comind recently put forward a breakdown of large-scale axes of power. You can read about it here.
It reminded me a lot of a series of posts on Substack arguing that the core of ethics is transgressing arenas–trying to use the currency of strength, say, to purchase something in the realm of ideas. It’s interesting and seems to lightly map onto what comind is trying to do here.
comind’s initial breakdown is between “Church” and “Monarchy” as two traditional axes of power, in tension. Historically, I think this makes sense in broad strokes and outlining the differences in concerns, approach, and values seems like a good exercise.
Differences I’m Not Sure are Differences
I’m not sure what to make of
The world is full of people, some of them saints but most of them wicked.
versus
The world is full of nations, some of them allies but most of them enemies.
This seems mostly like a difference in scale, thinking about groups of people rather than individuals, not a core difference in worldview.
Points I’m Not Sure are Accurate
I’m not sure it makes sense to call the Church “anti-natal.” Sure, the leadership of some churches take vows of chastity, but to take the Catholic Church as an example, its followers are famously opposed to most forms of birth control, have large families, and so on.
One of the first commandmends in their scripture from God is to “be fruitful and multiply.”
To be sure, this isn’t “pro-natal” in the way that the Monarchy is, but I don’t think “anti-natal” holds up.
The Rest
The rest I think largely checks out. It’s a little unfair to comind but by chance I read Boomerdämmerung’s post first and find it hard to not make comparisons.
I think comind’s “Monarchy” category maps neatly into “physical concerns,” given its emphasis on bodies, borders, and armies.
The “Church” category feels like a blend of the spiritual and mental categories, which makes sense to me historically.