Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:14 am Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?— The rest are merely humanity.— One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,— in contempt.
-Preface to The Antichrist (emphasis in original)

If we look at it from pragmatic and evolutionary perspective, we can see multiple venues of evolutionary paths for conscious creatures. One is of a solitary predatory individual - this is the path of tigers and leopards, and surely also of many human personalities that are genetically and environmentally pre-disposed for such individualistic behavior. Such creatures are typically very self-sufficient, selfish, arrogant, negligent to other creatures feelings and interests and lacking compassion and abilities to efficiently cooperate. Evolution rewards such behavior, and that is why such evolutionary venue exists and still evolves, but it has significant limitations in the degree of its development, because higher levels of evolutionary development can not be achieved without efficient cooperation, collective work and empathic understanding of otherness. Another evolutionary venue is of the herd creatures that learned to cooperate, and it's exactly along this venue where the highest levels of evolutionary development have been achieved in humans, apes, wolfs, dolphins and so on. Yet, the cooperative path is not a simplistic one and has many pitfalls that evolution had to find the ways around. One of the pitfalls is the compulsive dictatorship societal form - we see human societies collapsing in such structures all the time, however, they do not survive and eventually collapse because they are not sustainable and are not able to compete and develop. Within human vaguely cooperative societal forms many other evolutionally venues still exist, including individualistic ones, as they can easily parasitize on the products of the collective work, but they are destined to remain a minority because a society with the majority of extreme individualists who are unable to productively cooperate would be at the evolutionary disadvantage.

I worked for many companies in the high-tech industry and witnessed that the most successful ones are those which were able to build a very cooperative but not compulsory or dictating work culture and environment. Companies with too much control, regulation and dictatorship are not productive and not competitive and do not survive. On the other hand, companies where the majority of workers are egoic individuals who mostly compete with each other and poorly cooperate also do not survive. The individualism vs over-regulated dictatorship is a wrong dichotomy, because both are dead-end evolutionary paths. There is another alternative - a cooperative evolutionary path where the individualism and collectivism are in a good and optimal balance which gives such structures the most competitive evolutionary advantage.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:44 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:14 am Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?— The rest are merely humanity.— One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,— in contempt.
-Preface to The Antichrist (emphasis in original)

If we look at it from pragmatic and evolutionary perspective, we can see multiple venues of evolutionary paths for conscious creatures. One is of a solitary predatory individual - this is the path of tigers and leopards, and surely also of many human personalities that are genetically and environmentally pre-disposed for such individualistic behavior. Such creatures are typically very self-sufficient, selfish, arrogant, negligent to other creatures feelings and interests and lacking compassion and abilities to efficiently cooperate. Evolution rewards such behavior, and that is why such evolutionary venue exists and still evolves, but it has significant limitations in the degree of its development, because higher levels of evolutionary development can not be achieved without efficient cooperation, collective work and empathic understanding of otherness. Another evolutionary venue is of the herd creatures that learned to cooperate, and it's exactly along this venue where the highest levels of evolutionary development have been achieved in humans, apes, wolfs, dolphins and so on. Yet, the cooperative path is not a simplistic one and has many pitfalls that evolution had to find the ways around. One of the pitfalls is the compulsive dictatorship societal form - we see human societies collapsing in such structures all the time, however, they do not survive and eventually collapse because they are not sustainable and are not able to compete and develop. Within human vaguely cooperative societal forms many other evolutionally venues still exist, including individualistic ones, as they can easily parasitize on the products of the collective work, but they are destined to remain a minority because a society with the majority of extreme individualists who are unable to productively cooperate would be at the evolutionary disadvantage.

I worked for many companies in the high-tech industry and witnessed that the most successful ones are those which were able to build a very cooperative but not compulsory or dictating work culture and environment. Companies with too much control, regulation and dictatorship are not productive and not competitive and do not survive. On the other hand, companies where the majority of workers are egoic individuals who mostly compete with each other and poorly cooperate also do not survive. The individualism vs over-regulated dictatorship is a wrong dichotomy, because both are dead-end evolutionary paths. There is another alternative - a cooperative evolutionary path where the individualism and collectivism are in a good and optimal balance which gives such structures the most competitive evolutionary advantage.

There is nothing within the terms "individualist", "individualism", etc. that necessitate the meaning of pure selfishness at the expense of others, which is the way you are using it above. Evolution does not operate in such black-and-white, mutually exclusive meanings. What's best for the individual organism can also align with what's best for the collective of organisms and, in fact, that must be the case if we are situated in any sort of evolutionary process. What "individualism" vs. "collectivism" signify are the primary means of transformation within a system, i.e. bottom-up conscious activity of a wide diversity of individual agents or top-down conscious activity of a few agents on the rest of them. Selection mechanisms within evolutionary process are, by definition, bottom-up.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:55 pm What "individualism" vs. "collectivism" signify are the primary means of transformation within a system, i.e. bottom-up conscious activity of a wide diversity of individual agents or top-down conscious activity of a few agents on the rest of them. Selection mechanisms within evolutionary process are, by definition, bottom-up.

However, if you look at the social structures of successful companies, as well as at the social structures of highly-developed herd species in nature, all of them are clearly an efficient combination of both top-down and bottom up activities. There is a reason why there are no successful "democratic" companies where the business decisions are made by voting of all workers. All successful companies are hierarchically organized with top management making main strategic decisions, however, a sufficient freedom is always provided for the individuals to give space to express their creativity and have their voice and opinion heard. Same can be found in nature in mammal herd groups that are typically hierarchically structured with alpha individuals on top of the hierarchies. We can see that evolution clearly rewards hierarchical vs libertarian structures. The reason is quite simple actually - highly developed evolutionary stages require specialization where every member needs to master its abilities and skills in a relatively narrow filed, and then a group of such specialized individuals can produce a complicated work that needs integration of many skills and specializations. However, such cooperative work, as practice shows, can never be done without management, it never happens by spontaneous cooperation of skilled individuals. An orchestra of highly professional musicians can not make a good music without a skilled conductor. And the thing is: efficient management (=conducting) is one of those highly specialized skills, it can not be done by voting of the individuals that are not skilled at management and strategic thinking. However, even the most competent management is never able to know all the miniscule detail of the work projects and can never efficiently dictate every detail of the work, so the most efficient management is that which knows its competence limits and leaves enough trust and freedom to the bottom-levels to figure out the particularities based on the individualized skills of each member. So again, this is why the most efficient and competitive social structures are those where the hierarchical organization is balanced with sufficient bottom-level individual freedom. If the balance moves to one side (too much compulsory management) or the other side (too much bottom-level freedom), the structure becomes inefficient and non-competitive.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:23 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:55 pm What "individualism" vs. "collectivism" signify are the primary means of transformation within a system, i.e. bottom-up conscious activity of a wide diversity of individual agents or top-down conscious activity of a few agents on the rest of them. Selection mechanisms within evolutionary process are, by definition, bottom-up.

However, if you look at the social structures of successful companies, as well as at the social structures of highly-developed herd species in nature, all of them are clearly an efficient combination of both top-down and bottom up activities. There is a reason why there are no successful "democratic" companies where the business decisions are made by voting of all workers. All successful companies are hierarchically organized with top management making main strategic decisions, however, a sufficient freedom is always provided for the individuals to give space to express their creativity and have their voice and opinion heard. Same can be found in nature in mammal herd groups that are typically hierarchically structured with alpha individuals on top of the hierarchies. We can see that evolution clearly supports hierarchical vs entirely libertarian structures. The reason is quite simple actually - highly developed evolutionary stages require specialization where every member needs to master its abilities and skills in a relatively narrow filed, and then a group of such specialized individuals can produce a complicated work that needs integration of many skills and specializations. However, such cooperative work, as practice shows, can never be done without management, it never happens by spontaneous cooperation of skilled individuals. An orchestra of highly professional musicians can not make a good music without a skilled conductor. And the thing is: efficient management (=conducting) is one of those highly specialized skills, it can not be done by voting of the individuals that are not skilled at management and strategic thinking. However, even the most competent management is never able to know all the miniscule detail of the work projects and can never efficiently dictate every detail of the work, so the most efficient management is that which knows its competence limits and leaves enough trust and freedom to the bottom-levels to figure out the particularities based on the individualized skills of each member. So again, this is why the most efficient and competitive social structures are those where the hierarchical organization is balanced with sufficient bottom-level individual freedom. If the balance moves to one side (too much compulsory management) or the other side (too much bottom-level freedom), the structure becomes inefficient and non-competitive.

Yes I agree with all of that... again I said the difference lies in the priority/primacy of one over the other in transformation. "Collectivist" political-economic systems rely almost completely on the primacy of top-down management. They are anti-evolutionary and anti-pragmatic in that sense. What we call "individualist" societies are always a mix of both bottom-up and top-down, while usually preserving a bare minimum of individual freedom which cannot be transgressed no matter what justifications are put forth from the top-down and which theoretically provides sovereignty of the individual, i.e. a regular and guaranteed influence of individuals on the selection of top-down management.

Aside from that, I have kind of lost track as to what argument you are making here in relation to the Nietzschean metaphysical critique?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:36 pm Aside from that, I have kind of lost track as to what argument you are making here in relation to the Nietzschean metaphysical critique?

Well, being a Buddhist, I'm actually in support of the metaphysical individual freedom, in fact this is one of the fundamental elements of Buddha's teaching - realizing and reclaiming the fundamental individual spiritual freedom intrinsic to our Buddha's nature once we realize that nature, the ability on the highest spiritual level to become not conditioned and not controlled by the circumstances of the world of forms (including one's own desires and impulses). However, in Buddhism such individual liberation is integrated into the collective evolution and liberation of all sentient beings, since we all share the same Buddha's nature and since the realized beings are driven by compassion and natural (non-compulsory) de-prioritizing of the needs of the separate self. At the same time, such Buddhist approach is fundamentally bottom-up, there is no God in control of this process and "the Buddhas" (realized beings) are only facilitators, but not the "managers" of this process.

Such compassionate and cooperative component is missing in Nietzsche's metaphysical individualism, and I see it as a fundamental flaw of his metaphysics, while I sill accept his libertarian metaphysical individualism. Libertarianism without compassion and cooperation is a developmental dead end. It is possible that Nietzsche did not mean that and he was just so much focused on struggling with compulsory collectivism that he missed the metaphysical significance of the cooperative and compassionate part of the equation. But the fact is - he did miss it and as a result he gave only a limited perspective on the subject, which also arguably led to wide-spread misinterpretations of his views and the influence on the development of Nazism.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:18 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:36 pm Aside from that, I have kind of lost track as to what argument you are making here in relation to the Nietzschean metaphysical critique?

Well, being a Buddhist, I'm actually in support of the metaphysical individual freedom, in fact this is one of the fundamental elements of Buddha's teaching - realizing and reclaiming the fundamental individual spiritual freedom intrinsic to our Buddha's nature once we realize that nature, the ability on the highest spiritual level to become not conditioned and not controlled by the circumstances of the world of forms (including one's own desires and impulses). However, in Buddhism such individual liberation is integrated into the collective evolution and liberation of all sentient beings, since we all share the same Buddha's nature and since the realized beings are driven by compassion and natural (non-compulsory) de-prioritizing of the needs of the separate self. At the same time, such Buddhist approach is fundamentally bottom-up, there is no God in control of this process and "the Buddhas" (realized beings) are only facilitators, but not the "managers" of this process.

There is a very important difference between that and Nietzsche's conception of metaphysical freedom. Giving up our desires is considered impossible under the latter view. Rather the freedom is about consciously aligning our desires (will) with our feelings and thoughts so that our behavior flows naturally from within rather than being dictated from without. The ascetic ideal of giving up desires will invariably manifest as deep resentment against institutions, cultures and Being itself in the long-term. That fundamental difference is likely why you view Nietzsche's conception as:

Such compassionate and cooperative component is missing in Nietzsche's metaphysical individualism, and I see it as a fundamental flaw of his metaphysics, while I sill accept his libertarian metaphysical individualism. Libertarianism without compassion and cooperation is a developmental dead end. It is possible that Nietzsche did not mean that and he was just so much focused on struggling with compulsory collectivism that he missed the metaphysical significance of the cooperative and compassionate part of the equation. But the fact is - he did miss it and as a result he gave only a limited perspective on the subject, which also arguably led to wide-spread misinterpretations of his views and the influence on the development of Nazism.

The key is that the compassion, cooperation, and all other virtues of our behavior are consciously willed by us and not simply the result of external commands. That is when we are authentically being virtuous rather than engaging in "virtuous" behavior because we simply lack the courage to stand apart from the crowd. Nietzsche did not "miss" the importance of virtuous behavior, on the contrary he recognized the only way in which those virtues can be authentically realized within the individual spirit, which is a way that stood and still stands in direct opposition to the spirit of our age as manifested in the dominant cultural narratives of the West.

The problem with Conscious Willing is the unforeseen consequences. The Devil manifests in the details. Why not just trust that in an instinctual system of Love, the required opposites will arise and fade in their season of ongoing changes?

PS: HAPPY EQUINOX

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:35 pm There is a very important difference between that and Nietzsche's conception of metaphysical freedom. Giving up our desires is considered impossible under the latter view. Rather the freedom is about consciously aligning our desires (will) with our feelings and thoughts so that our behavior flows naturally from within rather than being dictated from without. The ascetic ideal of giving up desires will invariably manifest as deep resentment against institutions, cultures and Being itself in the long-term. That fundamental difference is likely why you view Nietzsche's conception as:

No, you misunderstood me, I was talking not about giving up all desires, but about gaining a fundamental freedom of choice to follow or not to follow our desires. If we always follow our desires and our conditions, we act like animals without exercising our fundamental ability of free choice.

Regarding the ascetism, it is true that it was narrowly interpreted as rejecting and getting rid of all desires in some spiritual tradition schools (in early Buddhist Theravada school for example), but that's not how most traditions interpret ascetism. For example, in the traditional Christianity ascetism is about replacing/transforming the desires of a lower-developmental level (that resulted from the Fall) with desires of highest-developmental level such as "Divine eros" - the desire for God. Similar approach was adopted in later Mahayana Buddhist schools. So yes, ascetism is about the transformation of the human will, not about suppressing it.

The key is that the compassion, cooperation, and all other virtues of our behavior are consciously willed by us and not simply the result of external commands. That is when we are authentically being virtuous rather than engaging in "virtuous" behavior because we simply lack the courage to stand apart from the crowd. Nietzsche did not "miss" the importance of virtuous behavior, on the contrary he recognized the only way in which those virtues can be authentically realized within the individual spirit, which is a way that stood and still stands in direct opposition to the spirit of our age as manifested in the dominant cultural narratives of the West.

I agree that the right way to develop virtues is by consciously willing them instead of following external commands, and that is essentially how it is understood in Buddhism too (where there are no external commandments or expectations whatsoever, the teachings and practices are only recommendations from masters of the tradition with the purpose to help and to facilitate the spiritual development of each individual if an individual needs such help and asks for it). But is not Christianity based on following the "external commands"? Either in Old Testament, or the New one, God gave people commandments and the believers are supposed to follow them. True that in Christianity there is more room for individual freedom and conscious participation, yet it is still structured such that we people are "expected" by God to think or behave in a certain way and follow certain commandments imposed on us by him.

Regarding Nietzsche, I'm not so familiar with his writings and only read his "Zaratustra" long time ago, but I don't remember reading about such virtues as love, compassion and cooperation. May be he did in his other writings. It's good that he recognized the authentic way of developing virtues, and it was an important step forward from the rigidity and cultural domination of the traditional Christianity, but because he did not speak about the development of specific positive virtues as an essential component of spiritual development, his position was mostly understood/interpreted as simply rebellious, as an opposition to and negation of the culturally dominated and dictated values without proposing new authentic positive values (love, compassion and cooperation). In other words, he only went half way. You may still argue that he opened the door to the possibility of authentic internally-driven development without specifically pointing in any direction of development, and that is true.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:07 pm But is not Christianity based on following the "external commands"? Either in Old Testament, or the New one, God gave people commandments and the believers are supposed to follow them. True that in Christianity there is more room for individual freedom and conscious participation, yet it is still structured such that we people are "expected" by God to think or behave in a certain way and follow certain commandments imposed on us by him.

Eugene, if that's your understanding of the Christ, I'm not surprised you abandoned it. I would do the same. Actually I would never even consider it in the first place And I also acknowledge that the deeper (esoteric) aspects can't be found in any of the churches - actually they are one of the greatest resisting factors to the deeper penetration into this Mystery. There Karma and reincarnation are not even considered. To speak of the Christ as a God imposing external commands on men, would be the same as to say that when one attains to his Buddha nature he comes in contact with a being that stands externally to him. This doesn't mean that there're no conditions (which can be seen as external rules) to attain to the Christ nature. This holds also in Buddhism - there're conditions (which again can be seen as external laws) that must be met if one is to attain to his Buddha nature.

Cleric K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:27 pm Eugene, if that's your understanding of the Christ, I'm not surprised you abandoned it. I would do the same. Actually I would never even consider it in the first place And I also acknowledge that the deeper (esoteric) aspects can't be found in any of the churches - actually they are one of the greatest resisting factors to the deeper penetration into this Mystery. There Karma and reincarnation are not even considered. To speak of the Christ as a God imposing external commands on men, would be the same as to say that when one attains to his Buddha nature he comes in contact with a being that stands externally to him. This doesn't mean that there're no conditions (which can be seen as external rules) to attain to the Christ nature. This holds also in Buddhism - there're conditions (which again can be seen as external laws) that must be met if one is to attain to his Buddha nature.

Well, because that was how it is understood in the the traditional Christianity (Orthodox specifically where I belonged) and how it is presented in the Bible. Of course, there is also a mystical and a participatory part, finding Christ in the depths of one's soul etc. Yet in every Christian denomination the Christ is understood as a Divine individual personality who is in some way separate from us. The communication with the Divine may happen internally, as well as externally, but it is always a communication with the "other", and that divine "other" in one way or another is always some sort of authority for us. How "authoritarian" such authority is depends on the denomination, but there is always something that such Divinity expects from us, at least once we are subscribed to its salvific agenda. If your interpretation is denying even all of that above, it would be so alien to the Christian faith based on the Bible and any prior Christian tradition that I don't think you would have any success finding anyone to agree with it.

Sufism is the only monotheistic tradition that I'm aware of which, at the very advanced stages of the path, reveals that there is actually no difference between our soul and the Divinity, that we are the very Divinity itself in our core and essence. But for Christian (as well as Judaic) tradition such view would be unthinkable and totally heretic.

There is nothing like that in Buddhism, where the Buddha's nature you what you really ARE, it's not something "other" than you which you need to communicate with, subdue to, love or relate to in any other way. And nobody expects anything from you, whether you realize your Buddha's nature or not is entirely your own problem, but if you need help to realize it, the masters of the tradition will gladly help you with no expectations from you whatsoever.