Leftism and Spiritualism seem to go hand in hand. What are the connections between these two ideas? By leftism, I refer to socialist movements which
aspire to “equalizing” economic conditions between the rich and poor; they mean to accomplish such goals by procuring political power. Once
power is attained, they will go about restructuring basic tenets of society; free market capitalism would be replaced by socialist economics; private
ownership will be replaced by state (or “communal”) ownership. When people no longer have the right to own property or pursue their own goals in
life - an implication of interdicting venture capitalism - people no longer have the right to choose their career path. Instead, the central planner -
the state - selects for each individual what he or she should be, based on some aptitude test. Capitalism and freedom, as Milton Friedman, and
earlier, Frederich Hayek, explicated, are ineluctably intertwined. As Alexis De Touqueville noted in the 19th century, full equality comes at the
expense of liberty. It’s either economic gaps continue to exist, between the rich and the poor, or people be goaded as equals, albeit, following the
tune of the minority which garners control of government. (in which case, the prevailing ethos of the minority becomes systematically projected onto
the masses; thus, socialism and demagoguery are natural bedmates)
So how is leftism in harmony with spiritualism? By spiritualism, I mean philosophical trends like Buddhism, Shaivite/Tantric Hinduism, and in a more
general, and ontological parlance, a “universalistic” spirituality. Rollo May described it thusly: “Those we call saints rebelled against an
outmoded and inadequate form of God on the basis of their new insights into divinity...their rebellion was motivated by new insight into godliness.
They rebelled as Paul Tillich beautifully stated, against God in the name of the God beyond God. The continuous emergence of the God beyond God is the
mark of creative courage in the religious sphere”. So the “God beyond God”? By this seemingly enigmatic statement is meant something more
concrete. God, whom they undoubtedly understand in the Jewish sense, as Yahweh, for example, is a God of time and space; a God enmeshed in history.
This conception of God is by definition a limited one. It is the difference between the power of a word, and the spontaneity of a feeling. The word is
concrete, created according to specific definitions. It is akin to an algorithm which gives power to computers. The word is rational, it is
reasonable. The Jewish conception of God popularized by Christianity is the God who is at one with His word, bound by His word. In short, God as man
can know Him, according to the Jewish perspective, is God as reflected in objects and things. What we can know about life, about reality, about ethics
and morals, comes from the world. In contrast to this viewpoint, the “God beyond God”, which Paul Tillich refers, is what Meister Eckhart called
the “Godhead”. The Godhead is “God as He is in Himself”. That is, beyond all definition, beyond all categorization, beyond all human
utterance. Such a starting point ultimately yields no advice on how human beings should live. If God is by definition (the paradox) beyond definition,
then human beings in theory can act in any way, and still maintain perfect contact and equanimity between themselves and God. This is the God of the
left; the God of moral relativists (if they have religious feelings). This is the God which spawns political movements which give no thought
whatsoever to the means used to attain good (in their view) ends.
In short, leftist movements and what these people would call “gnosis” go hand in hand. “Gnosis” is the apercus of Leftist inspiration. It is
the starting point of their political logic. If all things are ultimately “one”, what worry should they have over “illusory” things which
happen in space and time? The wars fought in the name of the final good (which exists only in their imaginations), the utopian ideal hoped for,
eclipses all consideration for the human suffering caused by their machinations.
Since Marx wrote in the 19th century, 100 million human beings have been killed because of socialism. Undoubtedly, a great many of these socialists
meant well; they probably had religious beliefs of the type described. Atheism, the de-jure religion of the communists, is metaphysically speaking,
not much different from the theistic conception of the Godhead. Both subscribe to nihilism. Both apply moral relativism to achieve their ends. In
effect, theistic or atheistic, the universalistic drive remains largely the same.
Leftist movements are notorious for hating religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religion and morality. Understood philosophically,
Judeo-Christianity, stripped of it’s dogmatic aspects, is essentially the same. Forget the Jesus narrative and the Moses narrative, all of which is
divisive; the Hebrew conception of God is grounded in a vastly divergent theological theory of life. Contrary to the more metaphysical metaphors of
pagan myths (which as Robert Alter notes, often appears in poetic verse) the Hebrews departed from the subjective viewpoint to see the world in more
objective, physical terms (this may well explain the absurdly disproportionate Jewish capacity for intellectual achievement). This was a move away
from the individual subjective, mystic-metaphysical direction, towards the existential SITUATION which man found himself in. Instead of shirking the
questions of life, the Hebrews faced them, and discovered meaning in them. The Hebrews were sanguine realists. They acknowledged mans lowly state.
Their Torah states clearly that the Garden of Eden is blocked off from man. Now that man exists in his finite state, determined by nature to be either
male or female, overlayed with certain personality quirks, a particular biological distinctiveness, he cannot rebel. He can never truly return,
barring death. In short, the gates are locked, and man has been smitten by the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. By this idea, is not merely
meant moral understanding. Rather, it seems to mean that knowledge bequeathes responsibility. Once one becomes aware, he immediately becomes insecure
(naked - ‘arumim) as well as clever (arum). His insecurity engenders two psychological attitudes: a turn towards conscience, which means living in
conformity with ones moral understanding (the golden rule being the universal starting point), or, imagining oneself to be more clever and astute: to
be AS God, to live “forever”.
Leftists seek to design a society that reflects their metaphysical system. Since the Godhead is beyond all distinction, the world should be made more
like Brahma. This is moreso the dream of radical thinkers like Noam Chomsky, and others, who would like to see all forms of hierarchy abrogated.
Hence, the currency of ideas like “heterosexism”, which challenges peoples notions of men-female pairing as the norm in human relationships. This
notion is obvious, and eternal, and has been the basic motivator of biological evolution, but since leftists are radical, seeking a world that only
exists in their imaginations, amazingly, they are able to ignore the sheer illogic of finding something awry with the general and natural human
assumption that men and women are the norm in human relations. Gender, Class and Race, are all used invidiously as tools by leftists to demonize their
opposition. Knowing full well that most conservatives aren’t mysogynistic greedy bigots, if a critic even challenges a notion trying to be
popularized by leftists, such as, homosexuality being an irreversible state of being, or “heterosexism” leading to homophobia, or their more
cherished myth, of women and men being “interchangeable”. With regard to the latter, it’s telling that that in democratic countries which
foster personal freedoms, men and women are more unequal. Women incline towards careers in education, psychology and the social sciences, while more
men work as Mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists. In Susan Pinkers “the sexual paradox: Women, Men and the real gender gap”, she
documents beyond a shadow of a doubt what is already so obvious: women and men are different. No matter how much we’d desire it to be different, our
biologies play a determined part in forming our likes and dislikes. There is an unmistakeable incongruity between the proportion of women graduates of
law school (62% in Canada) and women working as lawyers (30%). Women can intellectually compete with men in fields classically thought to be
“manly”, but the statistical facts imply that women simply do not enjoy these fields as much as men do.
When a woman breastfeeds her child, her body produces oxtocin. Oxtocin is a biochemical responsible for euphoria. In short, a women LOOKS FORWARD to
breast feeding because of the way it makes her feel. Men could never feel the same because they do not have the physical organs designed by biological
evolution necessary to produce the euphoric feeling a mother feels while breastfeeding. This is a small sample of how biology determines our thinking.
If this is how we are, thinking differently, imagining that some “absolute condition” should dominate our politics, that women could be made to be
like males, to enjoy the same things men enjoy, is aberrant, unhealthy and ultimately destructive (as history has shown).
edit on 3-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)