Concise Guide to Conservatism

Recommend, review and discuss dharma books here.
User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:40 am
Please read it, Nicholas - it's far less than 100 pages and it's only one click away, and it does highlight the gulf between Kirk's conservatism (which I can get along with quite happily, for the most part) and the monster it has morphed into since his time.

:namaste:
Kim
I did read it and agree with monsters being birthed in virtually all isms, parties and not the least - humanity. Thus the value of applying this old traditional mindset as much as we can everywhere. Substitute karma for God & authority and the rest is easy to live and let live.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3989
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:45 am

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:04 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:40 am
Please read it, Nicholas - it's far less than 100 pages and it's only one click away, and it does highlight the gulf between Kirk's conservatism (which I can get along with quite happily, for the most part) and the monster it has morphed into since his time.

:namaste:
Kim
I did read it ...
Good.
Substitute karma for God & authority and the rest is easy to live and let live.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.

If we see the current state of affairs as the result of karma, i.e., the results of the working of a natural law of cause and effect, but wish to alleviate the suffering we see around us (that's the bodhisattva approach), we won't blame the oppressors but will still oppose them.
If we see the current state of affairs as the result of (human) authority but wish to alleviate the suffering we see around us, we may well blame the oppressors as well as oppose them.

If we see the current state of affairs as the result of God's will but still see the suffering we see around us, we can't really oppose it at all, can we?
If we don't see the suffering around us, we're not looking - perhaps because we see the current state of affairs as the result of God's will and therefore assume that everyone is okay. :thinking:

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1204
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nemo » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:35 pm

4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic
progress. Conservatives value property for its own sake, of course; but they value it even
more because without it all men and women are at the mercy of an omnipotent government.

Same built in "feature" as liberalism. Property rights are inviolate. All the rest is window dressing since wealth is the real power in this world. So the secret sauce is in actuality you have a dictatorship of billionaires. That is the natural order conservatism and liberalism both unequivocally support. They refuse to even question it. Inheriting wealth is freedom, but just for the 1%.

User avatar
Miroku
Former staff member
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Miroku » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:47 pm

Nemo wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:35 pm
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic
progress. Conservatives value property for its own sake, of course; but they value it even
more because without it all men and women are at the mercy of an omnipotent government.

Same built in "feature" as liberalism. Property rights are inviolate. All the rest is window dressing since wealth is the real power in this world. So the secret sauce is in actuality you have a dictatorship of billionaires. That is the natural order conservatism and liberalism both unequivocally support. They refuse to even question it. Inheriting wealth is freedom, but just for the 1%.
:good:
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:25 am

Back by popular demand; more from the Concise Guide, chapter two:
Not all religious people are conservatives; and not all conservatives are religious people. Christianity
prescribes no especial form of politics. There have been famous radicals who were devout Christians—
though most radicals have been nothing of the sort. All the same, there could be no conservatism
without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.

Quintin Hogg, a talented English conservative of the twentieth century, in his little book The Case
for Conservatism
, remarks, “There is nothing I despise more than a politician who seeks to sell his
politics by preaching religion, unless it be a preacher who tries to sell his sermons by talking politics.”
Yet he goes on to say that conservatism and religion cannot be kept in separate compartments, and that
the true conservative at heart is a religious man. The social influence of Christianity has been nobly
conservative, and a similarly conservative influence has been exerted by Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and
the other higher religions.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1204
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nemo » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:30 am

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:25 am
Back by popular demand; more from the Concise Guide, chapter two:
Not all religious people are conservatives; and not all conservatives are religious people. Christianity
prescribes no especial form of politics. There have been famous radicals who were devout Christians—
though most radicals have been nothing of the sort. All the same, there could be no conservatism
without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.

Quintin Hogg, a talented English conservative of the twentieth century, in his little book The Case
for Conservatism
, remarks, “There is nothing I despise more than a politician who seeks to sell his
politics by preaching religion, unless it be a preacher who tries to sell his sermons by talking politics.”
Yet he goes on to say that conservatism and religion cannot be kept in separate compartments, and that
the true conservative at heart is a religious man. The social influence of Christianity has been nobly
conservative, and a similarly conservative influence has been exerted by Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and
the other higher religions.
Conservatism is a scam. It's an elaborate ruse to cover up a dictatorship of the rich. Also they are sociopaths destroying the planet's ecosystem and starting wars for profit.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3989
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:37 am

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:25 am
Back by popular demand; more from the Concise Guide, chapter two:
... there could be no conservatism without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.
...
The second half of that is commonsense enough: people who don't want change are people who are going to want to hang on to the religion they grew up with, whether it's right or wrong.
But what about the first half? It seems to me to be saying there can be no rational basis for conservatism. (If there could be one, the religious foundation wouldn't be required.) That's a significant own goal.

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:37 am
Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:25 am
Back by popular demand; more from the Concise Guide, chapter two:
... there could be no conservatism without a religious foundation, and it is conservative people, by and large, who defend religion in our time.
...
The second half of that is commonsense enough: people who don't want change are people who are going to want to hang on to the religion they grew up with, whether it's right or wrong.
But what about the first half? It seems to me to be saying there can be no rational basis for conservatism. (If there could be one, the religious foundation wouldn't be required.) That's a significant own goal.

:thinking:
Kim
If that one sentence was the book, but it is not. If that one thought was all you thought, but it is not - is it?

I tried to put the entire PDF as an attachment, but that feature does not seem to work.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:56 am

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:49 am
I tried to put the entire PDF as an attachment, but that feature does not seem to work.
Post a link to the pdf.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:46 pm

A snip from the Conscience chapter:
“There is no necessary connection between knowledge and virtue,” old John Adams wrote. “Simple
intelligence has no association with morality. What connection is there between the mechanism of a
clock or watch and the feeling of moral good and evil, right or wrong? A faculty or quality of
distinguishing between normal good and evil, as well as physical happiness and misery, that is, pleasure
and pain, or in other words a conscience—an old word almost out of fashion—is essential to morality.”

If the good old word conscience was almost out of fashion when this Republic was founded, it has
suffered still worse since then; and, as Adams knew, the whole world has suffered proportionately.
Bentham endeavored to reduce “conscience” to mere enlightened selfishness; Marx declared that
conscience had no function except as a weapon of the expropriated against the guilty expropriators;
Freud thought that conscience was nothing better than guilt-complex derived principally from infantile
mishaps. But as men and women denied any significance to the word and the concept of “conscience,”
the world began to experience the dismaying consequences of a philosophy that abandoned the ancient
moral instrument of private responsibility, individual conscience, and tried to substitute instead some
abstract “pleasure and pain” equation in morals, or some amorphous notion of “social justice” unrelated
to personal duties and personal sense of abiding laws of right and wrong. The atrocities and
catastrophes of our century, like those of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, demonstrate the pit
into which fall sophisticated societies that mistake clever self-interest, or new “social controls,” for a
satisfactory alternative to conscience.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
justsit
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by justsit » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:18 pm

Nicholas Weeks wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:46 pm
A snip from the Conscience chapter:
“... But as men and women denied any significance to the word and the concept of “conscience,”
the world began to experience the dismaying consequences of a philosophy that abandoned the ancient
moral instrument of private responsibility, individual conscience, and tried to substitute instead some
abstract “pleasure and pain” equation in morals, or some amorphous notion of “social justice” unrelated
to personal duties and personal sense of abiding laws of right and wrong...
So when exactly, in your opinion, did that happen?

User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Grigoris » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:30 pm

justsit wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:18 pm
So when exactly, in your opinion, did that happen?
It is just baseless, garden variety Romanticism.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:36 pm

Cannot supply online pdf, so this epub version will have to do.

https://b-ok.cc/md5/AA8218903A66C6CF694BBD137C173C64
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
justsit
Posts: 1043
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by justsit » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:47 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:30 pm
justsit wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:18 pm
So when exactly, in your opinion, did that happen?
It is just baseless, garden variety Romanticism.
Well, yes, but I am curious at which time in history Nicholas thinks "....men and women denied any significance to the word and the concept of “conscience,” [and] the world began to experience the dismaying consequences of a philosophy that abandoned the ancient moral instrument of private responsibility, individual conscience..."

When did we abandon the "ancient moral instrument?" Before or after Genghis Khan? Or the Crusades? or ??

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:28 pm

DNS is working on the attachment problem here, no success so far. So folks who wish to read the entire book can PM me with your email or go to Dharma Paths at this link:

https://dharmapaths.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=625
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:28 am

From the beginning of the chapter on Individualism:
Individualism,” like “capitalism,” is a word coined by the socialists. By it, the nineteenth-century
socialists meant to imply that while the socialist is concerned with “society”—that is, the welfare of
everyone—the conservative is an “individualist,” selfishly concerned only with himself. This caricature
of the conservative has done much mischief. I think it is important to understand what the real
conservative believes about human individuality and private rights.

The word “individualism” is very loosely used nowadays in the United States, and some people of
conservative opinions do themselves and their cause harm by speaking and writing as if the
conservative indeed were selfish on principle, as the socialist says the “individualist” is. As a term of
political science, “individualist”—that is, a person who subscribes unreservedly to “individualism,” the
political ideology—means a disciple of William Godwin, Thomas Hodgskin, and Herbert Spencer. Now
Godwin and Hodgskin were doctrinaire radicals, and Spencer—though there are conservative elements
in some of his writings—never would have thought of calling himself a conservative.

An Individualist of the school of Godwin and Hodgskin believes that every man is a law unto
himself, that established social institutions—particularly the established forms of private property—are
irrational, that traditional religion and traditional morality are mostly nonsense, and that every man
should do in every respect just as he pleases. Now whatever may be said of these notions, they certainly
are not conservative; and so Americans of conservative inclinations who call themselves “Individualists”
run the risk of confusing the whole discussion and bringing conservatism into disrepute.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4854
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Wayfarer » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:53 am

I've had a regular debate - actually argument - over on philosophy forum. As I'm a student of Buddhism (and also traditionalist philosophy), I am of the view that the term 'higher truth' or 'higher knowledge' means something, i.e. that the Buddha knows something the average worldling does not, and that a large part of Buddhism (and other traditionalist philosophies) is understanding that, the 'getting of wisdom'.

This claim is always met with annoyance or even outrage. Last time I was told it was that it's an 'infantile fantasy'. I'm further told that whatever you can call 'knowledge' it has to be explainable in plain language so that anyone could understand it. And I think that's the general view in modern secular culture, isn't it? That there can be no sense of there being higher knowledge? Secular culture is highly invested in the notion that everyone is equal. So it's really quite non-PC to say that the ordinary people are putthujana. (The Greeks had a similar term, hoi polloi.) So this makes the idea of there being a distinction between those who understand and those who don't really non-PC. Or that's how it seems to me. That is one reason why spiritual traditions and religions generally are nowadays viewed as 'conservative'.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3722
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:02 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:53 am
I've had a regular debate - actually argument - over on philosophy forum. As I'm a student of Buddhism (and also traditionalist philosophy), I am of the view that the term 'higher truth' or 'higher knowledge' means something, i.e. that the Buddha knows something the average worldling does not, and that a large part of Buddhism (and other traditionalist philosophies) is understanding that, the 'getting of wisdom'.

This claim is always met with annoyance or even outrage. Last time I was told it was that it's an 'infantile fantasy'. I'm further told that whatever you can call 'knowledge' it has to be explainable in plain language so that anyone could understand it. And I think that's the general view in modern secular culture, isn't it? That there can be no sense of there being higher knowledge? Secular culture is highly invested in the notion that everyone is equal. So it's really quite non-PC to say that the ordinary people are putthujana. (The Greeks had a similar term, hoi polloi.) So this makes the idea of there being a distinction between those who understand and those who don't really non-PC. Or that's how it seems to me. That is one reason why spiritual traditions and religions generally are nowadays viewed as 'conservative'.
I may have visited one of those so-called philosophy discussion groups. It was clear that they are academic types who have decided certain ideas are philosophy and certain other, more ancient ones never were. Their loss.

One does not need to be a buddha or arhat to know non-conceptually. Here is John F. Finamore on the Pythagorean tradition:
All philosophy evolves over time, but there are kernels of original doctrines present. We may not know precisely what Pythagoras taught his students, but we can be sure that his teachings included the soul’s immortality, the cycle of birth, and the existence and beneficence of the gods.
Those categories listed are knowable, but not with conventional thought and motivation.

The late Algis Uzdavinys wrote in The Golden Chain : an Anthology of Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy:
The present anthology of the Pythagorean and Platonic tradition
disagrees in certain important respects with the modern understanding
of philosophy in general and of Platonism and
Pythagoreanism in particular. Following the valuable insights of
Pierre Hadot (supported by the witness of countless traditional
sages throughout the world) we regard ancient philosophy as essentially
a way of life: not only inseparable from “spiritual exercises,”
but also in perfect accord with cosmogonical myths and sacred rites.
In the broader traditional sense, philosophy consists not simply of a
conceptual edifice (be it of the order of reason or myth), but of a
lived concrete existence conducted by initiates, or by the whole
theocentric community, treated as a properly organized and wellguided
political and theurgical “body” attended to the principle of
maat—“truth” and “justice” in the ancient Egyptian sense of the word.
Modern thinkers are wedded to, almost obsessed with 'conceptual edifices', whatever their field of thought.
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

boda
Posts: 2053
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by boda » Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:47 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:53 am
Secular culture is highly invested in the notion that everyone is equal.
Secular culture is highly invested in separating religion and state, particularly religious authority and state. If for no other reason, because unverifiable ’higher truths’ may be abused. An unverifiable higher truth could be self-serving in the wrong hands.
the idea of there being a distinction between those who understand and those who don't really non-PC. Or that's how it seems to me. That is one reason why spiritual traditions and religions generally are nowadays viewed as 'conservative'.
Spiritual traditions are traditional, not progressive.

User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 20137
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Concise Guide to Conservatism

Post by Grigoris » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:23 am

boda wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:47 am
Spiritual traditions are traditional, not progressive.
The Church of Satan would care to disagree.

Spiritual traditions can be progressive.

Ever heard of Engaged Buddhism, for example?

Secularists can be incredibly conservative.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Post Reply

Return to “Book Reviews”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests