In his Light on the Ancient Worlds, Schuon makes a number of points that go to our clear-as-muditations on progress, history, and the divine-human relations therein.
For example, he writes of the inevitability of imperialism, whether for good or ill or worse:
Imperialism can come either from Heaven or simply from the earth, or again from hell; be that as it may, what is certain is that humanity cannot remain divided into a scattering of independent tribes; the bad would inevitably hurl themselves upon the good, and the result would be a humanity oppressed by the bad and hence the worst of all imperialisms.
This goes to the incessant tribe-on-tribe violence among native Americans we've been discussing. Note that it's not so much the Indians who are the problem, as a fragmented organization in which it only makes sense to be wary of strangers: more tribes, more conflict.
Come to think of it, I have a big book called The Parable of the Tribes, which I've never actually read, but believe this to be its thesis. (How's that for a scholarly reference!)
Best I can do is quote Professor Backflap, who may be able to provide a clue as to why I purchased this book way back in 1980s. He begins with one of those gedankenexperiments:
Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one {cough Putin cough} choose peace?
The question answers itself: every tribe needs to be armed to the teeth and paranoid to the hilt. More generally,
Why is the world so beset by alienation, tyranny, and destruction? The parable of the tribes is a theory of social evolution that offers answers to these and myriad related questions....
When human beings became the first creatures to invent their own way of life, their societies appeared to become free to develop as people might wish. But what may have been freedom for any single society adds up to anarchy in the interacting system of societies.
In this anarchy, civilized societies were condemned to engage in a struggle for power.... And the earth became a place where no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power (italics in original).
Just as it takes only one bad driver to create gridlock, it takes only one assoul to bring about a World Crisis, even if this assoul is basically in charge of a gas station with nuclear weapons. I read that even Switzerland -- which remained neutral in World War II -- is going to start charging Putin a hefty checking fee or something.
Anyway, I suppose imperialism is the best of crimes and the worst of crimes. Think of India. Before the arrival of the British, they were burning widows, even the good looking ones. Thus,
What may be called the imperialism of the good constitutes therefore a sort of inevitable and providential preventative war; without it no great civilization is conceivable (Schuon).
You could say that the motto of such great civilizations is: E Pluribus Unum. Or else. There's an element of force, but I guess it's preferable to the old Hobbesian war of all against all.
Which in turn goes to our contemporary progressive barbarians, i.e., the Great Leap Backward of multicultural tribalism and identity politics.
5 comments:
Interestingly enough, I was reading Kass' The Beginning of Wisdom earlier this afternoon, specifically, Chapter 8 Babel: The Failures of Civilization, and I think Kass' insights in this chapter could easily be woven into this post, especially his thoughts on the "of one language" and "of one speech" and the dangers associated with such as perceived by The Creator. As a juxtaposition to this, though, the words of Zephaniah 3:9 come to mind:
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.
I was reading somewhere that the Christ-Word is the anti-type of Babel... or that Babel is the anti-typological prefiguration of the Incarnation of the logos -- including Pentecost, after which the apostles are once again able to communicate to the entire world....
Speaking of words, it is apparently more difficult to be stupid in the English language, or at least easier to express common sense. No wonder there is no Anglospheric Hegel, Foucault, or Kant.
I'd read that piece yesterday too, Gagdad, though I wouldn't necessarily say that the difficulty to be stupid in the English language is that much more difficult than any other language. I do appreciate the fact that American English is rather more direct than a good number of other tongues. Not alot of beating around the bush in American English, in most cases.
They say that in French there's no word for "entrepreneur."
Post a Comment