Conservatives, liberals, religion, and the Gurdjieff legacy
The question of conservatism and religion is important for understanding Gurdjieff, but first here is a comment posted at Alternet.
There is a significant relationship between conservative propganda and its success in confusing working class cultures and the Gurdjieff legacy which is pegged at liberal adherents, yet wishes to impose a stealth anti-modernism. More on that later.
Comment at Alternet
Can liberals understand religion?
Posted by: nemonemini on Sep 16, 2008 4:42 AM
This article has too much interesting material for glib comments, and asks some very good questions, but why not consider some radical perspectives on the issue: can the scientific world view resolve the enigma of morality? I fear not, least of all the Darwinian version. Between the reductionist absurdities of Darwinian evolutionary psychologists, and false objectivity of Durkheim on the sacred, liberal culture has found itself proclaiming the ‘what’s the matter with Kansas’ cultures stupid and reactionary when liberal culture has itself produced a kind of stupidity in relation to religion. The current trend of the New Atheism, pace Dawkins, et al, shows this strange state of mind, divorced from reality and any chance of understanding religion from the word go. Liberalism need not be forced into this mould (any more than it should be forced to compromise with traditionalism) and needs a new public philosophy that can do better than Durkheimian rumination on the sacred or the Darwinian pseudo-science of evolutionary ethics. Current brands of scientism haven’t a clue on the issue of religion, and are surely far more stupid than anything Frank found in Kansas.
The best way to mediate science and religion was the stance of Kant, who was also a primordial liberal: the ‘religion within the llimits of reason’, however archaic it looks now in the Kantian version, essentially solved the issue of the (much ballyhooed, and verbiage prone)’sacred’ (with an atheist version in Schopenhauer perhaps) by constructing a rational mediation of the limits of both science and religion. Nothing that has come later has surpassed that perspective and we are inundated with the sophmoric diatribes of the Dawkins generation with its wilful blindness to the history of religion, a viewpoint totally incapable of anything but alienating those whose religious lifeboats, however conservatized (and mostly defunct thereby), are all they have, and which they aren’t going to exchange for the degenerated liberalism of techonological science whose imperial claims to explain reality to us are almost ludicrous in their one-dimensional incomprehension.
Meanwhile, the conservative character of much religion is arguably a form of religious decline, not religion at all, and these comments are in no way a request for compromise with the entropic remains of so-called religion so visible in the American religious culture spectrum.
To decipher the conservative degeneration of religion is a big study, and may as well start from the Axial Age, and an attempt to understand the mystery of that phenomenon (one whose existence modern science has suppressed because it contradicts its assumptions)
For a different type of analysis of the evolution of religion, check out http://eonic-effect.net