Level the mountains/Fill in the valleys
-
The presumption of potential is a core tenet of Peat's philosophy. From diseases dismissed as "genetic" or "incurable", to seemingly immutable character traits such as IQ, Peat consistently believed everything can be changed, fixed, improved. So it is fitting that he was a leftist in this sense, because he did believe in a Rousseau-ist "man is born free..", "criminals aren't born they're made", type of vision.
Once you have a system which not only dismisses being "born this way', but even analyses human biology to find connections between diet and thought, environment and attitude, where does that leave so-called "individuality"? With the identified factors completely controlled, and whatever number of generations needed, could you breed an Asian person from an originally African couple? Could the average African achieve a 140IQ with sufficient metabolic support, or at least could his subsequent child achieve this?
In a world of completely peated individuals, a world where there is no internal strife for inspiration to rise out of, would art or literature exist? Would the expression of the individual be of any concern to anyone? Yes, there is a transcendent element to the human spirit that has inspired a huge amount of culture, but in a peated world we would arguably be perfectly spiritually formed and therefore would have little need to "move toward" or "capture" the transcendent through art.
To out it simply, leftists today seek to level all the mountains, because they were born in the bogs. They see beauty and instead of admitting admiration, they seek to destroy it out of resentment. What would happen to human differentiation, of beauty or of any kind, if the reverse of this kind of destruction were achieved, namely; filling the valleys, raising the lowlands. Improving everyone. With the perfect diet, awareness and environment would the once short and ugly transform into beauties on long stalks? Would everyone become "equal"?
Apologies for this scattered and long-winded post, this is isn't very well fleshed out but I do want to know if other people have been thinking of this. I think there is an answer for the preservation of human hierarchy but it's not obvious through the Peat lens of looking at the world. A lot of people on this forum come from the BAPsphere, and believe in a rigid biological determinism. How can this be reconciled with Peats almost naive view of endless potentiality?
-
@Nabokov Both have to be true. If it wasn't for Ray's will to life, which I think of as THE will to life, which he so naively possesses and which he has to so naively possess lest he would not be able to penetrate the question of biology so directly, higher life could not be pursued in the first. Everything else is superfluous. And Ray understood hierarchy, biological hierarchy of bodies of cells and of states of bodies, he understood subordination and cooperation and competition because they are part of the same self-ordering process, whether in the body of an organism or in a nation.
Also, there's a difference between the retard argument of 'genetic determinism', as used by modern medicine, which is fundamentally an anti-Nietzschean denial of the will, and true 'biological determinism', in the sense that all rational thought stems from the BODY and the question of inheritance is as important to an organism as the question of the biological effects of its own environment like how Nietzsche writes about. This is all in accordance to Ray's thought. But the question is whether something exists priori to the will to health. To make yourself healthy, you must already be healthy at the bottom of your nature.
