Simone Weil describes the two ends of the spectrum between laissez-faire liberalism and moral-cohesion-by-force as "Rome" and "Israel" respectively, where Rome stands for complete materialist decay — the proverbial morass of the decadent and godless late empire — while Israel stands for an authoritarian theocracy that micromanages people's every move.1
Both scenarios seem very unappetizing.
And they present us with a conundrum that brings us back to the notorious role of the Law in Paul's letters: the moral code, enforced by society, acts as a sort of childminder that keeps us from falling into sin and evil. Weil expresses the same idea:
On the non-supernatural plane, society is that which keeps evil (certain forms of it) away by forming as it were a barrier. ... [I]t is only society which prevents us from falling naturally into the most fearful vice and crime.2No doubt: take away enforced societal conventions, or change them overnight into their opposite, and see how many people will resist the change and refuse to (often wholeheartedly) follow along the new world. Very few.
Weil calls society the Great Beast, following an analogy for society Plato came up with in the Republic: our default state seems to be to simply declare everything good that pleases the Great Beast, and evil that which provokes a negative reaction. Plato made clear that very often, our elaborate moral theories are simply rationalizations of this basic interaction with the Beast.3 (And without being too unfair towards professional moral philosophy, there is no doubt that much of it is an attempt to justify the current mood of the Beast, society's moral stance de rigeur.)
If the Law can be seen as a childminder; if the moral order is, in the best case, just a barrier that keeps us from going overboard morally, but at the end of the day, we are just the playthings of the Great Beast — where does that leave us in the case when societal order disappears? Or when social norms get so inverted that they cease to act as a barrier against evil, but instead like a turbocharger for sin and decay?
And what about the case of a strong moral order which in principle enforces sound rules, but where we find those rules conflicting with specific situations that require a different approach, which they inevitably will if we are brave enough to pay attention?
In both cases, if we don't want to fall, we find ourselves faced with strong external resistance. Simply by upholding the standards of our conscience, we will provoke the Great Beast to act against us, and we will cease to take this as a sign that our action is bad.
This dynamic will set in motion an individual transformation: we are forced to get in touch with our deepest, most sincere values in the face of a surrounding that doesn't care, or that is actively hostile.
When this transformation plays out properly, we cease to be children tossed around by forces we don't understand, and are on our way towards becoming morally self-sufficient.
There are two implications here: first, that we actually need a hostile environment, a "shock to the system," in order to undergo that transformative process. And second, that there are fundamental differences between individuals: some will find it in their hearts to transform and become morally self-sufficient to a degree, while others won't, or can't.
These implications, if taken seriously, are pretty depressing and tend to shatter all those political debates and solutions about morality and its place in society, or the spectrum between "Rome" and "Israel."
Because if the only way out of the conundrum between theocracy and degeneracy is a society comprised of morally self-sufficient individuals who don't need that stifling pressure and manipulation from the Great Beast, but at the same time these individuals can only arrive there when faced either with degeneracy or theocracy (or both) and coming through victorious, then it follows that we should embrace degeneracy and theocracy as means towards salvation. At the same time, the very act of inner rebellion against these human conditions, of "waking up" so to speak, is what opens our hearts to that inner voice, that guidance which alone can make us morally self-sufficient. A fine dilemma!
There seem to be two escape routes here: we can deny that resistance from the Great Beast is necessary for moral development, or we can proclaim that individual moral development — moral self-sufficiency — isn't necessary for a moral society to exist.
I think both of these solutions don't work.
As to the first (resistance isn't necessary for moral development), this would basically mean that moral education should be enough to make people resilient towards the Great Beast. OK. But have you ever tried to convince someone who "fell in love" with a manipulative, abusing charmer that this relationship is bad news? Or have you ever argued with someone who derives pleasure from a sense of moral righteousness which purely stems from an alignment with the current values of society, the Great Beast? Chances of success approach zero. The only way out is for the person to go through crisis and suffering to finally wake up and start a process of transformation and healing — a hero's journey against one's demons, quite similar to the process of facing society, the Great Beast, itself. (The two go hand in hand.)
The second escape from the dilemma (individual moral self-sufficiency isn't necessary for a moral society) can't possibly work either, for it leads straight to "theocracy" — a strict enforcement of moral rules that would disappear the moment the wind changes, which makes it necessary to keep enforcement going perpetually. But since nothing goes on perpetually, and in fact the very enforcement eventually provokes a reaction, the Great Beast will be forced to change its tune sooner or later towards liberalism. Under laissez-faire liberalism, on the other hand, moral self-sufficiency is required almost by definition, unless you want total chaos and decay.4
So how can this dilemma be solved?
It seems to me there are two ways: one natural, and one spiritual, if you will.
The natural solution is what we can observe in history. It is the creation by the Weltgeist of a sort of pendulum, which makes civilizations oscillate back and forth between moral decay and authoritarian value-imposition, churning out a few enlightened individuals in the process, while otherwise not moving the needle all that much.
The spiritual solution is for individuals to consciously break the cycle by undergoing the inner transformation which alone leads to moral self-sufficiency.
Simone Weil:
It is only by entering the transcendental, the supernatural, the authentically spiritual order that man rises above the social. Until then, whatever he may do, the social is transcendent in relation to him.5While theocracy or moral degradation in society can be a great wake-up call and help the process along, inner transformation is possible under all conditions. There is always plenty of external and internal resistance to shape one's moral compass and strength. Learning how to "walk according to the spirit," as the apostle Paul put it, is always within our grasp.
Perhaps all we can hope for is individual salvation. But who knows: if enough of us do it, this might have far-reaching, world-changing effects.
Weil expresses our predicament and hope very well:
Modern totalitarianism is to the Catholic totalitarianism of the twelfth century what the spirit of laicism and freemasonry is to the humanism of the Renaissance. Humanity detoriates at each swing of the pendulum. How far will this go?Paul certainly thought that a great shift was about to happen and that we should prepare for it spiritually. Simone Weil thought the same — and that the state of deprivation and civilizational collapse of her time in fact offered a great opportunity for growth.
After the collapse of our civilization there must be one of two things: either the whole of it will perish like the ancient civilizations, or it will adapt itself to a decentralized world.
It rests with us, not to break up the centralization (for it automatically goes on increasing like a snowball until the catastrophe comes), but to prepare for the future.
Our period has destroyed the interior hieararchy. How should it allow the social hierarchy, which is only a clumsy image of it, to go on existing?
You could not be born at a better period than the present, when we have lost everything.
Given the sorry state of affairs we are living under right now, perhaps this time, we will turn the pendulum into a spiral and break free?
References
1 "Rome is the Great Beast of atheism and materialism, adoring nothing but itself. Israel is the Great Beast of religion. Neither the one nor the other is likable. The Great Beast is always repulsive."
Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace, Routledge Classics, 2002, p. 167. The historical accuracy of that comparison is of no great importance here.
2 Ibid., p. 166
3 "It is as if a man were acquiring the knowledge of the humors and desires of a great strong beast which he had in his keeping, how it is to be approached and touched, and when and by what things it is made most savage or gentle, yes, and the several sounds it is wont to utter on the occasion of each, and again what sounds uttered by another make it tame or fierce, and after mastering this knowledge by living with the creature and by lapse of time should call it wisdom, and should construct thereof a system and art and turn to the teaching of it, knowing nothing in reality about which of these opinions and desires is honorable or base, good or evil, just or unjust, but should apply all these terms to the judgements of the great beast, calling the things that pleased it good, and the things that vexed it bad, having no other account to render of them, but should call what is necessary just and honorable, never having observed how great is the real difference between the necessary and the good, and being incapable of explaining it to another."
Plato, Republic, Book VI, 439a
4 A libertarian might argue that laissez-faire liberalism does not necessarily lead to moral decay if there are very diverse small communities with different societal norms, plus mobility between those. However, it seems to me that mobility already presupposes a certain moral and cultural homogeneity across communities, and so the problem would likely prevail.
5 Gravity and Grace, p. 166
Reader Comments
peut-être n'est-il qu'un lieu d'expérience catalytique avec le but de l'âme d'apprendre et donc de faire progresser sa conscience ? le paradis n'est-il pas dans l'esprit, oui ?
Oh French ladies - so inviting.
BK
ps - if it ain't french, seems as such to me, then I will lie down and be your slave...metaphorically
~ translated from French to English:
The purpose of the human condition is to regain the Paradise from which it was fallen.
~
Can somebody else translate the rest please...
Some questions have no solution.
What is wrong with that?
Nothing
~
Uncertainty - live with it especially you "head girls" out there think you can plan everything in advance...
you are mistaken and I can prove it.
~
BK, Poem of the Day, 11522 1258
Think outside the box for a change..
I hope we've got that straight now.
The whole point of thinking outside the box is to never think in their terms or what you know. In politics their is always more than 2 or 3 choices. You have to think outside the box they keep trying to drag us back into.
Voting for instance, pen and paper work great, add a computer to the equation and it's fixed, because someone has to control the computer. Blah, I hate politics right now, it's more like the Housewife of shows. Catty and not relevant.
snowed 5" overnight, nice day for a walk
The 'Democratic Party' and the 'Republican Party' are as similar in all the most important ways as two peas in a pod. They both support the rich, the US war machine, the Capitalist system, the 'Big State', US Imperialism etc.
Their only differences are cosmetic, and based on what people with real problems such as finding their next meal would class as trivia, such as women's rights. (Not that I am against women having rights - I wish them luck).
the "truth" that you mention, is a matter of perspective, and perspective is, imo, limited by walls people build around themselves i.e. a box.
so, have a peak at the link and if you read between the lines you my grok the larger context of what i was communicating in not so many words.
cheers
In my view, we need to keep trying to awaken ourselves to how the government puppets and mockingbird media (and science and education and plandemic and borders, etc) manipulate weak minded people. The more we awaken, the more others awaken. In understanding election fraud, others will understand election fraud.
I think it is working; people are waking up.
Change morality to be the “common good” over any individual human right. Change thinking and science to “collective group think” and “collective compliance to authority and experts”. Modify education so that it teaches minimal skills in reading and mathematics, and teaches social activism, eugenics and genocide as good, CRT and choose your sexual identity at the age of 8. Use mandates and brute force to bring peace and compliance to everybody, peace at last. Eliminate all informational dissent. Institute a program of genetic modification to enforce compliance, and transhumanism to monitor and control, with a kill switch if necessary. I’m sure I missed some points. At least we can all agree that is no solution for the future of humanity.
Are there planetary cycles that lead to the pendulum swinging from one extreme to another with a planetary cadence? Are there cycles in the solar system, galaxy and universe that affect the nature realm of earth? What is necessary for humanity to mature to a level of cooperation and mutual respect?
If religion is one of the reasons for conflict between people, what can be done to create the conditions that one religious view accepts that another religious view is possible; that there is one Creator? If all of humanity is growing and developing and consciousness is expanding, what is the direction of that expansion in consciousness? How can that direction be promoted? I am sure there are other questions.
The authoritarian wishes God's will replaced free will in at least the extreme cases, but given the nature of things must resort to the law.
The Nietzchean, Agent Smith sort would extinguish this evil by dominating over it. With hubris or ignorance this is improbable, but they would murder if they could get away with it.
The infant or apathetic, someone lacking all character, joins the crowd, merely becoming infected and passing it on to others.
Only the last really leaves a bad taste. However, it's the one adopted by probably half the population.
Of course, it is an ongoing process because time moves irregardless ( without regard ) of humans or planet earth or the sun or the milky way for that matter....time moves ON. It is.
That is my absolute presupposition and if you agree, then it suggest it is time to start working together mutually.
There is nothing tricky about it.
However, if the consciousness of humanity is changing as a whole, what would that mean, and how would it be manifested? Would it be a big shift or initially a little shift? Does it involve cosmic changes, like entering Aquarius? In my view, it would be a shift in acceptance of other cultures and ethnicities and a movement toward compassion and recognizing different perspectives. It would be a shift from materialism to a world view that recognizes a Creator as the source of everything.
Are there any signs that such a shift is occurring? What would it mean, since humanity is a bell curve relative to any variable chosen, like education? It would mean the whole bell curve would shift to the right. In the teaching of David R Hawkins this is happening. He developed a hierarchy of consciousness that extends from shame up to enlightenment. The key turning point for consciousness is the level 200, which represents courage; everything below that was negative like fear, but once above that a positive change in consciousness is occurring. From his measurements, humanity as a whole has risen above 200 for the first time in 2007(this is from memory?). Here is a link to a blog with an overview of the levels. [Link]
*
Yuri Bezmenov was right when he said we in the west are not in a time of peace, but in a time of WAR!
His words carry more weight than water.
For those that read this far but have not heard of Yuri or his words, a friend put up a compilation of his speech, along with other clips, in the hopes he can drill the urgency home to the gluttonous masses.
The concept of reincarnation, where if if not in this life, in the next one, one experiences the consequences of their actions.
When the British set up their court system in India, they were astounded that there were Indians who refused to lie, and because of that would lose everything. They did not know that this level of moral character existed in the world. Better to just accept the consequences now, rather than compounding the situation by more suboptimal actions.
In China, when famine was rampant, the missionaries were shocked to find those who had converted to Christianity would kill and eat children in an attempt to survive. The Buddhists, with their belief in reincarnation, would simply sit quietly holding the child, peacefully passing from this life.
And for those of you that simply cannot get your egos under control, as this author obviously cannot…
it’s called the golden rule.
Belief in reincarnation seems a powerful way to inhibit self-aggrandizement. There is this contradiction embedded in reincarnation, that all things fade away, except that virtue persists, justice is a permanent fixture of reality that will come for those too firmly attached to that which must fade. It's a western idea as well, and though Christians may have abandoned reincarnation, redemption in the vein of Osiris or ascending to heaven instills or is meant to instill similar values.
Maybe reincarnation is the more powerful belief, preaching that people will come back soon enough to suffer more severely, if they don't take stock, wake up, or stay the course. Covetousness in Christianity basically has the same implications as attachment or karmic desires, in that someone relies on the creatures outside of oneself to complete them or give them purpose, rather than an innate desire or essence/purpose to do good.
If there is something philosophically backwards with that I'd like to be corrected.