Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Panendeism and Animism

Pierce adopted Cosmotheism[2] as his religion in 1978. In effect it is a form of panendeism, or a impersonal panentheism, or a belief that an impersonal God is the animating force within the universe. Moreover, Pierce's salutation of the "life principle" adumbrates the Greek Logos, his own professed agnosticism and his atheism regarding a Personal God notwithstanding.

Cosmotheism asserts that "all is within God and God is within all." It considers the nature of reality and of existence to be mutable and destined to co-evolve towards a complete "universal consciousness," or godhood. Cosmos means an orderly and harmonious universe and thus the divine is tantamount to reality and consciousness, an inseparable part of an orderly, harmonious, and whole universal system.

In his speech "Our Cause", Pierce said:
"All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator's purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator's self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood."

Pierce described his form of panendeism as being based on "[t]he idea of an evolutionary universe … with an evolution toward ever higher and higher states of self-consciousness."

While I withhold comment on the other views of the individual quoted above, I think he's right about the universe. I've always been an animist: I believe that all of the universe has, in a sense, life, and that like our thoughts, it is always trying to refine itself toward greater accuracy, and that it does this through a dumb process so it doesn't get neurotic and lock up like humans. It just keeps inching forward and never giving up. I can see why Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc. might call that "love."

Books that Leftists Want Banned

The Left and its liberal hordes like to tell us that they are the party of tolerance, of science, of superior moral wisdom and that it's the other guys, the Right, who want to deny science and ban books.

Here's a list of books that liberals have tried to ban, deny or slander, instead of debating the points and scientific data compiled within:

  • The Color of Crime

    The Color of Crime, New Century Foundation's report on differences in crime rates by race, bias in the justice system, and interracial crime. First published as a monograph in 1999, the new 2005 edition of The Color of Crime is now available on-line as a free PDF download.

  • The Bell Curve

    Although the debate on this book is over race, really it's a manifesto of social darwinism, suggesting that those who have their act together and earn more money are statistically more likely to be intelligent.

  • The Global Bell Curve

    Extending the idea of The Bell Curve, this book suggests that the nations which prosper are those where intelligence, not natural resources or germs or steel, is of a higher average rate.

  • The Blank Slate

    Exploring the "nature versus nurture" conflict, this book points out how intelligence is an inherited trait, and how personality is determined by genetics as well, casting doubt on the idea that we are all blank slates who can be educated into ideal citizens.

  • Next time you see leftists claiming that only the Right tries to deny science or ban/slander books, bring up these scientific, insightful and informative tomes.


    The author of this piece believes in limited social darwinism, e.g. that the more intelligent in this society earn more money because they are more aware of what to fear and want to get their families to the suburbs.

    The author of this piece is a liberal at heart who has come to believe that traditional society -- roles, caste, aristocracy and transcendental idealism -- is better than anything modern liberalism has to offer.

    Labels: , ,

    Sunday, September 07, 2008

    Greenism useless without monetary reform

    It's almost impossible for us to make a significant difference to environmental problems by installing solar panels or growing our own vegetables as long as we leave the debt-based money system unreformed.

    While lending at interest was for centuries regarded as an evil, we take it so much for granted today that we actually pity people "unable" to burden themselves with vast debt. Consider much of the reporting of the ongoing decline in the housing market, and yesterday's government interference in it. Some media coverage seems to suggest that the government's initiative is designed to help individuals step onto the housing ladder. But are such individuals - anyway few in number - really so horribly deprived by being unable to tie themselves to an asset that, in all likelihood, will lose value?

    Banks create loans out of thin air, by pressing a few keys on a computer. They do no work, and incur no risk. Borrowers, on the other hand, agree to work for years to repay the interest - effectively rendering themselves slaves to the bank for a certain time. (I've done it myself.) For these reasons, lending at interest - or usury - was for centuries reviled by every major religion and by great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. It's still forbidden by Islam and when Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, talked recently about Britain learning from sharia law, there's evidence to suggest that debt-free money was one of the things he had in mind.

    This has always been obvious: an economy based on reckless growth to sustain its usury habit will put a price tag on every single thing on earth, sell them, destroy them, and then market plastic "undestroyed places" at luxury prices.

    Labels: ,