Vad är rättvist?

En bekant sa nyligen till mig att det är orättvist att alla människor i världen inte har ungefär lika mycket, att alla inte har det ungefär lika gott ställt materiellt. Jag var i situationen oförmögen att ge något särskilt bra svar - låt se om jag lyckas bättre nu. Det finns för många hopplösa, välmenande men förvirrade premisser bakom utsagan för att den ska få tillåtas stå oemotsagd.

Ponera följande: ett gift par skaffar två barn, ett annat skaffar tio. De har båda lika mycket egendom och inkomster. Den första familjen kan därför leva mindre trångt och med högre materiell standard än den andra. När barnen blir vuxna kommer de med all sannolikhet att gå olika öden till mötes. Den lilla familjen kan betala för utbildning och bostad åt sina barn och låta dem ärva egendom, till exempel hus eller jordbruksmark. I den stora familjen blir det ett betydligt mindre arv per person och föräldrarna kommer inte kunna ge lika mycket tid eller resurser till alla sina barn utan tvingas kanske satsa på ett eller två. Medan den första familjen kan förmera eller åtminstone bibehålla sin egendom och inkomst per capita så är risken stor (i de flesta samhällen) att tiobarnsfamiljen blir allt fattigare.  Snart hyr barnen från den stora familjen ut sin arbetskraft till barnen från den lilla familjen bara för att få det att gå ihop, och klassamhället är ett faktum.

Var någonstans har en orättvisa begåtts? Om vi är överens om att orättvisor inte får tillskrivas naturen eller Allsmäktig Gud så återstår möjligen föräldrarna till den andra familjen, som var "orättvisa" mot sina första barn genom att skaffa ännu fler barn senare. Men så är det sällan någon som tänker, troligtvis inte de berörda barnen heller; agget riktas mot dem som har det bättre än du själv. Min bekant föreslog i varje fall att full rättvisa endast kan realiseras om de som har delar med sig villkorslöst med dem som inte har. Exemplet ovan demonstrerar - hoppas jag - absurditeten, faktiskt orättvisan, i en sådan princip. Om de båda familjerna i det här fallet skulle tvingas dela på allt de hade så skulle den andra familjen sluta med tre fjärdedelar av välståndet (12 personer mot 4 personer) enbart i kraft av numerär överlägsenhet.

Därmed inte sagt att världen är rättvis - men klasskillnader behöver inte vara orättvisa i sig. Och även om de inte är det så kan de förstås vara problematiska i sina långsiktiga konsekvenser. 

För rolig för att inte dela

Framstegets obönhörliga fortgång

Vad är progressivt? Inte socialism i alla fall, menar en skribent för det relativt nya partiet Medborgerlig Samling.

Medborgerlig Samling (MED) är ett intressant parti om inte annat för att de andas progressivism samtidigt som de står tydligt till höger - de kallar sig liberal-konservativa och även "blågröna". De profilerar sig i frågor som identitetspolitik (som de vill ha mindre av), fördjupad demokrati, reformerad grundskola (större fokus på kunskap, tidigare betyg etc), begränsad migration, satsningar på försvaret och på polisen. De kallar sig kulturellt konservativa, men tar samtidigt strid mot hedersförtryck och upprör sig över försäljning av burkinis på sportbutiker. Kanske ett exempel på den oklarhet som råder på temat konservatism kopplat till kön (det har inte alltid varit legio med bikini i Västvärlden för den som glömt det: https://www.svd.se/badklader-som-upprort-genom-tiderna).

Vad gäller den historiska sexualupplysaren Elise Ottesen-Jensen då - var hon progressiv? Frågan infinner sig eftersom SVT sänder en dokumentär om henne just ikväll. Och det slår mig att svaret på frågan är ja, om inte annat så för att historien gav henne rätt - de höga herrarna som försökte förbjuda allt tal om kondomer har idag förpassats till historiens avskrädeshög, medan hennes gärning lever vidare. Och RFSU som betraktar sig själva som hennes arvtagare hyllar henne gärna, med undantag för hennes omfamnande av tvångssteriliseringar, som de beklagar. Och ändå får man väl förmoda att hon såg även detta som ett led i det mänskliga framstegets obönhörliga fortgång, alltså att hon själv betraktade det som progressivt.

Och hur är det med Xi Jinping, ledaren för folkrepubliken Kina? "Folkrepublik" låter ju progressivt, och om det var någon som inbillade sig att karln inte är marxist så får ni nog tänka om. Och Kina leder ju världens utveckling nu, inte sant? Världsledande inte bara i ekonomisk tillväxt och fattigdomsbekämpning utan också i internationell handel, tvångsinternering av uigurer ("omskolning"), klimatåtgärder och kolkraft. När Västvärlden inte längre har så många nyheter att erbjuda bortsett från skränande populister så omformar Kina världen efter en helt ny samhällsvision, inklusive det här med att alla medborgare i framtiden kommer att kunna poängsättas beroende på hur väl de sköter sig och så kommer deras möjligheter i det kinesiska samhället att påverkas därefter - det låter väl modernt och innovativt (progressivt)?

Som någon skrev: är du pessimistisk om Kina, så är du också pessimistisk om världen.

Och kanske även om själva Framsteget och dess hisnande slutstation.

Jupiter in Scorpio, Jordan Peterson and the Me too-movement

So Jupiter was in the sign of Scorpio between October 10th last year and November 8th a week ago. It has since moved on to Sagittarius, whereby many astrologers are now predicting plenty of good luck and spiritual and personal growth. Me, I just started studying transits, so I don't feel especially inclined to join the argument - but let's have a look at the past position of Jupiter in Scorpio, shall we? A couple of things do strike me as fitting here: the rise of Jordan Peterson and the Me too-movement.

First, let's have a look at what this astrologer writes:

On the edge of Jupiter’s ingress into Scorpio, on the morning of October 5th Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment story was published in the New York Times [i]. Over the following days more actresses came forward to speak of their experiences of Weinstein’s predatory behavior.

On the heels of this story came the social media hashtag #MeToo that women are using to self-identify as victims of sexual harassment and making consciousness [ii]. Scrolling down the #MeToo page my heart ached and I wanted to hug each woman, look her in the eye and say, “I know, me too”.The widespread culture of male abuse of power and serial sexual misconduct and abuse has been outed.

[...]

There is an astrological correspondence or coincidence of Jupiter moving into Scorpio and the exposing of these issues of power and sex in our culture. These stories of sexual harassment may be understood as the opening gambit of Jupiter in Scorpio. 

ASTROLOGICAL OPENINGS AND INSIGHTS

Scorpio has to do with the taboo subjects of power, sex and shared resources (other people’s money and how we use it).Jupiter is the planetary archetype related to the principles of expansion, growth, increase. Jupiter magnifies and illumines. When things grow, they become more obvious. Jupiter in Scorpio exposes what has been hidden. The shadow of male power has been outed.

Interesting, no? Granted, one should not simply google around until one finds something that concurs with one's own beliefs. It is bad methodology. So let me move ahead to a suggestion that is entirely my own, and see if I can back it up with some solid astrological literature: 2018 was the year that Jordan Peterson, the much-hyped, loved and hated Canadian psychologist released his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. 

Two questions: 1) What is this book about? 2) How does it relate to Jupiter in Scorpio?

1) For those of you who haven't read it, 12 Rules for Life is a work that tries to offer spiritual guidelines for how to lead a meaningful life, while avoiding the pitfalls of simplistic ideology. Peterson does not attempt to great a totalizing vision for how society should be changed - the horrors of the 20th century are fresh in his mind - but rather scales down to the individual, the family, the immediate society. So you will not be surprised that the titles to one of his chapters (sadly, the shortest one) reads Put Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize The World. We are many from my own generation who would have needed that advice just a little bit sooner. Some other rules (one per chapter) are Don't Let Your Children Do Things That Makes You Dislike Them, Treat Yourself As a Person Worthy of Helping and Pet a Cat When You Encounter One On The Street. Peterson attempts to navigate the narrow waters between postmodern nihilism and modernist ideology, and in this I believe he succeeds fairly well. That being said, his critique of "postmodernism" is simplistic and his depiction of environmentalists as "anti-human" is to a large extent unfair. Sure, there is a vulgar kind of environmentalism that does paint humanity as the problem, but many of the real activists I have met would never do that: being passionate leftists, they blame the system, the wealthy, capitalism, but never the poor, never the Global South, never "humanity".

But it is equally unfair to accuse Peterson of political extremism. The Swedish commentator Joel Halldorf put it neatly: While Peterson as a culture warrior is accused of fascism, Peterson as a moral philosopher is disregarded as banal. Neither is true, and I quote:

The modern university [...] detests each claim to normativity. This means that academics today are not trained to discuss Peterson's ambitious ethical program - nor even less offer any alternatives. The consequence is that we do not have a discussion about worldviews and their moral consequences, but rather a debate characterized by mockery. This is a part of what is called the Crisis of the Humanities: the inability to discuss normative ethical and religious claims sadly makes the field irrelevant.

But I digress.

In summary, Peterson's world is a harsh one, and you better toughen up, stand straight with your shoulders back, claim your place in this world or people will use you and abuse you. Humanity has a terrible capacity for evil, and - you guessed it - the Christian heritage, the original sin and the fallen state of Man hangs heavily over Peterson's exposition.

2) So how does this all tie in with Jupiter's transit through Scorpio? My basic astrological knowledge tells me the following: Jupiter is the planet of expansion, philosophy, wisdom and self-betterment, while Scorpio is a sign of power, suspicion, existential themes (life, death, sex), the awakening of occult (literally hidden) powers as well as the ability to discriminate and cut off the sick branch in order to save the tree. To a large extent, Peterson's really is a philosophy of Scorpio.* 

*It seems that he does not have any natal planets in Scorpio though except for Neptune. It also would seem that astrologers are struggling to get their hands on his exact birth time - ascendant in Scorpio? Aries? Any 8th house placements? I rest my case.

Karaktär och intention

Kära läsare,

Jag kommer nu med all sannolikhet sätta den här bloggen på paus under överskådlig framtid. Den begynnande höstterminen ger mig fullt upp med studier, arbete och annat som gör att bloggen måste sättas på undantag. Detta är egentligen ingen förlust - låt oss hoppas att jag gör något vettigare av min tid istället och så småningom kommer tillbaka med nya perspektiv!

För tillfället vill jag bara dela med mig av en kort reflektion angående det svenska valet. Jag har själv inte bestämt mig för något särskilt parti att rösta på, men jag har märkt något om politiska ställningstaganden: När du tar ställning politiskt i ett offentligt sammanhang så kommer din karaktär till uttryck, vare sig du vill det eller ej, och om du är uppriktig så märker du snart om dina intentioner är rena eller inte, liksom andra troligtvis kommer att märka det - och på detta sätt kan du ibland komma fram till att en ståndpunkt som företräds av dig själv eller av någon annan inte är hållbar. På detta sätt kan skillnaden i karaktär mellan opponenterna i vissa politiska debatter vara alldeles uppenbar. Det kanske inte är vanligt, men det förekommer att den enes moraliska överlägsenhet och andliga resning gentemot den andre framträder med sådan kraft att segern är given oavsett sakfrågornas innehåll. På detta sätt kan vi ibland se spillror av sanning reflekteras i en annan människas personliga uttryck, och om vi är uppmärksamma så kanske vi kan urskilja dessa spillror i det allmänna pladdret och ta fasta på dem.

Tack för mig.

The Age of Aquarius? Signs of the Zodiac as Archetypes of the Ages

I am not going to delve heavily into astrology in this post. If you think astrology is just some ridiculous pseudo-science, that is fine. It could even be a healthy attitude to some extent. Nevertheless, according to plenty of New Agers, we are now just entering/having entered the Age of Aquarius, leaving behind the Age of Pisces. As I am concerned with the question of how to periodize world history, this is most interesting to me. Periodization, after all, cannot be done objectively: history is divided into periods based on what "makes sense", no more scientific than that. It is a question of the perception and interpretation of patterns.

Oh, by the way - astronomical ages are a bit more objective. As the Earth wobbles round its axis, the sky above us slowly drifts. It takes the Earth roughly 26,000 years to complete one wobbling movement, known as precession. Divided by twelve, this gives on average slightly more than 2,000 years per Zodiac sign. As the visible sky above changes, the Pole Star will not, for instance, be aligned with the North Pole in the future. Other things that change concern the sun: during the spring and autumn equinoxes, as during the summer and winter solstices, the sun will be in some other Zodiac signs than today. For some reason, astrologers have singled out the spring (vernal) equinox as being of special importance. The sign of the sun during the vernal equinox is supposed to mark the age we are presently in.

This video illustrates the movements of the Earth with regard to the celestial sphere in the long run. It shows that we have now just entered the Age of Aquarius - except we haven't.

Reality isn't as neat as described in the video. Some signs are larger than others, Pisces being one of them. An astronomer would tell you that the spring equinox still occurs in Pisces, and will continue to do so until roughly the year 2600 AD, depending on where exactly you posit the boundaries between the signs.

The sun' s position during the spring equinox, years marked in red

Why astrologers frequently ignore astronomy is puzzling to say the least. There is at least one astrologer who has a long-winding argument for why the Age of Aquarius really began as early as 1433, right in line with the dawn of the modern age. But other than that, well, in the musical Hair they sang some fifty years ago that the Age of Aquarius was dawning. Then various people picked up on this, including Yogi Bhajan who suggested that the transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius would be completed in 2012 (one can only suspect that he was well aware of the end date for the Maya calendar). Whatever the case may be, we proceed to ask: What are the supposed differences between the Age of Pisces and the Age of Aquarius? And why do I, skeptical as I might be, consider this periodization to be a most striking one?

You may read up on typical characterizations of the Pisces and Aquarius signs anwhere on the web. Pisces is dreamy, drifting, understanding, connected with deep devotion, intuition and self-sacrifice. It is Pisces who says: "I shall do as my Lord commands", the Lord in this case being a transcendent being of some sort. Pisces is prone to delirium, illusions and possession: for an extreme charicature, picture the protagonist of The Shadow over Innsmouth by H.P. Lovecraft: A man arrives at a distant town where the inhabitants bear strange, fish-like features. Soon his very dreams are invaded by visions of the dark sea-monster Cthulhu, and in the end, well aware that he is losing his sanity, he only longs to be united with his master, to worship him beneath the waves in eternal bondage. Granted, this is much too dark and destructive for Pisces generally (and supposedly Lovecraft did have Piscean Neptune in the 8th house in his natal horoscope - the house of the occult). Nevertheless, it can hardly be denied that the world from roughly the time of Christ (who was also associated with fish) was, for a long time, dominated by transcendent religions focused on the worship of the One. Mahayana Buddhism also emerged around this time, and Christianity itself grew up in an environment of Late Antique mystery religions such as Mithraism, with which it shared certain features. Salvation religions had already begun to emerge, that much is true: but originally both Buddhism and Jainism, belonging to the martial Age or Aries, taught that the individual must save himself - no exterior deities were ultimately called for. It is only around the Age of Pisces that grace starts to become a factor. And now, supposedly, God is dead (or in any case forgotten) and we are in the Age of Aquarius.

The Aquarian is cut from a different cloth than the Piscean. Some recurring descriptions are (and I quote):

Aquarius in balance: Unique, objective, charismatic, inventive, fair, cosmopolitan, friendly, broadminded, interesting, unusual, creative, ingenious, idealistic, humanitarian, pioneering, socially conscious, activist, modern, awake, ecumenical, unbiased, visionary, open-minded, calm, patient, steady, gregarious, intuitive, alert, loyal, innovative, liberal, tolerant, communal, experimental, revolutionary, remarkable, rational, galvanizing. 

Aquarius out of balance: Dissociated, non-conforming, rebellious, anarchistic, anti, alienated, bizarre, unstable, belligerent, psychopathic, cruel, cold, sociopathic, aloof, impersonal, unsympathetic, fanatical, inflexible, immovable, cynical, disbelieving, skeptical, disparaging, erratic, overtalkative, anxious, ungrounded, inefficient, vacillating, noncommittal, impractical, spacy, unfocused, avoiding, peace-at-any-price, bewildered. 

Abraham Lincoln is a famous example of an Aquarian. Another person who captures some of the Aquarian spirit at its best is Socrates the way he is described in Plato's dialogues. Also, Karl Marx is said among astrologers to have been born during a Solar eclipse with his ascendant in Aquarius (with Sun and Moon in materialistic Taurus).

Now for the meaty part. It goes without saying that the last two hundred years or so have seemed a lot more Aquarian than Piscean in terms of the development of the world. Innovation has started to take on a stunning pace; the rights revolution has seen the emancipation of slaves, serfs, women, children, homosexuals and to some extent animals (although the majority of farm animals are probably worse off today than in the distant past). Electricity, atomic power, democracy, socialism, feminism and philanthropic capitalism: all these things are in the spirit of Aquarius. God is quickly fading from view, and the idea of submitting to a higher power seems evermore parochial and obscure. New Agers do not ask God for anything, they ask the Universe, as a friend and without submitting to it. Now, astrologers tend to say that Aquarians are driven by a quest for collective consciousness - that is, they are certainly spiritual, but their spirituality is of a different kind from Pisceans. But what does this mean? Why does this non-conformist individualist want to blend with others into some form of higher, collective consciousness?

Consider Socrates. Through his broad-minded, universalist logic he produces an "essence of truth" and then makes it visible to his adversary. The end result is that they both "see the truth" right before their eyes in exactly the same way. But this does not have to be a matter of scholastic debate, not at all: the methods may differ between Aquarians, but the quintessential Aquarian always strives for just this: to achieve a harmony of vision between people. That way, their minds become instances of a higher, universal mind.

There are of course other, more concrete examples of this. Marx posited that workers suffered from "false consciousness" so long as they did not realize their true, objective interests. Many feminist and other political groups frequently hold workshops to "raise consciousness". Yet the New Agers do not want to raise consciousness politically, but spiritually, through music, mantras, yoga and the like. In the tradition of above-mentioned Yogi Bhajan, here is a wonderful example of such a practice with music.

The Piscean morality is built around faith, devotion and submission. The Aquarian morality is built on Reason with a capital R. Pisces may be surprised that Aquarius can be moral without resorting to a higher power, but for Aquarius Reason constitues a kind of higher power, only you do not submit to it, you participate in it!

Now it only remains to be seen whether Aquarian man can keep serving humanity without trampling the natural world in the process; whether he can tame the machines he has created in the service of the greater good.

Political Correctness Has Always Been A Thing

Do not whine about "PC culture". Realize that all societies have taboos on what is considered decent to say in public. Would you really like it to be otherwise? Rather, if you are unhappy with the status quo, you are most likely trying to shift the window of political correctness in another direction. Excepting the most childish Neoliberals, most everyone who cares for the well-being of society understands that it needs boundaries, including boundaries on public expression of opinions.

If you do want to change the window of public expression, start in private. Discuss with close friends and confidantes such issues that you would be afraid to raise in public. In some cases, it may turn out that you simply needed to ventilate something and, having done so, you realize that it did sound kind of stupid after all. No harm done so long as you do it with a trusted friend. We simply need to express an opinion before we fully know if we believe in it, in some cases. We need to taste it, hear what it sounds like after it has left the world of ideas and become manifest as speech. The problem with political correctness - whatever form it may take - is not that it puts up boundaries for public speech, but that it can stifle thought itself. Circumvent this problem through private discussions, and you will also get a better understanding of where the boundaries are. You may, in private, occassionally cross such as boundary - make sure you notice when you do! If you never cross this boundary, if you prefer to stay safe and never even approach it, your boundaries for thought will shrink much more than necessary, or you may suddenly find yourself crossing the boundary in a drastic and crude manner.

It is sometimes puzzling to observe when a populist politician crosses such a boundary without having the slightest understanding of doing so. Last year in Sweden, for instance, the politician Martin Strid from the Sweden Democrats held a speech where he described how all people exist on a scale from being 100 % human/humane or 100 % Muhammedan (creating a pun in Swedish), because Islam at its core constitutes some kind of fanatic death-cult - a view which in itself is rather fanatic, we might add. Only later did it occur to Strid that his political career was now over, thank you very much and goodbye. One newspaper later summarized his excuse (translation mine): 

"It was very unfortunate, I expressed myself very crudely. I apologize for that," says Strid and claims that he had been stressed due to short speaking time.

One may well wonder what on Earth was going through this man's head as he entered the podium to deliver this career-ending speech. Probably he had convinced himself that what he was about to say sounded perfectly reasonable - it sounded outlandish and appalling. A benevolent interpretation would have it that Strid did not at all mean to say "Muslims are not humans", but simply "Muslims are indoctrinated in a way that inhibits their humanity." But 21th century Mass Media does not thrive on nuances, which he should have been well aware of (and for clarity, I care nothing for this latter interpretation of his position either).

In India there is a saying: "When in public, be a Vaishnava. When among friends, be a Shaiva. But in private, always be a Shakta." What does this mean? First a clarification: a Vaishnava is a devotee of the benign Vishnu, Lord of Preservation; a Shaiva is a follower of Lord Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds as well as the limited ego. A Shakta is a devotee of Shakti, the divine feminine power, the Goddess - variously associated with grace, the world as beauty, primordial womb, darkness and mystery. So in public, one behaves as a pious Vaishnava, observing all exoteric rites and rules of propriety, never transgressing against any law, never associating with impure foods, practices or people. When among friends, spiritual seekers celebrate the intoxicating power of Shiva and possibly compete with each other for his favor. They may even push each other to the limit, occassionally engaging in things that would not be appropriate in public. Finally, when one private, the adept retreats even from the bluster and combativeness of his Shaivite friends and basks in the grace of the Divine Mother, the most intimate and serene mystery. This, at least, is my understanding of what the saying means, although I readily confess that I have never had it explained to me.

What this teaches us is that there are various levels of speech, interaction and action - everything is not appropriate at all levels. Establish clear boundaries between your intimate sphere, your private sphere and your public sphere, and know what activities belong where. Perhaps you will even find, ultimately, that there is no need to try to bring certain things into the public sphere, whether opinions, attitudes or transgressive social practices.