3 . But You Can't Be Serious...
Oh, but I can!
Traditionally, a civilization
has grown up almost unnoticed in some rural backwater of the world, and
we know of it mostly because of the magnificent monuments which each
left to its own excesses. It is this way for the Egyptians, Greeks,
Myans, Aztecs, Incas, Babylonians, Indians (from India), Chinese, and
so forth. Toynbee is reported to have identified a total of twenty-one
distinct civilizations which reached a stage advanced enough to be
called by that term.
The most difficult
civilization for historians is the Roman Empire, where the armies of
Rome basically conquered the Greeks (as well as several other
civilizations, such as the Etruscans), and adopted the civilization of
Greece virtually intact, only changing the names of the gods to more
suit the Roman spirit. Most historians thus classify the Greeks and the
Romans as a single civilization, usually named the "Classical" or
"Greco-Roman" civilization.
Later civilizations, arising
on the same ground as one or more predecessors, also present
difficulties for historians, because the question of cultural
inheritance raises its head. With the Roman Empire, the wholesale
adoption of Greek culture was blatantly obvious. But what debt does the
more recent Arab civilization owe to either the Persian, Classical,
Babylonian (Sumerian?), or Egyptian civilizations which preceded it on
virtually the same ground? Scholars from Western Civilization are ill
prepared to even understand the Arab culture, let alone guess at its
roots.
And in fact, most Westerners
are loathe to even admit that the Arabs had a real civilization that
conquered as much, if not more, of the known world as did Alexander or
the Roman Legions. We speak of the Moorish influence in Spain while
conveniently forgetting that the Moors were to Arabs what the Gauls
were to Rome: an unsophisticated rural community located near the
outskirts of the empire.
Yet the Arab religion, Islam,
springs from the same God of Abraham that both Christians and Jews
purport to worship. Could this really be a case of sibling rivalry? Is
the failure of Western Civilization to acknowledge the accomplishments
of the Arabs a case of envy of one's older sibling? Even now, the true
answer eludes us. One thing is certain: we ignore the Arabs at our
peril because they are more desperate than are we.
If there have been unusual
births of civilizations in the past, who is to deny the possibility of
yet another? In fact, what I propose was actually anticipated by the
Greek legend of Athena, who was born fully formed, springing from the
forehead of Zeus. Thus our new civilization springs, fully formed, from
the operation of our own intellect.
Cannot we design a new
civilization? Is it truly a requirement that a civilization may only be
founded by a primitive tribe of humans who finally raises themselves up
to a level of rationality that makes them civilized? I do believe it
can be otherwise.
Western Civilization itself
has two parents. While its mother was clearly the native peoples
(Celts) of Gaul (France), its father was just as clearly the classical
Greco-Roman civilization. Our heritage acknowledges this parentage by
teaching the great Greek and Roman legends as part of our own history.
So very little from any other civilization makes it into our most basic
texts. Why? Because from its inception, the scholars of Western
Civilization have written extensively about our classical Greco-Roman
heritage. Until very recently, sometime within the Twentieth Century, a
Western man could not be considered learned without knowing Latin and
ancient Greek well enough to read the original texts of the great
writers of that culture, including Plato, Aristotle, and any number of
great Romans, like Cicero.
This tradition is bound
together with the Christian Church, which had its most sacred text
written down in those two languages in preference to any others. It is
only a very few years since the Catholic Church altered the traditional
saying of the mass in Latin to allow the use of a local language.
We have reached the end of one
millennial epoch, and the beginning of another. It is now roughly two
millennia since the founding of the Christian religion. Anyone who
contemplates the issue for very long must conclude that all of the
world's great religions, each of which was founded more than a
millennia ago, are irrelevant to a forthcoming post-industrial society
which MUST arise out of the present state of affairs.
Science is on the brink of
controlling the genetic heritage of all life. The cries from the
Christian "Right" are loud and clear: that is the province of God, and
God alone. This cry is, as Spengler predicts, the end of scientific
advancement for Western Civilization. Since Western Civilization now
controls the entire world, must it necessarily also be the end of
science for all mankind?
I HOPE NOT!
All science has the ability to
be used for good or for evil. We know that, once release, the genie
cannot be put back into the bottle. We also know what evil lurks in the
hearts of men. Thus, the answer from the Christian "Right" is to not
allow certain kinds of science to be developed because the technology
can be used for evil.
Of course, to deny scientific
development is to also prohibit its use for good. Have we really come
to that? Do we so mistrust ourselves in the use of knowledge that we
will not even allow the knowledge to exist? For many in the Christian
"Right," the answer is clearly, "Yes."
Our society needs an
alternative answer to the Christian "Right," which is really the
Christian "Wrong." It is a Christian "Wrong" because it seeks to impose
an outdated solution from the past as an answer to a modern set of
problems that are based on entirely different assumptions. Such an
imposed answer cannot work except for those who are committed to a
return to the past. We need an answer for the present, NOT an answer for the past. In other words, we need a "right answer," NOT a "right wing answer."
Traditionally, a civilization
is born when a great leader unifies a large enough group of people to
require a formal state-form and political system. There is absolutely
no requirement that it be any particular state-form or any particular
political system. It seems that all which is really required is to take
a formless mass of humanity and create some form of organization within
it.
There is nothing in the rules
that requires this be done by force of arms, although in many cases it
surely has been. In particular, Western Civilization was founded when
Charlemagne conquered enough of Gaul to require the institution of a
state and politics within its boundaries. But it can just as easily be
done peacefully, by force of ideas as opposed to force of arms. That is
the dream of this book.
We all see the decayed
products of Western Civilization before us. We all decry the stench
rising from that decay. The traditional solutions do not have a prayer
of working, which is part of the message I hope to convey with this
book. What is clearly needed is an entirely new approach; an approach
so fundamentally different as to require an entirely new civilization
to contain it. So, the other part of that message is the hope of a new
future, built around a totally new system, but which system is
constructed out of bits and pieces which we should all recognize, if we
are educated about our own history.
So, exactly what is this miraculous answer? Well, I guess it is time to move on and get down to it.....
