The following mailings took place on the difference between the aesthetic and intellectual mind. Anyone wishing to respond to these articles or the communication here may send an e-mail from the feedback-page.


With the help of Plato


As to the difference between the aesthetic and intellectual mind: it compares to what Plato calls the musical ( philosophical and softening) as opposed to the gymnastic (spirited and hardening).

"That is quite true, he said. And as there are two principles of human nature, one the spirited and the other the philosophical, some God, as I should say, has given mankind two arts answering to them (and only indirectly to the soul and body), in order that these two principles (like the strings of an instrument) may be relaxed or drawn tighter until they are duly harmonised. " (Plato: The Republic, book III).

Althought I oppose the philosophical/intellectual with the aesthetic, I conceived of the gymnastic as more musical and aesthetic softening and the intellectual, logical as more cool and hardening. The difference with Plato's and my argument is that the (actual) practice of the physical would line up more with the unreason (see Kuhn) and softness. Evidently in the old days the physicist logic of philosophy would not be as hard as it is now. The solution to this contorversy, answering to the harmonising of the opposites as proposed by Plato before mentioned, would be a gymnastic of consciousness like yoga or tai chi and a philosophy of harmony and wholenes in stead of duality and conflict.


P. Chaste


To take your argument relative,


First of all I would like to thank you. I certainly think the distinction between the esthetic and moral intellect is important. But I also must relativize it.

First of all: what do you refer to. As a scientist you cannot argue unfounded. Is this a theory of illusion or does it pertain to sociological, psychological or other fact? Please clarify your reference.

Second I would like to defend The Order in this. It is not so that The Order would be a one-sided moralistic affair: there is certainly an estectic and intellectual argument from The Order itself. May I remind you of the fact that as part of the opulence (go to guide, click on wealth) of The Order there is mention of beauty next to knowledge. Also from the method (as you also say) there is clearly mention of a tripolarity of the method: the freedom, uncertainly and doubt of our free will are warranted by the proper balancing of the two major principles of lust and reality. This is not just theory for The Order. Maybe you are not so esthetic yourself, you just might see the world as you are, but a great deal of energy is spent on setting a proper graphical (esthetic) presentation as well as an offering of music (which also clearly appeals to our other brainhalf). Also the story The Dream (check article) is esthetically founded. There are even more arguments against your discrimination, but lets stop the argument here.

Thirdly I wonder what your practical purpose is: what is it that you want separating the two pinciples and making two kinds of people. isn't it dangerous to separate and discriminate between two kinds of intellect or commitment? Do you want to exclude onesidedness or one of the two types? And how are they distinguished anyway? Do you want to make a test or an exam to discriminate the two? I think there can be done a lot of harm with this. Maybe people do have esthetic moods or fases in their lives, may be it should not be seen as a matter of social opposition. But doesn't it lead to unwanted ego if we separate the esthetic from the moral half of our lives? Doesn't it pervert the intellect itself if we discriminate like this?

What I do agree with you about is that this subject is certainly worth a proper discussion.


T.H.E. Servant


About the oppositions and the cramp.


The difference between the esthetic and the moral intellect is an important distinction. It makes the difference between war and peace. Out of balance the two will oppose and wage war. In balance it is difficult to separate the one from the other. But still the distinction is necessary. It is necessary to see this because it is the reality. For lust and love we must not arrive at repression making false preferences for the one or the other. Only a conscious regard of this distinction can lead the way to a balanced (individual and world-)culture of mutual respect. It is not to make an opposition of international cultures with one taking the esthetic argument and the other taking to the moral. It is not only within one culture, but also within the same person that this must be seen. Man has this dual nature of saving himself from the moral outcry with the esthetic practice and from the esthetic infatuation with moral directives. One has to understand the physical underpinnings of this dual nature of cultural, mutual social and collective respect next to individual selfrespect.

To the differentiation of our brainfunctions we know to be emotional, esthetic at the one side and moral, rational, and regulative on the sequential of time at the other hand. This duality of serial and parallel brain function is essential to human integrity. It compares time to the place and makes up the identity of the person. Loosing balance in this will have grave consequences for not just the individual, but also for the collective. History gives ample evidence of how disasterous the unbalanced schizoid nature of one individual can work out to ruin the complete of societal selfrespect of the collective. This distinction cannot be separated from the true nature of human sanity in general. Being sane implies a balanced functioning according to time and circumstances. In psychology this is popularly known as the here and now-theme and in psychiatry it is the basic test to check for the correct knowledge of time and place to determine the quality of individual reality-testing.

There are further ramifications to this theme. Politically one is forced to accept pragmatic agreements of time, but loosing the link with the locality of timing culture goes off-balance: will the European Union manage to respect the local cultures or will it be a false excuse to exploit all for the sake of a cheap common gray suit of culture to which no one will feel happy or will manage to realize who one really is. Centralization and alienation are things to fear. To depersonalize loosing ones local culture will necessitate compensations that might not work out as just and righteous as one would like. One's soul is easily sold when even at the top people have to fight to keep some public image, some personal sense of identity and self, going on outside of the office. That image will tend towards a false elite and secured areas for ingroup member only. This is a social perversion, and it will surely enrage the comon man who quickly recognizes this historic fall-down of the people in power.

The same problem can also be observed to the cultures of the media, knowing books, television and the cinema. This compensatory cramp of identity found in all realms of society is classically known as the symtom of alienation and compensation making ego instead of soul and war in stead of peace. It makes opposition in stead of recognition of our true common nature and interests. It obscures the distinctions (as e.g. between the esthetic and moral intellect, the two legs the soul is walking with) and breeds false oneness which practically results in individual and collective depersonalization or simply madness.

I can also expand this to the religious oppositions: catholics and the protestant did not recognize themselves as the same christians making opposition of plain ego blaming oneother ones own weakness of making false authority and deviant practices. It is like two people wearing oneothers shoes, not knowing it and feeling uncomfortable in it. One blames the other of being the cause of the necessary penance. The protestant may not enjoy and the Pope may not mary. This is not how christianity started. This is how the ego has cramped up being alienated to the here and now of a balanced lifestyle. Also in between religions this can be observed: moslims fight against christans accusing them of the esthetic falsification of the intellect while christians blame them to be merely another lusty predator moralist trying to kill for more territory. Hindu's fight against christians and muslims for being demoniac and impersonalist acting impersonal and demoniac themselves with it, while nobody realizes anymore how this all historically came about and is maintaned.

This internet-site called The Order has the perfect lead in the solution to all these historic problems. It simply proclaims natural order as the solvent for all cultural cramps and madness. And indeed it works like that. It is simply no theory but the practice of of the same historic outcome that people of all times realized after any war was over: face the chaos, clear out the rubble and restore the authentic order. Thus the new enlightenment of the New Order. I wish you all the best of this realization.


yours, P. Chaste.


A vedic answer,

I find it wholy unaccepable to separate the esthetic reality from the moral drive. The Veda's indeed state that sundaram is just one of the elements of the divine (sathyam, sivam, sundaram: truth, consciousness and beauty). Although certainly meditating on the esthetic can be a way to Rome so to say, I also see the danger of ego in this Roman argument. All vanity might be fair, but isn't it also cultivating the outer attraction against the inner drive? I maintain that for the Vedic foundation of The Order the primary importance is its value-system (see guide): It points out excellently what the veda's want: a proper distinction of principles, values, the reality of Kali-yuga (modern misery) and the virtues that are the consequence of respecting and compromising with the reality of samsar (the material misery) as it is. Therefore I daresay that the moral intellect as you state it should prevail over the esthetic argument. There should always be the lead of Isvara (the Lord) and guru (the teacher) which is always predominantly the moral intellect (they rarely make nice stories for the sake of storytelling or reference for the sense of togetherness alone). Without this guidance and dominance The Order would be unfounded and stray off, and would certainly be without my commitment! Do not forget that the bliss of the eternal soul is the ultimate of your esthetic argument and that it is not the conscequence of an outer effect but an inner realization.


Anand Aadhar Prabhu



This discussion took place in the webforum in 1999