06-15-2021, 02:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2021, 06:50 AM by Captain Genet.)
Some more corrections:
-Blake. He called for free expression of individuality, including sexual impulses. He disliked organized Catholic Church and absolute monarchies like those of Charlemagne and Frederick, according to him all those were tools of the evil goddess Rahab. (I don't know if he used the pagan characters metaphorically, or believed in them, though probably it was the former) He also called Greeko-Roman civilization "slaves of the sword". He sympathized with plight of the working class, but did not emphasize class conflict or economic equality. Verdict: Inclusivist. However, unlike post-WW2 Inclusivists he did not idealize nature, but distinguished spiritual self, which ought to be expressed and liberated, from the natural self serving another evil goddess Tirzah.
-Roddenberry. The Federation mostly stands for rational political and economic organization and its most important feature in the original series is elimination of the market. There is very little Bohemian cultural individualism. The characters wear identical clothes and say little about their personal lives. So I'm moving him to the Proletarianist sector, though some degree of multiculturalism and commitment to non-violence make him closer to Inclusivism than to Nationalism. IM Banks "Culture" is racier and less bureaucratic, it should be moved to the same place I put Chomsky. It's also willing to kill fellow creatures to impose its version of "freedom" on the Cosmos.
- Stapledon. He is the thinker who has shaped my worldview since 2011 or so, but many times I misread him, due to influence of Orion's Arm. He primarily advocated for communitarian values, which make him a centrist. But of which flavour? He had a lot of sympathy for the working class, which requires moving him closer to Proletarianism, but he also condemned Marxist class warfare. He was sceptical of personal God, but advocated for a spirituality defined as awareness of a "flavour of creativity pervading the Cosmos". He mostly supported Christian ethics and viewed human beings as morally underdeveloped, which looks a lot like more scientific version of the original sin doctrine. However, he never wanted power for any organized church, so he cannot be a theocrat or close. His final civilization in "Last and First Men" features group marriage, which is a quite Bohemian idea, but he never advocated it for here-and-now humans. He also wouldn't agree with Purples' idea that self-expression is a core value, since he put development of mankind as a whole first.
So, have a look at the perfected version of the diagram:
![[Image: compass.gif]](https://i.postimg.cc/LH6cWD56/compass.gif)
-Blake. He called for free expression of individuality, including sexual impulses. He disliked organized Catholic Church and absolute monarchies like those of Charlemagne and Frederick, according to him all those were tools of the evil goddess Rahab. (I don't know if he used the pagan characters metaphorically, or believed in them, though probably it was the former) He also called Greeko-Roman civilization "slaves of the sword". He sympathized with plight of the working class, but did not emphasize class conflict or economic equality. Verdict: Inclusivist. However, unlike post-WW2 Inclusivists he did not idealize nature, but distinguished spiritual self, which ought to be expressed and liberated, from the natural self serving another evil goddess Tirzah.
-Roddenberry. The Federation mostly stands for rational political and economic organization and its most important feature in the original series is elimination of the market. There is very little Bohemian cultural individualism. The characters wear identical clothes and say little about their personal lives. So I'm moving him to the Proletarianist sector, though some degree of multiculturalism and commitment to non-violence make him closer to Inclusivism than to Nationalism. IM Banks "Culture" is racier and less bureaucratic, it should be moved to the same place I put Chomsky. It's also willing to kill fellow creatures to impose its version of "freedom" on the Cosmos.
- Stapledon. He is the thinker who has shaped my worldview since 2011 or so, but many times I misread him, due to influence of Orion's Arm. He primarily advocated for communitarian values, which make him a centrist. But of which flavour? He had a lot of sympathy for the working class, which requires moving him closer to Proletarianism, but he also condemned Marxist class warfare. He was sceptical of personal God, but advocated for a spirituality defined as awareness of a "flavour of creativity pervading the Cosmos". He mostly supported Christian ethics and viewed human beings as morally underdeveloped, which looks a lot like more scientific version of the original sin doctrine. However, he never wanted power for any organized church, so he cannot be a theocrat or close. His final civilization in "Last and First Men" features group marriage, which is a quite Bohemian idea, but he never advocated it for here-and-now humans. He also wouldn't agree with Purples' idea that self-expression is a core value, since he put development of mankind as a whole first.
So, have a look at the perfected version of the diagram: