Duchesne, Ricardo wrote:Ind-Europeans were uniquely rules by a class of free aristocrats, grouped into war bands that were egalitarian rather then ruled by autocrats. A state is 'aristocratic' if the ruler, the king, or the commander-in-chief is
not an autocrat who treats the upper classes as unequal servants, but is a 'peer' who exists in a spirit of equality, as another warrior of noble birth,
primus inter pares. This is not to say that the leader did not get to enjoy extra powers and advantages, or that leaders were not tempted to act in tyrannical ways. It is to say that aristocratic cultures, for all the intense rivalries between families and individuals seeking their own renown, there was a strong ethos of aristocratic egalitarianism against despotic rule. A true aristocrat deserving respect from his peers could not be submissive; his dignity and honour as a man were intimately linked to his capacity for self-determinism.
-Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age
Contrast Aryan spirituality with Abrahamism and its authoritarian, singularity one-God.
This spirit is based on metaphysics as I described them.
The absence of an absoltue makes this spirit possible.
An absolute would be a
de facto authority, an imposition upon free-will and individuality.
it is because of chaos that an individual organism stands before it alongside other organisms, as agencies of order.
Absolute order is another way of describing Abrahamism, and its version of a One-God.
Chaos, as I defined it, places the gods alongside man. Superior but agencies of order.
The Greeks did not worship their gods in a submissive manner. They tried to placate and trick them....gain their favour, and often challenged them.
This is the Faustian spirit of European culture.
The anti-Faustian spirit permeates western civilization.....as a disease.
It underlies philosophy and its derivative, science.
It presumes a singularity, or an ordered universe as a starting premise....and it reflects the Biblical declaration that 'first came the word'.....where language is the expression of noetic ordering.
There are two ways to approach this...one as a declaration of an intent - to impose order where there is none....or that there exists order which all must submit to.
Rejection of this is what results in post-modern nihilism, that begins by a selective rejection of natural order and then linguistically declares its own fabrications as more real than the real.....the ideal more than the real.
Here the separation of self from nature places it in an antagonistic relationship, that evolves into the notion of a
absolute God existing beyond existence.
The Aryan understanding places man before natural order as the Greeks placed themselves before the gods.
First among equals, means the gods are first, and man an equal agency of nature, of ordering, in opposition to chaos.
This does not mean a rejection of the gods and the declaration of self as above them.
The Olympian gods, as the Greeks metaphorically understood them, were also fighting against chaos, I the form of Titans.
Without chaos, defined as randomness, there is no concept of 'first among equals', or of 'free-will' or of self-determinism.
There is an totalitarian authority, whether conscious or not, imposing a rule, in the form of linguistic commandment, in more primitive superstitious forms, or imposing laws we cannot overcome, or contradict.
There are indeed natural laws that can be understood by man, by finding patterns in the patterns, or by anthropomorphisizing them into deities representing natural forces.... and we can indeed conflict, barter and submit to them, but there is also randomness which defies all understanding of it.
As Kazantzakis described in his book
Ασκητική, the gods are fighting alongside us, not against us, if we only pay them homage and we do not reject them.
The same relationship to the leader is found in all Aryan cultures...and more strikingly found in Sparta, with its two-kings.
It also underscored Democratic system, even though the principle of first among equals is never practised, particularly when it comes to shared risks.
I consider
Timocracy a more Aryan political system, in comparison to Democracy.
Democracy is a compromises forced upon the Athenians due to their decline.
Yet, how they practiced it and how we do in modern times, is different.