New below- Tackling a Tuckerism re the cosmic dualism myth used to validate human battles against evil.
What happened to Western liberal democracies? Wendell Krossa
After the early 90s collapse of Communism, Classic Liberalism did not automatically move to the fore in the West to dominate societies with its “self-evident truths” of natural individual freedoms and rights (i.e. “God-given”, not something given by states as the ‘natural rights’ precede the human creation of states).
Sample comment on natural rights:
Classic Liberalism needs repeated explanation to populations and ongoing protection by the meta-institutions of societies (i.e. liberal democracy principles, systems of law, and representative state institutions). Liberal democracy needs continual reinforcement in public consciousness. It needs perpetual restating because over past decades Western liberals became sloppy and let the fringe voices of DEI, ESG, Woke Progressivism, and other anti-liberal programs through the doors and that “tyranny of an extremist leftist minority” took over Western societies.
This is good by Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin on Classic Liberalism (a short clip)- i.e. the English “free individuals” system, and its basic principles and institutions, that have been under assault by “barbarians”.
Classic Liberalism’s basic principles and institutions- i.e. the self-evident truth that “life, liberty, and property” (John Locke) are natural or God-given rights and representative governments exist to protect those individual rights and freedoms of all, equally. These principles and institutions have to be re-explained and re-enforced again and again.
As they discuss, free individualism does not function and succeed as a system if there is no overall protection by larger state laws and institutions, or by the overall informed population.
They note that it is now the “conservative” side that is doing more to protect and promote Classic Liberalism and that those formerly identifying as “liberals” have abandoned liberalism to the “barbarians” of Woke.
Dave Rubin adds that those former liberals let the “crazies” in- i.e. the Woke Progressives, DEI, and others- and those groups took over and started censoring people and most liberals did nothing in response, excusing the threat with “they won’t come for me”, and let the “crazies” take over.
Rubin gives interesting details on his meeting with Elon Musk, in response to his having been banned from Twitter, and then his meeting with Twitter engineers who opened up the Twitter operating system to show how it was shadow-banning and censoring, even banning those people who had just associated in some way with some other banned person (maybe just commenting on some other banned person).
As Rubin says, the entire Twitter system was built to silence certain people and promote others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5VcU7laT2w
This below by Amy Hamm illustrates exactly what Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin are talking about above in relation to Woke extremists. Here Hamm speaks to contemporary multiculturalism that has failed to affirm the need for immigrants to embrace and hold the Classic Liberal values of Western liberal democracies, and how Western liberals underestimated and denied the threat from Islamic extremism in the mix of immigrants. A threat that Richard Hitchens, Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others warned about. Hitchens noted that speaking about the threat is not “Islamophobia” or “racism” as charged by Woke Progressives. It is reality.
“The West ignored the threat of radical Islam- now Jews are paying the price: Comments by Berlin’s chief of police show that it’s not safe to be openly Jewish in one of Europe’s largest cities — in 2024”, Amy Hamm, Nove. 22, 2024
Hamm begins, noting that Jews and gays in Germany have been advised by the Berlin police chief to hide their identities in majority Arab neighborhoods. Jews have been attacked and synagogues firebombed by immigrants who favor terrorists. Similar incidents have occurred across Canada. Example: Students at the University of BC are fearful of terrorist attacks.
Hamm then explains that Canada has adopted an “unfettered and incautious immigration” policy. The result has been immigrants who are antagonistic toward Western values. People who do not want to embrace and live according to liberal democracy values but reject them and want to replace them with extremist religious theocracy values. Along with this immigrant rejection of Western values, so also the political left in Western societies “hold a similar disdain for Western values”.
Hamm says the welcoming of such immigrants has changed the nature of our society with such things as “intolerance of tolerance” and that harms other Muslim immigrants also who came hoping for societies of openness, tolerance, diversity, etc.
She recounts the warnings of Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the threat that radical Islam poses to our values and even to our physical safety. And this is not “racism or bigotry”, as Hitchens noted.
“Canadian scholars, meanwhile, have largely mocked this idea, predictably insisting that it is born of nothing more than “Islamophobia” — that nebulous euphemism for what they really wish to say, which is “racism… the nationalistic bigotry of the ‘far right.’…”
She adds that for decades, Canadian elites have “dismissed the threat of Islamic terrorism and portrayed immigration as our saving grace.” Her counter to this- “Nonsense”.
Hamm then quotes from Murray’s book (“The Strange Death of Europe”) that “Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide.” She adds, “Why? Because of mass immigration and an abandonment of Western culture and traditions. Canada suffers from the same type of leadership — the same intellectualized nonchalance regarding the survival of Western civilization.”
She concludes that “It remains to be seen if Canada can escape the clutches of this death spiral.”
National Post
And more bits on the theological front…
Too mushy, weak, pacifist, Wendell Krossa
A friend has the hardest time embracing the belief that God can be no conditions love and justice in this world can still be effective, as in restraining the violent and holding all responsible for consequences of behavior. He cannot make that leap from an unconditionally loving God to the need to protect the innocent and robustly confront evil.
His point is that protecting the innocent here requires the backup image of an angry God breathing threats of hellfire. You need an angry god threatening damnation in order to have strong protective justice in this world. An unconditional God, in his view, promotes mushy, weak, soft pacifist love.
The psychologists Harold Ellens and Zenon Lotufo would respond that such monster God ideas do far more harm to human personality and societies, even promoting the nihilism and violence that most people want to avoid.
Dualism and Oneness realms, Wendell Krossa
The friend noted above cannot make the distinction between an Ultimate Reality that exists in a non-dual realm of Oneness, a Oneness that is love. That Reality and realm is distinct from this created material realm of dualism, the dualism of good against evil.
Others suggest the insights that this realm of dualism exists as a learning arena, a realm for experience with good and evil, and it is only in this realm of dualism that we can experience and learn what good is in contrast with evil as we exercise our free choice for good against evil. Without authentically free choice, real moral good is meaningless.
Authentically free will and free choice is absolutely vital to there being the possibility to experience and produce authentic good. This makes absolute nonsense of the arguments of those like Sam Harris who dismiss the reality of free will.
On the difficulty some have with the adjective “unconditional”, Wendell Krossa
Bob Brinsmead tried to help the mutual friend above to understand that unconditional deity, and the related ideal of unconditional love, does not mean no consequences in this life. It’s about ideals that draw us on to higher and better, about the nature of deity as ultimate ideal, about theodicy as in the defense of ultimate Goodness, and about what functions best as the most humane guide for life and treatment of others, also how we maintain our humanity in fighting evil, and more.
First, the friend having difficulty with an unconditional God and robust justice restraining evil:
“One should not read the book of Revelation as the Fundamentalists do. And you really can’t read and understand it if you think that the love of God is unconditional. Remember the story of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman who was caught in an act of adultery? Jesus condemned them but he also said to the adulteress “go and sin no more”. There is an inherent sense of morality in genuine love. Genuine love can effect an ethical transformation in our outlook and behaviour.”
“I beseech you Robert to let us all know that you believe that God is not just a God of love. Is he not also a God of justice?”
Bob’s response:
“___, may I suggest that you misunderstand and misconstrue the meaning of the adjective “unconditional.” It seems to me you change its meaning as if the word was “inconsequential.” Love is our birthright. We love our children whether they are good or bad just like God sends sunshine and rain on good and bad alike. But to accept love is going to have consequences. Don’t confuse no conditions with no consequences. If we think straight, we will shoot straight. I don’t see how any of us are so stupid that we might not accept “genuine love can effect an ethical transformation in our outlook and behaviour.” Since I am a Universalist, I accept what you say unconditionally. Love is unconditional. Love is not inconsequential. For Pete’s sake…. I laugh because this is so simple.”
My added comment (Wendell Krossa):
“Yes, I don’t see the conflict here, ___. God is unconditional reality, but we live in a world with natural and social consequences and for what reason? There are all sorts of speculations about this- Joseph Campbell offered his points, the theodicy people offer all sorts of insights, and on and on. Because God views us unconditionally and treats us unconditionally (i.e. sun and rain given to good and bad) does not then mean that we are then pushed to embrace some form of dogmatic pacifism as the only option or conclusion to make from an unconditional deity. The benefit and good influence of the Jesus insight speaks for itself- “Love your enemy because God does”. It’s the best of ideals to wrestle with and aim for.”
“____, Jesus responded to exactly that in stating there should be no more “eye for eye” justice but instead there should be “love your enemy” justice. And he illustrated it with the most common of evidence- God gives the good gifts of life, critical for that agrarian society, to all alike, without discrimination or exclusion of any, without tribal favoring of ‘true believers’ (the good guys) and punitive destruction of the bad guys. Universalism.
“But here we are in this realm of dualism for some reason. To “learn lessons”? To understand true moral good by freely choosing against evil? That can only happen in a realm of dualism.
“So, find out your reasons for understanding all this but it does not change the truth that Jesus pointed to- that in the Oneness that is God, there is only no conditions love. That “stunning new theology” was critical to the psychosomatic healing ministry of Jesus, to tell people there was no ultimate threat and thereby relieve their anxiety and fear.
“And we add to the Jesus insights that, yes, in life there are natural and social consequences to our behavior, as vital to human development, growth, maturing.”
More on the inflamed tribalism of today– Wendell Krossa
I hear a lot of concern voiced today about the intense tribalism and consequent bitter hatred between left and right factions of our societies with excessive vilification of differing others as irredeemable enemies, along with calls for censoring, banning, and even criminalizing of the differing others. Varied public commentators are asking- How do we get out of this mess and back to something better, to what we remember was a better time with less vitriol, more cooperation in our shared existence, an overall more peaceful time. We remember, for example, that over previous decades there was more tolerance of diversity and mutual respect, despite differences.
My British paraphrase of a ‘French’ expression- What the ‘fook’ happened over this past decade?
The point on this site is not just to try and trace what is behind things like the tribal impulse, to just note historical origins (i.e. the ultimate origin of tribalism from our animal past, subsequently validated, for example, by religious myths of “cosmic dualism”). The project here is more than just understanding what incites and validates such dark impulses. This site is concerned to then also discover how to counter such pathology in order to prevent further destruction from this impulse (i.e. division, exclusion, hatred among populations).
More so, this site is focused on how to successfully win the real battle of life, the real “battle of good against evil” that is the inner battle to conquer the “evil triad” of animal impulses inside each of us. Winning that battle first, then enables us to better contribute to solving the greater public battles of our societies.
That then focuses consciousness on what weapons have the wise sages given us to slay our monsters?
And this ties into a major point of this site. It’s about ultimate meaning and purpose- the big questions of life, ultimate realities, and ultimate ideals that tell us how to get to the more humane future that we all want.
This site does not accept “subconscious archetypes” as immutable, permanent realities in their current forms. Notably, the archetypes of “(1) Lost paradise. (2) Essentially corrupt humans ruined paradise and hence deserve divine punishment. (3) Life is now declining toward something worse, toward apocalyptic ending. (4) Salvation as the demand for sacrifice/payment/punishment and (5) suffering as redemptive. (6) Divine demand for violent purging of an evil enemy that threatens one’s world. (7) Divine demand to engage a hero’s quest to conquer and exterminate an irredeemably evil enemy. And (8) the promise of salvation in a restored paradise or new utopian communalism.”
The concern of this site is how to change/transform these long-embedded archetypes. I suggest that it helps to start with your personal narrative themes and exchange those for better alternatives and then let that transformation of mind and spirit work back into the subconscious.
As before, this site repeats the critical importance of insights that help to counter tribalism- i.e. human oneness, Mitochondrial Eve, quantum entanglement, NDE insights.
My full list of alternative themes for narratives:
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
Anyway, here is some more on the tribal impulse…
This is kind of Christmassy….
This site is “obsessed” with some of the biggest questions of conscious human existence- i.e. Why are we here on this planet for a brief life experience? For what purpose? And why is love so dominant to understanding our primary impulse for meaning and purpose? And what does love really mean and involve? I mean that profoundly disturbing statement of Historical Jesus to “love your enemies” that points to the highest reach of love. What icons like Nelson Mandela wrestled with and applied to great success in, for example, preventing civil war in South Africa, post-apartheid (“Mandela’s Way: Lessons for an Uncertain Age”, Richard Stengel).
And the probing for better answers goes on and on….
Here is more on understanding the deeply buried/embedded things (archetypes of the subconscious) that are behind the public presentation of varied issues in our societies. This is followed with how we might eliminate the pathologies in the mix of archetypes (i.e. the inhumane themes), how we transform that background influence on human consciousness, narratives, and society, Wendell Krossa
Political leaders, activists on both sides, and media present all sorts of policy issues to our societies that have to be confronted, debated, voted on, and resolved through the application of varied policies. While observing the public debate around all sorts of issues, keep in mind the bigger background picture of what is going on, what is happening behind all the public narratives, projects, programs, and resulting policy crusades.
The background influences?
Yes, that framework of archetypal ideas that are repeatedly manifested in our meta-narratives, the ever-persisting themes of “lost paradise, life declining toward worse, toward apocalypse, the demand for sacrifice and for purging of some evil threat, the obligation to join the right side of some battle against threatening enemies, to purge evil, and the promise of restored paradise in communal utopia, etc.”.
A critical issue that rightly worries many today… tribalism and the associated crusade to re-establish the elite/commoner divide of societies.
Notable in the mix of public issues today, we are being assaulted once again by the same old tribal dualism, presented over the past century and a half, or so, as the Marxist “oppressor/oppressed” divide of humanity. This time the tribal dualism is coming at us mainly through the “neo-Marxism” of Woke Progressivism, with its tribal divide of humanity according to the new DEI categorization by skin color. The new discrimination crusade of “Woke Racism”.
Insert: And we also keep an eye on the Right with that ever-present impulse from the fringe to establish some form of a Christian theocracy.
Today’s neo-Marxism still pushes the same oppressor/oppressed categories of capital owners as oppressors who are set against workers/peasants as oppressed (“big corporate power against workers/citizens”). Contemporary versions of collectivism frame the tribal divide in terms of the “victimizer/victim” categorization, with people divided into either group according to skin color. That is a rejection of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society. It is known as the “identity politics” of the DEI crusade.
What these “newish” collectivist programs are re-establishing once again is what Richard Landes terms the ancient “elite/commoner” divide that has dominated human societies from the beginning. Some, like historian Arthur Herman in “The Cave and the Light”, trace this elite/commoner divide down from the Greeks- i.e. Plato and Aristotle, with Plato as the collectivist guy versus Aristotle the individual freedom guy.
I also bring in two other prominent influencers of Western civilization who make a significant contribution to validating the elite/commoner divide in human societies- Paul and Jesus, through their ongoing influence on the meta-narratives of the West. James Tabor, for example, in “Paul and Jesus”, rightly states the significant magnitude of their influence.
Paul re-enforced tribal dualism with his Christ myth and the demand for belief in his Christ as necessary for acceptance into the tribe of true believers that put people on the right tribal side for eternity (see Revelation chapters 19, 20). Unbelievers will be assigned to the outsider tribe to be excluded and damned for eternity. That is an extremist version of the tribal division of humanity, tribalism as an eternal reality. Zoroaster’s cosmic metaphysical dualism.
Paul also re-enforced elite domination of commoners with his urging slaves to submit to masters, wives to submit to husbands, and all to submit to his Lord Christ. He argued that government elites were appointed by God to rule commoners (Romans 13).
Jesus, to the contrary, rejected tribalism outright in both his message and his behavior. He presented a stunning new theology of a non-tribal God who refused to discriminate against the “bad people/enemies” but generously included them in his universal love, sending sun and rain on all alike, equally. Jesus further exhibited universalism by including the outcasts of his day in the critical rituals of social inclusion of his society- i.e. at meals, the important group occasions of Jewish culture that proclaimed who in the society were acceptable and who were not. Jesus challenged the divisive nature of that tradition and powerfully illustrated his inclusion of all, even those considered the most socially “unworthy”.
Note also his stories of universal inclusion as illustrated in the Good Samaritan short story, and the generous and forgiving Prodigal Father as representing God, making the point there was no demand from deity for sacrifice/payment under threat of tribal exclusion. The wasteful “criminal” son was included as fully as the righteous son.
Historical Jesus further rejected elite domination of commoners in his clear statements that true greatness was to not lord over others, like the gentile rulers did, but to serve others.
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you…whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave”.
These two religious icons- Paul and Jesus- have had a significant ongoing influence in Western civilization.
Insert note on the importance of countering the tribalism that has long been deeply embedded in the archetypes of the human collective subconscious. I repeatedly reference the “subconscious” because a friend, who has researched this, has oft reminded me that some 90-plus percent of human behavior is influenced by the subconscious. Most people just act in certain intuitive ways without consciously thinking about how they will act.
Continuing…
Add to Jesus “spiritual” message of universal inclusion other facts that we have discovered about human oneness in this world- i.e. the oneness of the human family affirmed by the fact (1) that all human beings on Earth today are descendants of a “Mitochondrial Eve”, (2) by the fact that “quantum entanglement” speaks to a more fundamental oneness behind all reality, and by the “truth” of (3) the NDE insights/discoveries of the ultimate Oneness that we are all part of, all inseparable from.
Meaning that there is no ultimate eternal cosmic dualism of good and evil, no metaphysical/spiritual realm of true believers versus unbelievers. There is only the Oneness of the ultimate unconditional Love that is God. There is no heaven versus Hell or other eternal tribal dualism as per Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism.
The mental/philosophical burden on us is then to grapple with and understand this world with its dualism of good and evil, as separate from the Ultimate Oneness that is love.
Varied “spiritual” sages have suggested that this material realm of dualism exists as a learning arena, a place where we come temporarily to engage struggles against evil in order to learn and experience true good. And the battle of good against evil in this world must be taken seriously, though as Solzhenitsyn reminds us, the most critical arena for this battle takes place inside each one of us, the struggle of our better angels against the animal inheritance in us. It is not primarily a struggle of human against human.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all human hearts.”
Insert:
It helps, as we engage the dualism battles of this world, to hold the big background assurance of ultimate Oneness and Ultimate Reality as unconditional love. The comfort factor. The nature of God as a Oneness of no conditions love also functions as the highest guiding ideal for humanity. It points to how we maintain our own humanity as we engage battles against evil in this life.
“For love is exactly as strong as life. And when life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending ‘from loyalty of heart’: however, if the principle of (universal, unconditional) love (i.e. Christ’s “Love your enemies”) is lost thereby, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’” (Joseph Campbell, “Myths To Live By”).
Meaning– Never forget that who you may dismiss as your “enemy” is still intimate family, ultimately.
When we triumph in the inner battle, then we are properly prepared to go forth and engage the public battles of life, cautioned by Joseph Campbell’s advice that those we view and fight as “enemies” are still our family, to be treated with restorative justice, not punitive. And that does not mean treated with dogmatic pacifism. Unconditional love tends to be wrongly associated with love as mushy, fuzzy pacifism of the “turn the other cheek” variety. That does not work in the face of real evil.
Each of us is fully responsible for our choices and behavior. Meaning that those among us who cannot or will not control their worst impulses must be restrained (incarcerated) to protect innocent others. And if psychopathy is involved then the key must be thrown away. That is the foremost obligation of justice systems and of any common-sense, the robust protect of innocent people.
The rest of us are obligated by love to treat failing humans around us humanely, to make the effort at rehabilitation. If we succumb to punitive, inhumane treatment of offenders then we will lose our own humanity. Leo Tolstoy was right that we are obligated to treat others with love in “all the situations of life”. He is not referring to love as primarily a feeling but love as the intention and follow-up action to do the humane thing in all situations. Like the tired “post-partum depressed” mother getting up to feed the crying baby in the middle of the night for the umpteenth time (while hubby snores on), and not feeling loving at all but forcing herself to do the right thing, the humane thing.
Back to the big picture background of issues in our societies…
The above points on the re-emerging and intensifying tribalism in the neo-collectivist movements of today brings to the fore the task of understanding tribal dualism and the factors from across history that have incited and affirmed this pathology.
Just picking a point in history where an important mental pathology was introduced to human narratives that incited and validated the impulse to tribalism…
Begin with Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism of a good God (Ahura Mazda) in a metaphysical war with an evil Force (Angra Mainyu). People today believe that Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism is expressed in the great battles of good against evil that take place here on Earth.
That “spiritual”, or ultimate tribalism, is replicated down through subsequent religious versions of tribalism (true believers joining some “true religion” in battles against unbelievers or the false religions). Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism myth has long influenced Western narratives and civilization, including in the present in varied secularized versions. Scholars note that Zoroaster’s theology powerfully shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These religions then shaped Western civilization, including historically subsequent “secular/ideological” systems of beliefs that still dominate the consciousness of the modern world.
Add also the ongoing influence of Zoroaster’s myth of apocalypse. That theme shaped Judaism, Christianity and Islam as apocalyptic movements. Note the secularized version of this in the apocalyptic “climate crisis” crusade.
This site is committed to probing and understanding these fundamental contributing factors to today’s problems, the primitive beliefs that we have inherited that continue to shape public and personal narratives that in turn shape human minds, emotions, motivations, and behavior, including at-scale in societies.
This site hits the tribal dualism element (and associated elite domination) as part of the animal inheritance in all people of the “evil triad” of impulses to (1) small band or tribal orientation, (2) to alpha domination of weaker others, and (3) to punitive, retaliatory extermination of competitors, of differing others outside the tribal limits.
The tribal impulse has been a never-ending curse on humanity, inciting endless violence of group against differing group. Tribalism reaches the extreme of destructiveness when embedded within the deformed hero’s quest where there is the felt obligation to conquer and destroy some irredeemable enemy that threatens one’s world with apocalyptic ending. That then affirms Arthur Mendel’s point that apocalyptic has been the most violent and destructive idea in history.
Added note: Historians have noted the perpetual state of war between tribes of the primitive past.
Example- Steven Le Blanc and Katherine Register’s “Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage” where they detail the curse that tribalism has been across human history.
This from the Amazon blurb on their book:
“With armed conflict in the Persian Gulf now upon us, Harvard archaeologist Steven LeBlanc takes a long-term view of the nature and roots of war, presenting a controversial thesis: The notion of the “noble savage” living in peace with one another and in harmony with nature is a fantasy. In Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, LeBlanc contends that warfare and violent conflict have existed throughout human history…
“Constant Battles surveys human history in terms of social organization-from hunter gatherers, to tribal agriculturalists, to more complex societies. LeBlanc takes the reader on his own digs around the world — from New Guinea to the Southwestern U.S. to Turkey — to show how he has come to discover warfare everywhere at every time…”
We can overcome and vanquish this inherited impulse to tribalism with new insights to reframe our narratives around themes of fundamental oneness, centered on the universalism that stems from insights like Jesus’ stunning new theology of an unconditional, nontribal God. Meaning- there is no dualism in the Ultimate Reality that creates and sustains all in existence. There is only ‘Oneness’ that is a stunningly inexpressible unconditional love. Let that become the new cohering center of narratives, the center of TOE.
That is a stunning new framing of humanity’s ultimate ideal- deity. The ideal that gives overarching purpose to human life.
And that Oneness is our true home. My paraphrased take on “In God we live and move and have our home”…. “We come from that love, live in that love, and return to that love”. Have a great Christmas everyone.
Anyway, to conclude this comment- this is about transforming deeply embedded subconscious archetypes through exchanging/transforming the core themes of our narratives.
Added note: Here is a reposting of earlier comment on tribal dualism in response to something stated by Tucker Carlson…
Probing more the topic of tribal dualism, Wendell Krossa (This is a response to a recent interview of Tucker Carlson where he suggested there was a greater cosmic spiritual battle between good and evil that was expressed in the battles of good against evil in this world. Nah.)
To fully understand the problem of tribal dualism it is enough to recognize the Zoroastrian myth of the cosmic dualism of a Good God versus a satanic spirit, and how that metaphysical dualism has been used to validate much of human tribal dualisms across history.
But I do not believe there is some great spiritual battle behind our earthly struggles of good against evil. I do not believe that some evil spiritual entity or force exists behind the evil that we confront in life. I could be wrong, but I think that the evil in life can be explained well enough in terms of the animal inheritance inside us, particularly by the evil triad of animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive retaliation to harm and destroy differing others.
What we see as the cold cruelty exhibited by psychopathic personalities correlates with the same callousness of the hungry animal predator, as in the lion tearing and eating the baby antelope. Where Robert Hare termed it the “alien brain” I would call it the animal brain.
Others have suggested this also. See, for example, “Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil”, by Lyall Watson.
Amazon advertising blurb on this book:
“At a time when violence threatens to become epidemic and genocide takes the place of diplomacy in many regions of the world, it is no longer enough to simply dismiss such dark behavior as “human nature.” People need to know why such atrocities and horrors take place, and the usual moral, religious, political and philosophical explanations have proved inadequate.
“With Dark Nature, world naturalist Lyall Watson presents a scientific examination of evil. Drawing on the latest insights of genetics, evolutionary ethology, anthropology and psychology, he takes the discussion of evil out of the realm of monsters and demons to reveal it for what it truly A biological reality that may be terrifying but can be controlled. Groundbreaking, fascinating and eminently readable, Dark Nature is a vital and timely antidote to modern despair.”
Further, add here Jeffrey Schwartz’s book “You Are Not Your Brain”, and apply that title to the animal inheritance in our brain. That inheritance of animal impulses is not the real us, it is not our true human self. We are something higher and better with a human spirit that is inseparable from the God that is love.
The overall story of humanity is the story of exodus from our animal past to become human. And our human consciousness and human spirit are something uniquely different from the animal. We are not our animal inheritance, despite the residual influence of that in our brains.
Added note re Tucker Carlson interview:
I noted above that Zoroaster is a good place to start in trying to understand the tribal impulse because he formalized a theological explanation to validate the impulse to tribalism, to give it divine endorsement as something we are gifted with from God. The feeling of being on the side of right, of fighting for the righteous God, while our enemies are on the side of wrong and deserve destruction.
This is why I caution against Tucker Carlson’s belief that our battles in life express some greater behind-the-scenes warfare between God and Satan. The danger then is that some of us will lean on such mythology for approval, viewing our positions as unchallengeable righteousness and convincing ourselves that we are on the unquestionable right side in disputes, heroes fighting those who differ in some way from us as irredeemable, intolerable evil that must be destroyed.
Bringing in the divine approval factor for tribalism tends to exaggerate the good versus evil element in our battles. Not to say that there are no authentic situations of good versus evil in life. There are. But we don’t need the divine element to exaggerate and distort such situations further, feeding our sense of self-righteousness and intolerance of evil that then leads us to forget that our “enemies” are still family, as per Joseph Campbell’s caution. Then we lose our humanity.
More on challenging the appeal to Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism… Wendell Krossa
Point? Be careful about dragging ultimate Good into the muddier parts of our existence here on Earth.
Framing our tribalism in terms of a divine model (cosmic dualism) can intensify and deform our episodes of tribal experience here, our battles against differing others. The recent US election illustrated this- i.e. opponents exaggeratedly demonized as “Nazis, Hitler, fascists, threats to democracy, racists…etc.”
We don’t need the extra validation, with appeals to heaven, when we already tend to distort the hero’s quest by viewing ourselves as more purely righteous in opposition to differing others as irredeemably evil. Such distortion is already a danger (“narcissism, ego-maniac, psychopathy”?) and we don’t need to add divine approval to our own tendency to distort and exaggerate our righteousness as opposed to the purported evil of others, as though we are living out some greater metaphysical battle of good against evil.
Tribalism is enough of a pathology to struggle against without framing it as divinely sourced, as a god-like urge when we express it.
This has been a long-term issue across history- i.e. people placing pathologies under the “canopy of the sacred”, thereby putting them out of reach as unquestionable, untouchable realities. That only makes problems between differing groups even harder to resolve. Framing myself as heroically involved in a “divine cause”, how then can I admit that I might not be fully in the right and the other may not be irredeemably evil?
We are all susceptible to letting our impulse to meaning take us into deformity, to lead us astray, especially when we try to validate the worst of our animal impulses to tribalism, domination of others, or punitive destruction of others. Our impulse to meaning often expresses in the tendency of most people to want to be like Daddy (ultimate Daddy) as in the “behavior based on ultimate ideals or realities”- e.g. “Be merciful just as your Father in heaven is merciful”. Most humans across history, responding to the primal impulse for meaning/purpose, have wanted to get approval from the Big Daddy and that impulse can deform the hero’s quest.
Don’t drag deity into the pathology of the animal. Books like Alex Garcia’s “Alpha God: The Psychology Of Religious Violence And Oppression” have noted the deformity that is the result of framing deity with animal features. We get monster gods as ultimate animals, ultimate predators that are tribal chieftains (favor insiders to the tribe, exclude outsiders), dominating lords/kings, and punitively destroying judges.
Don’t deform deity with the animal. This has been one of the essential failures of religions across history with their tribal, dominating, and punitively destroying deities.
This is why this site focuses repeatedly on the feature of “unconditional” as the ultimate in humaneness, the highest understanding of what is most humane, the highest good, the ultimate reach of love. Unconditional is the best that we have discovered to define what love and good are, and we then naturally and correctly assume the Ultimate Good that is God is such love to transcendent level.
I wish there were some other less-misunderstood term, but unconditional best contrasts what is truly human with the inherited animal in us.
Even though we struggle to understand how to apply the unconditional ideal in this life, as an ideal to model our lives according to, it still best defines deity as the highest good. And that explains my “theodicy” (defense of Ultimate Good).
And am I being a bit too tough on Tucker?
This interesting bit from “OutKick.com”
“DEI training led people to agree with Hitler quotes: Study”, Ian Miller, Nov. 26, 2024
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/dei-trainings-led-people-agree-hitler-quotes-study
Miller notes a study on “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” training programs and the impact on individual’s perceptions and behavior that revealed negative outcomes. The study examined the programs of DEI advocates like Ibram Kendi that try to “emphasize awareness of and opposition to ‘systemic oppression’.”
Miller says the study found that instead of promoting empathy, tolerance, and less racism, DEI pushed people to wrongly identify prejudice and hostility where none was present and then to react to that imagined racism “with anger and vitriol”.
“Across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, they engendered a hostile attribution bias, amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice.”
As others have similarly noted “Woke Racism” (John McWhorter) causes more harm that it purportedly alleviates. DEI activists see racism where none exists and then want to punish the imagined racists severely, smearing them with dehumanizing terms as “parasites, viruses, the devil personified.” That them becomes what we have seen in totalitarian societies.
Miller concludes, “Instead of creating tolerance, acceptance and agreeable traits, DEI training and authors like Kendi and DiAngelo create hostility, disagreement and demonization. Because instead of instructing readers to treat people fairly, equally and with respect, they create a victim/oppressor ideology…. It’s harmful, malicious work.”