I renounce modern politics-I guess i'm a Monarchist - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14524780
starman2003 wrote:I'd certainly oppose traditional, hereditary monarchy. Even if the father is capable, that's no guarantee the son will be; many like commodus, have been screwballs.

If the king is really king, the owner of the state for reason of ownership of the military that has secured it, then there really is no other who should have authority to choose his successor. For various practical reasons and normal human preference the successor that he will choose will be 99 times out of 100 be his own eldest son. It is not long before that becomes the default in case he dies before naming a successor. It is quite the same thing for anyone of property who is not a king; when any householder dies it quite normal for him to prefer to choose his own eldest son to inherit and if he failed to specify that in a will it is quite normal for those tasked with administering the transfer to make the assumption that his eldest son would be his choice in the absence of better information. This is how primogeniture came about.

There are no guarantees that a successor will be competent but the overwhelming majority have been tolerably competent. For the few that are really incompetent, they usually end up dispossessed of their holding soon enough by assassination, military defeat at the hands of rival monarch, usurpation, coup d'etat by his own lords or captains or revolution by mobs lead by fundies. The real test of fitness to rule is whether one can survive one's enemies, not can one temporarily win a popularity contest.

annatar1914 wrote:You see the Beginning without reference to Soteriology, when it would be best to take a holistic approach and consider Eschatology also.

But aside from that aspect, Martyrdom did not reduce, but rather enhanced, the Royalty of Martyr Kings of the Modern Age like Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II, for they had the Model of the King to look to. The Jews had every option of following their King, and formally rejected Him. Rome and Jerusalem were given other means of becoming One, and 20 centuries later we find ourselves full circle in more ways than we realize.

I also hasten to add that Christ thru St. Constantine won over the Roman Empire, and which Union of the Two was heralded previously by the fact that the Holy Family, while of the House of David, were loyal Roman Citizens who registered during the Census of Citizens called for by Emperor Augustus (obfuscated, lied about, or ignored by all today).

Not a parody or mockery of Monarchy at all.

Charles the I was largely brought down by Christian fundies (well you are Orthodox so perhaps you don't consider Calvinists and Puritans to be true Christians) so I think it is little comfort to him that he can post-humously consider himself a martyr. It is an unreality though to call a deposed king a martyr, a deposed king is a failure. The celebration of weakness and failure that is shot through Christian sentiment is hardly helpful for monarchs who as heads of martial security are more than usually beset with lethal enemies as an inevitable feature of the business they are in.

Jesus as King of the Jews is really a mockery of monarchy, he has no army! He walks with the hoi-polloi, rides a donkey to town and lets himself be nailed to a tree. It's a mockery plain and simple.
#14525132
Taxizen, you stated to me that;

Charles the I was largely brought down by Christian fundies (well you are Orthodox so perhaps you don't consider Calvinists and Puritans to be true Christians) so I think it is little comfort to him that he can post-humously consider himself a martyr.


You have read what happened at his trial and execution, right? It practically made me a Monarchist on his words and behavior alone. Kings die, sometimes horribly, and knowing how to conduct yourself as a King is the preparation for death, the 'sword of Damocles' suspended over every Earthly ruler. Calvinists and Puritans are Heretics in a formal sense in my view, but God is Merciful, and knows the Heart.

But here is where you unfortunately fail to understand the most, saying that;



It is an unreality though to call a deposed king a martyr, a deposed king is a failure. The celebration of weakness and failure that is shot through Christian sentiment is hardly helpful for monarchs who as heads of martial security are more than usually beset with lethal enemies as an inevitable feature of the business they are in.


Who reads only the first part of the story of a great King in adversity, and not the Second Part? Resurrection and Ascension, Decent into Hell to liberate the Captives, and Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, from whence He shall come again in Glory, defeat the forces of Evil, and Reign Forever, making all things wonderfully and gloriously new?

He promised these things, and I believe in Him and trust Him. The Story is unfinished.

Jesus as King of the Jews is really a mockery of monarchy


No.

, he has no army!


Wrong. But also irrelevant as to His Mission on Earth with His First Coming, which was Salvation and Sacrifice. Being God, He is All-Powerful, and even so has as He said; 'Twelve Legions' of the Mighty Angels at His call at any moment. At His Second Coming, He will put an end to the Universe as we know it, and change it forever. Can't get more 'Monarchical' than that.


He walks with the hoi-polloi, rides a donkey to town and lets himself be nailed to a tree. It's a mockery plain and simple.


The Ultimate Monarch liberates His Citizens from Sin and Eternal Death and offers Salvation, and He truly makes Kingship 'Sacralized' to the nth degree, and will Return in triumph to be the Terrible and Merciful Judge of All Mankind, Is the Exemplar of how a real Monarch is to live and to die, and this is 'mockery'?
#14525169
taxizen wrote:If the king is really king, the owner of the state for reason of ownership of the military that has secured it, then there really is no other who should have authority to choose his successor. For various practical reasons and normal human preference the successor that he will choose will be 99 times out of 100 be his own eldest son.


That's not the way it's been in the great authoritarian states of the past century, which should be the model for a future system (inasmuch as they were based on modern secular ideology not blood).

There are no guarantees that a successor will be competent but the overwhelming majority have been tolerably competent.


It would be far better to have a meritocratic system, to maximize the effectiveness of the State. The latter or nation as a whole should be the object not a particular family or dynasty.

For the few that are really incompetent, they usually end up dispossessed of their holding soon enough by assassination, military defeat at the hands of rival monarch, usurpation, coup d'etat by his own lords or captains or revolution by mobs lead by fundies.


Same goes for any ruler that screws up.

The real test of fitness to rule is whether one can survive one's enemies, not can one temporarily win a popularity contest.


The latter certainly is a poor criterion, but a number of not very good rulers were great at staying in power.
#14525238
annatar1914 wrote:Taxizen, you stated to me that;

You have read what happened at his trial and execution, right? It practically made me a Monarchist on his words and behavior alone. Kings die, sometimes horribly, and knowing how to conduct yourself as a King is the preparation for death, the 'sword of Damocles' suspended over every Earthly ruler. Calvinists and Puritans are Heretics in a formal sense in my view, but God is Merciful, and knows the Heart.
Aye he did die with some dignity (as much as can be had in the circumstances).

annatar1914 wrote:Who reads only the first part of the story of a great King in adversity, and not the Second Part? Resurrection and Ascension, Decent into Hell to liberate the Captives, and Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, from whence He shall come again in Glory, defeat the forces of Evil, and Reign Forever, making all things wonderfully and gloriously new?

He promised these things, and I believe in Him and trust Him. The Story is unfinished.

Charles I was king but he was not a great king. He was a good man but good men do not make good kings.
Archbishop William Laud, who was beheaded by Parliament during the war, described Charles as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."


Mild and gracious? No wonder mucky monsters like Cromwell had the daring to have him murdered in broad daylight. Charles came undone because he actually believed in Divine Right. Genghis Khan would not have made that mistake. The great kings of history were all hard headed, eyes wide open realists.

Jesus as King of the Jews is really a mockery of monarchy

annatar1914 wrote:No.

I'm not going to argue that point, you have your beliefs and I have my perceptions.

But I will say that the idea of divine right did a great deal to demolish monarchy particularly when princes were trained from birth (by priestly teachers) to actually believe it. It did so even before secularism became a thing as Charles I is an example. Monarchs rule well and securely when they realise that their right to rule comes only from their ability to survive their enemies, it comes more from shrewd observation and strategic sense and not from magical invisible angel soldiers. A monarch would do better to take tips from Niccolo Machievelli rather than Robert Filmer. He would get better training from playing chess ("the game of kings") rather than from reciting the liturgy.
----

starman2003 wrote:That's not the way it's been in the great authoritarian states of the past century, which should be the model for a future system (inasmuch as they were based on modern secular ideology not blood).
Secular ideology is just more fundamentalism. A good ruler is not a fundie, secular or otherwise, he is a realist.
starman2003 wrote:It would be far better to have a meritocratic system, to maximize the effectiveness of the State. The latter or nation as a whole should be the object not a particular family or dynasty.
That's a nice doctrine you have there but its just fundie doctrine. Genghis Khan would have you cut to pieces if you threw that nonsense in his face.

Starman what you are looking for is a corporation to manage the state. It would probably work but it would tend to totalitarianism I think. Authoritarianism is fine and good but is only sufferable if it limits itself to military matters and leaves a big space for people to be civil. A realist monarchy will tend to do that, not for ideological reasons but just for practical reasons, one man, a king, doesn't want to have too much to think about and so will keep his concerns where he can focused on that of war and peace and let the bakers bake and the smiths smith as they will. Your authoritarian corporation for reason of having too many cooks spoiling the broth will find itself taking over everything and becoming pretty much a nuisance to everyone and this is totalitarianism. In that way it won't be that much different from a democracy which tends to the same fate.
#14525391
Good afternoon, Taxizen my friend. (I can call you friend because the greatest leap in friendship has already been made, with an understanding of the wrongness of the Modern Age, and the rightness of Monarchism. ). You said in reference to King Charles I;

Aye he did die with some dignity (as much as can be had in the circumstances).


More dignity than Cromwell, or most Republican Tyrants, I might add.
Charles I was king but he was not a great king. He was a good man but good men do not make good kings.


I might add that I do not subscribe to the Western scheme of morality where a man is 'good' and another 'evil'. We don't know another's heart very well, and not even our own. Charles I was required to die, to show how a King should die, and for his defense of his right to rule in the face of even material facts.


Mild and gracious? No wonder mucky monsters like Cromwell had the daring to have him murdered in broad daylight. Charles came undone because he actually believed in Divine Right. Genghis Khan would not have made that mistake. The great kings of history were all hard headed, eyes wide open realists.


Yes they were, but they also knew they were the Hand of God, as the record clearly shows Ghengis Khan to have self-conciously been. Divine Right and 'hard-eyed realism' go together.

In reference to Jesus as King of the Jews (and recall Pilate's; 'I have written what I have written'....), you said;
I'm not going to argue that point, you have your beliefs and I have my perceptions.


The biggest Test is as I have said before, at the End of the Story. Then we'll know for sure. But then you further aver;
But I will say that the idea of divine right did a great deal to demolish monarchy particularly when princes were trained from birth (by priestly teachers) to actually believe it.


Hardly, It provides a context for the individual King to understand his own rights-and duties-in the overall scheme of things. Make him a cynic and a skeptic and he either descends into hedonism and imbecility, or else a purposeless and arbitrary dictator, who builds nothing and protects nothing. So nothing could be further from the truth than to say Divine Right demolishes Monarchy... I mean, look at Japan for example.

It did so even before secularism became a thing as Charles I is an example. Monarchs rule well and securely when they realise that their right to rule comes only from their ability to survive their enemies, it comes more from shrewd observation and strategic sense and not from magical invisible angel soldiers.


See, more 'confirmation bias', when the men you extol believed in the Spiritual Hosts and shrewd observation and strategic sense-for Genius is such a thing that it comes from breaches in the Veil... Genius being a preturnatural thing, which seems external to a person and comes and goes where it will. Joan of Arc and Adolph Hitler come to mind. You surely don't think Angels stand around just singing when a battle is afoot, do you?


A monarch would do better to take tips from Niccolo Machievelli rather than Robert Filmer. He would get better training from playing chess ("the game of kings") rather than from reciting the liturgy.


A monarch would do even better doing both. This is why st. Constantine is one of my favorites.

In time, you will see, see the close link between Magic, Mystery, and Authority in this world. You won't get Monarchy back standing where you are in your worldview. Lose the Modern Age, it's killing you and everybody else.
#14525586
annatar1914 wrote:Good afternoon, Taxizen my friend. (I can call you friend because the greatest leap in friendship has already been made, with an understanding of the wrongness of the Modern Age, and the rightness of Monarchism. ).
I am comfortable with being your friend although I am not altogether against the Modern Age (in particular I like science and technology) and it may be that my idea of the rightness of monarchism comes from a substantially different and perhaps incompatible perspective to yours.

annatar1914 wrote:Hardly, It provides a context for the individual King to understand his own rights-and duties-in the overall scheme of things. Make him a cynic and a skeptic and he either descends into hedonism and imbecility, or else a purposeless and arbitrary dictator, who builds nothing and protects nothing. So nothing could be further from the truth than to say Divine Right demolishes Monarchy... I mean, look at Japan for example.

Oh well it is never a bad thing for anyone particularly a monarch to have a connection with the divine. The idea of divine right rather than the actual connection can lead to some weaknesses, a false sense of security and a unhealthy vulnerability to and reliance on priests. It is better for a monarch to have his boot on the necks of priests rather than have their hands on his crown and their tongues in his ear.

I am not sure that Japan makes a great example of Divine Right for you. Japan's Divine Emperor with odd exceptions like during the Meiji era had more often than not been relegated to a mere "living flag" kept secluded, kept impotent and sometimes fought over by his notional subordinates like a mere trophy. More than typically the Shoguns wielded the real power in Japan's history and without a drop of Divine Right but plenty of martial and political might.

annatar1914 wrote:See, more 'confirmation bias', when the men you extol believed in the Spiritual Hosts and shrewd observation and strategic sense-for Genius is such a thing that it comes from breaches in the Veil... Genius being a preturnatural thing, which seems external to a person and comes and goes where it will. Joan of Arc and Adolph Hitler come to mind. You surely don't think Angels stand around just singing when a battle is afoot, do you?

Joan of Arc and Adolph Hitler?, but my you do have a thing for martyrs!

Genius: yes I see the breaching of the veil, the funny thing is one often does not need to be a devout or even a believer to be struck by it.

I would not rely on any angels; they let Charles I lose the civil war and his head, if they exist at all I am quite sure that when battle is afoot they really do just stand around singing, and singing silently at that.

annatar1914 wrote:In time, you will see, see the close link between Magic, Mystery, and Authority in this world. You won't get Monarchy back standing where you are in your worldview. Lose the Modern Age, it's killing you and everybody else.

I have some experience with eastern techniques of divine interaction so I am not completely an unsounding stone when it comes to Magick and Mystery. But I have been asleep in a way since my beginnings, somehow I was fooled into believing I am a lamb, but I am waking up to the reality that I am a tiger soul, my fulfilment must come tigerish endeavours, if I stay a lamb I will starve.
#14525689
taxizen wrote:Secular ideology is just more fundamentalism. A good ruler is not a fundie, secular or otherwise, he is a realist.


Secular ideology based on science or the real world is realist.

It would probably work but it would tend to totalitarianism I think. Authoritarianism is fine and good but is only sufferable if it limits itself to military matters and leaves a big space for people to be civil. A realist monarchy will tend to do that, not for ideological reasons but just for practical reasons, one man, a king, doesn't want to have too much to think about and so will keep his concerns where he can focused on that of war and peace and let the bakers bake and the smiths smith as they will.


That is so out of date. Nowadays a great state should be activist, addressing many vital concerns, including the environment and space. A really great statesman or ruler strives to accomplish many great things. He shouldn't just sit on his butt and let joe shmo carry on as usual.


Your authoritarian corporation for reason of having too many cooks spoiling the broth will find itself taking over everything and becoming pretty much a nuisance to everyone and this is totalitarianism.


Democracy is having "too many cooks spoil the broth." A totalitarian system has a big bureaucracy but a single great Leader. There's nothing wrong with taking over everything, provided it is really the solution. A totalitarian system is based on a great Truth, which should permeate the whole state.
#14525907
My name should be a dead give-away that I don't think much of the institution of monarchy but I seem to get on fairly well with the OP.

Anyway, I just came across this short blog post (can't remember quite how) about "Social Monarchism", it might be up his alley.

I also know that Carlos Hugo flirted with the ideology.
#14526190
starman2003 wrote:Secular ideology based on science or the real world is realist.
Like marxism? Don't make me laugh. Secularists are as capable of looney tune fundie-ism as any one.

starman2003 wrote: That is so out of date. Nowadays a great state should be activist, addressing many vital concerns, including the environment and space. A really great statesman or ruler strives to accomplish many great things. He shouldn't just sit on his butt and let joe shmo carry on as usual.
The state should be activist? The state is inanimate property. It is something owned by people, only people can be "activist" not property. Raising an inanimate property, really nothing more than a legal fiction, putting it on a pedestal for worship is just drooling fundie-ism, worse it is idolatry. A great ruler is artful and knows when to act and when to leave be, very often not acting is better than acting. Joe Shmo knows his business better than you, if he is harmless there is no need to fight him, allow him to flourish by his own initiative and the realm will prosper.
starman2003 wrote:Democracy is having "too many cooks spoil the broth." A totalitarian system has a big bureaucracy but a single great Leader. There's nothing wrong with taking over everything, provided it is really the solution. A totalitarian system is based on a great Truth, which should permeate the whole state.

Ha! So what is your "Great Truth"? And how are you not just another nuisance zombie fundamentalist to talk of great truths?

I can see the warp of your mind. What should be higher than the state? For you nothing but the state is nothing, it is dirt and lines on a map. People are higher than the state and so only a person can be higher than the people. A man is not greatly perturbed by being mastered by another man but to mastered by an idea, a fiction, a legal fiction is perverse and dehumanising. Ideas are inferior to man. They are just tools. Worship them at the cost of your sanity.
#14526284
taxizen wrote:Like marxism? Don't make me laugh. Secularists are as capable of looney tune fundie-ism as any one.


I'm no marxist, but view it as a flawed precursor of the best system.

The state should be activist? The state is inanimate property. It is something owned by people, only people can be "activist" not property.


Sure but they are united in a political entity and often relate strongly to it. The State is vital for organizing people and vital efforts. It'll always be here.

Raising an inanimate property, really nothing more than a legal fiction, putting it on a pedestal for worship is just drooling fundie-ism, worse it is idolatry. A great ruler is artful and knows when to act and when to leave be, very often not acting is better than acting.


A really great statesman is activist. Today there are many urgent problems calling for activist, nondemocratic government. Btw the Great Man, embodiment of the State, is what tends to be venerated.

Joe Shmo knows his business better than you, if he is harmless there is no need to fight him, allow him to flourish by his own initiative and the realm will prosper.


Sure, joe shmo knows exactly what's right. No need to curtail his carbon emissions, overeating, junk food/smoking/drinking/drugs costing society vast sums in medical care, or overbreeding...

Ha! So what is your "Great Truth"? And how are you not just another nuisance zombie fundamentalist to talk of great truths?


Cosmic evolution is the great truth, antithetical to christian lunacy and liberal "anything goes." Past totalitarian systems were based on evolution to an extent, but their knowledge of it was vastly inferior.
#14526448
starman2003 wrote:I'm no marxist, but view it as a flawed precursor of the best system.
Is it not rabid enough?
The state should be activist? The state is inanimate property. It is something owned by people, only people can be "activist" not property.

starman2003 wrote:Sure but they are united in a political entity and often relate strongly to it. The State is vital for organizing people and vital efforts. It'll always be here.
It is just property, it is not an icon or a shrine, that is unless you are nationalist fundie.
starman2003 wrote:A really great statesman is activist. Today there are many urgent problems calling for activist, nondemocratic government. Btw the Great Man, embodiment of the State, is what tends to be venerated.
Venerated? embodiment of the State? You sound every inch the rabid fundie.

starman2003 wrote: Sure, joe shmo knows exactly what's right. No need to curtail his carbon emissions, overeating, junk food/smoking/drinking/drugs costing society vast sums in medical care, or overbreeding...
Your haughty contempt for humanity is disturbing and revealing. It is an easy tactic to demonise and degrade enemies, that you choose to demonise people in general rather than specific persons who oppose you is something other, and less sane, than expedience for everyone will be your enemy as you would make them.

Earlier Annatar likened himself to Treebeard, I think I would be Aragorn or Gandalf, I think you want to be Sauron or to follow a Sauron.

starman2003 wrote:Cosmic evolution is the great truth, antithetical to christian lunacy and liberal "anything goes." Past totalitarian systems were based on evolution to an extent, but their knowledge of it was vastly inferior.

Oh dear, so you want to make a religion out of odd bits of science and use it to make a totalitarian theocracy. Why would anyone be pleased to live on such a state? If they did not like it, would you allow them to leave?
#14526554
Cromwell wrote:My name should be a dead give-away that I don't think much of the institution of monarchy but I seem to get on fairly well with the OP.

Anyway, I just came across this short blog post (can't remember quite how) about "Social Monarchism", it might be up his alley.

I also know that Carlos Hugo flirted with the ideology.


Thanks for the links, Cromwell!

Yes, I think we do get along pretty decent.

And to Taxizen, I think your reply to me requires a more thoughtful response than I can give at this particular moment, indeed some of a response may require a PM.
#14526578
taxizen wrote:The celebration of weakness and failure that is shot through Christian sentiment is hardly helpful for monarchs who as heads of martial security are more than usually beset with lethal enemies as an inevitable feature of the business they are in.


A king shall appear, harsh and grim, a master of stratagem.

His power shall be great, he shall work havoc untold;

He shall work havoc among great nations and upon a holy people.

His mind shall be ever active,

And he shall succeed in his crafty designs;

He shall conjure up great plans.

And, when they least expect it, work havoc on many.
#14526581
quetzalcoatl wrote:
A king shall appear, harsh and grim, a master of stratagem.

His power shall be great, he shall work havoc untold;

He shall work havoc among great nations and upon a holy people.

His mind shall be ever active,

And he shall succeed in his crafty designs;

He shall conjure up great plans.

And, when they least expect it, work havoc on many.


Yes indeed. The Monarch has His Challenger, does He not? They on the surface, will appear identical;

ilya-glazunov-christ-and-anti-christ-1999-e1268375745184.jpg
#14526679
taxizen wrote:It is just property, it is not an icon or a shrine, that is unless you are nationalist fundie.


I'm not a nationalist. The greatest states have been empires.

Venerated? embodiment of the State? You sound every inch the rabid fundie.


To accomplish vital and great things a State or its leader/embodiment must be powerful, and veneration would tend to reinforce that.

Your haughty contempt for humanity is disturbing and revealing. It is an easy tactic to demonise and degrade enemies, that you choose to demonise people in general rather than specific persons who oppose you is something other, and less sane, than expedience for everyone will be your enemy as you would make them.


Depriving the irresponsible masses if perogatives is perfectly realistic yet history shows that clever leaders--from Caesar to modern totalitarians-- can win enough support while ultimately putting the masses in their place, in pursuit of higher goals. Considering the urgency of environmental and other problems, that's exactly what's needed now. Btw totalitarian systems were great at eliminating "specific persons who opposed" them too.


Oh dear, so you want to make a religion out of odd bits of science and use it to make a totalitarian theocracy.


The whole of science and reality is the basis of the worldview--quite unlike holy hallalujah hogwash-based on virtually nothing real. Besides "god" being an unverified superfluous myth, the "word of god" is a load of fabricated bs, as scholars have long known.

Why would anyone be pleased to live on such a state? If they did not like it, would you allow them to leave?


And go where? The goal of a really great future state is global hegemony.
#14526797
quetzalcoatl wrote:A king shall appear...

Where the King has dominion there is peace, where he does not there is war.

Si vis pacem, para bellum



Starman

On your science theology, I have been too harsh. If I were king I would prefer to allow people freedom of religion and free inquiry for the rationalists but I recognise that it is tactical error to ignore that ideology can be used as a weapon. It can be used to persuade mobs to rebel against good order, sometimes to the total detriment of the ruler. Charles I fell to fundies persuaded to frenzy by puritans. Tsar Nicholas II fell in part to fundies persuaded to frenzy by marxist fundamentalists. If one's enemies will use ideology as a weapon is it not remiss to not also wield his weapon? There are two broad strategies a ruler may use to counter the ideological threat: one is to make an imperial religion and the other is to allow freedom of religion.

An imperial religion or state religion is where a religion is devised (or just modified) and mandated to fill the space of religion in the people's minds but which is totally in the control of the rulers and deployed to enhance their aims. King Henry VIII of England employed this technique in order to defend against the Pope's ideological weapons. However ideologies, like viruses, mutate; they are treacherous weapons that can turn in the wielder's hand with time. Generations later King Charles I fell to mobs infected with mutant strains of the same ideology that King Henry VIII commandeered to secure his rule.

Free Religion is seemingly a lazy approach but it is a variation of divide and conquer. Allowing free religion means the ideologists tendency to schism is encouraged so when the people are divided against each other by many competing cults they will have little power to challenge the rulers. The weakness of this strategy is that it is "acting by not acting" which offers no leverage should a particularly virulent strain of an ideology come to dominate the others and hence become a powerful weapon against the ruler, to which he must submit or perish.

I would say you prefer to make an imperial religion using odd bits of science. Using science as a base for the dogma has merits: it is clear that science coupled with technology has unleashed miracles that make the miracles of the supernatural religions look exceedingly weak and unimpressive. It also has great credibility for providing "truth". So it could make for a very virulent ideology. However making a religion out of science is maybe detrimental to the pursuit of science itself. If science is to be utilised for ideological purposes then the free inquiry that makes it work must be compromised. Over the grind of centuries this may prove detrimental to rulers of the state, resulting in lesser development compared with other states where the rulers did not attempt to use science as an ideology but instead merely patronised and protected free inquiry for the bounty it produces.
#14527105
taxizen wrote:I would say you prefer to make an imperial religion using odd bits of science.


I wouldn't call it "religion" as it's a rational Worldview.

Using science as a base for the dogma has merits: it is clear that science coupled with technology has unleashed miracles that make the miracles of the supernatural religions look exceedingly weak and unimpressive. It also has great credibility for providing "truth". So it could make for a very virulent ideology.


Now you're talkin'


However making a religion out of science is maybe detrimental to the pursuit of science itself. If science is to be utilised for ideological purposes then the free inquiry that makes it work must be compromised. Over the grind of centuries this may prove detrimental to rulers of the state, resulting in lesser development compared with other states where the rulers did not attempt to use science as an ideology but instead merely patronised and protected free inquiry for the bounty it produces.


Indeed the USSR may be cited as an example. But I and others envisage a future in which science is essentially "finished" in the sense that consummate fundamental understanding has been attained. Under those circumstances the "lesser (further) development" of a totalitarian system wouldn't matter.
#14527166
starman2003 wrote:Indeed the USSR may be cited as an example. But I and others envisage a future in which science is essentially "finished" in the sense that consummate fundamental understanding has been attained. Under those circumstances the "lesser (further) development" of a totalitarian system wouldn't matter.

I suppose there must be some point when the work of science is done, such that everything that can be known has been found out and there is nothing left to do but preserve the knowledge. That point may not even be that far away in time.

Why a totalitarian system though? What's the purpose? Do the people exist for the state, or the state exist for the people? What is even meant by the term "totalitarian"?

I pulled this from wiki:
Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.


Having all aspects of public and private life controlled seems a rather suffocating condition for a human, we are not cattle and it means a lot of unnecessary work for the rulers. Why would the rulers burden themselves with all that work? It seems quite mad and purposeless. A sane ruler seeks to stay in power, yes, but does not seek to control that which is not advantageous to control. It is not artful or purposeful. Work is a means to an end not the end itself.
#14527604
taxizen wrote:I suppose there must be some point when the work of science is done, such that everything that can be known has been found out and there is nothing left to do but preserve the knowledge. That point may not even be that far away in time.


Right because progress is accelerating.

Why a totalitarian system though? What's the purpose?


First if/when science is finished so we know the truth about the Universe, there won't be any more of the uncertainty upon which current "anything goes" rests. If/when truth is clear inevitably society will be reordered to reflect it. Past authoritarian/totalitarian leaders were sure they had the truth and rigorously imposed it even though they didn't have 5% of the basis for doing so (with regard to either science or technical means) that'll exist in the future.

Having all aspects of public and private life controlled seems a rather suffocating condition for a human,


That seems a bit of an exaggeration. I don't think the rulers will ever care much if a couple prefers one sexual position over another, or if somebody likes to grow flowers. Even a totalitarian system would limit its control to matters which have a direct bearing on its hold on power and agenda e.g. indoctrination in the prevailing ideology and individual sacrifice for common goals.

A sane ruler seeks to stay in power, yes, but does not seek to control that which is not advantageous to control.


There's much more to ruling than staying in power, and even that could be jeopardized if, for example, some group challenges the State ideology or agenda.
#14527682
First if/when science is finished so we know the truth about the Universe, there won't be any more of the uncertainty upon which current "anything goes" rests. If/when truth is clear inevitably society will be reordered to reflect it. Past authoritarian/totalitarian leaders were sure they had the truth and rigorously imposed it even though they didn't have 5% of the basis for doing so (with regard to either science or technical means) that'll exist in the future.

You seem to be expecting things from science which it simply cannot deliver, Starman.

As Einstein probably didn't say, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]