradigm shall be built that shall incorporate the advances of Western civilization. END