Cosmotheism and Materialism: Response to a National Vanguard Comment

[RCavallius]

This comment was posted on National Vanguard by Baron of Pinellas in response to an article I wrote about Cosmotheism:

“Wouldn’t the Cosmotheist urge or Will-to-Power be non-materialistic? Nietzsche in his later works shows it to be more of a fundamental force like Schopenhauer’s Will to Life which is a force beyond the material. The Panentheistic nature of Cosmotheism seems to be not materialistic but the material being God’s tool of self realization through becoming an avatar of the ‘Urge’. Evolution to be a better lense of the Creator.”

https://nationalvanguard.org/2023/04/co ... ment-62008

He raised some points that I think deserve a thorough answer. My response is long, so I'm posting it here.

*******************************************************************************

Nietzsche went insane before the completion of his treatise on the will to power and never finished formulating that part of his philosophy. This left some questions unanswered, with certain aspects of the will to power being more open to interpretation than they would be if he had seen his work through. As it stands, we work from his notes. I've studied them in detail, but such studying is tricky for many reasons. Some of that material probably doesn't even represent his final thoughts on a matter.

Because of that, I won't claim to be 100% certain about anything, but I am almost positive that the will to power differs markedly from Schopenhauer’s concept and if Nietzsche had finished his book, the difference would have been glaringly apparent. You are right that they seem similar, but that is as far as it goes.

When you asked whether the Urge is “non-materialistic,” I think you meant nonmaterial, so I'll answer you there.

If you haven't already read Cosmotheism: Religion of the Future, which I cited in the article, I urge you to do so. A careful reading probably clears up most misconceptions. In the first chapter, Dr. Pierce refers to the Urge as “spirit” and a “spiritual manifestation” of the Creator. So, yes: the Urge as such appears to be nonmaterial.

However, it must be kept in mind that the Urge is also part of the material world. Nature is not divided into separate parts – not fundamentally. Everything belongs to the Whole and, therefore, if you are thinking of the Urge as a fundamentally distinct 'thing' which is somehow 'inside of' man and the world, you're mistaken. I don't want to get too deep in the weeds here, because you really should just read Pierce in his own words, but my point is this: if I understand correctly, the Urge as the Urge is nonmaterial, but if we view it more broadly, an essential part of the Whole which comes from, or out of, or through, the Creator and belongs to all of Nature, we can see that the Urge is not merely nonmaterial “spirit,” but more.

This is a periphery matter, though, since the article doesn't really discuss the Urge. It calls Cosmotheism materialistic in its metaphysics, and even that statement is made in a very specific way. Some forms of materialism posit that consciousness arises from matter. Cosmotheism teaches that matter and spirit both emanate from the Whole. I don't know exactly what the Whole is, yet, so I'll hold out on discussing its nature, but I will say this: Cosmotheism can be appropriately called materialistic based on its evaluation of man and the world. Calling Nature the only reality places Cosmotheism in the materialist camp, even if the Whole is something nonmaterial, for, near as I can tell, Cosmotheism certainly does not describe the Whole idealistic terms. And I would add, on top of that, that Cosmotheism's view of Nature is probably a clue about the nature of the Whole.

Remember that the article clearly states that the terms “materialistic” and “monistic” are probably not perfect descriptions of the Cosmotheist worldview. But, they are very close. (As is “panentheism,” which you mentioned.) We don't want to get so hung up on semantics that we lose sight of our original reason for studying the doctrine.

I defined Cosmotheism's “materialism” like this in the article: “Materialism in this sense means conceiving the world and all life in fundamentally natural rather than supernatural terms.”

This is basic. National Alliance ideology and Cosmotheism both stress the importance of “reality.” Various things can be meant by that, of course, and in some contexts, the meaning is probably pretty mundane. But, anyone who thoroughly understands our ideology will immediately pick up on the fact that in the word “reality,” a fundamental metaphysical position is expressed. As you probably know, realism and idealism are the two major subdivisions of metaphysics (a branch of philosophy defined, incidentally, as the study of the nature of reality). But what is the other term for realism? Materialism.

Our official publication, Building a New White World, summarizes National Alliance ideology and is for that reason considered mandatory reading for all who wish to join. Originally written by Dr. Pierce himself, it reads, in part, “There is only one reality, which we call Nature: not the 'my reality' and 'your reality' of the subjectivists and not the separate spiritual and physical realms of the supernaturalists.” This is metaphysical materialism all the way. And since our ideology is rooted in Cosmotheism, one can, by studying the former, get a better understanding of the latter.

Dr. Pierce also wrote that “living things developed from non-living things...” (Cosmotheism,18.) This conforms to the Cosmotheist belief in natural evolution and is another example of metaphysical materialism. The idea that it is possible for life to come from non-life is almost never found in idealistic doctrines, for it goes against the idea that matter arises from consciousness or a God that exists apart from the world. Teaching that the Creator's Urge evolves toward an all-seeing Consciousness does not make Cosmotheism less materialistic, for if that Consciousness is evolving from something (the Whole), then it is not primary, it is derivative.

So, your belief that the “Panentheistic nature of Cosmotheism seems to be not materialistic” needs to be reconsidered. Cosmotheism does not conform to every iteration of metaphysical materialism, but it is materialistic in the way I have described. It is panentheistic as well. At the end of the day, however, Cosmotheism is a unique worldview, so it cannot be completely equated with other, similar ones. Your understanding may be consistent with panentheism in a general sense, but it does not conform to Cosmotheism specifically. My article's thesis is correct, for it not only coincides with Cosmotheism's panentheistic nature, but is borne out by a wider study of Dr. Pierce's teachings.

[Baron of Pinellas]

Thank you so much for your response, when I would read materialism I took the conventual idea of Materialism being 'the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications'. I am currently half way through the Cosmotheist book offered by the Church, reading it I always took the 'urge' as inherent in all creation (as aspects of the whole) as the material becomes greater in quality, the urge is a better reflection through the material. As Heidegger states "If the questions raised are thought through even thoroughly, the illusion of being as a matter of course, in which the distinction of essentia and existentia stands for all metaphysics, disappears. This distinction is groundless if metaphysics simply tries gain and again to define the limits of what is divided, and comes up with numbering the manners of possibility and the kinds of actuality which float into vagueness, together with the difference in which they are already placed." This is very Cosmotheist as it places explains Whole (the realization that Idealism and Materialism are just aspects of Being). Semantics at the end of the day is a useless argument and reading your response I have no disagreement with the essence of what you say. Cosmotheism represents the Truth of our existence and our Purpose, that of becoming and striving for higher stages of consciousness. With the Duty of being apart of the creator investing us with thag purpose. Dr. Pierce saw what the National socialists saw with the issues of past metaphysics and dualistic philosophy, it leads to sickness of the mind and body through either rabid asceticism (searching for gnosis to a fictional other existence) or Hedonistic individualism which sees no reason for existence but material pleasure. I personally In reading Nietzsche, the Will-to-Power is another term for the Urge or at least an aspect. The Will to power seeks to overcome and that is what drives the evolutionary struggle of the universe.

Thank you for your response, sorry this is short I wanted to respond before I went to bed.

[RCavallius]

Thank you for your response, sorry this is short I wanted to respond before I went to bed.

You're welcome. Thanks for thinking about it.