02-02-2019, 04:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2019, 05:29 PM by Eric the Green.)
(02-02-2019, 09:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-01-2019, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On the existing two-axis and two-quadrant Nolan grid, that would be the vertical axis for anarchy (or libertarian) at the top vs. totalitarian, (or statist) at the bottom, upper right vs. lower left for economics, and upper left vs. lower right for individual rights vs. social conservatism (group power/hive mentality); normally called the cultural or social axis. I think those are adequate. Religious conservatism in politics is just another hive mentality or group power type. Examples of these conservative groups are nations, races, and religions. In many cases they are all fused, as in fascist Italy. Hitler was an extreme example of all three group types as part of their ideology, and the religious aspect was uppermost, consisting of the final solution to the Jewish "problem." Donald Trump is another example of this fusion, although not always explicitly stated; but Trump can lie and obfuscate by changing his statements at a moment's notice.
On the European political compass, the axes are exactly the same, but they are placed at different locations around the wheel. In that chart, the cultural/social axis or individualism/civil rights vs. group power is the vertical axis. Economics is the left vs. right axis, and the anarchy vs. totalitarian axis falls at lower right vs. upper left. No revision is needed to these wheels in my opinion.
I highlighted the religion comment as an example of why two axes don't get the job done. Religion is neither conservative nor liberal, communal nor individual. Your beliefs in astrology fall fully within the religious sphere, and you are anything but conservative. I would put you more in the communal than individual class too, but others can feel otherwise. After all, there are monks who go off to live isolated and pure lives, and they are certainly driven by their religious beliefs. On that axis, strength of belief or non-belief is the measure, not affiliation with other beliefs. Other axes can also be assigned, but only if they are uncorrelated with the axes already defined. I've never had much luck with more than 4.
As I see it, religion is indeed neither liberal nor conservative. It is only the religious right and other fundamentalist religion in politics opinions (like Muslim fanaticism) that are conservative. It is only identification with, and promotion of state power for, a particular religious group, that makes religion in politics conservative. Religion itself does not need to have any connection with the religious right; there is also a religious left. The religious right and similar opinions say: "the state should impose our religion on people, because it is the only correct religion. The moral principles of our religion should be the law of the land." Sharia Law is a perfect example; so is the drive to post the 10 Commandments on public buildings, teach creationism in public schools, outlaw abortion and homosexuality/gay marriage as against religious doctrine, etc.
In this sense, it is exactly the same political stance as right-wing nationalism. This kind of nationalism is identification with the nation, and promotion of your nation's power over others, or to exclude others. Racism is the same, but having to do with race instead of nation. A little reflection is all that is needed to see the logic in this. It's all the lower right corner of the Nolan Grid, and the top of the political compass. Social conservatism is the generic name for this view, and it's also called the right-wing on the cultural axis. Traditional group authority should rule over us, and changes to the traditional authority and doctrines from the nation, race or religion of your identity should be opposed. My country, race and religion uber alles. As I mentioned, the three are frequently fused together, as in Mussolini, Hitler and Donald Trump.
The Religious Left says quite the opposite, and belongs partly in the opposite quadrant. The religious left promotes tolerance of all religions, civil rights, and religious freedom. It upholds religious principles as a basis for practicing love and respect for all in politics. These principles include peace in the world, religious liberty for all, social justice for all races and peoples, and treating others as we wish to be treated. Religious Left people are mostly strongly leftist on the Nolan Grid, and lower left on the political compass (what we call liberal in the USA), because they frequently advocate for social welfare programs, and sometimes the environment, and they often see the connections between all these issues. The Religious Left sees that the essence of religion is the experience of spirit, not church authority. Religious Left people seek to lessen the power of church authority and make their religion more democratic, which is the opposite of the Religious Right. I am part of the Religious Left. Martin Luther King Jr. is a fine example of a Religious Leftist.
Strength of belief has no relevance to this issue. It is about whether you identify with and seek political power for your traditional power group over others or not. The "strength" involved is how strong you hold to this desire or opinion, and how much power you seek over others to obtain this goal of theocratic rule of the one true religion, even to the point of elimination of the others, as per Hitler or the Islamic State.
Identity politics works along this axis. Social and cultural conservatives identify with the group they see as endowed with the right and duty to rule over others and other groups. That is right-wing identity politics. Left-wing identity politics seeks freedom and justice for the oppressed group you identify with. When it is concerned with this one issue, Left Identity politics can be too narrowly focused. Such holders of left identity politics views may be more centrist on the scale if their views are only leftist regarding the oppression of their own group, but have no views on other issues and don't see the connections to them. If they don't see this connection, if they gain power they could end up oppressing other groups in turn, and move to the religious right and social conservatism. Nationalism can also be left-wing in the same way, and those who seek or promote liberation for their nation can end up as defending their nation uber alles, and thus become right-wing nationalists.
Keep in mind that a political chart is a chart of political views. That means it is about who has state power and how much. Religion is a different issue and needs a different chart. People can hold different religious views and still be at exactly the same point on the political compass.
Astrology definitely has a spiritual aspect, but it is not a religion. It is a science of an ancient and medieval type, or "traditional science" of the kind historically preceding those that have gained dominance since the 18th Century Enlightenment. But it has also been updated to reflect its use in depth psychology. I have found it especially powerful as a predictive tool for world events and cultural and political trends. The new astrology uses to major effect the cycles of the planets only discovered in modern times. Pre-Enlightenment and New Age sciences do not make the mistake of separating spiritual experience from knowledge of the perceived world. The creators of modern physics in the 16th and 17th centuries were astrologers; there was no separation from astronomy.
My knowledge of astrology is based on my experiences and research, not religious belief, and those who think that astrology can't be true because of their post-enlightenment point of view or because they hold to the modernist scientific paradigm and its emphasis on efficient causation, are too limited in their views, as I see it. The evidence I have posted over the last 22 years of the correspondence of the turnings to astrological cycles should be convincing enough to any open mind that astrology contains at least a grain of truth. The political compass scores acceptance or belief in astrology as culturally on the left, and I agree. But we have a thread on astrology now if anyone wants to discuss this further. Making fun of or bashing Trump is not part of a discussion on astrology, or vice-versa!
