That was the project of Wundt’s ‘Science Of……Education’ - behaviourist, progressive pedagogy; confining generations thereafter to only the developmental stage of stimulus-response. State Education rolled it out at scale.
ESC: "This is not mysticism or totalitarian thinking, but a belief that ethics can be grounded in how the world actually works, that morality can be immanent rather than imposed from outside, and that humanity can discover shared principles not by decree but by understanding our place in nature."
These are old, perennial ideas. They reminded me of John Finnis and--as I'd been playing with AI for the first time--I asked Alter(dot)systems for an introduction to Finnis's natural law:
"John Finnis’s *Introduction to Natural Law Theory* (most clearly expressed in his 1980 book *Natural Law and Natural Rights*) is one of the modern era’s most sophisticated restatements of classical natural law reasoning. Finnis revives a Thomistic-Aristotelian foundation but applies it to contemporary jurisprudence, ethics, and political philosophy. Below is a structured summary of his key ideas."
The summary seems quite good, though, I don't doubt, is more contentious (perhaps *much* more contentious) than it seems. My query included follow-up questions and AlterAI's replies were long and detailed. Were I actually interested in the answers, there is more than enough to begin a serious, probably near-PhD-level, inquiry.
*But that is not the point.* Interesting though they may be, the ideas are relevant only to the extent the presentation of the ideas advances the agenda.
Classic Trojan horse. Or sleight-of-hand: ignore either hand at your peril; watch *both* hands. The ideas are almost a distraction. Why should we accept Spinoza and not an alternative? And what agenda, exactly, do these ideas serve?
John Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) presents itself as a modern restatement of Aquinas; rational, universal and ‘non-confessional’. But this very posture is where the subversion lies. By claiming to ‘translate’ Thomism into secular jurisprudence, Finnis detaches Natural Law from its ontological foundation in being and relocates it into practical reason as procedural principle. That is not a retrieval of Aquinas; it’s an accommodation to Kant and the analytic-legal positivist milieu of Oxford. Finnis’ ‘basic goods’ theory functions as an axiomatic system; ethical rationalism abstracted from ontology. This makes it compatible with pluralist democracies and technocratic legal regimes because it can be administered without invoking metaphysics. In practice, it collapses into a managerial ethics of proportionality and balancing, precisely the kind of ‘immanent moral order’ Spinoza and Jantsch envisioned. Law becomes an optimization of goods, not participation in truth. I’m not suggesting Finnis himself was a conspiratorial subversive; rather, he served as an institutional translator, making the Thomistic framework acceptable to secular academia and legal positivism. In doing so, he advanced the containment of Natural Law; preserving its vocabulary while evacuating its metaphysical content. The effect is indistinguishable from controlled opposition; the language of Natural Law remains, but its realist soul is removed. Unless the public is versed in metaphysics, they accept the surface rhetoric on good faith and - here we are. This is frequently how the ‘transitions’ are achieved - below the threshold awareness of the population.
Hard to imagine Finnis hasn't (yet) faced just such a characterization; I'll have to have a look-see. Thanks.
Good, that I wasn't drinking hot coffee when I read your "Unless the public." But so, too, natural law, despite better-known American inalienable rights. I wonder what *that* is taken to mean by those unversed in either or both? Though, as a practical matter, we learned during Covid.
I still see in it, in a certain way, humanity's old Promethean dream: to master nature through reason and to shape the world according to its own values. Like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, modern man has sought to dominate natural forces to ensure his freedom and progress, and even to conquer immortality.
And in reality, those who believe themselves to be the guardians of humanity think they are capable of directing the world order with the same Promethean impulse: that of a being who wants both to save the Earth and to prove to himself that he is its master.
These same guardians, through global ethics, claim to regulate the forces of nature, and even to possess the power of God, in the name of common survival, to unify reality under the light of reason, and to transform knowledge into power.
But there is nothing to save: the Earth doesn't need us; it will transform, be reborn, or disappear according to its own laws.
Death, endings, and metamorphosis are part of life. Instead of trying to preserve everything, perhaps it would be better to learn to be more humble, to recognize our limitations, and to live in harmony with the natural flow of the world rather than trying to correct it.
This is the philosophy of The Ringing Cedars Series (Siberia, Russia) writ large... www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org. The books have become collectors items now. I don't know why they are not publishing new copies. I have asked a few times, but the staff declines to answer the question.
Perhaps my level of understanding of Spinosa is lacking, but I have always considered his works to be prfoundly timeless and liberating. Although it is painful to see his fundamental premises perverted to further the designs of those with far lesser intellect and far greater ambitions, I am unsurprised, as this ploy has been utilized repeatedly throughout history. I hope that Spinosa's positive and unifying message is not lost for very long, as a result. Thank you for this article. as it reflects an intriguing philosophical examination related to your current string of postings detailing the control mechanisms being employed by the would-be global power elite. Bravo!
In short, monism and dualism are simply two poles of thought, but it's often forgotten that these two perspectives define each other. Here, there are no definitive truths, only conceptual abstractions that, for one reason or another, and depending on the needs, can serve the interests of the powerful.
All means are justified when it comes to control ^^
This looks to me as one very long warning. The 'ethics' is just a 'humanitarian' cloak - what's inside there for us is diabolical dictatorship.
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” {Richard Feynman}
Science is NOT consensus. Science is questioning with transparency.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-175617621
You can reverse Darwin. I think we started out as angels and we're devolving into apes. {Wyatt Peterson}
That was the project of Wundt’s ‘Science Of……Education’ - behaviourist, progressive pedagogy; confining generations thereafter to only the developmental stage of stimulus-response. State Education rolled it out at scale.
ESC: "This is not mysticism or totalitarian thinking, but a belief that ethics can be grounded in how the world actually works, that morality can be immanent rather than imposed from outside, and that humanity can discover shared principles not by decree but by understanding our place in nature."
These are old, perennial ideas. They reminded me of John Finnis and--as I'd been playing with AI for the first time--I asked Alter(dot)systems for an introduction to Finnis's natural law:
"John Finnis’s *Introduction to Natural Law Theory* (most clearly expressed in his 1980 book *Natural Law and Natural Rights*) is one of the modern era’s most sophisticated restatements of classical natural law reasoning. Finnis revives a Thomistic-Aristotelian foundation but applies it to contemporary jurisprudence, ethics, and political philosophy. Below is a structured summary of his key ideas."
The summary seems quite good, though, I don't doubt, is more contentious (perhaps *much* more contentious) than it seems. My query included follow-up questions and AlterAI's replies were long and detailed. Were I actually interested in the answers, there is more than enough to begin a serious, probably near-PhD-level, inquiry.
*But that is not the point.* Interesting though they may be, the ideas are relevant only to the extent the presentation of the ideas advances the agenda.
Classic Trojan horse. Or sleight-of-hand: ignore either hand at your peril; watch *both* hands. The ideas are almost a distraction. Why should we accept Spinoza and not an alternative? And what agenda, exactly, do these ideas serve?
John Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) presents itself as a modern restatement of Aquinas; rational, universal and ‘non-confessional’. But this very posture is where the subversion lies. By claiming to ‘translate’ Thomism into secular jurisprudence, Finnis detaches Natural Law from its ontological foundation in being and relocates it into practical reason as procedural principle. That is not a retrieval of Aquinas; it’s an accommodation to Kant and the analytic-legal positivist milieu of Oxford. Finnis’ ‘basic goods’ theory functions as an axiomatic system; ethical rationalism abstracted from ontology. This makes it compatible with pluralist democracies and technocratic legal regimes because it can be administered without invoking metaphysics. In practice, it collapses into a managerial ethics of proportionality and balancing, precisely the kind of ‘immanent moral order’ Spinoza and Jantsch envisioned. Law becomes an optimization of goods, not participation in truth. I’m not suggesting Finnis himself was a conspiratorial subversive; rather, he served as an institutional translator, making the Thomistic framework acceptable to secular academia and legal positivism. In doing so, he advanced the containment of Natural Law; preserving its vocabulary while evacuating its metaphysical content. The effect is indistinguishable from controlled opposition; the language of Natural Law remains, but its realist soul is removed. Unless the public is versed in metaphysics, they accept the surface rhetoric on good faith and - here we are. This is frequently how the ‘transitions’ are achieved - below the threshold awareness of the population.
Hard to imagine Finnis hasn't (yet) faced just such a characterization; I'll have to have a look-see. Thanks.
Good, that I wasn't drinking hot coffee when I read your "Unless the public." But so, too, natural law, despite better-known American inalienable rights. I wonder what *that* is taken to mean by those unversed in either or both? Though, as a practical matter, we learned during Covid.
Excellent analysis.
I still see in it, in a certain way, humanity's old Promethean dream: to master nature through reason and to shape the world according to its own values. Like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, modern man has sought to dominate natural forces to ensure his freedom and progress, and even to conquer immortality.
And in reality, those who believe themselves to be the guardians of humanity think they are capable of directing the world order with the same Promethean impulse: that of a being who wants both to save the Earth and to prove to himself that he is its master.
These same guardians, through global ethics, claim to regulate the forces of nature, and even to possess the power of God, in the name of common survival, to unify reality under the light of reason, and to transform knowledge into power.
But there is nothing to save: the Earth doesn't need us; it will transform, be reborn, or disappear according to its own laws.
Death, endings, and metamorphosis are part of life. Instead of trying to preserve everything, perhaps it would be better to learn to be more humble, to recognize our limitations, and to live in harmony with the natural flow of the world rather than trying to correct it.
They're megalomaniacs and completely crazy ^^
And besides, how do they expect to compete with a God who created the universe in just 7 days? ^^
This is the philosophy of The Ringing Cedars Series (Siberia, Russia) writ large... www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org. The books have become collectors items now. I don't know why they are not publishing new copies. I have asked a few times, but the staff declines to answer the question.
Couldn't agree more. What if AI finds Spinoza's 'one reality'?
Perhaps my level of understanding of Spinosa is lacking, but I have always considered his works to be prfoundly timeless and liberating. Although it is painful to see his fundamental premises perverted to further the designs of those with far lesser intellect and far greater ambitions, I am unsurprised, as this ploy has been utilized repeatedly throughout history. I hope that Spinosa's positive and unifying message is not lost for very long, as a result. Thank you for this article. as it reflects an intriguing philosophical examination related to your current string of postings detailing the control mechanisms being employed by the would-be global power elite. Bravo!
In short, monism and dualism are simply two poles of thought, but it's often forgotten that these two perspectives define each other. Here, there are no definitive truths, only conceptual abstractions that, for one reason or another, and depending on the needs, can serve the interests of the powerful.
All means are justified when it comes to control ^^
Great Article Esc Key 😎
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.