Thoughts on the 3 Gods and the 4 castes.

[size=95]“[T]he presupposition of the existence of a self placed opposite to the world, at least as a mirroring point, is logically inevitable.” (Jung, “On the Psychology of the Child-Archetype”, 3, B.)

“[…] the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors […]” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 56.)[/size]
The genuine philosopher, the self that experiences the loving sensation of the perfection of the world as a whole, is in so doing a perfect part of that world. All parts of the world are in principle imperfects pursuing the perfect; they only become perfect by getting ahold of the perfect. The philosopher becomes perfect by getting ahold of the perfect that is the world as a whole—by con-ceiving of it as perfect. And with this he is the source of all perfection within the world. For by thus becoming perfect, he first makes it possible for non-philosophers to get ahold of something perfect. The highest non-philosopher is the genuine lover of philosophy—the self that experiences the loving sensation of the perfection of the genuine philosopher.

[size=95]“Misunderstanding of love. There is a slavish love that submits and gives itself; that idealizes, and deceives itself—there is a divine love that despises and loves, and reshapes and elevates the beloved.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 964, trans. Kaufmann.)[/size]
Think of the description in Plato’s Symposium of Socrates and Alcibiades lying alone together at night. Such intimacy between a philosopher and a warrior is the only perfect company, in the sense that two’s company, three’s a crowd. The only perfect crowd forms when a genuine lover of the love of philosophy, a self that experiences the loving sensation of the perfection of said perfect company, sanctions it publicly. Said perfect company is still private, and if it is the proper source of the concept of holy (more precisely sacred) matrimony, then said public sanction is the proper source of the institution of marriage.

Keirsey Temperament theory distinguishes between four basic types of human beings, or “temperaments”. The highest of these is the Rational, who yearns for Achievement. Compare:

[size=95]“The highest nature, the individual nature at the summit of the hierarchy of the natures, is the complementary man [i.e., the genuine philosopher]. His supremacy is shown by the fact that he solves the highest, the most difficult problem. This solution is the highest achievement[.]” ([/size]
The second-highest Keirsey temperament is the Idealist, who yearns for Romance. And what could be more romantic than an alone-togetherness of the kind described in Plato’s Symposium?

The third-highest Keirsey temperament is the Guardian, who yearns for Belonging. And by sanctioning the perfect company, the Guardian gets to belong to the perfect crowd.

The fourth and thereby lowest Keirsey temperament is the Artisan, who yearns for Impact. This Impact is impact on society, and the perfect society exists by virtue of the Guardian’s public sanction of the Rational’s and Idealist’s private love. The perfect Artisan is then the self that experiences the loving sensation of the perfection of said perfect society, as the perfect society to have an impact on. (A good example of an Artisan, by the way, albeit of a relatively low kind of Artisan, is the construction worker who loves making noise because in so doing he has an impact on other people’s lives.)

Thus far the four castes. I plan on discussing the three Gods—Brahmâ, Vishnu, and Rudra, i.e., the personifications of Creation, Preservation, and Destruction, respectively—later.


No, kidding, play on a old thread… anyway, the real post below:

Kiersey is the theory the US Army officially promotes as it’s Theory of Mind… I got into quite a few arguments with people over it. It’s primarily pushed because it’s simple, and a trained psychologist used to dealing with pissed off platoon sargents yabbering on about it can do emergency triage off of descriptions using it to access who needs to be seen immediately, and who needs a appointment. It’s a brutal and crude theory, with little in the way of finesse- people learn it by quartering the brain, and saying ‘this quarter does pretty much this, and that that’. Scary… you wouldn’t trust a car mechanic to do that… saying the left side of the front honks and controls the steering, and runs the electrical system somehow… while the right front has the engine and the air conditioning capacities… therefore, I diagnoses you hissing sound a front-left problem, and we’ll just have to get a new front-left!

All you gotta do is ask me and I can load you up with more advanced theories that discuss Jung and Nietzsche and Descartes, etc… pretty much anyone you study. Keirsey is a joke of a system, there are systems just like it a dime a dozen on the net, and is embarrassing to discuss on a philosophy site.

I mean, honestly, it’s simple enough for stupid grunts to understand… not exactly that deep. In the vedic system, it’s the warrior caste that is responsible for determining Dharma (Stoic Guardian, Me, and Walker), you really wouldn’t want us bringing the hammer down on you now, would you? Cause even though you think the philosopher varna is above the state- the Brahmin are untouchable by the Kshatriya, they are still judged, administered, and make or break their fortunes by the Kshatriya, and fall out of status by the Kshatriya neglecting or not recognizing them as such… cause your not born a Brahmin, you gotta prove you are one, and and end up just the ‘son of a Brahmin’.

You also gotta factor in the geneology of these varna’s lead to a mixed paradox of interbreeding… Shiva was a Brahmin, Indra was not… yet Shiva broke shit left and right. Even in the Mahabharata, this is dealt with in the question of adultery and general screwing around- it was next to impossible in ancient times to actually know if someone really was this, or that caste… so they decided a mix caste person was superior, having the qualities of both.

I myself couldn’t be held to the Nietzschean reaction to the prussian model. No one is strictly warrior save a extremely few, select handful of soldiers- because the military forces retirement on people after 20 years. It takes a substantial exception to make a allowance for someone to stick around after that point… and their descendents don’t automatically inherent that rank… and retirement doesn’t automatically kick in after your twenty- you gotta wait for it, and find another career. Futhermore, the American soldier was typically better read than it’s prussian counterpart… our democratic system was built up of Machiavellian and political philosophy from antiquity… we started off from a pretty good position to begin with- Baron von Steuben noted this when he was training the first americans under him via the Prussian model during the revolutionary war- we didn’t act like Prussians in the least, and asked Why and How questions about everything- pissed him off at first, but it showed our independence in formulating counter measures if the shit hit the fan and rag-tag groups of us had to figure out how to salvage the situation. Furthermore, the military is always, save in extreme situations were we’re accidentally cut off in terms of communications, always under a civilian under our chain of command- civilians below the rank of president, but usually ex military themselves. They get changed out often enough, are part of the president’s cabinet, and are literally embedded in our chain of command, even though theoretically they never fought a day of their life (though traditionally we’ve picked guys who have so we don’t trip over stupid factors of them just not comprehending simple stuff)

Furthermore, the US uses a system of checks and balances, and this includes the military as well. The way our military is segregated into Army, Airforce, Marines, and Navy, and the extreme rarity a 5 star general of any branch is appointed, the way the military, save the national guard under a state’s governor is prohibited from deploying or assisting police save under martial law (again, extremely rare), and the breaking up of the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol away from the military and under the independent command of The Department of Homeland Defense (not department of defense) after 9-11 is further evidence of our fetishment of segregation of coercive force and using a system of checks and balances.

Though it’s not inherent in a caste system that checks and balances could not exist- they do spontaneously arise after a time in revolt and counter revolution- such as the shared but differing power of two varnas above, it’s never well formed, and there are clear, disgruntled losers in every game, and those losers tend to out produce the successful ones, and welcome invading armies in, just as the French Nobility made France a weak state, inviting in enemies, but made it difficult for a invading force to hold for long once in. India got it’s butt whooped several times over under the caste system. The philosopher wasn’t always left alone in these power exchanges, and oftentimes lost everything along with everyone else.


Where’s the rest of your dialectic at?

I’ve been working on it, 'Sander.

Here’s something I wrote in a private email recently:

[size=95]"Jakob once devised an interesting little system. He distinguished between Creation, Preservation, and Destruction (you will note that these are the traditional main activities of Brahmâ, Vishnu, and Rudra in the ‘Hindu Trinity’), and said that the corruption of Preservation is when it transforms from the Preservation of Creation into the Preservation of Preservation. He therefore called for the Destruction of Preservation.

"In the social structure I sketched, Preservation would be the domain of the Guardian, with the higher Guardian preserving the Creation of the Rational and the Idealist, and the lower Guardian preserving the Preservation of the higher Guardian (and perhaps so on to ever lower Guardians, each preserving the Preservation of the Guardian above him).

"Jakob did not, however, concur with the rational conclusion I drew from the fact that there are only Creation, Preservation, and Destruction. The first thing I did was realize that when Preservation becomes corrupted, not only does it become its own object (Preservation preserves Preservation), but Destruction thereby loses its proper object, Preservation, and cannot do otherwise than turn against Creation instead. The Preservation of Preservation means the Destruction of Creation. Jakob called for the Destruction of Preservation in order that Preservation preserve Creation again.

"The next thing I did, however, was realize that if Destruction is properly the Destruction of Preservation, and Preservation is properly the Preservation of Creation, then Creation must properly be the Creation of Destruction (i.e., the Creation of the Destruction of the Preservation of the Creation of etc. etc.). With this, Jakob did not concur. He seemed to think of Creation as something in itself, i.e., not necessarily ‘of’ something…[/size]
The relevant posts of mine can be found here:

I now think, however, that it may be as follows.

The Rationals are the creators. The Destruction they create is (first and foremost) a conceptual destruction: with their conception of the Being of Becoming:

[size=95]“[I]n being eros for what is, philosophy is eros for eros, for being as fecund becoming that allows itself to be glimpsed in what it is: eros or will to power.” (Lampert, How Philosophy Became Socratic, page 417.)[/size]
The Idealists are the preservers of Creation. They and they alone cherish the Rationals’ Creation.

The Guardians are the preservers of the Idealists’ Preservation. There’s nothing corrupt in this, but in being such preservers, they are the diametrical opposites of the Rationals. It seems that Jakob, too, is a Rational.

The Artisans are the destroyers of the Guardians’ Preservation—though only in the sense of transgressive sacrality: see roughly the second half of

I don’t think I saw creation as something in itself, just not necessarily of destruction.

I can now confirm that creation is in general principle also destruction. Because creation is the manipulation of conditions from a perspective to increase that perspectives feeling of power, any aspect of another perspective that is different from what is being created but is “in the way” of the creative process, is subject to destruction.

Creation thus does necessarily destroy (except in the hypothetical case where all subjects hold the same values, benefit from the same configuration of energy). But destruction is not the only thing that creation causes. The destruction occurs because an old power-structure is replaced by a new or increased one.

So my objection to coupling the destructive aspect directly to the creative aspect (Shiva to Brahma) is not that Brahma does not destroy (he does) but that the cycle of creation, preservation and destruction is not a “zero-sum game”, but something accumulative. I mean that destruction is subservient to creation, that there will always be more creation than destruction, unless there exists absolutely nothing, which is not the case.

I should probably note that I do not believe in the law of conservation of energy - I suspect that the amount of energy in the universe is increasing. I do not trust the traditional big bang interpretation either - the idea that all mass came into existence in one moment does not make sense to me at all.