Well-articulated as always. The Kali Yuga cycle is what was identified in the book I finished reading a few months ago, The Fourth Turning: What the cycles of history tell us about our next rendezvous with destiny (the subtitle seems to change a bit every time I Google the book). And we are indeed in the turning for destruction. But, it should last for about 8-10 years, unless we decide to prolong it with exceedingly bad decisions (so far, as bad as things are, I see us heading for resolution one day).
I am about to start an article about the moral confusion and lost moral compass of the left and how much it's become like the right, which led the way in same. The left can't fight the evil when it's become what they claim to fight. And when you don't dare speak the truth right in front of your eyes, you're already fighting for the wrong side.
Wow I had wondered if Howe had taken from the yugas, and if I should read it. I think Howe is incorrect-the degeneration will continue, because people are too scared of social censure.
Actually he says it will get much worse before it gets better. Should resolve itself in 8-10 years and better time would be next. Unless the world chooses authoritarianism, which at the moment is more of a threat from the right than the left.
It is somewhat hard for us outsiders to follow this fully without already knowing the Mahabharata.
But overall, it reminds me of "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome." This is POSIWID, "The purpose of a system is what it does". If you're a clever engineer, you stop trying to get this particular academic or leader to do what you want give you money and power, and set the parameters of the whole class of people. That is, define what lawyers can and can't do, what doctors can and can't say. Then although they act admirably according to their position, overall it leads to their tragedy for your own personal profit. Then you'd have to break out of your own specialty and understand the larger picture to realize and remedy this, and most people can't, don't think of it, don't have time.
Understandable. I tried to keep it to just the localized concepts rather than summarizing the story, but there's a lot more to explore here. The root cause I see is a concern with social status over the greater good, which leads to the enforcement of credentialism, which I think is what you're referring to.
Good article, but in terms of the Mahabharata I seem to recall Karna knew he was a kshatriya well before the start of the war, especially since Parasurama (who had vowed never to teach kshatriyas) expressly cursed him for being one when he showed the ability to withstand the pain of a bug boring into his thigh so as not to disturb his guru’s sleep.
We need a doctrine for this seemingly unsolvable puzzle of human moral conflict. I have my own principle that helps me with objective assessment. I take each side of a moral conflict and evaluate its threat of harm and if it is offense or defense. In addition, I ask if is intending perpetual dominance, or only temporary defense of the harm that would result if losing.
Lets use the woke movement as an example. The claim from the practitioners is that they are advocating for victims and want to force permanent societal change that is clearly harmful to many... white males and female athletes for example. There is a new meme of "woke right" being a new threat of harm to vulnerable people as a backlash to the woke attempt. However, with the exception of a very small cohort of extreme right radicals that always exist, what we are seeing is simply a defense against the woke left to put things back to where they had been before. There is no woke-right movement to subjugate the practitioners of woke. In fact, the right fully supports wokeist's free speech rights. The conflict is the woke take over of institutions that exploit power and influence to force harmful change on others for the benefit of a very few... that really don't benefit the victims they claim they are helping.
So there is really no moral comparison with woke-left and woke-right. The right is a defense to prevent harm. There was already acceptance for gay and trans people in society. We had already progressed to racial equality that included a two-term black president... racial outcomes are a completely different topic as made apparent by the race of Asians with a history of great oppression in this country and yet they today have economic outcomes in excess of whites. The same with gender equality. More women achieve college degrees than to men these days. Women dominate the majority of industries with job growth. Gender pay gaps are non existent with factoring days, years and hours of work on the job between genders.
So returning to a pre-woke era is no threat of harm, and thus there is no moral comparison.
The same is true for a pacifist culture that would take up arms against a foe that would kill them. Defense from being attacked rides much higher on the moral scale... even when that defense employs morally-questionable actions. As long as the effort of defense does not revert to attack to perpetually dominate the enemy in excess of what is required to secure safety and security.
Let's say you absolutely know that your neighbor plots to murder you and your family and no official will take any action. What if you murdered your neighbor first to save yourself and your family? Murder is wrong, right? It is immoral in principle. However, if on the jury for that trial with the evidence that the dead neighbor was plotting to kill the defendant and her family, I would find the defendant innocent.
Now let's say the neighbor succeeds in killing a family member, and then serves life in prison. If a surviving family members kills a member of the killer's family in retribution, that is a clear immoral act that isn't in defense... it becomes harmful offense.
That is the trick of the left... instigate harmful offense actions and then claim they are victims of harm from the defense of from those that oppose their actions. However, as long as those that oppose their actions are only acting in defense, and not in retribution to cause unneeded harm, they are moral actions.
Use an example of the current LA violence against ICE. Trump is sending the National Guard. If a rioter is injured or killed by the defensive action, the left will claim it is an immoral act. But it is not.
Not yet, but funnily enough, a Hindu friend recommended I read it about a week ago as part of a conversation we were having about cyclicality and other Shiva-related themes, which is partly why your piece caught my eye in the first place. We are planning a trip next year to the Shiva Temple from his childhood in Andhra Pradesh, so I plan to do a lot of reading before then.
I've been reading your work for some time and I just wanted to say this might be the best thing you've written. I, too, grew up watching the BR Chopra series, and the Mahabharata contains very deep truths about the human condition and society. But you've made it relevant to us moderns in a way I haven't seen before. I hope you continue to expand on this.
Wow, thank you so much! I know this will probably less popular than some of my most recent stuff, but philosophy is rarely popular. I’m curious what you think about these two expansions: first, examining the different versions of masculinity and dharma exemplified by the pandavas, Karna and Duryodhan, and second the competing visions of Indian nationhood that Doordarshan inadvertently pushed by commissioning the MBh and the Ramayan series and the latter’s influence on the Hindu nationalist movement.
I've read quite a lot of academic work about the revival of Hindutva that resulted from DD airing first Ramayana & then Mahabharat. I don't think it was inadvertent necessarily, I've heard it was Rajiv Gandhi pandering when the Ram Janmabhoomi became an issue, and he didn't want to get out-Hindu'd by the newly ascendant BJP. If you had a different take on that though I would read it.
I think you might have something new and insightful to say about the different visions of masculinity, even among the Pandavas but especially between them, Karna, & Duryodhan, & how it can apply to us moderns.
I went from being reflexively anti Hindu nationalist to being suspicious of both dominant strains of thought on the subject. When I was in my grad program I became obsessed with understanding Hindutva because a Marxist Indian professor of English told me the Hindu Student Council was funded by the VHP. Suddenly I felt like Bhakti was tainted, and I regret letting my own spiritual life get derailed by academia. But thank you, that gives me a direction. Masculinity it is. Did you study this stuff in the academy also?
It is abundantly obvious that the Russian leadership does not want to make war on what they still see as sadly misguided brethren. That there is still a bridge in Ukraine standing is a tribute to Russian indecisiveness in a war that they clearly do not want.
Interesting analogies to today...and now I'm interested in reading these stories myself.
Another take on what's happening today...the Left (and the globalist PMCs) is remarkably similar to the British aristocracy immediately prior to and after WW1; using their power and position simply to hold on to power and position, and thus never able to comprehend why that power and position was slipping away as they led Britain (and the U.S.) into disaster after disaster...
A real generator of dysfunction is the misappropriation of ‘kindness’ (niceness is more apt, I think). Kindness is an individual quality, which can only be expressed by and to individuals.
That reality has been muddled, such that people see kindness as an attitude towards groups and categories. People mistakenly believe that they’re being kind by holding certain opinions or supporting certain qualities, and they’re cruel towards the people who don’t (even people in their lives - even friends). The proper grounding of kindness has been inverted, which allows people to feel righteous based purely on their beliefs. No action or sacrifice or risk is required in this false and easy scheme; if you express certain opinions, you’re a good person, even if you’re spiteful and self-centered and timid. If you don’t, you’re a bad person, even if you’re brave and true and compassionate. I see instances of this confusion every day. It’s nearly ubiquitous in certain parts of elite society. It’s a very poisonous development.
Well-articulated as always. The Kali Yuga cycle is what was identified in the book I finished reading a few months ago, The Fourth Turning: What the cycles of history tell us about our next rendezvous with destiny (the subtitle seems to change a bit every time I Google the book). And we are indeed in the turning for destruction. But, it should last for about 8-10 years, unless we decide to prolong it with exceedingly bad decisions (so far, as bad as things are, I see us heading for resolution one day).
I am about to start an article about the moral confusion and lost moral compass of the left and how much it's become like the right, which led the way in same. The left can't fight the evil when it's become what they claim to fight. And when you don't dare speak the truth right in front of your eyes, you're already fighting for the wrong side.
Wow I had wondered if Howe had taken from the yugas, and if I should read it. I think Howe is incorrect-the degeneration will continue, because people are too scared of social censure.
Actually he says it will get much worse before it gets better. Should resolve itself in 8-10 years and better time would be next. Unless the world chooses authoritarianism, which at the moment is more of a threat from the right than the left.
It is somewhat hard for us outsiders to follow this fully without already knowing the Mahabharata.
But overall, it reminds me of "Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome." This is POSIWID, "The purpose of a system is what it does". If you're a clever engineer, you stop trying to get this particular academic or leader to do what you want give you money and power, and set the parameters of the whole class of people. That is, define what lawyers can and can't do, what doctors can and can't say. Then although they act admirably according to their position, overall it leads to their tragedy for your own personal profit. Then you'd have to break out of your own specialty and understand the larger picture to realize and remedy this, and most people can't, don't think of it, don't have time.
Understandable. I tried to keep it to just the localized concepts rather than summarizing the story, but there's a lot more to explore here. The root cause I see is a concern with social status over the greater good, which leads to the enforcement of credentialism, which I think is what you're referring to.
A stunning read 💥Thank you, Geraldine
Good article, but in terms of the Mahabharata I seem to recall Karna knew he was a kshatriya well before the start of the war, especially since Parasurama (who had vowed never to teach kshatriyas) expressly cursed him for being one when he showed the ability to withstand the pain of a bug boring into his thigh so as not to disturb his guru’s sleep.
We need a doctrine for this seemingly unsolvable puzzle of human moral conflict. I have my own principle that helps me with objective assessment. I take each side of a moral conflict and evaluate its threat of harm and if it is offense or defense. In addition, I ask if is intending perpetual dominance, or only temporary defense of the harm that would result if losing.
Lets use the woke movement as an example. The claim from the practitioners is that they are advocating for victims and want to force permanent societal change that is clearly harmful to many... white males and female athletes for example. There is a new meme of "woke right" being a new threat of harm to vulnerable people as a backlash to the woke attempt. However, with the exception of a very small cohort of extreme right radicals that always exist, what we are seeing is simply a defense against the woke left to put things back to where they had been before. There is no woke-right movement to subjugate the practitioners of woke. In fact, the right fully supports wokeist's free speech rights. The conflict is the woke take over of institutions that exploit power and influence to force harmful change on others for the benefit of a very few... that really don't benefit the victims they claim they are helping.
So there is really no moral comparison with woke-left and woke-right. The right is a defense to prevent harm. There was already acceptance for gay and trans people in society. We had already progressed to racial equality that included a two-term black president... racial outcomes are a completely different topic as made apparent by the race of Asians with a history of great oppression in this country and yet they today have economic outcomes in excess of whites. The same with gender equality. More women achieve college degrees than to men these days. Women dominate the majority of industries with job growth. Gender pay gaps are non existent with factoring days, years and hours of work on the job between genders.
So returning to a pre-woke era is no threat of harm, and thus there is no moral comparison.
The same is true for a pacifist culture that would take up arms against a foe that would kill them. Defense from being attacked rides much higher on the moral scale... even when that defense employs morally-questionable actions. As long as the effort of defense does not revert to attack to perpetually dominate the enemy in excess of what is required to secure safety and security.
Let's say you absolutely know that your neighbor plots to murder you and your family and no official will take any action. What if you murdered your neighbor first to save yourself and your family? Murder is wrong, right? It is immoral in principle. However, if on the jury for that trial with the evidence that the dead neighbor was plotting to kill the defendant and her family, I would find the defendant innocent.
Now let's say the neighbor succeeds in killing a family member, and then serves life in prison. If a surviving family members kills a member of the killer's family in retribution, that is a clear immoral act that isn't in defense... it becomes harmful offense.
That is the trick of the left... instigate harmful offense actions and then claim they are victims of harm from the defense of from those that oppose their actions. However, as long as those that oppose their actions are only acting in defense, and not in retribution to cause unneeded harm, they are moral actions.
Use an example of the current LA violence against ICE. Trump is sending the National Guard. If a rioter is injured or killed by the defensive action, the left will claim it is an immoral act. But it is not.
I had no idea how much my own writing was lining up to themes in the Bhagavad-Gita until I read this. Thanks for sharing this. It’s eye-opening.
Not yet, but funnily enough, a Hindu friend recommended I read it about a week ago as part of a conversation we were having about cyclicality and other Shiva-related themes, which is partly why your piece caught my eye in the first place. We are planning a trip next year to the Shiva Temple from his childhood in Andhra Pradesh, so I plan to do a lot of reading before then.
Wow that’s amazing. I will check yours out. Have you dived deep into the text at all?
I've been reading your work for some time and I just wanted to say this might be the best thing you've written. I, too, grew up watching the BR Chopra series, and the Mahabharata contains very deep truths about the human condition and society. But you've made it relevant to us moderns in a way I haven't seen before. I hope you continue to expand on this.
Wow, thank you so much! I know this will probably less popular than some of my most recent stuff, but philosophy is rarely popular. I’m curious what you think about these two expansions: first, examining the different versions of masculinity and dharma exemplified by the pandavas, Karna and Duryodhan, and second the competing visions of Indian nationhood that Doordarshan inadvertently pushed by commissioning the MBh and the Ramayan series and the latter’s influence on the Hindu nationalist movement.
I've read quite a lot of academic work about the revival of Hindutva that resulted from DD airing first Ramayana & then Mahabharat. I don't think it was inadvertent necessarily, I've heard it was Rajiv Gandhi pandering when the Ram Janmabhoomi became an issue, and he didn't want to get out-Hindu'd by the newly ascendant BJP. If you had a different take on that though I would read it.
I think you might have something new and insightful to say about the different visions of masculinity, even among the Pandavas but especially between them, Karna, & Duryodhan, & how it can apply to us moderns.
I went from being reflexively anti Hindu nationalist to being suspicious of both dominant strains of thought on the subject. When I was in my grad program I became obsessed with understanding Hindutva because a Marxist Indian professor of English told me the Hindu Student Council was funded by the VHP. Suddenly I felt like Bhakti was tainted, and I regret letting my own spiritual life get derailed by academia. But thank you, that gives me a direction. Masculinity it is. Did you study this stuff in the academy also?
Kind of, it's only tangentially related to my research. I read it more for background.
Oddly enough, I have been preoccupied with Krishna's speech to Arjuna, mainly in the context of the Russian leadership dithering in Ukraine.
Tell me more, intriguing
It is abundantly obvious that the Russian leadership does not want to make war on what they still see as sadly misguided brethren. That there is still a bridge in Ukraine standing is a tribute to Russian indecisiveness in a war that they clearly do not want.
I get the impression the people are trepidatious and going along with what elites want in the name of nationalism
Interesting analogies to today...and now I'm interested in reading these stories myself.
Another take on what's happening today...the Left (and the globalist PMCs) is remarkably similar to the British aristocracy immediately prior to and after WW1; using their power and position simply to hold on to power and position, and thus never able to comprehend why that power and position was slipping away as they led Britain (and the U.S.) into disaster after disaster...
A real generator of dysfunction is the misappropriation of ‘kindness’ (niceness is more apt, I think). Kindness is an individual quality, which can only be expressed by and to individuals.
That reality has been muddled, such that people see kindness as an attitude towards groups and categories. People mistakenly believe that they’re being kind by holding certain opinions or supporting certain qualities, and they’re cruel towards the people who don’t (even people in their lives - even friends). The proper grounding of kindness has been inverted, which allows people to feel righteous based purely on their beliefs. No action or sacrifice or risk is required in this false and easy scheme; if you express certain opinions, you’re a good person, even if you’re spiteful and self-centered and timid. If you don’t, you’re a bad person, even if you’re brave and true and compassionate. I see instances of this confusion every day. It’s nearly ubiquitous in certain parts of elite society. It’s a very poisonous development.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/ordo-amoris-inverted