*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/review-of-new-hobbit-movie-desolation.html
*
Friday, 13 December 2013
Combating the incredibility of Christianity to modern skeptics - an apologetic strategy
*
Modern elites are among the least rational in history. They lack both the patience and the ability to follow even a short line of reasoning - and even if they do follow it through, they do not trust their own conclusions when these contradict prevailing notions.
But modern people are well schooled in the tools of reflex skepticism - modern elites can dis-believe anything they want to disbelieve, anything which short term expediency makes it convenient to disbelieve: thus they can effortlessly disbelieve their own experience including the evidence of their own eyes.
How can such people be brought seriously to consider Christianity?
*
Assuming that there are a lot of people who are pre-immunized against the strategies of the past - such as the 'completion of paganism' approach, the logical 'proofs' of God, the common sense rationality of CS Lewis, or Lewis's other 'completion of Romanticism'/ Surprised by Joy idea... and so on.
What remains?
*
One idea is to eschew any attempt to present Christianity as obviously true to anybody but an idiot, or even overwhelmingly probable on the basis of evidence; not to point to the greatness of Christian culture, or exemplary persons such as Saints; nor even to argue that society works better if people are Christians...
These ideas are unlikely to work; and may be counter-productive in a culture of political correctness - with its multiple moral inversions; which paint good as evil, ugly as art, lies as blunt honesty - and vice versa.
*
How about simply presenting the central tenets of Christianity in a way which emphasizes that there is reason on both sides - against, yet also for, the truth and reality of Christianity?
And - whatever the precise balance of probability is judged to be - in this sense, belief and disbelief both have support: both belief and disbelief are reasonable conclusions.
*
Or, to put it another way, it can reasonably be argued that it is not impossible that Christianity is false; but also, it is not impossible that Christianity is true.
*
If this is accepted, as many will allow; if there is indeed some 'balance of evidence', something to be said pro and contra; then each person can make a choice; indeed each person must make a choice; indeed, each person must make a choice for themselves - and upon this choice a great deal hinges.
*
And leave it at that: no pressure.
*
Modern elites are among the least rational in history. They lack both the patience and the ability to follow even a short line of reasoning - and even if they do follow it through, they do not trust their own conclusions when these contradict prevailing notions.
But modern people are well schooled in the tools of reflex skepticism - modern elites can dis-believe anything they want to disbelieve, anything which short term expediency makes it convenient to disbelieve: thus they can effortlessly disbelieve their own experience including the evidence of their own eyes.
How can such people be brought seriously to consider Christianity?
*
Assuming that there are a lot of people who are pre-immunized against the strategies of the past - such as the 'completion of paganism' approach, the logical 'proofs' of God, the common sense rationality of CS Lewis, or Lewis's other 'completion of Romanticism'/ Surprised by Joy idea... and so on.
What remains?
*
One idea is to eschew any attempt to present Christianity as obviously true to anybody but an idiot, or even overwhelmingly probable on the basis of evidence; not to point to the greatness of Christian culture, or exemplary persons such as Saints; nor even to argue that society works better if people are Christians...
These ideas are unlikely to work; and may be counter-productive in a culture of political correctness - with its multiple moral inversions; which paint good as evil, ugly as art, lies as blunt honesty - and vice versa.
*
How about simply presenting the central tenets of Christianity in a way which emphasizes that there is reason on both sides - against, yet also for, the truth and reality of Christianity?
And - whatever the precise balance of probability is judged to be - in this sense, belief and disbelief both have support: both belief and disbelief are reasonable conclusions.
*
Or, to put it another way, it can reasonably be argued that it is not impossible that Christianity is false; but also, it is not impossible that Christianity is true.
*
If this is accepted, as many will allow; if there is indeed some 'balance of evidence', something to be said pro and contra; then each person can make a choice; indeed each person must make a choice; indeed, each person must make a choice for themselves - and upon this choice a great deal hinges.
*
And leave it at that: no pressure.
*
Thursday, 12 December 2013
What is the Mass Media, and what is/are its function/s?
[What follows is first draft of a section from my forthcoming book.]
*
The
mass media, as an autonomous social system, is a relatively new
thing; and (although already in existence) was only recognized as an
entity in its own right (The Media) from about the nineteen fifties
by Marshal McLuhan.
The
mass media are defined by communications which go from one to many
persons (or from a small group to a much larger one).
In
sum, a mass medium is a system of amplification
for communications: such as a printed book or newspaper, a radio or TV
program, an internet blog or the 'social' media such as (written in
2013) Facebook and Twitter.
Before
the Mass Media, there were several mass media – and some of these
reached quite a massive scale of amplification such as the lecture,
the play or gladiatorial and sport spectacles such as chariot racing
– which in Roman times had reached an amplification rate of one to
many thousands – thanks to the technology of the amphitheatre.
Writing
is potentially a system of amplification since it allows for copying,
but the most famous mass medium is the printed page – credited to
Gutenburg's invention of moveable type.
*
But
in these early times the mass media was simply a range of
technologies for amplifying communications – and the communications
originated from other social systems that has the usual social
functions; systems such as government, the military, the legal
system, the various arts, and scholarship (such as theology,
philosophy and science).
Early
media took their functions from the social systems they served. There
was no single Mass Media, and the functions were as diverse as
informing and entertaining – for example when mass media amplified
government – perhaps in writing by pamphlets or through newspapers,
they might provide information, or provide a conduit for propaganda –
intended to shape behaviour, or perhaps provide some kind of ethical
inspiration or guidance.
When
a mass medium amplified science it was perhaps educating via a
textbook, informing via a scientific paper, or may be popular science
in a newspaper or radio broadcast. When a medium amplified the arts
(e.g. by printing a novel or poem, or broadcasting a play on
television) it could be proving entertainment, or an aesthetic
experience.
At
this point, therefore, the various mass media had no unified function
– they were merely mechanisms for amplifying the communications of
functional social systems – so it could be said that they served to
do something along the lines of conveying information, aesthetic
experience, entertainment and propaganda.
*
However,
once the various mass media reached a certain size and began to
cross-communicate, then the system of mass media communication began to
communicate with each other; that is to refer to, and to react to,
each other.
At
this point the Mass Media could be considered a separate system. It
was no longer just a mechanism for amplifying the communications from
other systems, but the various media reacted to stimuli from each
other – and the output from these was... more reactions. The Mass
Media was a system, and the system was (potentially) autonomous.
So,
a newspaper runs a story – and this story could originate from
almost anywhere – discovered by the mass media's own 'reporters',
from a press release, from a rumour – it does not matter; but this
story is repeated in the broadcast media and across the internet and
evokes reactions from all these sources – leading to stories about
the story; and any or several of these stories about stories may lead
to further reactions – and so on.
Thus
while the old mass media were merely amplifiers; the modern Mass
Media is substantially independent of the other social systems.
Whereas the old mass media would inform – because it was simply
telling more people what other social systems had generated; the
modern Mass Media select, re-shape and just plain invent outputs
which are 'designed' (intended) merely to evoke reactions from
itself.
Therefore
while the old mass media had not intrinsic function, because it was
not a system; but merely a set of amplifiers; the modern Mass Media
has no intrinsic function because it simply generates outputs to
evoke reactions from itself.
But
his is not, of course, purely technological: humans are necessarily
involved. The constraint upon this is that people must be induced to
participate cognitively in this process of reacting – the system of
the modern Mass Media must therefore include human minds, as well as
technologies. Somebody must read some of the newspapers and react in
some way – whether by buying, or gossiping, or voting, or rioting –
and thus provide feedback stimuli thereby to close the loop and
re-fuel the Mass Media
*
The
point is that it may at one time have been reasonable to summarize
the mass medias functions as (say) informing and entertaining –
since the mass media took information perhaps from science and
amplified it; now the Mass Media generates stories which it
references to science, but these stories do not have to be true –
certainly the stories do not need to be true according to scientific
criteria. Media science stories are simply references to science, and
may variously be true or selected, distorted or invented as seems
most likely to provoke Mass Media responses some of which will lead
on to further Mass Media responses – of a type that engages
sufficient people in such a way as to fuel further communications
(buying more newspapers, generating advertising revenue or
subscriptions or buying more equipment or whatever). But there is no
reason why a science story should be true.
Similarly
with entertainment. For traditional mass media to amplify
entertainments they generally had to be enjoyable – to sell a lot
of novels, people had to enjoy the novel; to get a lot of people to
watch something on TV is needed to make people happy, or excited or
make them laugh or something... But in the modern Mass Media,
entertainment does not need to entertain; so long as it compels some
kind of attention this works just as well as entertainment; and since
it is difficult to entertain people en masse and for long periods,
there is not much entertaining going-on.
So
although there remains an element of entertainment the modern Mass
Media attract attention by any and every means: by evoking disgust,
horror, fear, lust, repulsion, self-satisfaction, pity for others,
self-pity, hero-worship, scapegoating... and then reacting to these
responses, and reacting to the reactions.
The
most typical modern Mass Media event is therefore some kind of staged
pseudo-'reality' show, consisting of people who evoke strong
reactions, engineered into situations designed to evoke responses –
which may then be displayed to elicit further responses. These shows
neither entertain nor inform; but are calculated simply to attract
and engage attention by whatever means, and evoke opinions and
behavioural feedback which may be harvested and channelled into an
iterative process which serves nothing beyond its own growth in
communications.
*
(The above is a response to WmJas's suggestion in a comment that the Mass Media did have a function: namely to inform and entertain.)
Magical Thinking versus Malthus was Correct (except for a blip)
*
One of the most important books I have ever read was Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms: a brief economic history of the world; because he makes clear that Malthus was essentially correct, and more people does mean less food per capita - over the long term.
Malthus is the normal, what we have had since about 1800 is a blip.
*
The blip is that since 1800 there has been an era in which productivity has outrun population growth - so far for about eight generations. The population of the world has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion - and another billion will come in about 14 year and another about 18 years after that...
The blip has an explanation - the blip is not something to be taken for granted.
In a nutshell, the blip boils down to food production - the planet used to yield enough food for 1 billion people, but now yields enough for 7 billion people.
So the blip was caused, or enabled, by an era when technological breakthroughs in food production (and the implementation of those breakthroughs) came so thick and fast that massive population growth was sustainable, and the average amount of food per person also increased.
*
But this outrunning will only continue if relevant technological breakthrough/ implementing also continues.
This is not due to a magic cause, it is not in the nature of things - there were specific historical reasons, operating in actual places, and among individual human beings - which led to technological breakthroughs.
So the root of modernity is... whatever enabled technological breakthroughs from about 1800. And the sustaining of modernity depends on the sustaining of... whatever enabled technological breakthroughs from about 1800.
All the evidence I have seen shows that the rate of relevant breakthroughs has been declining for some considerable time, probably the past couple of generations (since the mid twentieth century).
This would not be at all surprising, it would indeed be what we would expect - so long as we do not succumb to magical thinking.
*
What was the cause of the take-off in productivity which became visible from about 1800 hundred and enabled a great increase in food production? Whatever it was, it has to be something new, which wasn't possible before - something contingent, and not in the nature of human society.
Greg Clark's book makes clear that the only coherent explanation for the 'industrial revolution' and the (contingent) escape from the Malthusian norm, was a change in human capability - a change in the abilities and motivations of human beings which (in the case of England) can be observed and measured to be building-up from early Medieval times.
It should not be surprising that human capability is collapsing - and modern societies are in practice unable to do things which used to be done easily. It should not be surprising that the dense concentration of relevant technological breakthroughs - and the capacity to implement them - has gone.
*
Things have causes, modernity is not magic; food production requires the production of food - the production of more food to feed billions of extra people requires breakthroughs.
The usual situation in human history is that when extra people are born, they die of starvation - because there is no food for them. We now have an extra six billion mouths to feed above the norm, and plenty more coming.
Most people seem to act like feeding six billion extra people is something that just happens, by magic, like there is some invisible hand that inevitably produces what ever is needed.
But no. It is not magic. Technological breakthroughs were made by specific people in specific places and under specific circumstances - when these change, then the normal state resumes: very few breakthroughs or none at all; and the extra productivity no longer sustainable, technology forgotten or not usable.
*
Modernity was an achievement - a wicked achievement in many ways; but by achievement I mean that it happened for particular reasons; and if or when those particular reasons disappear or cease to operate then we have six million people too many - and more on the way.
Reality is a Red Queen situation - population and food production (and the rest of it) are so far out of equilibrium that we have to keep running hard to stay in the same place. Mess-up the capability or implementation; and food production soon collapses.
(Food is the bottom line, but of course the same arguments apply to other necessities).
*
That is realism. But what we have is magical thinking.
Magical thinking on the politically-correct, 'Liberal' Left and also magical thinking on on the mainstream conservative/ libertarian 'Right'.
The magical thinking of socialists who see productivity increase as 'normal' (the graph rises) and the main problem as spreading it around, sharing-out the food which magically appears; and the magical thinking of libertarians and capitalists who think that - however big the population - enough food will always be forthcoming so long as the incentives and institutions are correct - the invisible hand fed an extra six billion since 1800, and can feed another two, four or six billion if necessary.
Both are fantasies. The reality is that society is entropic, and keeping the extra six billion alive needs not just sustaining past capabilities but continually developing more.
*
We need relevant breakthroughs and they need to be applied or billions of people will start dying off.
Nature cannot hear our rhetoric, nature will not be fooled - either we are doing this or we are not doing it.
Everything in modernity depends on those breakthroughs! Where did they come from? WHO did they come from? Do those situations and people still exist, do they still generate breakthroughs - are they even trying to generate breakthroughs?
*
This is not a threat. In fact I believe that we cannot generate enough breakthroughs to sustain the blip, because we are not clever enough - but if we understood the realities and were actually trying to do something useful about them, then the end of the blip would not be so bad as otherwise.
*
Modernity was a blip, made possible by the ability to feed billions more people.
But the blip had causes, and if or when those causes are removed or have already been removed - or if population outstrips relevant capacity - the blip will stop blipping, and the world will return to normal Malthusian equilibrium
And there are currently maybe six billion people in excess of that equilibrium...
*
One of the most important books I have ever read was Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms: a brief economic history of the world; because he makes clear that Malthus was essentially correct, and more people does mean less food per capita - over the long term.
Malthus is the normal, what we have had since about 1800 is a blip.
*
The blip is that since 1800 there has been an era in which productivity has outrun population growth - so far for about eight generations. The population of the world has gone from 1 billion to 7 billion - and another billion will come in about 14 year and another about 18 years after that...
The blip has an explanation - the blip is not something to be taken for granted.
In a nutshell, the blip boils down to food production - the planet used to yield enough food for 1 billion people, but now yields enough for 7 billion people.
So the blip was caused, or enabled, by an era when technological breakthroughs in food production (and the implementation of those breakthroughs) came so thick and fast that massive population growth was sustainable, and the average amount of food per person also increased.
*
But this outrunning will only continue if relevant technological breakthrough/ implementing also continues.
This is not due to a magic cause, it is not in the nature of things - there were specific historical reasons, operating in actual places, and among individual human beings - which led to technological breakthroughs.
So the root of modernity is... whatever enabled technological breakthroughs from about 1800. And the sustaining of modernity depends on the sustaining of... whatever enabled technological breakthroughs from about 1800.
All the evidence I have seen shows that the rate of relevant breakthroughs has been declining for some considerable time, probably the past couple of generations (since the mid twentieth century).
This would not be at all surprising, it would indeed be what we would expect - so long as we do not succumb to magical thinking.
*
What was the cause of the take-off in productivity which became visible from about 1800 hundred and enabled a great increase in food production? Whatever it was, it has to be something new, which wasn't possible before - something contingent, and not in the nature of human society.
Greg Clark's book makes clear that the only coherent explanation for the 'industrial revolution' and the (contingent) escape from the Malthusian norm, was a change in human capability - a change in the abilities and motivations of human beings which (in the case of England) can be observed and measured to be building-up from early Medieval times.
It should not be surprising that human capability is collapsing - and modern societies are in practice unable to do things which used to be done easily. It should not be surprising that the dense concentration of relevant technological breakthroughs - and the capacity to implement them - has gone.
*
Things have causes, modernity is not magic; food production requires the production of food - the production of more food to feed billions of extra people requires breakthroughs.
The usual situation in human history is that when extra people are born, they die of starvation - because there is no food for them. We now have an extra six billion mouths to feed above the norm, and plenty more coming.
Most people seem to act like feeding six billion extra people is something that just happens, by magic, like there is some invisible hand that inevitably produces what ever is needed.
But no. It is not magic. Technological breakthroughs were made by specific people in specific places and under specific circumstances - when these change, then the normal state resumes: very few breakthroughs or none at all; and the extra productivity no longer sustainable, technology forgotten or not usable.
*
Modernity was an achievement - a wicked achievement in many ways; but by achievement I mean that it happened for particular reasons; and if or when those particular reasons disappear or cease to operate then we have six million people too many - and more on the way.
Reality is a Red Queen situation - population and food production (and the rest of it) are so far out of equilibrium that we have to keep running hard to stay in the same place. Mess-up the capability or implementation; and food production soon collapses.
(Food is the bottom line, but of course the same arguments apply to other necessities).
*
That is realism. But what we have is magical thinking.
Magical thinking on the politically-correct, 'Liberal' Left and also magical thinking on on the mainstream conservative/ libertarian 'Right'.
The magical thinking of socialists who see productivity increase as 'normal' (the graph rises) and the main problem as spreading it around, sharing-out the food which magically appears; and the magical thinking of libertarians and capitalists who think that - however big the population - enough food will always be forthcoming so long as the incentives and institutions are correct - the invisible hand fed an extra six billion since 1800, and can feed another two, four or six billion if necessary.
Both are fantasies. The reality is that society is entropic, and keeping the extra six billion alive needs not just sustaining past capabilities but continually developing more.
*
We need relevant breakthroughs and they need to be applied or billions of people will start dying off.
Nature cannot hear our rhetoric, nature will not be fooled - either we are doing this or we are not doing it.
Everything in modernity depends on those breakthroughs! Where did they come from? WHO did they come from? Do those situations and people still exist, do they still generate breakthroughs - are they even trying to generate breakthroughs?
*
This is not a threat. In fact I believe that we cannot generate enough breakthroughs to sustain the blip, because we are not clever enough - but if we understood the realities and were actually trying to do something useful about them, then the end of the blip would not be so bad as otherwise.
*
Modernity was a blip, made possible by the ability to feed billions more people.
But the blip had causes, and if or when those causes are removed or have already been removed - or if population outstrips relevant capacity - the blip will stop blipping, and the world will return to normal Malthusian equilibrium
And there are currently maybe six billion people in excess of that equilibrium...
*
Wednesday, 11 December 2013
The most perfect instrumental miniature that you have never even heard of
*
It is a Sonatina from JS Bach's Cantata 106
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5fRjrTtb0M
For me this is sublime: perfection in a short (two and a half minutes), small group, instrumental piece.
I love it for its use of my (secret) favourite instrument - the treble recorder: indeed a pair of them.
What makes this unique in my experience is two features: the loveliness of the melody; and the effect which Bach appears to have invented just for this - of using one recorder to hold a note while the other oscillates between that same note and others below or above it.
The above YouTube recording is inferior to the one I first heard - which was a 1970s LP featuring David Munrow, with the Early Music Consort of London - I recorded it 'live' onto a cassette tape which I long treasured....
*
It is a Sonatina from JS Bach's Cantata 106
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5fRjrTtb0M
For me this is sublime: perfection in a short (two and a half minutes), small group, instrumental piece.
I love it for its use of my (secret) favourite instrument - the treble recorder: indeed a pair of them.
What makes this unique in my experience is two features: the loveliness of the melody; and the effect which Bach appears to have invented just for this - of using one recorder to hold a note while the other oscillates between that same note and others below or above it.
The above YouTube recording is inferior to the one I first heard - which was a 1970s LP featuring David Munrow, with the Early Music Consort of London - I recorded it 'live' onto a cassette tape which I long treasured....
*
Analeptic trance
*
I came across the idea of 'analeptic' thinking in the prose writings of Robert Graves - it was the term he used to describe his faculty of imaginatively living in the past; such that he would enter a trance state in which (for example) he would walk around the streets of Rome at the time of the Caesars, and observe what was going on.
It was this analeptic faculty that, Graves claimed, that enabled him to achieve the extreme life-like quality of his best historical novels such as I Claudius.
Graves claimed that analeptic trance was an historical method - an objectively valid mechanism for recovering knowledge of the past; that, for those who had it, it was a valid method of 'filling in the gaps' left by the normal historical sources.
*
Of course, Graves was full to overflowing with crazy, self-aggrandizing and just plain false ideas on all kinds of subjects! But I see no reason to doubt that with analeptic thought he was describing the method of his own historical reasoning, and that this was indeed crucial to the fascination of his novels and polemical writings such as The White Goddess.
*
I am myself not just able to practice analeptic thinking, but am sometimes involuntarily thrown into the state - by trigger stimuli.
The process is not under my control, and indeed I cannot choose what to be analeptic about; some times and places evoke this trance-like state without effort, while other times and places stubbornly refuse to provoke analepsis.
*
One example which powerfully triggers analeptic thinking is Constantinople at the time of the early Eastern Roman Empire - and this I seemingly got from reading Robert Grave's novel Count Belisarius read when I was about fourteen. Nowadays a wide range of 'Byzantine' artifacts, but especially Greek Orthodox chant, can instantly project my mind back into this state.
The specific state I get from Constantinople is one that is alien, exotic, Platonic - it is a kind of static contemplation and yearning for Heaven and that I am in Heaven as I feel it - but an imperfect, marginal Heaven. It is a situation of looking-upwards, perhaps to the dome of the Hagia Sophia (cathedral) listening to chant in the midst of divine liturgy; or being on the city streets and caught-up in a religious procession and transfixed by it.
I find this state of mine both immensely appealing, yet also - as I said - alien, strange - I am an observer not a participant - like a crude and simple Briton or Anglo-Saxon visiting the capital of Empire on some mission.
*
The interesting aspect is that Graves was strongly anti-Christian, and the novel Count Belisarius has almost nothing good to say about the Eastern Empire - except admiration for some of the military aspects. Graves's novel is, indeed, elaborated from the Secret History of Procopius which is a vile work of scandal, dishonesty, and character assassination - very much of the type familiar from the modern mass media.
Furthermore, when I read Count Belisarius I was myself strongly anti-Christian, and I did not enjoy the book (except for the military aspects), and found the society depicted to be horribly suffocating and disgustingly corrupt.
And nowadays, I cannot read the novel for this reason - it is so full of snide, insidious writing; and sis o obviously and pervasively and unfairly anti-Christian - seems mainly designed to discredit Christianity; that it is just a torment to read - a horrible world to spend time in, a sordid soap opera dishonestly projected onto ancient times in order to grind an axe...
*
YET - somehow, something - some essence - about this depiction of the Eastern Empire, presumably generated by the vividness of Graves's analeptic identification of Constantinople, stayed in my mind for some 35 years until I became a Christian.
Then, my becoming a Christian filled-in the missing piece of the jigsaw of Byzantium; and made sense of the Eastern Empire; because the Eastern Empire minus Christianity is indeed little but a sordid soap opera enlivened by fighting.
Not surprisingly, because Constantinople was probably the most pervasively Christian society that ever existed for any sustained length of time (hundreds of years) - so if you take-away its Christianity, or portray its Christianity as merely hypocritical and exploitative and deluded and silly (as Graves does), you take away almost everything that was Good about it; and indeed there is not-much left over.
*
But what is there to admire about any society that has ever existed if we take away the heart of that society?
If we take away the religion, or disbelieve it, or regard it as wicked - then when has there ever been a good time or a good place on earth? - by definition there can be nothing much to interest anybody except temporary distractions and delusions - sex, luxury and feasting, and fighting for the rich - and starvation, deprivation and work (plus fighting) for the poor - which is pretty much how modern irreligious people see the whole of human history, and especially the ages of greatest Christian faith...
*
Anyway, my point is that my analeptic intuitive empathy with Byzantium was and is very real, and feels valid - it feels like the essence of the time and place; and it makes the Eastern Empire far more real for me than the earlier Roman times; despite that I know far more information about the Western Empire, and indeed live among its remnants - such as Hadrian's Wall; and have never visited Constantinople nor do I have plans to do so - and that in fact Byzantium all seems terribly alien and strange to me - and I know I never could fit-into it, nor would I have fitted-in had I been alive at the time.
*
My conclusion is that although it is objectively indefensible, and simply appears to other people as a semi-psychotic delusion or self-gratifying illusion, the analeptic trance state has such compelling subjective, psychological validity as to overcome all objections and any supposed counter-evidence!
So I regard the 'findings' of analeptic thought as True although not factual, real but not historical - and this fits with the existential status of my other and primary 'time and place' of analeptic trance-identification: namely Middle Earth.
*
I came across the idea of 'analeptic' thinking in the prose writings of Robert Graves - it was the term he used to describe his faculty of imaginatively living in the past; such that he would enter a trance state in which (for example) he would walk around the streets of Rome at the time of the Caesars, and observe what was going on.
It was this analeptic faculty that, Graves claimed, that enabled him to achieve the extreme life-like quality of his best historical novels such as I Claudius.
Graves claimed that analeptic trance was an historical method - an objectively valid mechanism for recovering knowledge of the past; that, for those who had it, it was a valid method of 'filling in the gaps' left by the normal historical sources.
*
Of course, Graves was full to overflowing with crazy, self-aggrandizing and just plain false ideas on all kinds of subjects! But I see no reason to doubt that with analeptic thought he was describing the method of his own historical reasoning, and that this was indeed crucial to the fascination of his novels and polemical writings such as The White Goddess.
*
I am myself not just able to practice analeptic thinking, but am sometimes involuntarily thrown into the state - by trigger stimuli.
The process is not under my control, and indeed I cannot choose what to be analeptic about; some times and places evoke this trance-like state without effort, while other times and places stubbornly refuse to provoke analepsis.
*
One example which powerfully triggers analeptic thinking is Constantinople at the time of the early Eastern Roman Empire - and this I seemingly got from reading Robert Grave's novel Count Belisarius read when I was about fourteen. Nowadays a wide range of 'Byzantine' artifacts, but especially Greek Orthodox chant, can instantly project my mind back into this state.
The specific state I get from Constantinople is one that is alien, exotic, Platonic - it is a kind of static contemplation and yearning for Heaven and that I am in Heaven as I feel it - but an imperfect, marginal Heaven. It is a situation of looking-upwards, perhaps to the dome of the Hagia Sophia (cathedral) listening to chant in the midst of divine liturgy; or being on the city streets and caught-up in a religious procession and transfixed by it.
I find this state of mine both immensely appealing, yet also - as I said - alien, strange - I am an observer not a participant - like a crude and simple Briton or Anglo-Saxon visiting the capital of Empire on some mission.
*
The interesting aspect is that Graves was strongly anti-Christian, and the novel Count Belisarius has almost nothing good to say about the Eastern Empire - except admiration for some of the military aspects. Graves's novel is, indeed, elaborated from the Secret History of Procopius which is a vile work of scandal, dishonesty, and character assassination - very much of the type familiar from the modern mass media.
Furthermore, when I read Count Belisarius I was myself strongly anti-Christian, and I did not enjoy the book (except for the military aspects), and found the society depicted to be horribly suffocating and disgustingly corrupt.
And nowadays, I cannot read the novel for this reason - it is so full of snide, insidious writing; and sis o obviously and pervasively and unfairly anti-Christian - seems mainly designed to discredit Christianity; that it is just a torment to read - a horrible world to spend time in, a sordid soap opera dishonestly projected onto ancient times in order to grind an axe...
*
YET - somehow, something - some essence - about this depiction of the Eastern Empire, presumably generated by the vividness of Graves's analeptic identification of Constantinople, stayed in my mind for some 35 years until I became a Christian.
Then, my becoming a Christian filled-in the missing piece of the jigsaw of Byzantium; and made sense of the Eastern Empire; because the Eastern Empire minus Christianity is indeed little but a sordid soap opera enlivened by fighting.
Not surprisingly, because Constantinople was probably the most pervasively Christian society that ever existed for any sustained length of time (hundreds of years) - so if you take-away its Christianity, or portray its Christianity as merely hypocritical and exploitative and deluded and silly (as Graves does), you take away almost everything that was Good about it; and indeed there is not-much left over.
*
But what is there to admire about any society that has ever existed if we take away the heart of that society?
If we take away the religion, or disbelieve it, or regard it as wicked - then when has there ever been a good time or a good place on earth? - by definition there can be nothing much to interest anybody except temporary distractions and delusions - sex, luxury and feasting, and fighting for the rich - and starvation, deprivation and work (plus fighting) for the poor - which is pretty much how modern irreligious people see the whole of human history, and especially the ages of greatest Christian faith...
*
Anyway, my point is that my analeptic intuitive empathy with Byzantium was and is very real, and feels valid - it feels like the essence of the time and place; and it makes the Eastern Empire far more real for me than the earlier Roman times; despite that I know far more information about the Western Empire, and indeed live among its remnants - such as Hadrian's Wall; and have never visited Constantinople nor do I have plans to do so - and that in fact Byzantium all seems terribly alien and strange to me - and I know I never could fit-into it, nor would I have fitted-in had I been alive at the time.
*
My conclusion is that although it is objectively indefensible, and simply appears to other people as a semi-psychotic delusion or self-gratifying illusion, the analeptic trance state has such compelling subjective, psychological validity as to overcome all objections and any supposed counter-evidence!
So I regard the 'findings' of analeptic thought as True although not factual, real but not historical - and this fits with the existential status of my other and primary 'time and place' of analeptic trance-identification: namely Middle Earth.
*
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
Why is it in practice impossible to have sensible policies about immigration? (Because, from where we are, 'good' reforms must necessarily be preceded by repentance and religious revival)
*
I have noticed that on the secular Right/ Reactosphere/ Alt Right/ Manosphere blogs, immigration policy is used as the major Litmus test, to evaluate whether or not a person or party is support-worthy.
(Whereas on the religious right the Litmus tests are related to the sexual revolution.)
Now it is trivially easy, mere common sense, to know for sure that mass immigration (e.g. of the order of one percent growth/ change per year) is lethal to any social order in the medium to long term; so it seems only sensible that massive population migrations must be prevented and the process must be controlled.
This is non-optional for any society - yet it keeps on and on not happening.
Why?
*
Because from where we are now in the situation we are; common sense policy is precisely what is impossible.
Open-ended mass migration is a problem because the Left has been in charge for many decades (and whatever the name of the party, the Left has won - all mainstream 'right wing' parties are in practice Leftist).
And minimally-restricted (in practice unregulated, mostly unrecorded) mass migration is a major plank of Leftism: such that positivity to long term and open-ended mass 'immigration' is a Litmus test for what they call 'racism' - which is widely taught to be the ultimate sin.
*
So THIS WORLD we live in is one where sensible immigration reform IS racism, and racism IS the worst of all possible evils.
And believers will RESIST ultimate evil (i.e. racism) to the maximum extent of their strength and will.
And THIS is our starting place for any future change.
*
Thus, from where are are now, 'sensible' changes to immigration policy are impossible.
Impossible, that is, in practice: if sensible reform to immigration policy was possible, it would have happened, long ago.
The fact that sensible reform did not happen, and there is zero sign of it happening, and instead matters are getting worse, is just that - a fact; and what that fact means is that making sensible immigration reform policy into a Litmus test is not as straightforward as it seems.
Not at all.
*
When the resistance against sensible reform of an obviously-suicidal policy is so strong - that is, resistance is strong enough to overcome simple logic and obvious common sense - this means that common sense reforms become desirable only on the other side of mass repentance and a religious revival.
Because (however sensible or desirable) if immigration restriction became the major priority of a political movement, if it became the 'single issue' for a party which hoped to attain political power sufficient to overturn a half-century of Leftism, such a party would need to overcome massive, powerful, unyielding, entrenched resistance from The Left - which is the party in power, and controls all the major social institutions (especially the mass media - indeed the Left is the mass media).
So, in practice, sensible reform would need to be massively-motivated - viscerally-motivated, (dare I say it) fanatically-motivated, in order to overcome the entrenched resistance of Leftism.
And this level of motivation could (probably) only happen by unleashing, encouraging and organizing the emotion of hatred.
Organized-hatred met by entrenched resistance equals serious civil strife, probably civil war; which is usually the worst kind of war; and once started this kind of thing can be very difficult/ impossible to stop.
*
This is why immigration is such a desperately fraught question.
And one which it is impossible to solve by secular politics without a high risk of making matters much worse - because in the modern world as it is now secular politics can only generate power by mobilizing wicked motivations such as hatred.
In sum, the Left have created an impossible and suicidal immigration policy, yet this suicidal policy is so deeply embedded and so recklessly defended, that to stop it and and turn around could/ would produce horrific overall effects. The specific problem or issue of mass migration might be solved, but only at terrible cost.
*
At root, suicidal mass immigration is a product (just one of many products) of the psychotic and self-destructive mind set of secularism, a disease that can only be cured by religion.
If the (apparently sensible) treatment is introduced without prior religious cure, then this would necessarily and merely be swapping one kind of psychotic self-destruction for another. It would be like 'curing' society's brain cancer by cutting-off its head.
The real 'answer', the good answer, the only answer we would want is that the first step must be religious revival (i.e. a real-Christian Great Awakening).
Only after the insanity of secularism has been recognized and repented, and the necessity of religion embraced, can 'normal service be resumed' - with sane, common sense, non-suicidal, sensible policies.
*
There is no short cut to victory against hedonic-suicidal secular Leftism.
The enemy is too strong for short cuts; but the desire for a short cut is a snare, and could easily make things much worse.
We must go the longer way round - via repentance.
*
I have noticed that on the secular Right/ Reactosphere/ Alt Right/ Manosphere blogs, immigration policy is used as the major Litmus test, to evaluate whether or not a person or party is support-worthy.
(Whereas on the religious right the Litmus tests are related to the sexual revolution.)
Now it is trivially easy, mere common sense, to know for sure that mass immigration (e.g. of the order of one percent growth/ change per year) is lethal to any social order in the medium to long term; so it seems only sensible that massive population migrations must be prevented and the process must be controlled.
This is non-optional for any society - yet it keeps on and on not happening.
Why?
*
Because from where we are now in the situation we are; common sense policy is precisely what is impossible.
Open-ended mass migration is a problem because the Left has been in charge for many decades (and whatever the name of the party, the Left has won - all mainstream 'right wing' parties are in practice Leftist).
And minimally-restricted (in practice unregulated, mostly unrecorded) mass migration is a major plank of Leftism: such that positivity to long term and open-ended mass 'immigration' is a Litmus test for what they call 'racism' - which is widely taught to be the ultimate sin.
*
So THIS WORLD we live in is one where sensible immigration reform IS racism, and racism IS the worst of all possible evils.
And believers will RESIST ultimate evil (i.e. racism) to the maximum extent of their strength and will.
And THIS is our starting place for any future change.
*
Thus, from where are are now, 'sensible' changes to immigration policy are impossible.
Impossible, that is, in practice: if sensible reform to immigration policy was possible, it would have happened, long ago.
The fact that sensible reform did not happen, and there is zero sign of it happening, and instead matters are getting worse, is just that - a fact; and what that fact means is that making sensible immigration reform policy into a Litmus test is not as straightforward as it seems.
Not at all.
*
When the resistance against sensible reform of an obviously-suicidal policy is so strong - that is, resistance is strong enough to overcome simple logic and obvious common sense - this means that common sense reforms become desirable only on the other side of mass repentance and a religious revival.
Because (however sensible or desirable) if immigration restriction became the major priority of a political movement, if it became the 'single issue' for a party which hoped to attain political power sufficient to overturn a half-century of Leftism, such a party would need to overcome massive, powerful, unyielding, entrenched resistance from The Left - which is the party in power, and controls all the major social institutions (especially the mass media - indeed the Left is the mass media).
So, in practice, sensible reform would need to be massively-motivated - viscerally-motivated, (dare I say it) fanatically-motivated, in order to overcome the entrenched resistance of Leftism.
And this level of motivation could (probably) only happen by unleashing, encouraging and organizing the emotion of hatred.
Organized-hatred met by entrenched resistance equals serious civil strife, probably civil war; which is usually the worst kind of war; and once started this kind of thing can be very difficult/ impossible to stop.
*
This is why immigration is such a desperately fraught question.
And one which it is impossible to solve by secular politics without a high risk of making matters much worse - because in the modern world as it is now secular politics can only generate power by mobilizing wicked motivations such as hatred.
In sum, the Left have created an impossible and suicidal immigration policy, yet this suicidal policy is so deeply embedded and so recklessly defended, that to stop it and and turn around could/ would produce horrific overall effects. The specific problem or issue of mass migration might be solved, but only at terrible cost.
*
At root, suicidal mass immigration is a product (just one of many products) of the psychotic and self-destructive mind set of secularism, a disease that can only be cured by religion.
If the (apparently sensible) treatment is introduced without prior religious cure, then this would necessarily and merely be swapping one kind of psychotic self-destruction for another. It would be like 'curing' society's brain cancer by cutting-off its head.
The real 'answer', the good answer, the only answer we would want is that the first step must be religious revival (i.e. a real-Christian Great Awakening).
Only after the insanity of secularism has been recognized and repented, and the necessity of religion embraced, can 'normal service be resumed' - with sane, common sense, non-suicidal, sensible policies.
*
There is no short cut to victory against hedonic-suicidal secular Leftism.
The enemy is too strong for short cuts; but the desire for a short cut is a snare, and could easily make things much worse.
We must go the longer way round - via repentance.
*
Monday, 9 December 2013
Social science of US Mormons
*
My original interest in Mormonism came from reading loads of social science statistics in the mid-2000s, including quant bloggers - especially in relation to fertility; but also much more widely.
My impression is that these findings are not only not-well-known outside of the LDS church, but people often believe the opposite.
So, I thought I'd mention a summary of the social science findings culled from American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell (2010) and posted on the official LDS website (H/T - Daniel C Peterson):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/major-new-study-of-religion-has-much-to-say-about-mormons
I haven't checked this news report against the book - but the report of the book is consistent with the mass of social science stats I have myself reviewed over the years.
1. Mormons are among the most devout religious groups in the country.
(In terms of religious observance, strength of their religious convictions, and degree of personal importance of religion.)
2. Mormons are among those most likely to keep their childhood faith as adults.
3. Mormons are unusually giving.
(Mormons are among the most charitable of Americans with their means and time, in religious and nonreligious causes).
4. Mormons are relatively friendly to other religious groups.
(Mormons are among those viewed least positively by many American religious groups, but themselves hold relatively positive views toward members of other faiths.)
5. Mormons are among the most likely to believe that one true religion exists, but also that those outside their faith can attain salvation or reach “heaven.”
*
My original interest in Mormonism came from reading loads of social science statistics in the mid-2000s, including quant bloggers - especially in relation to fertility; but also much more widely.
My impression is that these findings are not only not-well-known outside of the LDS church, but people often believe the opposite.
So, I thought I'd mention a summary of the social science findings culled from American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell (2010) and posted on the official LDS website (H/T - Daniel C Peterson):
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/major-new-study-of-religion-has-much-to-say-about-mormons
I haven't checked this news report against the book - but the report of the book is consistent with the mass of social science stats I have myself reviewed over the years.
1. Mormons are among the most devout religious groups in the country.
(In terms of religious observance, strength of their religious convictions, and degree of personal importance of religion.)
2. Mormons are among those most likely to keep their childhood faith as adults.
3. Mormons are unusually giving.
(Mormons are among the most charitable of Americans with their means and time, in religious and nonreligious causes).
4. Mormons are relatively friendly to other religious groups.
(Mormons are among those viewed least positively by many American religious groups, but themselves hold relatively positive views toward members of other faiths.)
5. Mormons are among the most likely to believe that one true religion exists, but also that those outside their faith can attain salvation or reach “heaven.”
*
How will The West collapse? - gradually or suddenly
*
Many people say gradually, and that there is 'a lot of ruin in a nation' - they believe in 'graceful' degradation.
But complex (interconnected) systems are different - they are more efficient than simple systems, and better at tolerating modest deviations from normal; however, highly complex systems degrade suddenly, and catastrophically, due to their multiple inter-dependencies.
Previous human societies were 'segmentary' - composed of mostly-autonomous, (and mostly self-directed) units. Each can subsist after a catastrophe, and replicate to make like themselves.
But we are living in the least segmetary society ever.
In the UK, almost every vestige of segmentary organization (local government, the professions and trades, universities, societies and clubs) have been destroyed, or subverted and absorbed into the national government; and the national government has experienced the same with respect to the European Union.
Power and responsibility are dissociated. Spontaneous self-organization - gone. Autonomy - gone. Self-help - gone, crushed, illegal; to be replaced by dependence; demands for 'rights', subsidies, looking-after.
So I think sudden, catastrophic collapse is the likelihood - and the degree of collapse and disorder would then be much greater than in the past (since there is little or nothing to stop this) - and the recovery will be much slower/ more difficult than in the past.
Have a Nice Day!
*
Many people say gradually, and that there is 'a lot of ruin in a nation' - they believe in 'graceful' degradation.
But complex (interconnected) systems are different - they are more efficient than simple systems, and better at tolerating modest deviations from normal; however, highly complex systems degrade suddenly, and catastrophically, due to their multiple inter-dependencies.
Previous human societies were 'segmentary' - composed of mostly-autonomous, (and mostly self-directed) units. Each can subsist after a catastrophe, and replicate to make like themselves.
But we are living in the least segmetary society ever.
In the UK, almost every vestige of segmentary organization (local government, the professions and trades, universities, societies and clubs) have been destroyed, or subverted and absorbed into the national government; and the national government has experienced the same with respect to the European Union.
Power and responsibility are dissociated. Spontaneous self-organization - gone. Autonomy - gone. Self-help - gone, crushed, illegal; to be replaced by dependence; demands for 'rights', subsidies, looking-after.
So I think sudden, catastrophic collapse is the likelihood - and the degree of collapse and disorder would then be much greater than in the past (since there is little or nothing to stop this) - and the recovery will be much slower/ more difficult than in the past.
Have a Nice Day!
*
Sunday, 8 December 2013
Supreme singing for Sunday: Burrows and Sutherland
*
Firstly, perhaps the greatest singer to have emerged from the British Isles (almost certainly the one with the rarest technical equipment): Welsh Tenor Stuart Burrows, singing the Handel aria "Waft her Angels" with piano accompaniment.
Listen for the contrast between powerful and soft singing, the breath control (unsurpassed by any tenor ever, probably); and the way that (and this is very rare among tenors) after he has climbed towards a high note, when he hits that peak note his voice opens-out; and he can do this whether singing loudly or softly.
The actual aria begins at about 3:30 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjqYMnLlq9w
*
And now, simply the best operatic singer that lived during the recording era: Joan Sutherland - a more beautiful sound and a better technique than anybody.
Accompanied (superbly - was there ever a better accompanist with the orchestra?) by her conductor husband Richard Bonynge.
This is the Victorian operetta ballad 'I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls' with music by Balfe and words by Bunn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dreamt_I_Dwelt_in_Marble_Halls
It would be worth looking at the words as you listen since Sutherland sacrificed diction to the Bel Canto idea of continuity of tone production... i.e. she slurred the words...
This little song is a perfect fusion of music and words - and an example of how sometimes the summit of artistry is attained just one-off, by otherwise minor artists.
I personally find this so beautiful as to be almost unbearable - when listening last night I crossed over that line between crying and blubbering, and it took a good while for me to recover.
Well, here goes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yebOy5Ne6bQ
*
Firstly, perhaps the greatest singer to have emerged from the British Isles (almost certainly the one with the rarest technical equipment): Welsh Tenor Stuart Burrows, singing the Handel aria "Waft her Angels" with piano accompaniment.
Listen for the contrast between powerful and soft singing, the breath control (unsurpassed by any tenor ever, probably); and the way that (and this is very rare among tenors) after he has climbed towards a high note, when he hits that peak note his voice opens-out; and he can do this whether singing loudly or softly.
The actual aria begins at about 3:30 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjqYMnLlq9w
*
And now, simply the best operatic singer that lived during the recording era: Joan Sutherland - a more beautiful sound and a better technique than anybody.
Accompanied (superbly - was there ever a better accompanist with the orchestra?) by her conductor husband Richard Bonynge.
This is the Victorian operetta ballad 'I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls' with music by Balfe and words by Bunn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Dreamt_I_Dwelt_in_Marble_Halls
It would be worth looking at the words as you listen since Sutherland sacrificed diction to the Bel Canto idea of continuity of tone production... i.e. she slurred the words...
This little song is a perfect fusion of music and words - and an example of how sometimes the summit of artistry is attained just one-off, by otherwise minor artists.
I personally find this so beautiful as to be almost unbearable - when listening last night I crossed over that line between crying and blubbering, and it took a good while for me to recover.
Well, here goes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yebOy5Ne6bQ
*
Speculations on the history of Christianity and Empire
*
The grand strategy of Christianity in relation to the world is something that I find myself speculating upon from time to time.
Given the long wait of the ancient Hebrews for Messiah, it would seem that there needed to be social preconditions for the Incarnation to stand its best chance of achieving its goals.
Because human free will is real, and Men are and were free to reject salvation; so social conditions - specifically the state of Mens' minds - is important; thus God must work with society, as best as may be.
*
It would seem that the pagan Roman Empire provided the best chance for the Gospel - since it was both multi-national and highly religious (multi-religion): providing the optimal possibilities for the new faith to spread (i.e. the best chance that many Men would choose Christ).
It is to the credit of the many individuals who embraced Christianity under the pagan Emperors, that the Empire swiftly became Christian with the foundation of the Second Rome at Constantinople.
The Christian Roman Empire endured for over a thousand years; after which a Third Rome (self-consciously so) emerged in Moscow - to end utterly in 1917.
*
Always it seems that God works to spread his Gospel; and Empire is one way this may happen - but only if Men will it.
Many Empires have arisen in Christendom, and it is as-if some were hoped, or perhaps intended, to become the site of the Fourth Rome and a new Christian Roman Empire.
Medieval and modern Western Europe as a whole had opportunities, but in the end Men chose schism and warfare over the possibility of Christian Empire; and the individual states rejected Christianity as the focus of their societies, hence incipient Empires were not primarily Christian and missionary, but at best the Gospel would follow-behind commercial and military priorities.
Perhaps Madrid, or Paris, or Amsterdam, or London, or Berlin was meant to be a Fourth Rome - but no, it did not happen.
*
Meanwhile, a New World was found; and North America became a focus of Christian hopes, then a place where the ground was prepared by phases of revival.
Perhaps there was the divine intention of a North American Christian empire with Philadelphia as the Fourth Rome?
But the US people en masse, as a whole, chose otherwise; and descended into civil war, materialism, another civil war, and modernity.
*
The emergence of Mormonism was another chance, with great possibilities and remarkable achievements emerging rapidly and very obvious - but the national response was instead to seek extermination of the budding movement; again, and again, and again.
Extermination of the Mormon religion was the national, indeed, international, choice of Men.
The policy of extermination failed in that objective; but the policy nonetheless successfully prevented what might, perhaps, have become a Mormon Empire; with Salt Lake City emerging as the Fourth Rome.
*
Behind all this I imagine Jesus Christ working tirelessly to expand the possibilities of spreading His Gospel - often aiming at the 'ideal' of a Christian Empire - a Fourth Rome, a Third Byzantium; but always, necessarily, working via the free choices of Men.
Also, I imagine the workings of His Adversary Satan and his minions; also tireless in his spreading of lies, encouragement of hatred, selfishness, short-termism; destruction of beauty and virtue...
...focusing his destructive efforts often on any budding hopes of Christian Empire...
...aiming to subvert, destroy and invert; aiming to infiltrate and convert any existing Good Empire into a Demonic Empire.
(...such as The West has now become - reaching-out internationally to attack Good, to destabilize and foment civil violence and war. The demonic Empire of the West may seem to be a failure - and by conventional military standards it surely is - but in the past fifteen years it has triumphantly succeeded in facilitating, enabling and concealing the torment and killing of millions of Christians worldwide; especially in the Middle East and Africa. Clearly, at some level, that is its primary strategy.)
*
It really is much, much easier (requires less time, effort, resources) to destroy than to create order.
It is easier to pursue short-term and selfish goals than to love patiently.
Hence Good is always swimming against the stream of natural resistance.
In the end, the prophecies are of utter failure, on this earth - with destruction of the world.
*
This world is doomed as surely as Ragnarok seemed inevitable to the Norse pagans; and the Giants of disorder and destruction shall eventually triumph despite the courage of the heroes.
Yet Ragnarok will be (and is being) delayed; for so long as fresh souls are being saved.
Ragnarok will happen, the pagans were correct about that; but Christians know there is another and better world to come after Ragnarok - and that makes all the difference.
*
The grand strategy of Christianity in relation to the world is something that I find myself speculating upon from time to time.
Given the long wait of the ancient Hebrews for Messiah, it would seem that there needed to be social preconditions for the Incarnation to stand its best chance of achieving its goals.
Because human free will is real, and Men are and were free to reject salvation; so social conditions - specifically the state of Mens' minds - is important; thus God must work with society, as best as may be.
*
It would seem that the pagan Roman Empire provided the best chance for the Gospel - since it was both multi-national and highly religious (multi-religion): providing the optimal possibilities for the new faith to spread (i.e. the best chance that many Men would choose Christ).
It is to the credit of the many individuals who embraced Christianity under the pagan Emperors, that the Empire swiftly became Christian with the foundation of the Second Rome at Constantinople.
The Christian Roman Empire endured for over a thousand years; after which a Third Rome (self-consciously so) emerged in Moscow - to end utterly in 1917.
*
Always it seems that God works to spread his Gospel; and Empire is one way this may happen - but only if Men will it.
Many Empires have arisen in Christendom, and it is as-if some were hoped, or perhaps intended, to become the site of the Fourth Rome and a new Christian Roman Empire.
Medieval and modern Western Europe as a whole had opportunities, but in the end Men chose schism and warfare over the possibility of Christian Empire; and the individual states rejected Christianity as the focus of their societies, hence incipient Empires were not primarily Christian and missionary, but at best the Gospel would follow-behind commercial and military priorities.
Perhaps Madrid, or Paris, or Amsterdam, or London, or Berlin was meant to be a Fourth Rome - but no, it did not happen.
*
Meanwhile, a New World was found; and North America became a focus of Christian hopes, then a place where the ground was prepared by phases of revival.
Perhaps there was the divine intention of a North American Christian empire with Philadelphia as the Fourth Rome?
But the US people en masse, as a whole, chose otherwise; and descended into civil war, materialism, another civil war, and modernity.
*
The emergence of Mormonism was another chance, with great possibilities and remarkable achievements emerging rapidly and very obvious - but the national response was instead to seek extermination of the budding movement; again, and again, and again.
Extermination of the Mormon religion was the national, indeed, international, choice of Men.
The policy of extermination failed in that objective; but the policy nonetheless successfully prevented what might, perhaps, have become a Mormon Empire; with Salt Lake City emerging as the Fourth Rome.
*
Behind all this I imagine Jesus Christ working tirelessly to expand the possibilities of spreading His Gospel - often aiming at the 'ideal' of a Christian Empire - a Fourth Rome, a Third Byzantium; but always, necessarily, working via the free choices of Men.
Also, I imagine the workings of His Adversary Satan and his minions; also tireless in his spreading of lies, encouragement of hatred, selfishness, short-termism; destruction of beauty and virtue...
...focusing his destructive efforts often on any budding hopes of Christian Empire...
...aiming to subvert, destroy and invert; aiming to infiltrate and convert any existing Good Empire into a Demonic Empire.
(...such as The West has now become - reaching-out internationally to attack Good, to destabilize and foment civil violence and war. The demonic Empire of the West may seem to be a failure - and by conventional military standards it surely is - but in the past fifteen years it has triumphantly succeeded in facilitating, enabling and concealing the torment and killing of millions of Christians worldwide; especially in the Middle East and Africa. Clearly, at some level, that is its primary strategy.)
*
It really is much, much easier (requires less time, effort, resources) to destroy than to create order.
It is easier to pursue short-term and selfish goals than to love patiently.
Hence Good is always swimming against the stream of natural resistance.
In the end, the prophecies are of utter failure, on this earth - with destruction of the world.
*
This world is doomed as surely as Ragnarok seemed inevitable to the Norse pagans; and the Giants of disorder and destruction shall eventually triumph despite the courage of the heroes.
Yet Ragnarok will be (and is being) delayed; for so long as fresh souls are being saved.
Ragnarok will happen, the pagans were correct about that; but Christians know there is another and better world to come after Ragnarok - and that makes all the difference.
*
Saturday, 7 December 2013
Colin Wilson has died (1931-2013)
*
Colin Wilson was an important writer in my (ahem) intellectual development. Essentially, he was an existentialist philosopher who worked across a wide range of genres.
Although since I became a Christian I have not found him so useful, up till then he was someone who I would return to. I published a few essays in a home-produced little journal called Abraxas, edited from Cornwall by a certain Paul Newman (neighbour and friend to CW) , and dedicated to Wilson and his interests.
Colin Wilson wrote a LOT of books (which is necessary if you are a professional writer, want a decent income, and when you are not a bestselling writer).
The first place I came across him was his introduction to William Arkle's Geography of Consciousness (Bill Arkle had been a neighbour of mine, 'tho I didn't know him. He lived on Backwell Hill in Somerset, near where my sister kept her pony). This I read in the summer of 1978 in a copy from Edinburgh City Library.
These are some of my favourite of Wilson's books.
The Outsider, 1956
Adrift in Soho, 1961
Bernard Shaw, 1969.
Introduction to the New Existentialism, 1966
Voyage to a Beginning (autobiography), 1969
Tree by Tolkien, 1973
The Craft of the Novel, 1975
Mysteries, 1978
Lord of the Underworld (about Jung), 1984
The Essential Colin Wilson, 1985
Spider World series of Sci Fi novels, starting 1987
The Books in my Life, 1998
Dreaming to some Purpose (autobiography), 2004
*
Colin Wilson was an important writer in my (ahem) intellectual development. Essentially, he was an existentialist philosopher who worked across a wide range of genres.
Although since I became a Christian I have not found him so useful, up till then he was someone who I would return to. I published a few essays in a home-produced little journal called Abraxas, edited from Cornwall by a certain Paul Newman (neighbour and friend to CW) , and dedicated to Wilson and his interests.
Colin Wilson wrote a LOT of books (which is necessary if you are a professional writer, want a decent income, and when you are not a bestselling writer).
The first place I came across him was his introduction to William Arkle's Geography of Consciousness (Bill Arkle had been a neighbour of mine, 'tho I didn't know him. He lived on Backwell Hill in Somerset, near where my sister kept her pony). This I read in the summer of 1978 in a copy from Edinburgh City Library.
These are some of my favourite of Wilson's books.
The Outsider, 1956
Adrift in Soho, 1961
Bernard Shaw, 1969.
Introduction to the New Existentialism, 1966
Voyage to a Beginning (autobiography), 1969
Tree by Tolkien, 1973
The Craft of the Novel, 1975
Mysteries, 1978
Lord of the Underworld (about Jung), 1984
The Essential Colin Wilson, 1985
Spider World series of Sci Fi novels, starting 1987
The Books in my Life, 1998
Dreaming to some Purpose (autobiography), 2004
*
Why are the British unworried by the re-introduction of slavery to Britain?
*
The answer is racism. The modern concept of racism has allowed slavery to be re-introduced into modern Britain.
*
Thanks to half a century of ignorant and foolish propaganda on the subject from the United States, most people are under the historically utterly-false impression that slavery is about racism - specifically the racism of Western Europeans towards those of different skin colour.
This is absolutely untrue: it is just about as untrue as it is possible to be - yet that is what people seem to believe because that is what they are fed by the mass media.
*
However, modern slavery is typically either slavery of Europeans (in the form of sexual slavery/ human-trafficking), or it is the supposed ethnic 'victims' of racism who are themselves the slave-owners.
It is groups who are themselves depicted as victims of racism that have actually brought slavery back into the UK. In a sense this is quite well known, since the media has been reporting a steady stream of cases over the past decade (one from within a mile of where I live).
Because these must represent the tip of an iceberg, there are probably some thousands of slaves in Britain now, and even more (especially women, and also probably mentally handicapped) whose lives are more like serfs - not 'bought and sold' but permanently-tied to a particular family.
But it is all hidden in plain site, people are 'scandalized' for a few hours but don't really know what to make of it - it doesn't fit their world view, it doesn't fit their moral map: so they soon forget.
*
So it seems nobody is bothered about slavery to the extent of actually stopping it; despite that slavery was successfully abolished in Britain hundreds of years ago - apparently the modern surveillance state cannot achieve what the late medieval state managed...
*
Of course the real reason modern slavery is tolerated in Britain is not hard to understand. Modern slavery is invisible because people falsely believe slavery is about 'racism' by which they mean whites enslaving blacks; and when in real life it isn't, then the fact that anti-racism is the primary moral value of modernity means that to prevent or abolish modern slavery would itself be regarded as an act of racism.
Anyone who did anything decisive to eliminate slavery and serfdom from modern Britain would themselves be denigrated as racist.
Better to say nothing, do nothing, see nothing...
*
So the reintroduction of slavery has been - tacitly - accepted by the British ruling elite, so long as it is not what they call racist - actually-existing slavery is seen as just one aspect of the vibrant multiculturalism which our elites affect to desire - regrettable indeed, but not regretted to the point of actually stopping it...
I regard modern British slavery and serfdom as perhaps the most decisive refutation of Leftism, of political correctness. If slavery is happening in the modern state, then it seems that anything is possible - and it is, and it is.
THIS is the world built by political correctness, by Leftism.
No wonder the elites prefer not to talk about it: to pretend it hasn't happened; and do nothing.
*
Related posts:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=slavery
*
The answer is racism. The modern concept of racism has allowed slavery to be re-introduced into modern Britain.
*
Thanks to half a century of ignorant and foolish propaganda on the subject from the United States, most people are under the historically utterly-false impression that slavery is about racism - specifically the racism of Western Europeans towards those of different skin colour.
This is absolutely untrue: it is just about as untrue as it is possible to be - yet that is what people seem to believe because that is what they are fed by the mass media.
*
However, modern slavery is typically either slavery of Europeans (in the form of sexual slavery/ human-trafficking), or it is the supposed ethnic 'victims' of racism who are themselves the slave-owners.
It is groups who are themselves depicted as victims of racism that have actually brought slavery back into the UK. In a sense this is quite well known, since the media has been reporting a steady stream of cases over the past decade (one from within a mile of where I live).
Because these must represent the tip of an iceberg, there are probably some thousands of slaves in Britain now, and even more (especially women, and also probably mentally handicapped) whose lives are more like serfs - not 'bought and sold' but permanently-tied to a particular family.
But it is all hidden in plain site, people are 'scandalized' for a few hours but don't really know what to make of it - it doesn't fit their world view, it doesn't fit their moral map: so they soon forget.
*
So it seems nobody is bothered about slavery to the extent of actually stopping it; despite that slavery was successfully abolished in Britain hundreds of years ago - apparently the modern surveillance state cannot achieve what the late medieval state managed...
*
Of course the real reason modern slavery is tolerated in Britain is not hard to understand. Modern slavery is invisible because people falsely believe slavery is about 'racism' by which they mean whites enslaving blacks; and when in real life it isn't, then the fact that anti-racism is the primary moral value of modernity means that to prevent or abolish modern slavery would itself be regarded as an act of racism.
Anyone who did anything decisive to eliminate slavery and serfdom from modern Britain would themselves be denigrated as racist.
Better to say nothing, do nothing, see nothing...
*
So the reintroduction of slavery has been - tacitly - accepted by the British ruling elite, so long as it is not what they call racist - actually-existing slavery is seen as just one aspect of the vibrant multiculturalism which our elites affect to desire - regrettable indeed, but not regretted to the point of actually stopping it...
I regard modern British slavery and serfdom as perhaps the most decisive refutation of Leftism, of political correctness. If slavery is happening in the modern state, then it seems that anything is possible - and it is, and it is.
THIS is the world built by political correctness, by Leftism.
No wonder the elites prefer not to talk about it: to pretend it hasn't happened; and do nothing.
*
Related posts:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=slavery
*
Friday, 6 December 2013
What is the intrinsic, core function of the Mass Media? Just: to grow...
*
The mass media is a social system like no other; and the difference accounts for its intrinsic evil: that is to say its intrinsic tendency towards destruction of Good (destruction of truth, beauty and virtue).
*
The mass media is a social system of communications. But the other social systems have a basic, core, extrinsic and unifying function that is clearly useful: the police and military are about intra-social and inter-social coercive force; the political system and the public administration are about government; the health services are about alleviating suffering, promoting health and increasing life expectancy; the educational system about transmission of knowledge and so on.
Whether these systems actually do what they purport to do, is another matter. But all the social systems have a relatively clear and valuable social aim.
*
However, the intrinsic function of the mass media is merely to expand itself - that is, to expand its own system of communications; and it seems that the mass media does not have any extrinsic goal, nor any unifying useful function.
Therefore, the mass media succeeds by growing its own system of communications - and fails when this growth fails to happen, or reverses into shrinkage.
*
But why is the growth of the mass media intrinsically, on the whole, evil?
Simply because there are no functional constraints on mass media growth; so the mass media tends to take the short-term-beneficial line of least resistance; and grow and grow as far as it can, in whatever direction it is growing.
Differential growth of a system is intrinsically destructive in a zero sum world, because growth of one system can only be at the price of another - this applies especially to 'cognitive processing time and effort' in the human mind.
*
At first the other social systems supposed that they could use the mass media in order to amplify their own communications: for example, government could amplify its propaganda, science could popularize its results, the arts could 'reach' a much wider audience, and so on.
But pretty soon, the mass media began to dominate all the other social systems; its own internal logic of growth in communications began to invade and to dominate the other social systems; and this penetration inevitably was destructive of whatever functions these other systems had previously done - it had to be: anything other than the core function of a social system is a corruption.
A corruption, that is, except for adhesion to those 'higher laws and principles' necessary for social cohesion. This is typically a religion. All social systems thus - for the functional cohesion of society - ought to adhere to the over-arching religion, as well as to their own internal aim.
*
The mass media has now displaced religion as the over-arching, all-including system. But while a religion unifies without exception, the mass media undiscriminatingly attacks.
Now, the whole world is subject to all-embracing, all-including attention of the mass media.
But all this not to any aim, not in pursuit of any positive purpose - merely for the mass media to fuel its own expansion.
*
The mass media is a social system like no other; and the difference accounts for its intrinsic evil: that is to say its intrinsic tendency towards destruction of Good (destruction of truth, beauty and virtue).
*
The mass media is a social system of communications. But the other social systems have a basic, core, extrinsic and unifying function that is clearly useful: the police and military are about intra-social and inter-social coercive force; the political system and the public administration are about government; the health services are about alleviating suffering, promoting health and increasing life expectancy; the educational system about transmission of knowledge and so on.
Whether these systems actually do what they purport to do, is another matter. But all the social systems have a relatively clear and valuable social aim.
*
However, the intrinsic function of the mass media is merely to expand itself - that is, to expand its own system of communications; and it seems that the mass media does not have any extrinsic goal, nor any unifying useful function.
Therefore, the mass media succeeds by growing its own system of communications - and fails when this growth fails to happen, or reverses into shrinkage.
*
But why is the growth of the mass media intrinsically, on the whole, evil?
Simply because there are no functional constraints on mass media growth; so the mass media tends to take the short-term-beneficial line of least resistance; and grow and grow as far as it can, in whatever direction it is growing.
Differential growth of a system is intrinsically destructive in a zero sum world, because growth of one system can only be at the price of another - this applies especially to 'cognitive processing time and effort' in the human mind.
*
At first the other social systems supposed that they could use the mass media in order to amplify their own communications: for example, government could amplify its propaganda, science could popularize its results, the arts could 'reach' a much wider audience, and so on.
But pretty soon, the mass media began to dominate all the other social systems; its own internal logic of growth in communications began to invade and to dominate the other social systems; and this penetration inevitably was destructive of whatever functions these other systems had previously done - it had to be: anything other than the core function of a social system is a corruption.
A corruption, that is, except for adhesion to those 'higher laws and principles' necessary for social cohesion. This is typically a religion. All social systems thus - for the functional cohesion of society - ought to adhere to the over-arching religion, as well as to their own internal aim.
*
The mass media has now displaced religion as the over-arching, all-including system. But while a religion unifies without exception, the mass media undiscriminatingly attacks.
Now, the whole world is subject to all-embracing, all-including attention of the mass media.
But all this not to any aim, not in pursuit of any positive purpose - merely for the mass media to fuel its own expansion.
*
Thursday, 5 December 2013
The most famous person I ever met...
*
...was undoubtedly Captain Blue
(Note: Captain Blue is on the Left.)
I met him in the BBC Pebble Mill studios in Birmingham, 1990 - where he played a leading role in my one and only radio drama production.
I candidly admit it is a bit lame to have met Captain Blue, and not Captain Scarlet - but I maintain Blue's role was consistently under-rated, and that Scarlet (and of course the Angels) took away a lot of credit that was due to him.
BTW - without his uniform and under studio lights, Blue looked rather different:
I can only say that - while not exactly jovial or friendly - Blue was highly professional; and I was very grateful he took time away from saving the earth to play the part of Henry David Thoreau.
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/solitude.html
*
...was undoubtedly Captain Blue
(Note: Captain Blue is on the Left.)
I met him in the BBC Pebble Mill studios in Birmingham, 1990 - where he played a leading role in my one and only radio drama production.
I candidly admit it is a bit lame to have met Captain Blue, and not Captain Scarlet - but I maintain Blue's role was consistently under-rated, and that Scarlet (and of course the Angels) took away a lot of credit that was due to him.
BTW - without his uniform and under studio lights, Blue looked rather different:
I can only say that - while not exactly jovial or friendly - Blue was highly professional; and I was very grateful he took time away from saving the earth to play the part of Henry David Thoreau.
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/solitude.html
*
Are you a Christmas Christian, or an Easter Christian?
*
I acknowledge that of course Easter is the main feast of the Christian year, but I still prefer Christmas.
When I became a Christian I fully expected that Easter would get more and more important to me and overtake Christmas, but it hasn't happened - and I still feel a much greater building of expectation during the weeks leading towards Christmas, which I also had before I was a Christian.
*
I have, indeed, some kind of residual grudge against Easter which dates from childhood when the gift of a chocolate egg did not begin to compete with the delights of Christmas - which also included the better-than-Easter-egg delights of the 'selection box' and 'smokers set' (chocolate pipe and cigars, candy cigarettes!).
*
For a start, I am permanently annoyed that Easter is a moveable feast: this seems wrong and absurd.
It surely made no sense for the ancient church to celebrate its main feast in a way which could only be calculated by a very advanced knowledge of astronomy and mathematics - advanced knowledge which actually did not exist!
It took several hundred years before any reasonably accurate method of predicting Easter was discovered (mostly by the Venerable Bede - who died 735) - and the prediction of Eater was required to time the preceding Lent fast and special days.
Up to then Easter (the premier Christian celebration, remember) was celebrated at a variety of times in different places, and among different groups in the same place; and this itself led then (and indeed afterwards) to infighting, schisms, and inter-denominational hostilities both temporary and permanent - and still continuing.
*
I just find this annoying and silly, indeed shocking - some kind of ancient bureaucratically-minded-bureaucracy must have been responsible for setting the church off down this wrong path - only a committee could make the impossible compulsory.
*
Obviously, Easter should have been fixed on a certain annual date - if it was necessary to predict; or else if it really must be linked to lunar cycles (to reflect the Jewish passover - but why?), then the church should have dispensed with the rigidly numerically timed advance program leading-up to Easter.
Or something... almost anything would be preferable to what they actually came-up-with.
Anyway, for whatever reason, I retain this grudge against Easter; and would not even put it as second favourite among the annual feasts - that would be Pentecost/ Whit Sunday.
*
I acknowledge that of course Easter is the main feast of the Christian year, but I still prefer Christmas.
When I became a Christian I fully expected that Easter would get more and more important to me and overtake Christmas, but it hasn't happened - and I still feel a much greater building of expectation during the weeks leading towards Christmas, which I also had before I was a Christian.
*
I have, indeed, some kind of residual grudge against Easter which dates from childhood when the gift of a chocolate egg did not begin to compete with the delights of Christmas - which also included the better-than-Easter-egg delights of the 'selection box' and 'smokers set' (chocolate pipe and cigars, candy cigarettes!).
*
For a start, I am permanently annoyed that Easter is a moveable feast: this seems wrong and absurd.
It surely made no sense for the ancient church to celebrate its main feast in a way which could only be calculated by a very advanced knowledge of astronomy and mathematics - advanced knowledge which actually did not exist!
It took several hundred years before any reasonably accurate method of predicting Easter was discovered (mostly by the Venerable Bede - who died 735) - and the prediction of Eater was required to time the preceding Lent fast and special days.
Up to then Easter (the premier Christian celebration, remember) was celebrated at a variety of times in different places, and among different groups in the same place; and this itself led then (and indeed afterwards) to infighting, schisms, and inter-denominational hostilities both temporary and permanent - and still continuing.
*
I just find this annoying and silly, indeed shocking - some kind of ancient bureaucratically-minded-bureaucracy must have been responsible for setting the church off down this wrong path - only a committee could make the impossible compulsory.
*
Obviously, Easter should have been fixed on a certain annual date - if it was necessary to predict; or else if it really must be linked to lunar cycles (to reflect the Jewish passover - but why?), then the church should have dispensed with the rigidly numerically timed advance program leading-up to Easter.
Or something... almost anything would be preferable to what they actually came-up-with.
Anyway, for whatever reason, I retain this grudge against Easter; and would not even put it as second favourite among the annual feasts - that would be Pentecost/ Whit Sunday.
*
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
What is modern poverty? Loneliness. What should Christians be doing about modern poverty? Visiting
*
Christians have become very mixed-up about poverty.
The idea (which I have heard from the current leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches) that alleviation of poverty is a particularly urgent task of our day and ought therefore to become the major priority of the Christian churches is especially misguided - indeed, not just a mistake but actually a dangerous and harmful policy.
*
The fact is that poverty, in the Biblical sense, is pretty-much abolished from the modern world.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/almsgiving-what-ought-christians-to-do.html
Biblical poverty was about working all the hours of the day and indeed being worked to death, starving to death, dying of disease... it was about death.
In the modern developed countries, by contrast, so-called-poverty is characterized by what the Bible would have called something like 'luxury and idleness': over-eating, obesity, alcohol and drug over-use, and un-employment (not working), and by living longer than anybody in history - but having on average few children.
In undeveloped countries, nowadays, poverty has a lot more hunger and disease than in developed countries - but is nonetheless characterized by societies rearing unprecedented numbers of children, with the population being added-to faster than ever in the history of the planet: an extra billion people every 12 years since 1975 and another billion expected in the next 14 years.
(As context, there was only one billion people in the whole world circa 1800 and it took more than a century to add the next billion.)
Thus Biblical 'poverty' was about populations collapsing due to famine and plague - while modern 'poverty' is about luxury and idleness in the West, and an exploding population in the poorest nations.
Two different things.
*
Furthermore, Westerners live in a world with a previously-unimaginable focus on this-worldly materialism, a world of short-termist hedonism, addiction to technological distractions, and intolerance for discomfort, a world of grotesque spiritual deficiency - so that to ask for a greater focus on relieving material poverty is precisely the worst possible emphasis for Christian leaders to recommend.
A greater focus on examining the distribution of material resources and on re-distributing material resources is exactly what we do not need; exactly what would be most harmful to us - it is even further to subordinate Christians under the Marxist materialist preoccupations of Leftism.
I regard such policy as following the agenda of The Adversary, not of God.
*
(This is why the secular Leftist mass media have given such a positive reception to Pope Francis. Because he is assisting their demonic agenda.)
*
But we are told that the poor are always with us - so who are they?
I would say that the modern poor are the lonely.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/what-endemic-loneliness-tell-us-about.html
Therefore perhaps Christians could or should focus on the area of greatest need - that is to say visiting the lonely - as with the Biblical instruction to 'visit orphans and widows in their affliction' - but expanded to visiting the lonely of whatever nature or cause.
(I hasten to add that up to now I have personally failed in this, as in so many charitable imperatives. This is a case of don't do as I do...)
Visiting would therefore be a more worthy and more necessary aim, less counter-productive and less actively-harmful, than pandering to the already dominant corrosive priorities of Leftism; which merely fuels the tendency to see the world primarily in economic terms.
*
Nonetheless, if modern Christians were to focus much more on visiting the lonely, they would not have the slightest difficulty in finding people who needed to be visited - in contrast to the way that people have great difficulty in finding people who resemble the Biblical depictions of poverty.
To find the lonely, Christians would NOT have to travel thousands of miles to war-torn Africa, or home-in on disaster zones; they would not even need to cross to the other side of town.
Christians could just step-out of the front door of their home or office, turn right or left - it doesn't matter; and walk for just a few seconds or minutes to find someone who needs visiting.
Because loneliness is everywhere in the modern world. It is the main form of modern poverty.
*
Christians have become very mixed-up about poverty.
The idea (which I have heard from the current leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches) that alleviation of poverty is a particularly urgent task of our day and ought therefore to become the major priority of the Christian churches is especially misguided - indeed, not just a mistake but actually a dangerous and harmful policy.
*
The fact is that poverty, in the Biblical sense, is pretty-much abolished from the modern world.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/almsgiving-what-ought-christians-to-do.html
Biblical poverty was about working all the hours of the day and indeed being worked to death, starving to death, dying of disease... it was about death.
In the modern developed countries, by contrast, so-called-poverty is characterized by what the Bible would have called something like 'luxury and idleness': over-eating, obesity, alcohol and drug over-use, and un-employment (not working), and by living longer than anybody in history - but having on average few children.
In undeveloped countries, nowadays, poverty has a lot more hunger and disease than in developed countries - but is nonetheless characterized by societies rearing unprecedented numbers of children, with the population being added-to faster than ever in the history of the planet: an extra billion people every 12 years since 1975 and another billion expected in the next 14 years.
(As context, there was only one billion people in the whole world circa 1800 and it took more than a century to add the next billion.)
Thus Biblical 'poverty' was about populations collapsing due to famine and plague - while modern 'poverty' is about luxury and idleness in the West, and an exploding population in the poorest nations.
Two different things.
*
Furthermore, Westerners live in a world with a previously-unimaginable focus on this-worldly materialism, a world of short-termist hedonism, addiction to technological distractions, and intolerance for discomfort, a world of grotesque spiritual deficiency - so that to ask for a greater focus on relieving material poverty is precisely the worst possible emphasis for Christian leaders to recommend.
A greater focus on examining the distribution of material resources and on re-distributing material resources is exactly what we do not need; exactly what would be most harmful to us - it is even further to subordinate Christians under the Marxist materialist preoccupations of Leftism.
I regard such policy as following the agenda of The Adversary, not of God.
*
(This is why the secular Leftist mass media have given such a positive reception to Pope Francis. Because he is assisting their demonic agenda.)
*
But we are told that the poor are always with us - so who are they?
I would say that the modern poor are the lonely.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/what-endemic-loneliness-tell-us-about.html
Therefore perhaps Christians could or should focus on the area of greatest need - that is to say visiting the lonely - as with the Biblical instruction to 'visit orphans and widows in their affliction' - but expanded to visiting the lonely of whatever nature or cause.
(I hasten to add that up to now I have personally failed in this, as in so many charitable imperatives. This is a case of don't do as I do...)
Visiting would therefore be a more worthy and more necessary aim, less counter-productive and less actively-harmful, than pandering to the already dominant corrosive priorities of Leftism; which merely fuels the tendency to see the world primarily in economic terms.
*
Nonetheless, if modern Christians were to focus much more on visiting the lonely, they would not have the slightest difficulty in finding people who needed to be visited - in contrast to the way that people have great difficulty in finding people who resemble the Biblical depictions of poverty.
To find the lonely, Christians would NOT have to travel thousands of miles to war-torn Africa, or home-in on disaster zones; they would not even need to cross to the other side of town.
Christians could just step-out of the front door of their home or office, turn right or left - it doesn't matter; and walk for just a few seconds or minutes to find someone who needs visiting.
Because loneliness is everywhere in the modern world. It is the main form of modern poverty.
*
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Mormonism and children
*
One of the most striking aspects of Mormonism is the very positive attitude towards children - this comes through in official teachings by LDS church leaders, in publicity and evangelical material, in scripture, in LDS magazines and newspapers, and in the social statistics of Mormon behaviour.
The positive attitude towards children seems to be underpinned by two striking sections of the Book of Mormon - the delightful account of the risen Christ blessing the children in the book of 3 Nephi:
21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
One of the most striking aspects of Mormonism is the very positive attitude towards children - this comes through in official teachings by LDS church leaders, in publicity and evangelical material, in scripture, in LDS magazines and newspapers, and in the social statistics of Mormon behaviour.
The positive attitude towards children seems to be underpinned by two striking sections of the Book of Mormon - the delightful account of the risen Christ blessing the children in the book of 3 Nephi:
21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
24 And
as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they
saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it
were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.
...and the discussion of baptism in the book of Moroni, where it is very strongly asserted that the baptism of children is not just unnecessary, but an abomination:
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. ...
15 For
awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of
baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. ...
17 And I am filled with charity,
which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me;
wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all
alike and partakers of salvation....
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
*
However, the Book of Mormon was apparently not much used in teaching doctrine, and did not itself exert much of an influence upon Mormon doctrine, until relatively recently - so it is more likely that these passages are consistent-with Mormon practice, than that they are the origin of practice.
*
The characteristic, luminously positive attitude towards young children seems to be related to the Mormons having a different, and much more positive, interpretation of The Fall than do Mainstream Christians - and consequently their denial of the Mainstream Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
For Mormons, it seems that the concept of Original Sin is (to a significant extent) a denial of the power of Christ's atonement - and has the viscerally unacceptable consequence of damning unbaptized children (or, at least, that is how The Fall and Original Sin has been interpreted in much of Christian history - when at times children seem to have been regarded as something much like demons).
At any rate, the consequence for Mormons seems to be an attitude of great reverence towards innocent children, and a sense that they can be - by their example - the teachers of adults.
*
This fits with the idea of the family as potentially the most perfect Christian environment for adults; and contrasts sharply with other Christian traditions which see the ascetic, celibate monastic, nun or priest - or the subtle and profound theologian - as the greatest Christian exemplar.
(The Mormon ideal is, in fact, the most advanced actual form of the Via Positiva - the Way of Affirmation - among Christians.)
All of which fits seamlessly into Christ's positive attitudes and teachings with respect to children as displayed in the Gospels - which seems like something new, and something distinctive to Christianity; and an essential part of the sweetness of the pure faith.
*
Monday, 2 December 2013
Six suggested (secular) Christmas readings
*
These are my particular favourites - over the years.
1. The description of the feast at Sir Ector's castle in The Sword in the Stone, by TH White.
2. The opening section of Sir Gawain and the Green Night - describing the feast at Camelot.
3. The passages about the carol singers in Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee.
4. The carol singers and surrounding parts of The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame.
5. A Child's Christmas in Wales (in its several version) by Dylan Thomas.
6. The Father Christmas Letters - by JRR Tolkien.
*
These are my particular favourites - over the years.
1. The description of the feast at Sir Ector's castle in The Sword in the Stone, by TH White.
2. The opening section of Sir Gawain and the Green Night - describing the feast at Camelot.
3. The passages about the carol singers in Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee.
4. The carol singers and surrounding parts of The Wind in the Willows, by Kenneth Grahame.
5. A Child's Christmas in Wales (in its several version) by Dylan Thomas.
6. The Father Christmas Letters - by JRR Tolkien.
*
Is it possible to convert people*directly*, without intermediate steps, from secular Leftist modernity to belief in a personal God?
*
My own conversion to Christianity resembled that of CS Lewis (and was indeed much influenced by his writing) - in that it was gradual and multi-step, and highly intellectual and abstract.
First there was an increase in interest in 'sprituality' of a New Agey type, and also a recognition that human motivation seemed to require transcendental truth (as well as virtue and beauty); and a line of research about fertility which pointed to the traditionally-religious as the only group who resisted sub-fertility under modern conditions.
Then a conversion to an abstract and philosophical theism, focusing onto monotheism, and then the necessity that God be personal - and then Christianity - but initially a Christianity-by-elimination which could not really acknowledge the specific necessity of Jesus.
*
But this is so peculiar a path, and contains so many pitfalls, that I wonder whether it would be possible to convert somebody like myself direct to belief in a personal God without going via the philosophical steps; because if it were possible, if it did happen, it would be stronger and more secure.
*
The key recognition related to a personal God is that only a personal God enables life to be truly meaningful.
People may suppose that an abstract and philosophical understanding of the universe - with a God defined in terms of functions - will suffice, but actually it does not. For life to have meaning with such deistic beliefs, a person is relying upon a whole lot of unstated and unsupported assumptions.
*
THE PROBLEM which requires solution is about my place in the scheme of things - the meaning and purpose of life - and meaning and purpose can only be understood in a relational sense.
It is not merely a matter of understanding the 'set-up' of reality; but a matter of understanding what binds-me to reality - what binds, and what binds me specifically.
This means that reality must be concerned with me specifically, and I specifically must be concerned by reality.
This concern has to be personal, personalized, a matter of relationship.
There is no other possibility.
*
So, in principle, it may be possible to induce a religious seeker to recognize that the only coherent and potentially-satisfying answer to their search - the only kind of answer which answers the questions - is that of a God who is Himself a personage and has a personal relationship with me specifically and I with Him specifically.
Such a line of reasoning would therefore need to paint a picture of God as a person with plans for each of us individually, as well as for 'humankind' in general.
Such a picture would surely need to deploy the family as its primary descriptive metaphor - thus, the depiction of ultimate reality would not be cosmological, nor philosophical, nor ethical and not abstract - but instead familial and concrete.
*
This line of argument does not take the seeker all the way to Christianity, but to a wider range of options - however it does go a lot further and faster than the line I took and CS Lewis took - and which so often peters-out without arriving anywhere viable.
And, indeed, if the description of reality in terms of a family is also a depiction of a loving family, a family for whom love is the primary and highest motivation - then this probably takes you as far as Judaism and Christianity specifically - in one great leap - and all that remains is the choice between them.
*
My own conversion to Christianity resembled that of CS Lewis (and was indeed much influenced by his writing) - in that it was gradual and multi-step, and highly intellectual and abstract.
First there was an increase in interest in 'sprituality' of a New Agey type, and also a recognition that human motivation seemed to require transcendental truth (as well as virtue and beauty); and a line of research about fertility which pointed to the traditionally-religious as the only group who resisted sub-fertility under modern conditions.
Then a conversion to an abstract and philosophical theism, focusing onto monotheism, and then the necessity that God be personal - and then Christianity - but initially a Christianity-by-elimination which could not really acknowledge the specific necessity of Jesus.
*
But this is so peculiar a path, and contains so many pitfalls, that I wonder whether it would be possible to convert somebody like myself direct to belief in a personal God without going via the philosophical steps; because if it were possible, if it did happen, it would be stronger and more secure.
*
The key recognition related to a personal God is that only a personal God enables life to be truly meaningful.
People may suppose that an abstract and philosophical understanding of the universe - with a God defined in terms of functions - will suffice, but actually it does not. For life to have meaning with such deistic beliefs, a person is relying upon a whole lot of unstated and unsupported assumptions.
*
THE PROBLEM which requires solution is about my place in the scheme of things - the meaning and purpose of life - and meaning and purpose can only be understood in a relational sense.
It is not merely a matter of understanding the 'set-up' of reality; but a matter of understanding what binds-me to reality - what binds, and what binds me specifically.
This means that reality must be concerned with me specifically, and I specifically must be concerned by reality.
This concern has to be personal, personalized, a matter of relationship.
There is no other possibility.
*
So, in principle, it may be possible to induce a religious seeker to recognize that the only coherent and potentially-satisfying answer to their search - the only kind of answer which answers the questions - is that of a God who is Himself a personage and has a personal relationship with me specifically and I with Him specifically.
Such a line of reasoning would therefore need to paint a picture of God as a person with plans for each of us individually, as well as for 'humankind' in general.
Such a picture would surely need to deploy the family as its primary descriptive metaphor - thus, the depiction of ultimate reality would not be cosmological, nor philosophical, nor ethical and not abstract - but instead familial and concrete.
*
This line of argument does not take the seeker all the way to Christianity, but to a wider range of options - however it does go a lot further and faster than the line I took and CS Lewis took - and which so often peters-out without arriving anywhere viable.
And, indeed, if the description of reality in terms of a family is also a depiction of a loving family, a family for whom love is the primary and highest motivation - then this probably takes you as far as Judaism and Christianity specifically - in one great leap - and all that remains is the choice between them.
*
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Note - The politically correct elite are NOT manipulating the masses for their own benefit: the situation is much worse than that
*
The biggest difference between a secular critique of political correctness and a Christian critique is that the seculars see things in terms of who exploits whom; while a Christian may see things in terms of the war between Good and evil: between God and Satan.
Is there a perceptible difference? Yes, I think so.
*
If it is agreed that the present Western ruling elites are destroying the peace, prosperity, comfort and status of their own lives along with everybody else's (just delayed by a few extra years), and also destroying the lives of their descendants (if they have any), and also the lives of their friends and colleagues, and also destroying the long term success of their own supposedly most cherished ideals and allies...
Then the choice is between the modern Leftist elites being afflicted with some combination of incompetence and suicidal insanity
- or else, instead or in addition, service to purposive evil
(by which I mean deliberate destruction of The Good - destruction of Truth, Beauty and Virtue and also the unity of Goodness).
So they are either dumb and mad only; or mostly evil, plus various possible degrees of dumbness and madness.
*
I think if we honestly and objectively look at the world we can observe empirically that the politically correct elite seek-out goodness in order to attack it, and seek out evil in order to promote it.
And they do this in the teeth of resistance, with tenacity, with zeal, doubling-down on the job.
This cannot be explained by random madness or dumb good intentions.
Of course, the modern politically correct elites don't try to destroy all forms of Good, nor do they promote all forms of evil - but I think long term trends show that this restraint is only a mixture of tactics and the impossibility/ incoherence of pursing all evils at once - over time I think we can clearly see that sooner or later all Goods will be attacked, all Evils promoted.
*
So, assuming that you are a Christian and regard rulers as being in service to Satan as a real possibility - then I think this is a much stronger hypothesis than the psychosis/ incompetence idea.
Even if the elite are indeed crazy fools, which I think they are; the big problem is that they are bad crazy fools.
*
The biggest difference between a secular critique of political correctness and a Christian critique is that the seculars see things in terms of who exploits whom; while a Christian may see things in terms of the war between Good and evil: between God and Satan.
Is there a perceptible difference? Yes, I think so.
*
If it is agreed that the present Western ruling elites are destroying the peace, prosperity, comfort and status of their own lives along with everybody else's (just delayed by a few extra years), and also destroying the lives of their descendants (if they have any), and also the lives of their friends and colleagues, and also destroying the long term success of their own supposedly most cherished ideals and allies...
Then the choice is between the modern Leftist elites being afflicted with some combination of incompetence and suicidal insanity
- or else, instead or in addition, service to purposive evil
(by which I mean deliberate destruction of The Good - destruction of Truth, Beauty and Virtue and also the unity of Goodness).
So they are either dumb and mad only; or mostly evil, plus various possible degrees of dumbness and madness.
*
I think if we honestly and objectively look at the world we can observe empirically that the politically correct elite seek-out goodness in order to attack it, and seek out evil in order to promote it.
And they do this in the teeth of resistance, with tenacity, with zeal, doubling-down on the job.
This cannot be explained by random madness or dumb good intentions.
Of course, the modern politically correct elites don't try to destroy all forms of Good, nor do they promote all forms of evil - but I think long term trends show that this restraint is only a mixture of tactics and the impossibility/ incoherence of pursing all evils at once - over time I think we can clearly see that sooner or later all Goods will be attacked, all Evils promoted.
*
So, assuming that you are a Christian and regard rulers as being in service to Satan as a real possibility - then I think this is a much stronger hypothesis than the psychosis/ incompetence idea.
Even if the elite are indeed crazy fools, which I think they are; the big problem is that they are bad crazy fools.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)