The Subhuman

[sdi]

The Neoplatonists assume levels of ontological causation as a matter of course: matter, which we see, must be animated by a higher soul; soul, in turn, must be caused by a higher being; being, in turn, must be given wholeness by a higher unity. This means that, in their model, the world is divided into various levels of being depending on these qualities.

The Neoplatonists also assume that the best things are those that are closest to the One, which is to say, have the fewest causes. The worst things are those that are furthest from the One, which is to say, have the most causes. While some things are better than others, nothing is considered "evil" in the absolute sense: evil is considered to be more like "darkness," an absence of good rather than the presence of anything bad.

Human existence, being in the sensible world, is often equated with evil. But while humans are indeed pretty horrible, I can't imagine that we are any more or less horrible than animals, existing as we do at the same level of ontological causation. Therefore, I suppose most of our misery comes from another source, and these things must be things below us in the ontological hierarchy. But what could be below us?

Well, the things we are the ontological causes of. That is to say, the things we create. I am speaking here of things that require our continual input of effort, of energy, of belief to persist: things which do not have a physical basis, but only a social one. The embodiment of such things is ephemeral, as we must lend them our minds for them to exist. But because these things only really exist in our collective imagination, we are their connection to the divine, and thus these phantasms are further from the One than we are and partake in less light than we do.

What kinds of things have this property? AI is all the rage these days, and sure, that's one thing, but let us not forget those more traditional fictions: corporations, governments, organizations and social movements generally (including religions!), methodologies (like "science" or even my beloved "mathematics"), and even such "neutral" constructs as money. These are things that have no real, physical existence: they only exist insofar as we imbue them with belief. When that belief is withdrawn, watch how quickly the phantasms fade! And fade they do: I wonder if granting human rights to corporations—explicitly "subhuman" entities—is what numbered our society's days. Certainly it drained a lot of the good that could have been out of it!

I think it is dangerous to consider these fake things to be more real than they are, and this is why the Cynics took a stance of withdrawing from society in an effort to demonstrate it. I call these things "subhuman"—I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call them "demonic," since, as I said, the model doesn't consider things "evil," merely less good—but it is at least clearly the case that you can't go up by looking down.

I would urge spiritual people not to place their faith in any "subhuman" entities, as these will not lead you towards divinity, but rather away from it. Follow the guidance and example of angels, and everything else will fall into place.

Comments

[causticus]

I must say that you've come up with a much more productive use of the term "subhuman" than its usual connotations suggest.

I think these subhman creations can be good, neutral, or bad. If there is a divine/angelic force or intelligence blessing or maintaining the egregore(s) containing a human creation, then it's not to bad. But those feral creations? Yikes..

After our discussion yesterday I pretty much nodded my head at the notion that religion and politics are inseparable. Specifically, any religion that's more complex than a simple household cultus. And I joked to myself that any dispute more complex than an argument between two people is politics of some type or another. If we're to live in group, there shall be politics. Aristotle said man is either a political animal or an outcast like a “bird which flies alone.”

With polytheism, political contamination is mitigated to a great degree, due to the decentralized reality of having so many different cults to different deities, and presumably, independent priesthoods. It's with Monotheism (or any type of Monolatry) where ideological infection (or just mundane corruption) can become a major problem.

[sdi]

I agree with you that all these human creations can be positive—it's like the sutra says, they can be "a finger pointing at the moon"—just be sure you look at the moon, and not the finger! It's what the initiates taught about the Mysteries, it's what Pythagoreans taught about math, it's what the Platonists taught about the state, and so on.

But personally, living in a time like ours, where almost everything has been weaponized against the good, I'd rather steer clear of the lot of it: the danger to your soul is not small, and I think we live in a high-risk, high-reward time for being incarnate. Better, I think, to find your star, and steer by her.

[sdi]

I was thinking about this further today and figured I should footnote that one needs to be careful to distinguish what parts of constructs are human and which are not—I'm not explicitly taking issue with Plato's forms, for example, though I may be calling for a nuanced interpretation of it.

For example, while I think human beauty is subhuman, it seems to me that beauty in general is superhuman, as there are clearly things that can be considered beautiful that humans don't judge so. Similarly, while mathematics may be subhuman, it seems to me that numbers and ratios and the like are superhuman, as these exist independently of our constructions and definitions.

mathe

[kallianeira]

I was likewise sorry to find mathematics in the subhuman, once you put it that way.

Happily, and synchronistically, today I found this suggestion by JMG from a comments section a couple of years ago:
"...mathematics needs to reinvent itself as one of the arts. It’s really beautiful, like a properly composed fugue or canzone, irrespective of any claim or lack of it to truth."

Now I'm stretching my brain over the place of art(s) in this metaphysics. Especially, perhaps, music.

Re: mathe

[sdi]

I thoroughly agree. Math is beautiful, or can be, and we should encourage its use for beauty!

Regarding the metaphysics of art, Plotinus has you covered. The arts that imitate what we experience in nature (say, painting or sculpting) are physical; the arts that generalize from nature to produce un-natural things (say, music, or to your point, math as an art) are spiritual (in his schema, belong to the level of souls, just like gods and angels and so on); finally, the arts that draw on a general theory to practical ends (say, medicine or engineering) are in the middle.