Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(06-24-2021, 02:54 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-22-2021, 06:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those who combine other sectors with nationalism, are primarily interested in those other sectors and should be placed there. So the French Jacobins are just reddish inclusivists, and the North Vietnamese in the 1960s were deeper-red socialists.

Agreed, with some exceptions like White Power types who extol Christianity only because this is "the white man's religion", but accept Norse Paganism and Satanism as long as they are suitably racist. The wife of American National Socialist Movement's founder is a high priestess in a cult called Joy of Satan.

Good. But I thought I demonstrated for you that Norse Paganists are not racist. At least not the Odinists you referred me to. They are just American and British neo-liberals. So I still don't know how you can say Norse Paganists are racists.

Quote:Philosophy can transform people without including the supernatural. Many people believe in supernatural powers and are not transformed. What matters is the emotional experience.

Of course founders of traditional religions like Abraham, Zoroaster, Laozi and above all Jesus had immense emotional experience and were able to induce it in a group of disciples. Others like Mohammed or Confucius were more interested in political power.

These leaders were not especially emotional. Jesus very calmly stilled the waters and spoke his beatitudes on the hill. Reading the gospels, I don't hear any great emotion in his words or in the stories about his miracles. Just profound thoughts and interesting parables that make a point. The founders of religions all had revelatory, supermatural experiences, if we call "supernatural" at least what goes beyond a narrow mechanical cause explanation. But this revelation can be a vision (like Ezekiel's or St. Paul's) or a visitation by an angel (like Mohammed or Joseph Smith). Moses saw a burning bush and went up to the mountain. Buddha saw visions during his enlightenment experience. Abraham contacted whom he called his God and made a covenant. To become their follower doesn't usually take that degree of revelation, but many Christians meet Jesus and some see the Virgin Mary. They experience God's presence. The experience can be emotional, but also not emotional. Today many take psychedelics or get a contact high. Monks and seekers have used meditation, yoga, prayer, or have followed gurus and master teachers for centuries and millennia. Often these methods still emotions rather than bring them about. The change in consciousness is the thing. Expanding awareness of ourselves and our connection with all.

So-called modernist rationalists can deny peoples' experience, but can prove nothing. It's just ideology. Philosophy is putting into words what we are aware of, in this case. But otherwise it is about the truth, not behavior. Knowing principles is not enough to change behavior, is my point. If you add emotion to it, what stirs the emotions?

Of course, modernists and rationalists such as yourself, Captain Genet, lump into the "supernatural" category our own experiences and abilities that aren't all that miraculous; just beyond the power of mechanics to explain entirely; like our own free will or our psychic intuitions. Even chakras are denounced by modernists just because they aren't familiar with them and aren't entirely modern. They can just be seen as the way we experience our nerve ganglia and endocrine system.

"Many people believe in supernatural powers and are not transformed" Of course. For many, religion is nothing more than following orders and being preached at. Belief alone may not transform very much. Lots of religious people are not very moral, really. A preacher's emotional sermons might convince people to believe, but is this transformative? Does it instill moral behavior? Not necessarily. It just might add a member to the church rolls. But such churches don't create religions.

Quote:

(06-22-2021, 07:32 PM)PBrower2a Wrote: yellow -- plutocratic. People in this sector trust economic power more than any other power and see class interests of economic elites as the best guide to achieving human happiness. Results may be grossly unequal, but the world clearly divides between "winners" and "losers" even if the distinction has more cause in inheritance and connections than in any discernible virtues. "Winners" have the right to expect "losers" to toil for minimal rewards (bare survival), and the "losers" must earn survival, for which there is no inherent right, at the cost of their humanity. This sector is amoral except for recognizing that waste and inefficiency are vices and that toil is a necessity no matter who gets most of the fruit.

Libertarians closer to the Blue sector recognize morality and often understand poverty as a divine punishment for vice. Purer libertarians often treat morality as a matter of personal taste (like Mises) or declare the only morality is self-interest (Rand).

Libertarian is fine, but can be deliberately confusing; people who don't know the ideology may not know that libertarians are in-fact plutocrats. Or to put it another way, even the Libertarians themselves are often deceived and don't realize that their philosophy enables plutocracy. Or don't want to admit this.

Quote:

Quote:The purple sector suggests the less clumsy "humanist" to me. It has rarely had extreme figures in charge of any society.

Humanist is too narrow since many Inclusivists support animal rights and even ascribe some sort of personhood to ecosystems.
https://www.definitions.net/definition/inclusivism

I agree with you on that, Captain.

Quote:

Quote:I would call the "red" sector "socialist".

Surely this is most recognizable term for these kind of views, but there are some Purples and Browns who call themselves socialists as well, from Maslow to Saddam.

I agree with brower on this. Socialism is a correct but less-awkward and more-recognized term than Proletarianist (although it is also correct). Some purples, browns and blues have elements of socialism in their views. But that's why you have a circle in which some people can be close to the next sector.