> Sexual self-denial always was the driving force behind the western cultural success.
It is a feature of a subset of the culture in some countries. It is far less universal as you say.
> You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life.
This really does not follow. How does the existence of laws prevent someone to live a normal life? In a liberal democracy, laws fundamentally guarantee that we can do so, as long as someone’s fundamental individual freedom does not cause unacceptable harm to someone else. In that framework, what we do in private with consenting adults is absolutely nobody’s business. Rule of law does not change this.
> From the monk in the monastry to Turing hyper-focused on an enigma there is clear line.
What line is this? In which way was Turing’s persecution a requirement for him being a genius? How do we benefit from him killing himself instead of leaving him be and make other contributions to our intellectual development?
> It’s an ugly recipe, but it’s working, unlike all those other societies out there, who are currently eating themselves.
It is not. What you are advocating is a theocracy and there are many examples in History and around the world that show that it is a terrible idea.
> A judge doesn't dress like a priest for no reason.
All I can say is LOL. Ceremonial clothing is more nuanced than that.
> Sexual caste slavery or anarchy- thats the choices.
The fact that you only see these possibilities says a lot more about you than the way human beings work.