Four Levels of History

The 4 levels of history:

1. War

2. The State

3. Religion

4. Philosophy (& science & art)


These should not be thought of as occurring distinctly and subsequently; they all happen, of course, simultaneously.  Nonetheless, there is a kind of order between them: not a chronological order, but a kind of logical order, because each step represents the recursion of the previous step.

The state is the recursion of war - it is war turned inward, war turned back on itself.  A side of the war turns back on itself, turning what had been outward aggression inward, so that the struggle for dominance (the "will to power" as it were) is no longer directed towards the enemy but rather towards one's own.  You might say that the state is war turned inside-out.

Similarly, religion is the recursion of the state: the self-referential "meta-state" so to speak.  You could call it the state of the state.  The church has been, traditionally, the center of morality, and morality could be seen as self-government - autonomy, in the sense of self-imposed law.  Whereas the law is control exerted externally, morality is self-control: freely chosen belief in a higher principle that guides behavior.  Religion thus acts as both a motivating impulse and a check on the state: moral principles help to guide more brutal coercive force.  In this sense, religion is the double-recursion of war: the "greater jihad".

Finally, philosophy is recursion of religion: religion turned in upon itself, religion applying the same degree of control and interrogation to itself that it imposes on the state, demanding honesty, rigor, and consistency and therefore ruthlessly examining its principles, rejecting anything that cannot withstand this level of scrutiny.  Thus philosophy is the triple-recursion of war, the highest phase of the will-to-power in the act of self-overcoming.  Another aspect of this level is science, which is philosophy ruthlessly shorn of everything that appears frivolous, whimsical, imaginary, and unfounded in demonstrable physical evidence.  But at the same time the highest phase of the will-to-power is the most playful, and the highest expression of the will is through art.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... )  But it hard
Read more

Liquefactionism

Image
“To Dissolve Man” An Investigation into the Liquefactionist Party In the 21st century, we will have to deal both with the odious Liquefactionists and with a confused and reactionary anti-Liquefactionism, which is far more apparent and obviously horrifying. I borrow the term “Liquefactionist Party” from William S. Burroughs, who writes about the Liquefactionists in the “Parties of Interzone” section of Naked Lunch - which, as a political policy guide, is unmatched in its insight and accuracy.  He writes that, “ The Liquefaction program involves the eventual merging of everyone into One Man by a process of protoplasmic absorption. ”  He goes on: “It will be immediately clear that the Liquefaction Party is, except for one man, entirely composed of dupes, it not being clear until the final absorption who is whose dupe.” Paradoxically, Burroughs goes on to tell us that “Liquefactionists in general know what the score is.”  If they know the score, how can they be dupes?  Perhaps thi
Read more

Why Ayn Rand was Wrong

  It is a pet theory of mine that the "greatness" or "importance" of a philosopher is mostly determined by that philosopher's subsequent degree of influence on a government leader.  Would we still talk about Socrates, if his student Critias had not taken over Athens as the leader of the Dictatorship of the Thirty?  Would we talk about Aristotle, had he not tutored Alexander, who later became Alexander the Great and took over a vast part of the ancient world?  Would we remember Rousseau, had not Robespierre declared him "divine"?  Or Locke and Montesquieu, had not the founders of the United States revered them?  The esteem given to the philosophy by professional professors within the academy matters less, and its internal coherence, or insight, or truth matters less still.  By this measure, Ayn Rand is, unfortunately, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.   Even though she is barely noticed by philosophy departments, Ayn Rand is massively
Read more