Highland Lawn: A Dialogue
or
Imitation is Flattery
June 1, 2017
G.D.O'Bradovich III
Potential Occultists are “guided by certain obtrusively enigmatic features in the presentation … obscurity of the plan, contradictions, pseudonyms, inexact repetitions of earlier statements, strange expressions, etc. All books of that kind owe their existence to the love of the” Great Occultist “for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn: all exoteric books are "written speeches caused by love."
"Persecution and the Art of Writing", Leo Strauss |
intention
Our intention was to write a typical commentary on Leo Strauss’ essay “Liberal Education and Responsibility”. In light of Fate’s intervention, it seems appropriate to create a dialogue with several Apprentices. The Gentle Reader may enjoy our efforts at this genre: "A Pathetic Dialogue", "Denver: A Dialogue", and "An "Imaginary" Scene: Inferior and Superior".
The song titles of the musical group “New Order” do not quote the lyrics, hence, the title and the song are seemingly unrelated. Likewise, the most thought provoking content of Strauss’ essay cannot be judged by the title, however, Strauss does not abdicate his responsibility, but segues to the topics of gentlemen and liberal education, philosophers’ various roles in the city, and a generous smattering of criticisms of modernism. Ironically, Strauss explicitly states that liberal education is not universal education.
It has been written that philosophers are men against their own time; Julius Caesar offering mercy to his enemies and the Master illustrating that the vilest of people, the Samaritans, are deserving of basic human kindness. If we are against our modern age, then we attribute this view to our long experiences with the attempts to impose equality in all things human, our painful experiences with the lack of standards, the denial of values, and the unreasonable individuals encountered throughout our adventures.
As no satisfactory reasons are forthcoming for either universal equality or the absence of values, we rightly remain concerned for their eager, all too eager, promotion and the inevitable result should these beliefs, or feelings, take hold on the hearts and minds of western civilization.
Therefore, we regard this dialogue as one of our most sincere efforts to explain our education of select youths, our unwavering support of gentlemen and their noble worldview, our understanding and our application of practical occultism, not theoretical occultism, and our justification both of our distrust and our disdain of Modernism.
Strauss noted that the “middle” is the “least exposed” part of a book. We understand this opinion as that most people, the less persistent readers, will begin to read, become tired of the drawn out text with many segues and unrelated topics duly explored, and skip to the end to find the author’s conclusion. Hence, the middle is the least exposed to the average reader. Strauss suggests only when the esoteric author “reached the core of the argument would he write three or four sentences in that terse and lively style which is apt to arrest the attention of young men who love to think.” As a Great Occultist, I have stressed the salient fact that the “good stuff is never written down”, although there may written hints or suggestions in symbols.
If our effort is successful, then we readily acknowledge that Occultists cannot live well without others, where others are correctly understood as those who demonstrate the highest virtues that we admire and those who possess those important qualities that we recognize.
The song titles of the musical group “New Order” do not quote the lyrics, hence, the title and the song are seemingly unrelated. Likewise, the most thought provoking content of Strauss’ essay cannot be judged by the title, however, Strauss does not abdicate his responsibility, but segues to the topics of gentlemen and liberal education, philosophers’ various roles in the city, and a generous smattering of criticisms of modernism. Ironically, Strauss explicitly states that liberal education is not universal education.
It has been written that philosophers are men against their own time; Julius Caesar offering mercy to his enemies and the Master illustrating that the vilest of people, the Samaritans, are deserving of basic human kindness. If we are against our modern age, then we attribute this view to our long experiences with the attempts to impose equality in all things human, our painful experiences with the lack of standards, the denial of values, and the unreasonable individuals encountered throughout our adventures.
As no satisfactory reasons are forthcoming for either universal equality or the absence of values, we rightly remain concerned for their eager, all too eager, promotion and the inevitable result should these beliefs, or feelings, take hold on the hearts and minds of western civilization.
Therefore, we regard this dialogue as one of our most sincere efforts to explain our education of select youths, our unwavering support of gentlemen and their noble worldview, our understanding and our application of practical occultism, not theoretical occultism, and our justification both of our distrust and our disdain of Modernism.
Strauss noted that the “middle” is the “least exposed” part of a book. We understand this opinion as that most people, the less persistent readers, will begin to read, become tired of the drawn out text with many segues and unrelated topics duly explored, and skip to the end to find the author’s conclusion. Hence, the middle is the least exposed to the average reader. Strauss suggests only when the esoteric author “reached the core of the argument would he write three or four sentences in that terse and lively style which is apt to arrest the attention of young men who love to think.” As a Great Occultist, I have stressed the salient fact that the “good stuff is never written down”, although there may written hints or suggestions in symbols.
If our effort is successful, then we readily acknowledge that Occultists cannot live well without others, where others are correctly understood as those who demonstrate the highest virtues that we admire and those who possess those important qualities that we recognize.
1
I was anticipating an adventure at Highland Lawn with certain Apprentices; I intended to explain the influences of the great and near great on our country and our world. Needless to say, a captive audience consisting of Apprentice Jonathan, Apprentice Colton, Apprentice RJ, Apprentice Denver, and potential Apprentice Glaucon on the nature trail is an ideal time to engage youths on the possible lessons gleaned from Nature. Always eager for conversation, I announced: “I thought that it was my job”, both with Apprentices and potential Apprentices, “to do my best”. The Occult is the subject of “my teaching and my research”, so I am always “concerned with the goal” of Occult “education at its best” , but I am indifferent with “its conditions and its how.” What do you say, Apprentice Jonathan?
I think that in the wonderful world of the Occult, the ”end is more important than the how.”
Yes, I agree. Even though I rarely leave the Haute, I earnestly want certain youths to be aware there are things outside Terre Haute, such as literature, music, and culture. You don't have to master classical music, you only need to be aware of twenty or so major works covering two hundred years. I think that the “most important conditions” are the virtues and the qualities of the Occult Master and of the Apprentice.
I agree.
An Occultist knows how to teach, once he knows the goal of the Occult. I image the end of a lesson and work to the beginning, not unlike musical composition. The question, “How did I get here?”, is always on my mind and is always answered. Not everyone has the same abilities, and to impose one standard of Occultism is unjust.
So, the Occult is flexible to the needs of different people?
Yes, and I “always assume that there is one silent” potential Occultist in a group of Apprentices “who is by far superior to” myself, in “head and heart.” I have written of my dislike of the word “responsibility”. As Socrates doesn't know what “justice” is at the end of the Republic, so I like to say that I don't know what “responsibility” is.
The parallel is clear.
Occult or “liberal education and responsibility are not identical” and I believe that the ”substitution of the word responsibility“ for such words as "duty," "conscience", "virtue" or accountability is a disservice to education. I often hear that a man is responsible, where people should say that he is, “just”, “conscientious”, or “virtuous”. A man is said to be “responsible if he can be held accountable”, and “being responsible” is not the same as “being virtuous”. Today, responsibility is the “condition for being either virtuous or vicious.” “By substituting responsibility for virtue,” people are “more easily satisfied than” in previous generations. Many people “assume that by being responsible one is already virtuous”. This assumption is not certain, however, I am sure that the public's vocabulary has been dumbed down.
So, many words with different meanings are now lumped under the word “responsibility”, and most people “loathe the grand old words” and “the things which they indicate”.
I think that in the wonderful world of the Occult, the ”end is more important than the how.”
Yes, I agree. Even though I rarely leave the Haute, I earnestly want certain youths to be aware there are things outside Terre Haute, such as literature, music, and culture. You don't have to master classical music, you only need to be aware of twenty or so major works covering two hundred years. I think that the “most important conditions” are the virtues and the qualities of the Occult Master and of the Apprentice.
I agree.
An Occultist knows how to teach, once he knows the goal of the Occult. I image the end of a lesson and work to the beginning, not unlike musical composition. The question, “How did I get here?”, is always on my mind and is always answered. Not everyone has the same abilities, and to impose one standard of Occultism is unjust.
So, the Occult is flexible to the needs of different people?
Yes, and I “always assume that there is one silent” potential Occultist in a group of Apprentices “who is by far superior to” myself, in “head and heart.” I have written of my dislike of the word “responsibility”. As Socrates doesn't know what “justice” is at the end of the Republic, so I like to say that I don't know what “responsibility” is.
The parallel is clear.
Occult or “liberal education and responsibility are not identical” and I believe that the ”substitution of the word responsibility“ for such words as "duty," "conscience", "virtue" or accountability is a disservice to education. I often hear that a man is responsible, where people should say that he is, “just”, “conscientious”, or “virtuous”. A man is said to be “responsible if he can be held accountable”, and “being responsible” is not the same as “being virtuous”. Today, responsibility is the “condition for being either virtuous or vicious.” “By substituting responsibility for virtue,” people are “more easily satisfied than” in previous generations. Many people “assume that by being responsible one is already virtuous”. This assumption is not certain, however, I am sure that the public's vocabulary has been dumbed down.
So, many words with different meanings are now lumped under the word “responsibility”, and most people “loathe the grand old words” and “the things which they indicate”.
11
Yes, and because of my “ignorance” of what the change of “responsibility for duty and for virtue means”, I rarely use the word. As liberal education “is the ladder” by which certain people try to climb above “democracy”, it is needed to form a ruling class within “democratic mass society." The word "liberal" had a “political meaning”; and although the spelling of the word is the same, the meaning has changed. A “liberal man” was one who acted as a “free man”, not as a “slave.” A slave has “no time for himself”, however, a Master has ”time for himself” and for his interests.
Yes, for his interests.
There are many men who are “like slaves”, since “they have to work”. Men without “productive leisure time“, if I can coin a phrase, “are the poor” who are most of society. Gentleman must have “some wealth” that doesn't take much time to manage and the “way of life of the gentlemen is not secure” unless they are the “rulers of their city”. One “becomes a gentleman” through “liberal education”, as gentlemen are concerned with the “good order of the soul and of the city.” Finally, the “education of the potential gentlemen” is mostly in the “formation of character and of taste”, and ”taste” refers to value, to quality. Although I am an admirer of Mozart, as to the the merits of two works, “Lick my Ass” and “The Magic Flute”; I rightly describe one as as vulgar and the other as sublime; they are not of the same value.
Clearly, not the same value.
A gentleman must run “his household” and the “city equally well” and he gets that skill by knowing “more experienced gentlemen” and “by receiving instruction” in “speaking”, “reading histories and books”, and “by taking part in political life.” Time for leisure on the “part of the youths” and “their elders” is necessary.
Yes, very necessary.
A “just government” is a “government which rules in the interest of the whole” city, not just “a part.” Gentlemen are “under an obligation to show” that “their rule is best” for all, and as gentleman are natural self promoters, this is not hard: after all, they are men. Occultists, by their nature, fail at self promotion: “Let us rule you, ‘cause we know better. We really do…please ...” Gentlemen are “superior to the vulgar”, but most “men are by nature capable” of the virtues, and it is “only the accident of birth” that determines if a man has a chance of “becoming a gentleman” or not, hence hereditary rulership is “unjust”. Because an ancestor was noble does not mean any descents will be virtuous. Gentlemen should rule by merit, for what they have done for the city, not because they were born from a certain womb.
Yes, a certain womb.
Gentlemen can “rule on the basis of popular election.” However, this scheme is “unsatisfactory”, as it means that they are “responsible to the common people”, or “the higher is responsible to the lower”, and this is “against nature.” Gentlemen understand “virtue as [a] choice worthy for its own sake”, while most people “praise virtue as a means for” getting “wealth and honor”; they practice virtue to be seen as virtuous. Imitation of virtue is not character: it is acting, it is role playing. Most people are immoral, the gentlemen, the minority, are moral, and the handful of Occultists are amoral. However, Occultists will present themselves as moral, in words and actions, for the long term benefit of certain youths: Occultists are all things to all people, so that some may come to the truth. Gentlemen and the poor don't agree on “the highest good” of the city, therefore, they have little in common.
Yes, very little in common.
Yes, for his interests.
There are many men who are “like slaves”, since “they have to work”. Men without “productive leisure time“, if I can coin a phrase, “are the poor” who are most of society. Gentleman must have “some wealth” that doesn't take much time to manage and the “way of life of the gentlemen is not secure” unless they are the “rulers of their city”. One “becomes a gentleman” through “liberal education”, as gentlemen are concerned with the “good order of the soul and of the city.” Finally, the “education of the potential gentlemen” is mostly in the “formation of character and of taste”, and ”taste” refers to value, to quality. Although I am an admirer of Mozart, as to the the merits of two works, “Lick my Ass” and “The Magic Flute”; I rightly describe one as as vulgar and the other as sublime; they are not of the same value.
Clearly, not the same value.
A gentleman must run “his household” and the “city equally well” and he gets that skill by knowing “more experienced gentlemen” and “by receiving instruction” in “speaking”, “reading histories and books”, and “by taking part in political life.” Time for leisure on the “part of the youths” and “their elders” is necessary.
Yes, very necessary.
A “just government” is a “government which rules in the interest of the whole” city, not just “a part.” Gentlemen are “under an obligation to show” that “their rule is best” for all, and as gentleman are natural self promoters, this is not hard: after all, they are men. Occultists, by their nature, fail at self promotion: “Let us rule you, ‘cause we know better. We really do…please ...” Gentlemen are “superior to the vulgar”, but most “men are by nature capable” of the virtues, and it is “only the accident of birth” that determines if a man has a chance of “becoming a gentleman” or not, hence hereditary rulership is “unjust”. Because an ancestor was noble does not mean any descents will be virtuous. Gentlemen should rule by merit, for what they have done for the city, not because they were born from a certain womb.
Yes, a certain womb.
Gentlemen can “rule on the basis of popular election.” However, this scheme is “unsatisfactory”, as it means that they are “responsible to the common people”, or “the higher is responsible to the lower”, and this is “against nature.” Gentlemen understand “virtue as [a] choice worthy for its own sake”, while most people “praise virtue as a means for” getting “wealth and honor”; they practice virtue to be seen as virtuous. Imitation of virtue is not character: it is acting, it is role playing. Most people are immoral, the gentlemen, the minority, are moral, and the handful of Occultists are amoral. However, Occultists will present themselves as moral, in words and actions, for the long term benefit of certain youths: Occultists are all things to all people, so that some may come to the truth. Gentlemen and the poor don't agree on “the highest good” of the city, therefore, they have little in common.
Yes, very little in common.
21
Because of their virtues, gentlemen feel “responsible to themselves for the wellbeing” of others, but “they cannot be responsible” to most people in the political sense. This fact “leads one to reject democracy”, as it is the government where most adults vote, but only a few are educated in politics. “The principle of democracy is” the freedom for one “to live as he likes”, most can vote: no virtue or morality is needed. Democracy is “rejected” because “the rule of the uneducated” cannot be the best government.
No, it cannot be the best government.
A democracy supposes that all people, somehow, have the “political art,” however, most people cannot get this skill. This art, “which enables a man... to frame laws, is acquired … by the highest form of education”. Liberal education “fosters civic responsibility”. ”Civic” is from Latin, and “polis” , where we get the word political, is Greek, and both mean the “city”.
So, when I read or hear the word “city”, I need to keep in mind “civic” and “political”.
Yes, and gentlemen “set the tone of society” by their virtues and “by ruling” openly, not behind the scenes. The citizens will have no doubt that gentlemen are ruling, as law and order will be enforced: “Any objections that we rule?” Silence from the majority. “Nope?...good!” “The pursuits becoming the gentleman” are politics and Occult research. However, one may realize that the Occult is more important than politics. I may say that decent “politics is the decent pursuit of decent ends” and the difference “between ends which are decent” is “presupposed by politics.”
So, there are indecent politics and indecent ends?
Yes, and “the natural order of the human soul” allows normal men, but not all men, to “distinguish between right and wrong actions”: mature men are moral. “Liberal education” can be seen as “preparation” for the Occult. Gentlemen accept certain opinions which the Occultist questions, so the gentlemen's virtues are not the same as Occult virtue. While the “gentleman must be wealthy”, the Occultist “may be poor” as the Great Work only needs what Nature has given him.
Yes, what Nature has given.
The Occultist does not have to be assertive; a notable “habit” of a “gentleman's virtue”, or “My way or the highway”. While this is not an action of an Occultist, and despite differences, the “gentleman's virtue is a reflection” of the Occultist’s virtue. This reflection is the “ultimate justification of the rule of gentlemen”, as it is a “reflection of the rule” of the Occultists. The wonderful world of the Occult is a quest, the “education” of the Occultist never ends.
Yes, the search for “the nature of the universe” never ends.
No, it cannot be the best government.
A democracy supposes that all people, somehow, have the “political art,” however, most people cannot get this skill. This art, “which enables a man... to frame laws, is acquired … by the highest form of education”. Liberal education “fosters civic responsibility”. ”Civic” is from Latin, and “polis” , where we get the word political, is Greek, and both mean the “city”.
So, when I read or hear the word “city”, I need to keep in mind “civic” and “political”.
Yes, and gentlemen “set the tone of society” by their virtues and “by ruling” openly, not behind the scenes. The citizens will have no doubt that gentlemen are ruling, as law and order will be enforced: “Any objections that we rule?” Silence from the majority. “Nope?...good!” “The pursuits becoming the gentleman” are politics and Occult research. However, one may realize that the Occult is more important than politics. I may say that decent “politics is the decent pursuit of decent ends” and the difference “between ends which are decent” is “presupposed by politics.”
So, there are indecent politics and indecent ends?
Yes, and “the natural order of the human soul” allows normal men, but not all men, to “distinguish between right and wrong actions”: mature men are moral. “Liberal education” can be seen as “preparation” for the Occult. Gentlemen accept certain opinions which the Occultist questions, so the gentlemen's virtues are not the same as Occult virtue. While the “gentleman must be wealthy”, the Occultist “may be poor” as the Great Work only needs what Nature has given him.
Yes, what Nature has given.
The Occultist does not have to be assertive; a notable “habit” of a “gentleman's virtue”, or “My way or the highway”. While this is not an action of an Occultist, and despite differences, the “gentleman's virtue is a reflection” of the Occultist’s virtue. This reflection is the “ultimate justification of the rule of gentlemen”, as it is a “reflection of the rule” of the Occultists. The wonderful world of the Occult is a quest, the “education” of the Occultist never ends.
Yes, the search for “the nature of the universe” never ends.
31
The only concern for the Occultist is for the “weightiest matters”, or “I had fun once, but didn't enjoy it.” The open rule of Occultists is “impossible”, and this becomes a problem, as the Occultists “will be ruled by the gentlemen”. This problem can be solved by “assuming” that Occultists are not a “part of the city”, and this assumption is not unreasonable, as they live at the fringes of society. Since “gentlemen represent the city at its best”, I “must say that the end of the gentleman is not the same as the end” of the Occultist.
True. So what was said about “the gentleman in his relation” to most people is true of the Occultist “in his relation” to all non Occultists.
Yes, while Occultists are concerned for the well-being of mankind, generally, and certain individuals, specifically, they are single, to be free to do their research. To be in a relationship means to subordinate research to the various physical and psychological needs of another, and this would be unjust to the natural wants and needs of both partners. People “prefer the established to the non established”, they don't trust new things. However, the Occultist ignores “this rule and of anything which reminds” him of it. The Occultist “does not owe his” gift to the city and is “not under” any responsibility “to do the work of the city”, as the Occultist’s ability is not from the city, but from Nature; however, if a promising potential Apprentice is found with virtues and qualities, he may informally educate him.
Yes, the highest virtues and recognized qualities.
The Occultist “owes” much to the city and he must “obey” the laws. The Occultist “is responsible to the city only to the extent that by doing his” selfish research that “he contributes to the well-being of the city”.
So, any good is a byproduct of the Occultist’s existence and of his work; it seems that the ”city needs” the Occult.
Yes, and the city doesn't trust either the Occult or the Occultist who seeks the light. The classics “were satisfied” when the “people elect” rulers from “among the gentlemen”. A “mixed regime” is where gentlemen compose “the senate” and this body is above the “popular assembly” and below the head of state. Originally, U.S. senators were sent by the state to limit the influence of the popularly elected representatives.
So, we have more democracy than the Founding Fathers could imagine.
Yes, and as the “responsibility of the people” is not defined by law, this lack of accountability for the voters is the most obvious problem of “modern republicanism.” The legal concept for this situation is called a “moral hazard”. The “solution” to the lack of responsibility for the voters was thought to be in “religious education” and was “based on the Bible”: everyone was “responsible for his actions”, as God “would judge him”. Without morality, elections become a race to the lowest wants of a simple majority. If gentlemen are correctly taught, then “they will quickly bring all the rest into order", as gentlemen will not allow bad behavior and, by their natural authority, make everyone tow the line. Gentlemen “are those called upon to act as representatives of the people, and they are to be prepared” by a liberal education. While knowledge of Latin is “necessary to a gentleman”, I do not understand this as mastery of the Latin language. Knowledge of common latin words, say fifty, and phrases, say thirty, is enough; this limited understanding has served me well, and anything I don't know, I can look up.
I see.
True. So what was said about “the gentleman in his relation” to most people is true of the Occultist “in his relation” to all non Occultists.
Yes, while Occultists are concerned for the well-being of mankind, generally, and certain individuals, specifically, they are single, to be free to do their research. To be in a relationship means to subordinate research to the various physical and psychological needs of another, and this would be unjust to the natural wants and needs of both partners. People “prefer the established to the non established”, they don't trust new things. However, the Occultist ignores “this rule and of anything which reminds” him of it. The Occultist “does not owe his” gift to the city and is “not under” any responsibility “to do the work of the city”, as the Occultist’s ability is not from the city, but from Nature; however, if a promising potential Apprentice is found with virtues and qualities, he may informally educate him.
Yes, the highest virtues and recognized qualities.
The Occultist “owes” much to the city and he must “obey” the laws. The Occultist “is responsible to the city only to the extent that by doing his” selfish research that “he contributes to the well-being of the city”.
So, any good is a byproduct of the Occultist’s existence and of his work; it seems that the ”city needs” the Occult.
Yes, and the city doesn't trust either the Occult or the Occultist who seeks the light. The classics “were satisfied” when the “people elect” rulers from “among the gentlemen”. A “mixed regime” is where gentlemen compose “the senate” and this body is above the “popular assembly” and below the head of state. Originally, U.S. senators were sent by the state to limit the influence of the popularly elected representatives.
So, we have more democracy than the Founding Fathers could imagine.
Yes, and as the “responsibility of the people” is not defined by law, this lack of accountability for the voters is the most obvious problem of “modern republicanism.” The legal concept for this situation is called a “moral hazard”. The “solution” to the lack of responsibility for the voters was thought to be in “religious education” and was “based on the Bible”: everyone was “responsible for his actions”, as God “would judge him”. Without morality, elections become a race to the lowest wants of a simple majority. If gentlemen are correctly taught, then “they will quickly bring all the rest into order", as gentlemen will not allow bad behavior and, by their natural authority, make everyone tow the line. Gentlemen “are those called upon to act as representatives of the people, and they are to be prepared” by a liberal education. While knowledge of Latin is “necessary to a gentleman”, I do not understand this as mastery of the Latin language. Knowledge of common latin words, say fifty, and phrases, say thirty, is enough; this limited understanding has served me well, and anything I don't know, I can look up.
I see.
41
A great manager once said “that diversity and inequality” in the ability of men “shows itself in the acquisition of property.” I see this as those who are patient and reasonable will do better in business than those who are impatient and unreasonable. Think of a screaming kid (“I want it now!”) running a business- it won't last. The “learned professions” don't form a “distinct interest in society" and are more likely to think of society’s “general interests”. If the voters are “not depraved”, then they will elect those who have "merits”, "ability and virtue".
Yes, those of ability and virtue.
Under “favorable conditions, the men who will hold” political power will “be the men of the learned professions” and it is “probable” that these will “chiefly be lawyers”, just think of both houses of Congress. Speaking "legally" is not the same as speaking "prudently" and prudence or caution is for the wise or the Occultist. Most of what I've written can have many wrong interpretations, but only one correct understanding.
Yes, there are a variety of poor opinions regarding your writings.
As I was saying, legislators have no “rules to bind them”, only the principles “of reason”. The ”liberalization of the mind” requires understanding the principle “of reason”, or “the natural law”. Regarding ”nature and fortune", I can say these are the best genes coming together in the right environment. Fortune, fate, luck, and chance are pretty much the same. You must keep in mind that classical authors “had more time and that they wrote” to a “select class”; today people "write in a hurry for people who read in a hurry", however, the classics, or careful writers, put "the right words in the right places". The unelected advisor who is behind the scene is accountable only to his conscious. The head of state “is frequently advised“ by men who have no qualification for legislation, except "a fluent tongue” and the ability “of getting elected”.
So, people get elected ‘cause they tell the majority what the majority want to hear. Just like the stereotype of used car salesmen: they will say anything to get what they want, no morality required. It is the same with the less virtuous politicians.
Yes, and the “tendency” of our modern civilization is “toward collective mediocrity”. The three levels of man are excellence, mediocrity (from “medi”, meaning middle), and decadence (from “cadence”, meaning to fall). Apprentice Jonathan, imagine democracy in a classroom, where twenty students overrule one teacher, then imagine democracy applied to a sports team, “Who are the starters?”, is only the first of many difficult questions. Imagine the lyrics of a rock band where democracy is the rule. Clearly, democracy cannot work in these examples, yet it supposed to work in the most important matters: the election of government leaders. Let that sink in. I double dog dare you to say to your dad that using democratic ideas will result in running a better household. I don't know your dad, but it ain't gonna happen.
No, it's not gonna happen.
If a thoughtful voter knows that it only takes two thoughtless voters to negate his one vote, and if he values his time more than politics, won't he stop voting?
Huh?
Yes, those of ability and virtue.
Under “favorable conditions, the men who will hold” political power will “be the men of the learned professions” and it is “probable” that these will “chiefly be lawyers”, just think of both houses of Congress. Speaking "legally" is not the same as speaking "prudently" and prudence or caution is for the wise or the Occultist. Most of what I've written can have many wrong interpretations, but only one correct understanding.
Yes, there are a variety of poor opinions regarding your writings.
As I was saying, legislators have no “rules to bind them”, only the principles “of reason”. The ”liberalization of the mind” requires understanding the principle “of reason”, or “the natural law”. Regarding ”nature and fortune", I can say these are the best genes coming together in the right environment. Fortune, fate, luck, and chance are pretty much the same. You must keep in mind that classical authors “had more time and that they wrote” to a “select class”; today people "write in a hurry for people who read in a hurry", however, the classics, or careful writers, put "the right words in the right places". The unelected advisor who is behind the scene is accountable only to his conscious. The head of state “is frequently advised“ by men who have no qualification for legislation, except "a fluent tongue” and the ability “of getting elected”.
So, people get elected ‘cause they tell the majority what the majority want to hear. Just like the stereotype of used car salesmen: they will say anything to get what they want, no morality required. It is the same with the less virtuous politicians.
Yes, and the “tendency” of our modern civilization is “toward collective mediocrity”. The three levels of man are excellence, mediocrity (from “medi”, meaning middle), and decadence (from “cadence”, meaning to fall). Apprentice Jonathan, imagine democracy in a classroom, where twenty students overrule one teacher, then imagine democracy applied to a sports team, “Who are the starters?”, is only the first of many difficult questions. Imagine the lyrics of a rock band where democracy is the rule. Clearly, democracy cannot work in these examples, yet it supposed to work in the most important matters: the election of government leaders. Let that sink in. I double dog dare you to say to your dad that using democratic ideas will result in running a better household. I don't know your dad, but it ain't gonna happen.
No, it's not gonna happen.
If a thoughtful voter knows that it only takes two thoughtless voters to negate his one vote, and if he values his time more than politics, won't he stop voting?
Huh?
51
“In the American democracy”, a “proportional representation” that doesn’t exclude the “best part of society in the government will transform” it into a “democracy as originally” intended. I understand “the best of society” as the gentlemen. Occultists are amoral, as the goal, the continued existence of the city, must be secured by any means necessary. Apprentice Colton, do you agree with my idea that the “best practical rule ... is of gentlemen”?
Yes, of gentlemen.
I believe that our problems are caused by the decline of “religious education of the people” and by the decline of “liberal education of the representatives”; as a “large part of the people no longer receive any religious education”.
Very true.
I've seen that “a new orientation of education” exists and just as “liberal education” was supported by ”classical philosophy”, so the new education is supported by ”modern philosophy”. Per “classical philosophy”, the goal of the “philosophers” is not the same as the ”non philosophers.” I can say that “modern philosophy” began when the goal of philosophy became “identified with the end which is capable of being actually pursued by all men.”
Modern philosophy has been dumbed down and, now, for the decadent and mediocre, the goal is within sight: No maturity required.
Yes, and modern philosophy is “capable of being actually pursued by all men” Yet, most people don't have either the natural curiosity or a good memory to be Occultists, philosophers, or scientists. Once again, a goal has been lowered so that more people can achieve it without additional effort. I have said that the reason “for the distinction between gentlemen and non gentlemen is the distinction between philosophers and non philosophers”, and if the “purpose of the philosophers” is now the same as the “purpose of the non philosophers”, then the “purpose of the gentlemen” is the same as the “purpose of the non gentlemen”.
Very true. The “modern conception of philosophy is fundamentally democratic” where the natural divisions of mankind are no longer recognised.
Yes, the goal of modern philosophy is not “pondering the nature of the universe”; but relieving humanity’s pain and suffering, the opinion is that these are unnatural.
Modern philosophy “could be presented with some plausibility as inspired by biblical charity” and “philosophy in the classic sense could be disparaged ... as sustained by sinful pride.”
Yes, of gentlemen.
I believe that our problems are caused by the decline of “religious education of the people” and by the decline of “liberal education of the representatives”; as a “large part of the people no longer receive any religious education”.
Very true.
I've seen that “a new orientation of education” exists and just as “liberal education” was supported by ”classical philosophy”, so the new education is supported by ”modern philosophy”. Per “classical philosophy”, the goal of the “philosophers” is not the same as the ”non philosophers.” I can say that “modern philosophy” began when the goal of philosophy became “identified with the end which is capable of being actually pursued by all men.”
Modern philosophy has been dumbed down and, now, for the decadent and mediocre, the goal is within sight: No maturity required.
Yes, and modern philosophy is “capable of being actually pursued by all men” Yet, most people don't have either the natural curiosity or a good memory to be Occultists, philosophers, or scientists. Once again, a goal has been lowered so that more people can achieve it without additional effort. I have said that the reason “for the distinction between gentlemen and non gentlemen is the distinction between philosophers and non philosophers”, and if the “purpose of the philosophers” is now the same as the “purpose of the non philosophers”, then the “purpose of the gentlemen” is the same as the “purpose of the non gentlemen”.
Very true. The “modern conception of philosophy is fundamentally democratic” where the natural divisions of mankind are no longer recognised.
Yes, the goal of modern philosophy is not “pondering the nature of the universe”; but relieving humanity’s pain and suffering, the opinion is that these are unnatural.
Modern philosophy “could be presented with some plausibility as inspired by biblical charity” and “philosophy in the classic sense could be disparaged ... as sustained by sinful pride.”
61
Of course, I wonder “whether the claim to biblical inspiration” was sincere. Knowledge “was no longer an end in itself, but in the service of ... making human life longer, healthier, and more abundant” and the “economy of scarcity” was changed into an “economy of plenty.” Scientists were in charge, as though the science of research is the same as the art of management. Everything was to be done by the scientists for the people, but nothing was expected of the people, most people were to enjoy the benefits of another's ability, work, and success. “In order to become the willing recipients of the new gifts, the people had to be enlightened.”
Huh?
Apprentice Denver, please try to keep up. As I was saying, this scientific “enlightenment is the core of the new education”, or the “popularization” of science. Apprentice Jonathan, if most people are not capable of thoughtful or careful voting, can we expect them to understand either theoretical or applied science, even if it is generously watered down for their own good?
It is possible, but unlikely.
I would say highly unlikely, and this scientific “enlightenment was destined to become universal enlightenment” and it “appeared that the difference of natural gifts did not have the importance” tradition had suggested; modern methods “proved to be the great equalizer of naturally unequal minds.”
Master, you said “appeared” and “proved”. Are you being ironic?
Ask me no questions… Inventions and discoveries “continued to remain” in the hands of the few able men, but the benefits “could be transmitted to all.” Political leaders “did not rely entirely” on education, so trade and commerce were “encouraged by ... inventions and discoveries”. Trade “unites all peoples” and overtook “religion, which divides the peoples.” Yet, the question of “moral education” remained.
The question seems to have been marginalized by being ignored.
The previous “understanding of virtue as choice worthy for its own sake” changed into a behavior where one virtue was now thought to be the means to an end: as everyone can be honest, so this policy was promoted. Of course, no morality is needed when the ends justify the means, or did the social scientists overlook this inconvenient aspect?
So, as history teaches, virtue is difficult for most people. Therefore, honesty will be the new standard and society hopes this new plan will work without teaching morality.
Huh?
Apprentice Denver, please try to keep up. As I was saying, this scientific “enlightenment is the core of the new education”, or the “popularization” of science. Apprentice Jonathan, if most people are not capable of thoughtful or careful voting, can we expect them to understand either theoretical or applied science, even if it is generously watered down for their own good?
It is possible, but unlikely.
I would say highly unlikely, and this scientific “enlightenment was destined to become universal enlightenment” and it “appeared that the difference of natural gifts did not have the importance” tradition had suggested; modern methods “proved to be the great equalizer of naturally unequal minds.”
Master, you said “appeared” and “proved”. Are you being ironic?
Ask me no questions… Inventions and discoveries “continued to remain” in the hands of the few able men, but the benefits “could be transmitted to all.” Political leaders “did not rely entirely” on education, so trade and commerce were “encouraged by ... inventions and discoveries”. Trade “unites all peoples” and overtook “religion, which divides the peoples.” Yet, the question of “moral education” remained.
The question seems to have been marginalized by being ignored.
The previous “understanding of virtue as choice worthy for its own sake” changed into a behavior where one virtue was now thought to be the means to an end: as everyone can be honest, so this policy was promoted. Of course, no morality is needed when the ends justify the means, or did the social scientists overlook this inconvenient aspect?
So, as history teaches, virtue is difficult for most people. Therefore, honesty will be the new standard and society hopes this new plan will work without teaching morality.
71
“Virtue took on a narrow meaning” and today it is no longer used. There was no need for discussions regarding “the immoral concern with worldly goods”. However, there was much debate about the transition “from unenlightened to enlightened self-interest.”
I see. Morality gradually changed in the twentieth century so that by the 1980s, “Greed is good” could be said in movies. The belief is that people, acting selfishly, whether reasoned or not, will benefit both themselves and society. No morality is required in the modern world. It is like a screaming kid in a toy store; with the sale, the store profits, people earn wages, and the child is happy. However, we are now a consumer society.
Yes, and the belief is that at “least the majority of men” will behave sensibly, once bad behavior “will be made unprofitable by the right kind of institution, political and economic” influences.
I see. However, the belief that most people will act “sensibly” has not come to pass, and I am not surprised, since everyone already knew behavior was becoming irrational and of questionable moral worth.
Yes, and as a result, the “devising of the right kind of institutions and their implementation” was “more important than the formation of character by liberal education.”
I see. People don't need morality, you just need the right classroom in the right school to reward good behavior to create the right citizens.
Yes, and it became easy to say that “natural inequality” has little to do with “social inequality” and “everyone should be given the same opportunity as everyone else”. The discussion of natural inequality fell out of favor and “the age of tolerance” began.
So, all opinions, all beliefs, all feelings are important, so all views, whether serious or not, must be tolerated.
Yes, and the word “humanity”, which was used in “dealings with one's inferiors” unexpectedly “became the crowning virtue. Goodness became identical with compassion.” Once again, the clear meaning of words lost their distinction. The scientist “was thought to be in control” of the experiment of Modernism, however, with “the progress of enlightenment”, power “could be entrusted to the people.”
Master, how did that work out?
I see. Morality gradually changed in the twentieth century so that by the 1980s, “Greed is good” could be said in movies. The belief is that people, acting selfishly, whether reasoned or not, will benefit both themselves and society. No morality is required in the modern world. It is like a screaming kid in a toy store; with the sale, the store profits, people earn wages, and the child is happy. However, we are now a consumer society.
Yes, and the belief is that at “least the majority of men” will behave sensibly, once bad behavior “will be made unprofitable by the right kind of institution, political and economic” influences.
I see. However, the belief that most people will act “sensibly” has not come to pass, and I am not surprised, since everyone already knew behavior was becoming irrational and of questionable moral worth.
Yes, and as a result, the “devising of the right kind of institutions and their implementation” was “more important than the formation of character by liberal education.”
I see. People don't need morality, you just need the right classroom in the right school to reward good behavior to create the right citizens.
Yes, and it became easy to say that “natural inequality” has little to do with “social inequality” and “everyone should be given the same opportunity as everyone else”. The discussion of natural inequality fell out of favor and “the age of tolerance” began.
So, all opinions, all beliefs, all feelings are important, so all views, whether serious or not, must be tolerated.
Yes, and the word “humanity”, which was used in “dealings with one's inferiors” unexpectedly “became the crowning virtue. Goodness became identical with compassion.” Once again, the clear meaning of words lost their distinction. The scientist “was thought to be in control” of the experiment of Modernism, however, with “the progress of enlightenment”, power “could be entrusted to the people.”
Master, how did that work out?
81
As could be foreseen, “the people did not always listen” to the scientists, no doubt because the people were not sufficiently enlightened.
No doubt they lack sufficient enlightenment.
“Still there remained a lag between the” scientific “enlightenment coming from above and the way in which the people exercised its freedom.”
Master, you say “lag”, but there really isn't a lag, is there? It is a permanent gulf caused by the natural gifts of different people.
It is thought “that every man has the right to political freedom” because he has the “dignity of a moral being”, of course, virtue, maturity, and morality do not need to be demonstrated, they are presumed. “The only thing which can be held to be unqualifiedly good is not the contemplation of the eternal, not the cultivation of the mind”, but a “good intention”, and everyone is capable of good intentions; no morality is needed.
I see. So presumed good intentions, not objective results, matter, because some people are not mature, some are not capable of self restraint, some are not disciplined, and some are not virtuous. Once again, I see a lowering of the standard or the goal.
Right, and, because the military, the hard sciences, but not the social sciences, and thriving businesses expect results, only verifiable outcomes matter. We need to understand that the Modern opinion “that virtue is the principle of democracy and only of democracy” is unfounded.
So, another conclusion of Modernism is that one must respect every man, “regardless of how he uses his will or his freedom”, whether he is mature or not. The modern idea is that “man” is a magic word that trumps the reality of different abilities and different values. The immature and the gentleman are now equals; as modern social scientists lack a system of values.
Yes, the race is still ongoing ”between the political freedom below and the [scientific] enlightenment coming from above.”
Master, you're almost repeating yourself. I maintain that the scientific enlightenment, so called, will never come to those below, while political freedom grows.
No doubt they lack sufficient enlightenment.
“Still there remained a lag between the” scientific “enlightenment coming from above and the way in which the people exercised its freedom.”
Master, you say “lag”, but there really isn't a lag, is there? It is a permanent gulf caused by the natural gifts of different people.
It is thought “that every man has the right to political freedom” because he has the “dignity of a moral being”, of course, virtue, maturity, and morality do not need to be demonstrated, they are presumed. “The only thing which can be held to be unqualifiedly good is not the contemplation of the eternal, not the cultivation of the mind”, but a “good intention”, and everyone is capable of good intentions; no morality is needed.
I see. So presumed good intentions, not objective results, matter, because some people are not mature, some are not capable of self restraint, some are not disciplined, and some are not virtuous. Once again, I see a lowering of the standard or the goal.
Right, and, because the military, the hard sciences, but not the social sciences, and thriving businesses expect results, only verifiable outcomes matter. We need to understand that the Modern opinion “that virtue is the principle of democracy and only of democracy” is unfounded.
So, another conclusion of Modernism is that one must respect every man, “regardless of how he uses his will or his freedom”, whether he is mature or not. The modern idea is that “man” is a magic word that trumps the reality of different abilities and different values. The immature and the gentleman are now equals; as modern social scientists lack a system of values.
Yes, the race is still ongoing ”between the political freedom below and the [scientific] enlightenment coming from above.”
Master, you're almost repeating yourself. I maintain that the scientific enlightenment, so called, will never come to those below, while political freedom grows.
91
As a result of the modern separation of science from philosophy, science “is the only authority in our age” which “enjoys universal recognition” and science has no longer has a “connection with wisdom.”
So the current idea is that if science can do it, let's do it. Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done; all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. Modern science lacks prudence or caution.
Yes, and we “see the tension” between ”democracy” “technocracy” and the “accepted opinion” is that there is no possibility of a “rational knowledge of values", or science “is incompetent to distinguish between good and evil ends.”
So, unlike pre modern science which offered a hierarchy of values, modern science cannot give us a system of values.
Right, but I cannot deny that social scientists suppose that “health, a reasonably long life, and prosperity are good things”, but these ends are suggested by certain beliefs “which are not “objectively" superior to the opposite” beliefs.
So modern science has the same regard for illness and short lives, as it does for health and longevity, since it lacks objective values.
Yes, and since modern science ”unable to justify” its purpose, it is ”compelled to satisfy the ends which are sought by its customers”.
So the goal of science is no longer knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but for consumption, and we come back to the modern mass consumer society, where treatments for erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness abound because these subjects are the most pressing for the public. And because of a lack of values to direct scientific work, promising research languishes.
Yes, and if we look at what defines “our age”, we see mass taste with “unprincipled efficiency”. Scientists are “responsive to the demands of” most people; but most people “cannot be responsible to anyone or” be responsible “to anything for anything.”
So scientists are responsible because they are knowledgeable, but most people are not responsible because they don't know. It seems that whatever else “responsibility” is, it is a scapegoat. Master, I’m starting to understand your reluctance to use the word “responsibility”.
So the current idea is that if science can do it, let's do it. Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done; all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. Modern science lacks prudence or caution.
Yes, and we “see the tension” between ”democracy” “technocracy” and the “accepted opinion” is that there is no possibility of a “rational knowledge of values", or science “is incompetent to distinguish between good and evil ends.”
So, unlike pre modern science which offered a hierarchy of values, modern science cannot give us a system of values.
Right, but I cannot deny that social scientists suppose that “health, a reasonably long life, and prosperity are good things”, but these ends are suggested by certain beliefs “which are not “objectively" superior to the opposite” beliefs.
So modern science has the same regard for illness and short lives, as it does for health and longevity, since it lacks objective values.
Yes, and since modern science ”unable to justify” its purpose, it is ”compelled to satisfy the ends which are sought by its customers”.
So the goal of science is no longer knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but for consumption, and we come back to the modern mass consumer society, where treatments for erectile dysfunction and male pattern baldness abound because these subjects are the most pressing for the public. And because of a lack of values to direct scientific work, promising research languishes.
Yes, and if we look at what defines “our age”, we see mass taste with “unprincipled efficiency”. Scientists are “responsive to the demands of” most people; but most people “cannot be responsible to anyone or” be responsible “to anything for anything.”
So scientists are responsible because they are knowledgeable, but most people are not responsible because they don't know. It seems that whatever else “responsibility” is, it is a scapegoat. Master, I’m starting to understand your reluctance to use the word “responsibility”.
101
And it is in this uncertain situation that we “raise the question concerning liberal education and responsibility.”
Master, because of democratic opinions, it seems that the “insufficiently educated are” likely to have a “strong influence” on “the ends and the means of education.”
Yes, and while the “gigantic spectacle” that is the scientific experiment called Modernism can be “exciting and entertaining”, it is not “instructive and educating.” Human excellence is no longer thought to be “regarded as the perfection of human nature”, since "values" are regarded as ”conventions” or opinions, and “moral education” is replaced “by conditioning”.
So moral teachings have been replaced by the modern social science of behaviorism. Society doesn’t teach that stealing is wrong, it conditions youths that their poor behavior will result in fines and jail time, otherwise said, bad things will happen. As dishonor is no longer a deterrent, it is hoped that high fines, affecting their immediate future spending, will deter poor behavior in the long term. However, high recidivism rates suggest that mass behaviorism is inferior to personal morality and virtue of previous generations.
Yes, and we scientists cannot “remain silent on the dangers” which modern opinions have on achieving “human excellence,” and “by giving freedom to all, democracy also gives freedom to those who” are concerned for humanity, generally, and care for “human excellence”, specifically. We are not prevented from informally educating certain youths who “may come to be regarded by many citizens as salutary to the republic and as deserving of giving to it its tone.” Cultivating certain youths into gentlemen is a gift from practical scientists, as scientists are not obligated to benefit the city. Real scientists leave society and live in the woods and think. Practical scientists stay in the city to help it through the guidance of youths, or those who have no opinions. The “utmost exertion” is necessary for success, as "men can always hope” regardless of the present conditions. Scientists are “compelled to be specialists, but we can try to specialize in the most weighty matters” and we cannot expect that “liberal education” will become “universal education”, as it will remain the obligation of a “minority.” Gentlemen and certain youths need a liberal education, not necessarily formal. I know Mozart had an informal liberal education from his father. The majority don't need a liberal education. As the Master said, don't throw pearls to swine, as pigs won't appreciate the finer things.
Master, are you appealing to authority?
No, just illustrating a point. Scientists “cannot expect that liberal education will lead all who benefit from it to understand their civic responsibility” or “to agree politically“, as Karl Marx, the “father of communism,” was “liberally educated on a level to which we cannot even hope to aspire.” Gentlemen know their civic responsibilities, anarchists and political revolutionaries don't.
So, the wisdom of moderation will “protect us against the twin dangers” of unreasonable “expectations from politics” and ungentlemanly “contempt for politics” and it may happen that “liberally educated men” will become “politically moderate men.” Liberal education for adults who are naturally fitted for it is “an act of justice”, as it is “concerned with the souls of men”. Of course, should liberal education becomes “an industry”, it will be “indistinguishable from the entertainment industry”, but with less “income”, less “publicity”, and less “glamour.”
You know what is ironic?
“Happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement”; or the disciple exceeding the Master?
Master, because of democratic opinions, it seems that the “insufficiently educated are” likely to have a “strong influence” on “the ends and the means of education.”
Yes, and while the “gigantic spectacle” that is the scientific experiment called Modernism can be “exciting and entertaining”, it is not “instructive and educating.” Human excellence is no longer thought to be “regarded as the perfection of human nature”, since "values" are regarded as ”conventions” or opinions, and “moral education” is replaced “by conditioning”.
So moral teachings have been replaced by the modern social science of behaviorism. Society doesn’t teach that stealing is wrong, it conditions youths that their poor behavior will result in fines and jail time, otherwise said, bad things will happen. As dishonor is no longer a deterrent, it is hoped that high fines, affecting their immediate future spending, will deter poor behavior in the long term. However, high recidivism rates suggest that mass behaviorism is inferior to personal morality and virtue of previous generations.
Yes, and we scientists cannot “remain silent on the dangers” which modern opinions have on achieving “human excellence,” and “by giving freedom to all, democracy also gives freedom to those who” are concerned for humanity, generally, and care for “human excellence”, specifically. We are not prevented from informally educating certain youths who “may come to be regarded by many citizens as salutary to the republic and as deserving of giving to it its tone.” Cultivating certain youths into gentlemen is a gift from practical scientists, as scientists are not obligated to benefit the city. Real scientists leave society and live in the woods and think. Practical scientists stay in the city to help it through the guidance of youths, or those who have no opinions. The “utmost exertion” is necessary for success, as "men can always hope” regardless of the present conditions. Scientists are “compelled to be specialists, but we can try to specialize in the most weighty matters” and we cannot expect that “liberal education” will become “universal education”, as it will remain the obligation of a “minority.” Gentlemen and certain youths need a liberal education, not necessarily formal. I know Mozart had an informal liberal education from his father. The majority don't need a liberal education. As the Master said, don't throw pearls to swine, as pigs won't appreciate the finer things.
Master, are you appealing to authority?
No, just illustrating a point. Scientists “cannot expect that liberal education will lead all who benefit from it to understand their civic responsibility” or “to agree politically“, as Karl Marx, the “father of communism,” was “liberally educated on a level to which we cannot even hope to aspire.” Gentlemen know their civic responsibilities, anarchists and political revolutionaries don't.
So, the wisdom of moderation will “protect us against the twin dangers” of unreasonable “expectations from politics” and ungentlemanly “contempt for politics” and it may happen that “liberally educated men” will become “politically moderate men.” Liberal education for adults who are naturally fitted for it is “an act of justice”, as it is “concerned with the souls of men”. Of course, should liberal education becomes “an industry”, it will be “indistinguishable from the entertainment industry”, but with less “income”, less “publicity”, and less “glamour.”
You know what is ironic?
“Happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement”; or the disciple exceeding the Master?
111
Apprentice Jonathan, the former is factual and the later is always welcomed, but I was referring to the idea that a liberal education should be restricted to the most conservative and least revolutionary part of society: the potential gentlemen.