There is a lot of discussion about the bad effects of continuous, intensive, immersive social media usage (i.e. what is now normal everyday life for the majority of young and middling adult Western people); but what worries me much more, is the personal motivational state of which this usage is evidence.
It is the simple and obvious fact that the majority of people actively-want to spend most of their lives interacting with the mass and social media; on average, they want this - by evidence of how they behave - more than they want anything else.
(This is very often the case with addiction - people get addicted because they want to become addicted: they work at it.)
And what this tells me is equally simple: that the majority of modern Western people actively reject Heaven, and positively desire Hell - because the materialistic-subjective-passive milieu of mass and social media is itself a segment of Hell (i.e. that state which follows the rejection of salvation).
I'm not saying that the media saturation 'makes people' desire Hell; but something much worse: that the way that people have embraced the mass/ social media and made them the centre of their lives reveals that people want Hell, and that is exactly why people have embraced mass/ social media.
A revealed-preference to live by continuous mass/ social media is therefore a revealed-preference for Hell. Then, the media saturation will amplify and consolidate this preference. But the preference came first.
I am not saying 'this will happen unless'... on the contrary, I am describing what has already happened, and is happening; and what it actually means. And I am emphasising that the problem is much deeper than generally recognised - because when mass/ social media are being consumed immersively as a means to the end of Hell - then what Christians regard as media's ill effects are a desired feature, not an inconvenient bug.
The spiritually-malign effects of saturation-media are exactly why people saturate themselves in media; and why they do this purposively, obsessively - and why they react with such fear and anger when their continued immersive media usage is threatened.
The implication is that even if mass/ social media were savagely curtailed - or altogether removed; it would have much less beneficial effects than if the media had been the root of the problem.
The primary problem is at a very deep level in the souls, and in the fundamental life choices, of very large numbers of Western people.
Monday, 19 November 2018
Sleeping through life - ego and self
Isn't just a matter of not being alert; because the most alert people include those who are most asleep.
In a spiritual sense, sleep refers to a blindness, rather than a level of consciousness. The sleep of a modern adolescent plugged into social media is certainly very active, very alert; but it is a sleeping-through Life. Such an one is passive, absorptive, reactive. Thoughts go-through the mind; and do not originate-from the mind.
To become awake is consciously to become aware of Living, as it is happening, here-and-now. That is one step. But further it requires a wider appreciation of what is happening in living.
But if living is conceptualised in the mainstream terms of modern public discourse; then it is indistinguishable from the processing activities of a computer. A person might regard himself as awake when 'switched 'on' and asleep when on standby, energy-saving... Such a person is asleep; always and inevitably.
If living is doing, then what is doing? If doing means altering stuff in the world; then we are constrained by the world. If the world stops us from altering stuff, the world has put us to sleep...
But if doing is thinking - thinking in some deep primary and active way - then thinking is something of tremendous scope on the one hand; yet on the other hand, it might never happen.
The thinking that comes from our divine selves emerges from a 'black-box', the workings of which are inaccessible - utterly inaccessible. That is the nature of freedom - it cannot be known, only its outcome can be known. We can observe the thoughts as they come-out-of the black-box that is our divine self - so, this means there is our real-self and there is an observing ego.
The observing ego is that which has choice - it can choose its attitude to the emerging thoughts of the divine self - for instance, does it regard them as illusory imaginings; does it regard them as necessarily true and real?
Mainstream life regards these thoughts emerging from the divine self as purely subjective and a species of wish-fulfilment. But the Romantic tradition of Christianity regards these same thoughts as real and true, because divine; because a part of ultimate reality - these thoughst from the divine self are direct reality - as constrained by time, experience and capacity (so we can know more, and more, of reality).
So, in talking to you - it is my ego talking with your ego; and recommending a change of your ego's-attitude to the thinking that is emerging from your divine self.
In a spiritual sense, sleep refers to a blindness, rather than a level of consciousness. The sleep of a modern adolescent plugged into social media is certainly very active, very alert; but it is a sleeping-through Life. Such an one is passive, absorptive, reactive. Thoughts go-through the mind; and do not originate-from the mind.
To become awake is consciously to become aware of Living, as it is happening, here-and-now. That is one step. But further it requires a wider appreciation of what is happening in living.
But if living is conceptualised in the mainstream terms of modern public discourse; then it is indistinguishable from the processing activities of a computer. A person might regard himself as awake when 'switched 'on' and asleep when on standby, energy-saving... Such a person is asleep; always and inevitably.
If living is doing, then what is doing? If doing means altering stuff in the world; then we are constrained by the world. If the world stops us from altering stuff, the world has put us to sleep...
But if doing is thinking - thinking in some deep primary and active way - then thinking is something of tremendous scope on the one hand; yet on the other hand, it might never happen.
The thinking that comes from our divine selves emerges from a 'black-box', the workings of which are inaccessible - utterly inaccessible. That is the nature of freedom - it cannot be known, only its outcome can be known. We can observe the thoughts as they come-out-of the black-box that is our divine self - so, this means there is our real-self and there is an observing ego.
The observing ego is that which has choice - it can choose its attitude to the emerging thoughts of the divine self - for instance, does it regard them as illusory imaginings; does it regard them as necessarily true and real?
Mainstream life regards these thoughts emerging from the divine self as purely subjective and a species of wish-fulfilment. But the Romantic tradition of Christianity regards these same thoughts as real and true, because divine; because a part of ultimate reality - these thoughst from the divine self are direct reality - as constrained by time, experience and capacity (so we can know more, and more, of reality).
So, in talking to you - it is my ego talking with your ego; and recommending a change of your ego's-attitude to the thinking that is emerging from your divine self.
Sunday, 18 November 2018
Any questions? - Enquiries invited
If readers want to ask me a question - this is an invitation for them to do so; in the comments below.
I can't guarantee to print your question (because it may go beyond the guidelines - mostly legal - that I myself adhere to about the scope of the blog) - I can't even guarantee to answer the exact specific question, if I regard it as one for which the proper response is to go deeper and back to the assumptions behind the question; but I will undertake to make a response linked to an identification of the questioner.
I'm quite happy to respond to 'trivial' questions (of the favourite-colour, special-dislikes type); but also - if you are concerned about some aspect of my deep, philosophical and religious views and want that clarified - I shall do so as honestly as I can.
Saturday, 17 November 2018
What does Jesus mean (in the Fourth Gospel) by the promise of life eternal/ everlasting?
The promise of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is that those who believe in him will have the reward of life eternal/ life everlasting.
As Jesus explains to Nicodemus; this is to be attained only after mortal life: via biological death and being born again.
Life eternal/ everlasting is the state of resurrection; and its consequence explained in terms of the various events of the gospel when Jesus contrasts the satisfactions of this mortal life - wine, water, bread, meat, sight - with the great, qualitative enhancement that these mortal experiences will have in the life to come.
How can we understand this?
The answer is that the resurrected body is what transforms worldly experience into Paradise. The resurrected body is eternal, everlasting, indestructible - and has divine powers of both perceiving and thinking.
(Because the incarnate body and the soul are indivisible, therefore transformation of the body is itself a transformation of the Man.)
The resurrected Man has, in effect, 'extra senses' unknown to mortal Men, and creative powers of imaginative and intuitive thinking.
(These we may experience briefly, in the context of our constantly-changing mortal state - but mortality is primarily for learning, rather than doing.)
Thus the promise of resurrection is itself the cause of the astonishing enhancements in the quality of living that Jesus promises. It is because Jesus brought resurrection that he also brought the possibility of Heaven.
Note: This was clarified for me by the discussion of William Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell on pp 194-5 of Fearful Symmetry by Northrop Frye.
As Jesus explains to Nicodemus; this is to be attained only after mortal life: via biological death and being born again.
Life eternal/ everlasting is the state of resurrection; and its consequence explained in terms of the various events of the gospel when Jesus contrasts the satisfactions of this mortal life - wine, water, bread, meat, sight - with the great, qualitative enhancement that these mortal experiences will have in the life to come.
How can we understand this?
The answer is that the resurrected body is what transforms worldly experience into Paradise. The resurrected body is eternal, everlasting, indestructible - and has divine powers of both perceiving and thinking.
(Because the incarnate body and the soul are indivisible, therefore transformation of the body is itself a transformation of the Man.)
The resurrected Man has, in effect, 'extra senses' unknown to mortal Men, and creative powers of imaginative and intuitive thinking.
(These we may experience briefly, in the context of our constantly-changing mortal state - but mortality is primarily for learning, rather than doing.)
Thus the promise of resurrection is itself the cause of the astonishing enhancements in the quality of living that Jesus promises. It is because Jesus brought resurrection that he also brought the possibility of Heaven.
Note: This was clarified for me by the discussion of William Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell on pp 194-5 of Fearful Symmetry by Northrop Frye.
God and the Universe and Creation - two pictures
The mainstream Christian view is of God outside of everything to start with; and God, as it were, creating the Universe from nothing, inside of Himself. Time exists only within the created Universe. Men are wholly created by God within this Universe.
My view (which I got from Mormonism) is - to start with - God inside-of a chaotic Universe and 'in' Time; and Creation as a matter of God shaping the chaos around-Himself; in a progressive and cumulative fashion. Men, in a primordial form, are already-present in the original chaos, and are incrementally taken and shaped-into Children of God, inside of Creation.
The mainstream view is a monism, because everything began as, and implicitly reduces to, the unity of God. My view is a type of pluralism (the term taken from William James); in which primary reality is of many and irreducible entities.
The mainstream God's problem is to Create anything that is not merely Himself - hence futile; the pluralist God's problem is that Creation is partial and on-going - an imperfect, developing work-in-progress.
The mainstream God's Goodness is perfect conformity with God; the pluralist God's Goodness is the process of creating.
The mainstream God's Universe does not need to be 'held-together' because He created it all from nothing as a unity; the pluralist God's dynamic, expanding, developing Universe is held-together by Love - and Love is a choice, voluntary; an opt-in kind of thing.
To opt-out from the mainstream God's Universe is irrational because there is nowhere else to go - in fact, there can be no real opting-out. But to opt-out from the pluralist God's universe is rational; since each person has a primordial independence - it is to opt-out from God's plan of creation into chaos; to opt-out from the cohesion of Love into the solitude of pride.
Indeed, it is a positive choice for each Child of God, to join-with God in the plan of living and creating within a dynamic, expanding, developing Universe.
My view (which I got from Mormonism) is - to start with - God inside-of a chaotic Universe and 'in' Time; and Creation as a matter of God shaping the chaos around-Himself; in a progressive and cumulative fashion. Men, in a primordial form, are already-present in the original chaos, and are incrementally taken and shaped-into Children of God, inside of Creation.
The mainstream view is a monism, because everything began as, and implicitly reduces to, the unity of God. My view is a type of pluralism (the term taken from William James); in which primary reality is of many and irreducible entities.
The mainstream God's problem is to Create anything that is not merely Himself - hence futile; the pluralist God's problem is that Creation is partial and on-going - an imperfect, developing work-in-progress.
The mainstream God's Goodness is perfect conformity with God; the pluralist God's Goodness is the process of creating.
The mainstream God's Universe does not need to be 'held-together' because He created it all from nothing as a unity; the pluralist God's dynamic, expanding, developing Universe is held-together by Love - and Love is a choice, voluntary; an opt-in kind of thing.
To opt-out from the mainstream God's Universe is irrational because there is nowhere else to go - in fact, there can be no real opting-out. But to opt-out from the pluralist God's universe is rational; since each person has a primordial independence - it is to opt-out from God's plan of creation into chaos; to opt-out from the cohesion of Love into the solitude of pride.
Indeed, it is a positive choice for each Child of God, to join-with God in the plan of living and creating within a dynamic, expanding, developing Universe.
Friday, 16 November 2018
Don't try to explain evil by self-interest - evil is malice (William Blake)
Those who say that men are led by interest are knaves.
A knavish character will often say - 'Of what interest is it to me to do so-and-so?'
I answer - 'Of none at all, but on the contrary, as you well know. It is of malice and envy that you have done this: hence I am aware of you, because I know that you act, not from interest, but from malice - even to your destruction'.
William Blake - from Descriptive Catalogue (re-punctuated and emphasis added)
So many people, so often, regard self-interest as the prime evil, and try to explain the evil in this world as due to persons and institutions motivated by self-interest...
Everything gets explained that way; so people will seek-out why such and such an action benefits the person that did it. And when this isn't obvious, then remote and indirect self-interest will be wheeled-out.
Contrariwise; if self-interest is not obvious - or if the chain of explanation is disbelieved - then it is assumed that there was no evil but merely some inexplicable coincidence, or incompetence - bad things are confidently ascribed to the sheer 'randomness' and uncontrollability of things.
Those who do this are what Blake termed knaves - cunning, dishonest, deceitful, cowardly, traitorous. In other words knaves are themselves those who are motivated by malice, by spite, by their taking of pleasure in the misery of others.
Northrop Frye (in Fearful Symmetry p56-7) amplifies Blake's passage thus:
By turning away from the world to be perceived we develop an imaginative idleness which spreads a sickness and lassitude over the whole soul, and all vices spring from this... Murder is obviously an expression of the same death-impulse that suicide is, and all evil acts are more or less murderous...
This death-impulse, this perverted wish to cut down and restrict the scope of life, is the touchstone not only of all the obvious vices, but of many acts often not classified as such; like teasing, instilling fear or discouragement, or exacting unthinking obedience.
It is quite inadequate to call self-interest a motive of evil conduct, though the death-impulse may be disguised in that form. Self-interest implies a good deal of control: in all extreme vices there is a mania in which one is hagridden by a 'ruling passion'.
As so often, children understand perfectly that evil is spite and malice; it is only in a culture so sophomoric, so adolescent, so knavish as ours - that we claim to see-through the 'obvious (and true) explanation such as to regard evil as an expression of mere self-interest (most often specifically economic self-interest).
Yet self-interest is universal - and so is no explanation at all; especially in a world where 'goodness' is defined in 'utilitarian' terms of publicly-observable and quantifiable 'altruism' (e.g. raising money for 'charity') - such that altruism is itself the grossest form of self-interest.
Furthermore, the focus on self-interest serves to disguise real evil; because the 'mania' that drives a 'hagridden' doer of malicious evil will often bring about his downfall - and in modern culture that makes him a 'victim', worthy of sympathy. Instead of seeing self-destruction as a hallmark of the murderous nature of true evil, it engages our sympathy - and thus we are corrupted.
This is vital to bear in mind when so much of modern evil is bureaucratic, such that responsibility for evil is eluded, and we seldom know even the identities of those whose malice drives the evil. But, whether we know them or not, we can be sure that they are there.
A knavish character will often say - 'Of what interest is it to me to do so-and-so?'
I answer - 'Of none at all, but on the contrary, as you well know. It is of malice and envy that you have done this: hence I am aware of you, because I know that you act, not from interest, but from malice - even to your destruction'.
William Blake - from Descriptive Catalogue (re-punctuated and emphasis added)
So many people, so often, regard self-interest as the prime evil, and try to explain the evil in this world as due to persons and institutions motivated by self-interest...
Everything gets explained that way; so people will seek-out why such and such an action benefits the person that did it. And when this isn't obvious, then remote and indirect self-interest will be wheeled-out.
Contrariwise; if self-interest is not obvious - or if the chain of explanation is disbelieved - then it is assumed that there was no evil but merely some inexplicable coincidence, or incompetence - bad things are confidently ascribed to the sheer 'randomness' and uncontrollability of things.
Those who do this are what Blake termed knaves - cunning, dishonest, deceitful, cowardly, traitorous. In other words knaves are themselves those who are motivated by malice, by spite, by their taking of pleasure in the misery of others.
Northrop Frye (in Fearful Symmetry p56-7) amplifies Blake's passage thus:
By turning away from the world to be perceived we develop an imaginative idleness which spreads a sickness and lassitude over the whole soul, and all vices spring from this... Murder is obviously an expression of the same death-impulse that suicide is, and all evil acts are more or less murderous...
This death-impulse, this perverted wish to cut down and restrict the scope of life, is the touchstone not only of all the obvious vices, but of many acts often not classified as such; like teasing, instilling fear or discouragement, or exacting unthinking obedience.
It is quite inadequate to call self-interest a motive of evil conduct, though the death-impulse may be disguised in that form. Self-interest implies a good deal of control: in all extreme vices there is a mania in which one is hagridden by a 'ruling passion'.
As so often, children understand perfectly that evil is spite and malice; it is only in a culture so sophomoric, so adolescent, so knavish as ours - that we claim to see-through the 'obvious (and true) explanation such as to regard evil as an expression of mere self-interest (most often specifically economic self-interest).
Yet self-interest is universal - and so is no explanation at all; especially in a world where 'goodness' is defined in 'utilitarian' terms of publicly-observable and quantifiable 'altruism' (e.g. raising money for 'charity') - such that altruism is itself the grossest form of self-interest.
Furthermore, the focus on self-interest serves to disguise real evil; because the 'mania' that drives a 'hagridden' doer of malicious evil will often bring about his downfall - and in modern culture that makes him a 'victim', worthy of sympathy. Instead of seeing self-destruction as a hallmark of the murderous nature of true evil, it engages our sympathy - and thus we are corrupted.
This is vital to bear in mind when so much of modern evil is bureaucratic, such that responsibility for evil is eluded, and we seldom know even the identities of those whose malice drives the evil. But, whether we know them or not, we can be sure that they are there.
TrumpPhobia among the liberal religious/ spiritual
When I venture into the mainstream mass media I expect strategic evil from the professionals - including systematically attacking Donald Trump for his virtues and his good statements and policies; but the mainstream religious/ spiritual blogs and social media are more worrying for what they reveal of stubborn, determined, deep-assumption-based adherence to the evil agenda.
In fact (from what I gather - necessarily very indirectly, via media of one sort or another), Trump is a considerably better-than-average mainstream US politician; better in the sense of what he says and does - mainly better in terms of honesty and courage when it comes to some of the most difficult terror-enforced Leftist-pieties. For that he deserves credit.
On the other hand, nothing Trump has said or done suggests he is going to reverse the primary, deep, sin of the USA or the West: its anti-Christian materialism in public discourse (and individual subjectivity). So, we should not be misled; Trump's leadership is only a better version of the same slow poison that has afflicted us since the early 19th century.
And it is here that the comment sections among the self-identified spiritual and religious people are so worrying. In the depth and vehemence of their TrumpPhobia they demonstrate a metaphysical commitment to the agenda of evil that undercuts all surface protestations of spirituality and religious concern.
These may well include people who spend many waking hours in meditation, prayer, reading edifying texts, doing altruistic works, conversing with others of their ilk, perhaps participating in church organisation and Christian services. They are people who seem to themselves and most others to be sincere. Yet this entire edifice is - plainly - erected upon cowardice, dishonesty and evil-intent.
I should not be surprised, since this is exactly what has been prophesied from the End Times, and I believe that we are in the End Times; but I must admit it does surprise me, recurrently.
And it emphasises that what is required of us - if we are to stop and reverse these end times - is an awakening and rebirth that is so deep, so metaphysical, so wide-ranging - that nothing of the kind has been known since the incarnation of Jesus.
We need not worry about looking for signs of such a thing, because if it were to happen it would be so obvious as to amount to a societal earthquake; although it would, inevitably, be misunderstood and misrepresented.
But unless or until something like this happens - when we will need to use all our powers of individual discernment to discriminate a real Christian rebirth from an Antichrist deception - we can and must proceed as individuals... not merely to resist (that is grossly insufficient and unsustainable) but to move-forward to the only possible counter-attack: which I term Romantic Christianity - a Christianity that encompasses and transforms our consciousness and brings The World alive, and makes its meaning and purpose a matter of direct personal experience.
In fact (from what I gather - necessarily very indirectly, via media of one sort or another), Trump is a considerably better-than-average mainstream US politician; better in the sense of what he says and does - mainly better in terms of honesty and courage when it comes to some of the most difficult terror-enforced Leftist-pieties. For that he deserves credit.
On the other hand, nothing Trump has said or done suggests he is going to reverse the primary, deep, sin of the USA or the West: its anti-Christian materialism in public discourse (and individual subjectivity). So, we should not be misled; Trump's leadership is only a better version of the same slow poison that has afflicted us since the early 19th century.
And it is here that the comment sections among the self-identified spiritual and religious people are so worrying. In the depth and vehemence of their TrumpPhobia they demonstrate a metaphysical commitment to the agenda of evil that undercuts all surface protestations of spirituality and religious concern.
These may well include people who spend many waking hours in meditation, prayer, reading edifying texts, doing altruistic works, conversing with others of their ilk, perhaps participating in church organisation and Christian services. They are people who seem to themselves and most others to be sincere. Yet this entire edifice is - plainly - erected upon cowardice, dishonesty and evil-intent.
I should not be surprised, since this is exactly what has been prophesied from the End Times, and I believe that we are in the End Times; but I must admit it does surprise me, recurrently.
And it emphasises that what is required of us - if we are to stop and reverse these end times - is an awakening and rebirth that is so deep, so metaphysical, so wide-ranging - that nothing of the kind has been known since the incarnation of Jesus.
We need not worry about looking for signs of such a thing, because if it were to happen it would be so obvious as to amount to a societal earthquake; although it would, inevitably, be misunderstood and misrepresented.
But unless or until something like this happens - when we will need to use all our powers of individual discernment to discriminate a real Christian rebirth from an Antichrist deception - we can and must proceed as individuals... not merely to resist (that is grossly insufficient and unsustainable) but to move-forward to the only possible counter-attack: which I term Romantic Christianity - a Christianity that encompasses and transforms our consciousness and brings The World alive, and makes its meaning and purpose a matter of direct personal experience.
Why does the devil lie?
Why does the devil lie? Why do the servants and slaves of darkness lie?
To manipulate our will.
To make us want that which is evil: hate that which is good.
Make the beautiful be known as ugly; and the vile desirable.
And to render Truth too simple, obvious, crude, cruel.
It is to affect our values that the devil lies.
Ultimately, it is so each shall will his own damnation; that the demonic forces lies.
To manipulate our will.
To make us want that which is evil: hate that which is good.
Make the beautiful be known as ugly; and the vile desirable.
And to render Truth too simple, obvious, crude, cruel.
It is to affect our values that the devil lies.
Ultimately, it is so each shall will his own damnation; that the demonic forces lies.
Thursday, 15 November 2018
Who would You choose to symbolise Christmas?
Santa and Satan - it's an anagram, after all...
Then think again: who would you choose to symbolise Christmas if you were a typical modern leader of a typical mainstream UK instituion?
Compare your answer with the actuality - at Albion Awakening.
Then consider the implications.
Man or woman: Thinking in Categories or thinking of Beings
I find a basic unsatisfactoriness in the usual way of thinking using categories - for example the debate whether each man has a body and soul; a body, soul and spirit - or just a body. For me, the argument bogs-down on what changes, what stays the same - what happens over time.
What happens over time seems (since the earliest records of Ancient Greeks) to be the problem with all categories - the reason for developing them, and the reason why they so seldom 'work'. It is, indeed, the basic problem of the philosophical tradition - how to talk-about anything (in a philosophical way) without getting into difficulties about change and not-change.
I think the problem comes-from the very roots of denying what is obvious to pre-conscious children - that this reality is one of Beings; and Beings are real in a context of time. What makes a Being is something to do with 'development'/ growth/ life.... we don't have a single category that works properly because of the problem with categories.
But if we start with Beings, and stick with Beings; we realise that the inadequacy of categories is precisely that they do not include this basic experience of entities that both remain themselves and also change through time.
It isn't a mystery or a paradox; not is it a logical problem - that is what Beings are. A Being may even metamorphose unrecognisably - caterpillar to pupa to butterfly - while remaining the same Being. A Being may exchange all of its molecules while remaining the same Being. This is built-in knowledge - and the problem only arises from trying to fit it into time-less categories.
The same with individuality... Something about modern thought pushes people into categories; and then these categories lead to further problems because they have blurred boundaries, they overlap, they change, they are perspectival... yet we don't spontaneously have a problem with individual people, once we get to know them - we regard each as a Being, and don't expect Beings to fall into categories.
As an example... What about sex, man and woman?
Well, we recognise that invididual human Beings are either a man or a woman; but we don't spontaneously create categories of men or women by using definitions, into-which each Being must be put... Man or woman is something that each person is - the beings neither derive-from nor are allocated-to categories.
And because Beings include time, then we don't expect a being to change from man to woman or woman to man; and if they appear to do so, then we may be confused about which they really are - but not about the fact that their state of Being is (if only we knew) one or the other.
The knowledge comes to us not in the form 'there are two categories that all humans must fall into, either man or woman' - but that we know many individual people, and each is either a man or a woman; or else we aren't sure which - but would prefer to know (if we want to deal with them).
We begin with Beings - and I believe that we should end with Beings, as the basis of our understanding of reality. That will means dealing with individuals, not categories - and as such, many of the intractable 'problems of philosophy' (and of Christian theology) simply dissolve. (Including the [pseudo-] problem of the Trinity.)
There remain the problems of living; but the problems of philosophy that have tormented thinkers of about 2500 years are seen as illusory; although, probably, struggling with them was valuable and perhaps necessary.
We began by unconsciously accepting the reality of a world of Beings; our task now is to choose to accept that this world really-is of-Beings.
What happens over time seems (since the earliest records of Ancient Greeks) to be the problem with all categories - the reason for developing them, and the reason why they so seldom 'work'. It is, indeed, the basic problem of the philosophical tradition - how to talk-about anything (in a philosophical way) without getting into difficulties about change and not-change.
I think the problem comes-from the very roots of denying what is obvious to pre-conscious children - that this reality is one of Beings; and Beings are real in a context of time. What makes a Being is something to do with 'development'/ growth/ life.... we don't have a single category that works properly because of the problem with categories.
But if we start with Beings, and stick with Beings; we realise that the inadequacy of categories is precisely that they do not include this basic experience of entities that both remain themselves and also change through time.
It isn't a mystery or a paradox; not is it a logical problem - that is what Beings are. A Being may even metamorphose unrecognisably - caterpillar to pupa to butterfly - while remaining the same Being. A Being may exchange all of its molecules while remaining the same Being. This is built-in knowledge - and the problem only arises from trying to fit it into time-less categories.
The same with individuality... Something about modern thought pushes people into categories; and then these categories lead to further problems because they have blurred boundaries, they overlap, they change, they are perspectival... yet we don't spontaneously have a problem with individual people, once we get to know them - we regard each as a Being, and don't expect Beings to fall into categories.
As an example... What about sex, man and woman?
Well, we recognise that invididual human Beings are either a man or a woman; but we don't spontaneously create categories of men or women by using definitions, into-which each Being must be put... Man or woman is something that each person is - the beings neither derive-from nor are allocated-to categories.
And because Beings include time, then we don't expect a being to change from man to woman or woman to man; and if they appear to do so, then we may be confused about which they really are - but not about the fact that their state of Being is (if only we knew) one or the other.
The knowledge comes to us not in the form 'there are two categories that all humans must fall into, either man or woman' - but that we know many individual people, and each is either a man or a woman; or else we aren't sure which - but would prefer to know (if we want to deal with them).
We begin with Beings - and I believe that we should end with Beings, as the basis of our understanding of reality. That will means dealing with individuals, not categories - and as such, many of the intractable 'problems of philosophy' (and of Christian theology) simply dissolve. (Including the [pseudo-] problem of the Trinity.)
There remain the problems of living; but the problems of philosophy that have tormented thinkers of about 2500 years are seen as illusory; although, probably, struggling with them was valuable and perhaps necessary.
We began by unconsciously accepting the reality of a world of Beings; our task now is to choose to accept that this world really-is of-Beings.
Wednesday, 14 November 2018
Philosophers need to remember God and Jesus
Since epistemology displaced metaphysics; philosophers tend to leave-out God as an explanation. This is a big mistake, in many ways; since when God is left-out the strong impression is left that God is not really necessary, is optional.
Trying to explain reality without reference to the fact that it was created, means that there can be no reference to the purpose or meaning of 'it all' - and many philosophers seem to be quietly hoping that nobody has noticed that this has been left-out.
But even acknowledging God, does not get us all-the-way to an account of purpose and meaning, unless we take account of Jesus Christ. Because it was Jesus who told us the nature of God, and what God hopes from us - so without Jesus; meaning and purpose are not related to you and me and humanity in general.
In an ultimate sense, I would be the first to argue that our conviction of the reality and nature of God does not (and should not) depend on what we have been told; that is, it must not be based-upon scripture, history or institutional authority (either individually or in any combination) - any more than it should depend on philosophy. All these are merely communications, hence indirect: no communication can be sure or certain.
In the end, we must each of us attain a direct and intuitive understanding of reality.
However, since intuitive understanding is a way of directly apprehending Truth; all individuals will reach God and Jesus Christ as surely (more surely) by this route than by any which depends on, or is mediated-by, 'other people'.
My point is that when we begin our explanations with an understanding that God is our loving parent and creator; it is possible to explain matters simply and in very human terms; whereas when we leave-out God and Jesus Christ then we are compelled to speak abstractly, generally, impersonally, philosophically and with a great deal of assertion about texts, the transmission of practices and the nature of human authority...
I don't say it can't be done; but there are so many steps-in and strands-to the argument; that most people will fall off and get lost, long before the argument has been completed.
Note: This comes from William Wildblood's comment yesterday that Rudolf Steiner (in his vast output of words) hardly ever mentioned God - although he very often mentioned Christ... The impression remains Steiner described the means, but left-out the end. I have also commented that Owen Barfield could have made his job much easier if he had emphasised that 'the evolution of consciousness' - which he expended such great effort on proving - happened because it was an essential part of God's plan. A positive example to contrast is William Arkle who, especially in Letter from a Father and Equations of Being, explicitly began with an understanding of God's nature as loving parent and creator. I have found this extremely valuable - because most Christian dilemmas and difficulties can be resolves by recalling God's nature - understanding what he would, and would not, do.
Trying to explain reality without reference to the fact that it was created, means that there can be no reference to the purpose or meaning of 'it all' - and many philosophers seem to be quietly hoping that nobody has noticed that this has been left-out.
But even acknowledging God, does not get us all-the-way to an account of purpose and meaning, unless we take account of Jesus Christ. Because it was Jesus who told us the nature of God, and what God hopes from us - so without Jesus; meaning and purpose are not related to you and me and humanity in general.
In an ultimate sense, I would be the first to argue that our conviction of the reality and nature of God does not (and should not) depend on what we have been told; that is, it must not be based-upon scripture, history or institutional authority (either individually or in any combination) - any more than it should depend on philosophy. All these are merely communications, hence indirect: no communication can be sure or certain.
In the end, we must each of us attain a direct and intuitive understanding of reality.
However, since intuitive understanding is a way of directly apprehending Truth; all individuals will reach God and Jesus Christ as surely (more surely) by this route than by any which depends on, or is mediated-by, 'other people'.
My point is that when we begin our explanations with an understanding that God is our loving parent and creator; it is possible to explain matters simply and in very human terms; whereas when we leave-out God and Jesus Christ then we are compelled to speak abstractly, generally, impersonally, philosophically and with a great deal of assertion about texts, the transmission of practices and the nature of human authority...
I don't say it can't be done; but there are so many steps-in and strands-to the argument; that most people will fall off and get lost, long before the argument has been completed.
Note: This comes from William Wildblood's comment yesterday that Rudolf Steiner (in his vast output of words) hardly ever mentioned God - although he very often mentioned Christ... The impression remains Steiner described the means, but left-out the end. I have also commented that Owen Barfield could have made his job much easier if he had emphasised that 'the evolution of consciousness' - which he expended such great effort on proving - happened because it was an essential part of God's plan. A positive example to contrast is William Arkle who, especially in Letter from a Father and Equations of Being, explicitly began with an understanding of God's nature as loving parent and creator. I have found this extremely valuable - because most Christian dilemmas and difficulties can be resolves by recalling God's nature - understanding what he would, and would not, do.
Atheist objections to divine morality - reasons to reject the reality of creation
If morality as presented as God's will, then this tends to strike a modern atheist as His opinion against mine. Why should God's morality be right and mine wrong; why should God get to set the rules for everybody?
The reason is that true morality is not detachable from reality, but interwoven inextricably - God is creator, and what we call morality is just one aspect of reality that we have picked-out and called morality.
So God's rules apply to us because God created us and everything in our world... but the moderately-sophisticated atheist will soon pick up the inconsistency in this argument... If God created everything including myself, how and why is there a conflict between what I want to do and what God wants me to do?
The answer is 'free will' - but where does freedom come-from if God has created everything? It doesn't make sense.
And - more profoundly - why did God make Men with free will? What is the intention of this - if not to sin, then how are Men supposed to use their free will? If the answer is merely to choose to obey God, then this choice is pointless - God might as well have made Men to obey in the first place!
My different understanding is that God created our reality, our 'universe'; but God did not create our free will: free will comes from our-selves.
And further that God is not primarily aiming at obedience; but instead at Men becoming gods.
My understanding is that God could not make men as already-gods - because being a god entails free will; so the intention is that individual Men will choose to grow and develop towards divinity.
So... God has created the reality in-which we dwell; and morality is part-of living in alliance with the nature and purpose of God's creation; living aligned-with reality. But free will comes from that part of our reality which God did not create; hence the conflict intrinsic to this life.
If we choose Not to live in alignment with creation-reality (to reject God's virtue, truth, beauty in unity), this is a rational choice; but ultimately that negative choice-to-reject condemns the rejector to life outside creation.
What is outside creation? In essence nothing; that is chaos, lack of meaning, no purpose, zero relationships.
But modern Man does not believe-in the reality of meaning, purpose, or permanent personal relationships... indeed modern Man regards all of these as tyranny, and would actively reject them.
So be it: if modern Man does not want them, then he is free to reject them.
What would he get instead? He would get his own way - complete freedom in a context of total isolation. If modern Man really does not want to be a part of creation, if modern man wants his own personal autonomy above everything; he will presumably choose to reject creation - including God's morality.
From this you can see why love is the key for Christians; love is the positive reason why you or I or anybody else would actively-want to embrace the reality of God's creation; and eschew the absolute isolation that total autonomy would entail.
The reason is that true morality is not detachable from reality, but interwoven inextricably - God is creator, and what we call morality is just one aspect of reality that we have picked-out and called morality.
So God's rules apply to us because God created us and everything in our world... but the moderately-sophisticated atheist will soon pick up the inconsistency in this argument... If God created everything including myself, how and why is there a conflict between what I want to do and what God wants me to do?
The answer is 'free will' - but where does freedom come-from if God has created everything? It doesn't make sense.
And - more profoundly - why did God make Men with free will? What is the intention of this - if not to sin, then how are Men supposed to use their free will? If the answer is merely to choose to obey God, then this choice is pointless - God might as well have made Men to obey in the first place!
My different understanding is that God created our reality, our 'universe'; but God did not create our free will: free will comes from our-selves.
And further that God is not primarily aiming at obedience; but instead at Men becoming gods.
My understanding is that God could not make men as already-gods - because being a god entails free will; so the intention is that individual Men will choose to grow and develop towards divinity.
So... God has created the reality in-which we dwell; and morality is part-of living in alliance with the nature and purpose of God's creation; living aligned-with reality. But free will comes from that part of our reality which God did not create; hence the conflict intrinsic to this life.
If we choose Not to live in alignment with creation-reality (to reject God's virtue, truth, beauty in unity), this is a rational choice; but ultimately that negative choice-to-reject condemns the rejector to life outside creation.
What is outside creation? In essence nothing; that is chaos, lack of meaning, no purpose, zero relationships.
But modern Man does not believe-in the reality of meaning, purpose, or permanent personal relationships... indeed modern Man regards all of these as tyranny, and would actively reject them.
So be it: if modern Man does not want them, then he is free to reject them.
What would he get instead? He would get his own way - complete freedom in a context of total isolation. If modern Man really does not want to be a part of creation, if modern man wants his own personal autonomy above everything; he will presumably choose to reject creation - including God's morality.
From this you can see why love is the key for Christians; love is the positive reason why you or I or anybody else would actively-want to embrace the reality of God's creation; and eschew the absolute isolation that total autonomy would entail.
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
Evil via bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is identical with totalitarianism - a world (such as we inhabit) in which bureaucracy is constantly growing and increasing in scope and penetration; and in which the bureaucracies are linked, just is a totalitarian world: that is, an evil world.
It is not the aim of bureaucracy that is evil, it is the fact of bureaucracy which is evil. The medium is the message.
Most educated people are primarily bureaucratic functionaries; all are significantly bureaucrats, and in all instances the bureaucratic element is increasing.
The origin of bureaucracy is that deep impulse of rebellion against God and creation that we call Leftism - and most bureaucracies are concerned with Leftist projects - but bureaucracy's great advantage (as an instrument) is that its evil is in the form rather than the content: it appears to be a machine or tool, usable for various purposes - thus the enemies of he Left hoped to use bureaucracy against the left.
However, the opposite happened. All opposition to the Left was absorbed-into bureaucracy; and became the Left.
And bureaucracy is everywhere. Bureaucracy has become Real Life: What is not bureaucracy is not really real - bureaucracy is The Bottom Line.
Any attempt to attack, must bureaucratise to be Real; hence is absorbed before it achieves anything.
If the material world was all there is, we would be doomed. If groups were primary and the individual existed to serve groups, we would be doomed. If the public world of laws, regulations, and communication; of power, propaganda, punishment were the only Reality, we would be doomed. If what we did was all that mattered and what we thought was irrelevant - there would be no hope.
But it isn't, it isn't, it is Not.
And realising this; all may be well. Because there is God, direct knowing, participation in creation; because life extends beyond mortality - because of all that is left-out of bureaucracy; we are not helpless.
We have a job to do.
It is not the aim of bureaucracy that is evil, it is the fact of bureaucracy which is evil. The medium is the message.
Most educated people are primarily bureaucratic functionaries; all are significantly bureaucrats, and in all instances the bureaucratic element is increasing.
The origin of bureaucracy is that deep impulse of rebellion against God and creation that we call Leftism - and most bureaucracies are concerned with Leftist projects - but bureaucracy's great advantage (as an instrument) is that its evil is in the form rather than the content: it appears to be a machine or tool, usable for various purposes - thus the enemies of he Left hoped to use bureaucracy against the left.
However, the opposite happened. All opposition to the Left was absorbed-into bureaucracy; and became the Left.
And bureaucracy is everywhere. Bureaucracy has become Real Life: What is not bureaucracy is not really real - bureaucracy is The Bottom Line.
Any attempt to attack, must bureaucratise to be Real; hence is absorbed before it achieves anything.
If the material world was all there is, we would be doomed. If groups were primary and the individual existed to serve groups, we would be doomed. If the public world of laws, regulations, and communication; of power, propaganda, punishment were the only Reality, we would be doomed. If what we did was all that mattered and what we thought was irrelevant - there would be no hope.
But it isn't, it isn't, it is Not.
And realising this; all may be well. Because there is God, direct knowing, participation in creation; because life extends beyond mortality - because of all that is left-out of bureaucracy; we are not helpless.
We have a job to do.
Monday, 12 November 2018
The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Sorath... One or how many demonic leaders?
The demon's problem is that, by Not incarnating and having separated themselves from God's direct presence in Heaven, they are not-easily brought-to-a-point...
They are eternal and indestructible spirits who have taken the side against Creation; and as such they are Not-very-good at learning from experience.
Perhaps, the hellish economy works more by a kind of 'natural selection' among demons, rather than by the learning and development of individual demons.
That is, maybe the individual demons stay much the same (because they don't learn from experience), but one or another comes to the fore at different times and places and situations; for which they happen to be best adapted.
Some rise, some fall back down the hierarchy; and the supreme Leader varies at different times, and perhaps too in different places - hence the several names for the chief demon in different sources and cultures.
So The Devil may be sometimes the passionate and charismatic Lucifer, sometimes the coldly bureaucratic Ahriman, sometimes the sadistic Sorath - whatever is working most effectively here-and-now in the work of opposition to God, Good and Creation?
They are eternal and indestructible spirits who have taken the side against Creation; and as such they are Not-very-good at learning from experience.
Perhaps, the hellish economy works more by a kind of 'natural selection' among demons, rather than by the learning and development of individual demons.
That is, maybe the individual demons stay much the same (because they don't learn from experience), but one or another comes to the fore at different times and places and situations; for which they happen to be best adapted.
Some rise, some fall back down the hierarchy; and the supreme Leader varies at different times, and perhaps too in different places - hence the several names for the chief demon in different sources and cultures.
So The Devil may be sometimes the passionate and charismatic Lucifer, sometimes the coldly bureaucratic Ahriman, sometimes the sadistic Sorath - whatever is working most effectively here-and-now in the work of opposition to God, Good and Creation?
What is theosis?
Theosis is the process of becoming more like God, more divine, more saintly (sanctified) during mortal life; theosis is the purpose of an extended mortal life (rather than simply being incarnated and then dying).
But this idea of becoming more divine tends to make theosis sound more rare and difficult than it really is; perhaps because we tend to regard it in a primarily moral way - so that the assumptions is that we are supposed to become more virtuous. Well, that is one type of theosis, the theosis of some great Saints: the saints of virtue.
But there are other kinds of Saints, and other kinds of theosis - for example of knowledge; specifically knowledge of truth, knowledge of reality - which is also a god-like attribute.
This fits ith the idea that extended mortal life is mostly about having experience and learning from it; every person, every place, every day is different - there is a lot to learn-from and a lot to learn... And we ourselves change, in both mind and body - for example we develop through childhood, mature, have emotions, get sick, age and die. We make decisions (good and bad) and live with the outcomes...
Mortal incarnate life therefore seems to be an excellent situation in which to learn; and perhaps/ presumably in this respect it is far superior to pre-mortal spirit life, and post-mortal resurrected life.
Theosis could be conceptualised, in a general and inclusive sense, as exactly this learning; we are meant-to learn from our life experiences; and when we do this is theosis - it brings us quantitatively closer to the divine level of knowledge as well as virtue.
But this idea of becoming more divine tends to make theosis sound more rare and difficult than it really is; perhaps because we tend to regard it in a primarily moral way - so that the assumptions is that we are supposed to become more virtuous. Well, that is one type of theosis, the theosis of some great Saints: the saints of virtue.
But there are other kinds of Saints, and other kinds of theosis - for example of knowledge; specifically knowledge of truth, knowledge of reality - which is also a god-like attribute.
This fits ith the idea that extended mortal life is mostly about having experience and learning from it; every person, every place, every day is different - there is a lot to learn-from and a lot to learn... And we ourselves change, in both mind and body - for example we develop through childhood, mature, have emotions, get sick, age and die. We make decisions (good and bad) and live with the outcomes...
Mortal incarnate life therefore seems to be an excellent situation in which to learn; and perhaps/ presumably in this respect it is far superior to pre-mortal spirit life, and post-mortal resurrected life.
Theosis could be conceptualised, in a general and inclusive sense, as exactly this learning; we are meant-to learn from our life experiences; and when we do this is theosis - it brings us quantitatively closer to the divine level of knowledge as well as virtue.
Jesus Just Was
I have never been able to make coherent sense of the standard explanations for the nature of Jesus Christ.
This, of course, does not matter when it comes to being a Christian - we simply need to acknowledge that Jesus was who he said he was (eternal Son of God, Son of Man), and to love him, have faith in him...
Christians, as such, don't need to assert the exclusive validity of any specific theory of why-and-how that situation arose.
Nonetheless, it is natural enough to seek an answer to questions about how and why Jesus got to be what he was, what was the 'mechanism' by which his unique status came-about: how it was that Jesus lived, died - like other men - but also, uniquely, brought us resurrection and life everlasting.
Anyway, an answer to this came to me yesterday that Jesus Just Was. That there is no causal expanation for why Jesus was who he was; but that he Just Was who he was.
The background is that all Men are unique, and various; so we become God's children as already-unique and we are incarnated as already-unique; and we end-up as unique resurrected Beings. And that Jesus was able to be our Saviour simply because he is, was, always had-been just that.
Not as 'part of a plan' from eternity; but an an unique person who enabled this unique possibility; which would otherwise have been impossible.
Somehow this insight seemed to quell the doubts, answer the nagging questions... Jesus Just Was. He was uniquely capable.
Of course, Jesus then had-to choose to, agree to become our Saviour - and he did, for which our gratutude and love are due.
This, of course, does not matter when it comes to being a Christian - we simply need to acknowledge that Jesus was who he said he was (eternal Son of God, Son of Man), and to love him, have faith in him...
Christians, as such, don't need to assert the exclusive validity of any specific theory of why-and-how that situation arose.
Nonetheless, it is natural enough to seek an answer to questions about how and why Jesus got to be what he was, what was the 'mechanism' by which his unique status came-about: how it was that Jesus lived, died - like other men - but also, uniquely, brought us resurrection and life everlasting.
Anyway, an answer to this came to me yesterday that Jesus Just Was. That there is no causal expanation for why Jesus was who he was; but that he Just Was who he was.
The background is that all Men are unique, and various; so we become God's children as already-unique and we are incarnated as already-unique; and we end-up as unique resurrected Beings. And that Jesus was able to be our Saviour simply because he is, was, always had-been just that.
Not as 'part of a plan' from eternity; but an an unique person who enabled this unique possibility; which would otherwise have been impossible.
Somehow this insight seemed to quell the doubts, answer the nagging questions... Jesus Just Was. He was uniquely capable.
Of course, Jesus then had-to choose to, agree to become our Saviour - and he did, for which our gratutude and love are due.
Sunday, 11 November 2018
Rereading Rudolf Steiner - a plan
I plan to re-read Rudolf Steiner's; this time focusing on the later books (rather than the much greater bulk of transcribed lectures) produced after the philosophical trio (i.e. the books from c. 1898 onwards, published after GA/ Opus 2, 3, 4).
My plan is to listen to them being read aloud by Dale Brunsvold, while taking notes in real time.
The re-reading is based upon five principles I have adopted with respect to Steiner:
1. Anthroposophy is a spiritual path; but Spiritual Science (Geisteswissenschaft) is a systematised expression of what has been discovered by Anthroposophy. Thus Anthroposophy is primary and directly-known; Spiritual Science is secondary and communicated. Anthroposophy I can and must know for myself; Spiritual Science must be understood and interpreted.
2. Steiner is a major, vital thinker of our era.
3. Most of what Steiner wrote (and to a lesser extent said) is derived-from Anthroposophical insights that are true; and therefore such writings contain that which is likely to reward consideration.
4. However, most of what Steiner wrote (and to a greater extent said) is Spiritual Science, and is presented in a way that is over-specified, over-elaborated, over-systematised. Therefore, it required a substantial degree of personal intuitive interpretation.
5. The Plan, therefore, is to seek for the simple and true insights that lie below, behind and within the complex and error-scattered surface.
My plan is to listen to them being read aloud by Dale Brunsvold, while taking notes in real time.
The re-reading is based upon five principles I have adopted with respect to Steiner:
1. Anthroposophy is a spiritual path; but Spiritual Science (Geisteswissenschaft) is a systematised expression of what has been discovered by Anthroposophy. Thus Anthroposophy is primary and directly-known; Spiritual Science is secondary and communicated. Anthroposophy I can and must know for myself; Spiritual Science must be understood and interpreted.
2. Steiner is a major, vital thinker of our era.
3. Most of what Steiner wrote (and to a lesser extent said) is derived-from Anthroposophical insights that are true; and therefore such writings contain that which is likely to reward consideration.
4. However, most of what Steiner wrote (and to a greater extent said) is Spiritual Science, and is presented in a way that is over-specified, over-elaborated, over-systematised. Therefore, it required a substantial degree of personal intuitive interpretation.
5. The Plan, therefore, is to seek for the simple and true insights that lie below, behind and within the complex and error-scattered surface.
The evil Global Conspiracy is invisible because of metaphysical self-blinding
Why cannot people perceive the reality of a malign, covert top-down strategy - considering that it has been so successful for more than 200 years, and is still running according to plan? And - one might be tempted to add - considering that there is so much evidence for its reality?
Well, as I have often said; evidence is secondary to metaphysics; and the Evil Global Conspiracy is invisible because of our metaphysical assumptions; therefore its existence can never be proved by evidence.
More precisely the Conspiracy is spiritual, and has spiritual goals; whereas mainstream modern thinking is materialist/ positivist/ scientist/ reductionist - which means that it excludes even the possibility of a spiritual dimension.
So a Global Spiritual Conspiracy cannot exist for most modern materialist people, because such things are not real. Evidence is irrelevant.
Things are - in actuality - even more extreme than that; because mainstream modern people cannot even conceptualise the goals of strategic evil, because such goals are spiritual not material.
By contrast; the modern notion of 'evil' is simply 'material selfishness' pursued with indifference to the means (i.e. being prepared to inflict suffering and death as a means to that end). Modern people cannot really conceptualise evil 'for its own sake' - but only as a means to self-gratification; and therefore actual evil is reinterpreted or invisible.
The mass of Mainstream Conspiracy Theorists are generally correct about the identity and actions of the Global Establishment - but because they too are materialists, they utterly misunderstand the motives of The Conspiracy; and nearly-always emphasise that the Evil Elite want power, pleasure, sex, luxury for themselves... whereas genuine evil would desire primarily to harm others. Thus evil is more like spite than greed.
MCTs point at problems such as poverty, violence, disease and death - and explain them in terns of being deliberate inflictions of the Global Establishment. But against any specific examples of such sufferings; the world population continues to rise, life expectancy continues to rise, standards of living continue to rise, and the prevalence of inter-national and civil-wars is much lower than it could be.
The 'evidence' is ambiguous - as would be expected if what is being measured is not what is being aimed-at.
The reality of the situation is that of course there Is a Global Conspiracy, and there always has been - the side of evil in the spiritual war. It's just that they are far more successful, powerful, pervasive than ever before.
So, in a world of evil triumphant-but-invisible; what does it mean, from the individual perspective? We are each and individually challenged to perceive reality and to respond appropriately.
Much of what happens in public discourse has the fingerprints of strategic evil all over it for those with eyes to see; and if we fail to observe that fact, then our failure is spiritual. But if we do notice, and do not respond as the manipulation intends; but instead think as as we ought to think, know waht is real rather than fake - then we have grown spiritually. Which is the point of an extended mortal life.
One of the great manipulations of evil has been to make most people regard Good in terms of specific, atomic, detached acts (such as giving money to someone poor, diseased or miserable); whereas in modern reality such acts are more likely to promote evil than Good.
But (as a generalisation) each individual person, and act, is a balance of Good and evil; terefore in an ultimate sense ther are extremely-few-and-rare Good or evil persons or acts.
Good and evil are sides - they are not people or what people do.
The primary way to be Good and to do Good is to be on the side of Good.
Therefore, we need to acknowledge the reality and nature of the Global Conspiracy, and be able to discern the fingerprints of evil. And on the other side, we need to discern, without our-selves and the world; the impulses of Good - to acknowledge and value them.
We need to join the side of Good.
That is one of the most important things for us to learn; hereand-now; in the modern world. It is remarkable how very few people have learned it yet; it is remarkable how few people are able (or willing) to make this vital discernment. These are the facts we live-with.
Well.. no matter how many are on the side of evil; we cannot be like them, nor serve them, nor advance their causes.
No matter how few are on the side of Good, we must join them.
And nothing can stop us - except our-selves.
Well, as I have often said; evidence is secondary to metaphysics; and the Evil Global Conspiracy is invisible because of our metaphysical assumptions; therefore its existence can never be proved by evidence.
More precisely the Conspiracy is spiritual, and has spiritual goals; whereas mainstream modern thinking is materialist/ positivist/ scientist/ reductionist - which means that it excludes even the possibility of a spiritual dimension.
So a Global Spiritual Conspiracy cannot exist for most modern materialist people, because such things are not real. Evidence is irrelevant.
Things are - in actuality - even more extreme than that; because mainstream modern people cannot even conceptualise the goals of strategic evil, because such goals are spiritual not material.
By contrast; the modern notion of 'evil' is simply 'material selfishness' pursued with indifference to the means (i.e. being prepared to inflict suffering and death as a means to that end). Modern people cannot really conceptualise evil 'for its own sake' - but only as a means to self-gratification; and therefore actual evil is reinterpreted or invisible.
The mass of Mainstream Conspiracy Theorists are generally correct about the identity and actions of the Global Establishment - but because they too are materialists, they utterly misunderstand the motives of The Conspiracy; and nearly-always emphasise that the Evil Elite want power, pleasure, sex, luxury for themselves... whereas genuine evil would desire primarily to harm others. Thus evil is more like spite than greed.
MCTs point at problems such as poverty, violence, disease and death - and explain them in terns of being deliberate inflictions of the Global Establishment. But against any specific examples of such sufferings; the world population continues to rise, life expectancy continues to rise, standards of living continue to rise, and the prevalence of inter-national and civil-wars is much lower than it could be.
The 'evidence' is ambiguous - as would be expected if what is being measured is not what is being aimed-at.
The reality of the situation is that of course there Is a Global Conspiracy, and there always has been - the side of evil in the spiritual war. It's just that they are far more successful, powerful, pervasive than ever before.
So, in a world of evil triumphant-but-invisible; what does it mean, from the individual perspective? We are each and individually challenged to perceive reality and to respond appropriately.
Much of what happens in public discourse has the fingerprints of strategic evil all over it for those with eyes to see; and if we fail to observe that fact, then our failure is spiritual. But if we do notice, and do not respond as the manipulation intends; but instead think as as we ought to think, know waht is real rather than fake - then we have grown spiritually. Which is the point of an extended mortal life.
One of the great manipulations of evil has been to make most people regard Good in terms of specific, atomic, detached acts (such as giving money to someone poor, diseased or miserable); whereas in modern reality such acts are more likely to promote evil than Good.
But (as a generalisation) each individual person, and act, is a balance of Good and evil; terefore in an ultimate sense ther are extremely-few-and-rare Good or evil persons or acts.
Good and evil are sides - they are not people or what people do.
The primary way to be Good and to do Good is to be on the side of Good.
Therefore, we need to acknowledge the reality and nature of the Global Conspiracy, and be able to discern the fingerprints of evil. And on the other side, we need to discern, without our-selves and the world; the impulses of Good - to acknowledge and value them.
We need to join the side of Good.
That is one of the most important things for us to learn; hereand-now; in the modern world. It is remarkable how very few people have learned it yet; it is remarkable how few people are able (or willing) to make this vital discernment. These are the facts we live-with.
Well.. no matter how many are on the side of evil; we cannot be like them, nor serve them, nor advance their causes.
No matter how few are on the side of Good, we must join them.
And nothing can stop us - except our-selves.
Saturday, 10 November 2018
The hungry sheep look up for metaphysics... and are given morals
The quote is slightly adapted from Charles Williams; it struck me as both absurd and true.
Absurd, because of the idea of the modern masses looking up from their mobile phones and asking their Christian pastors (which they don't have) for metaphysics!
(However, if they did; they would still be given morals.)
But the statement is true, nonetheless - in the sense that nothing less will suffice to address the modern malaise than a different basic understanding of the nature of ultimate reality.
Christianity gets nowhere in stressing morals rather than metaphysics; because morals depend on metaphysics; and when the basic understanding is modern materialism, then morals will inevitably be some species of the hedonistic (as well as incoherent): there is nothing else for them to be.
But when Christian metaphysics is dry and abstract - as so much of mainstream traditional Christian theology is dry and abstract; and as Charles William's own metaphysics was dry and abstract - then the sheep may feel that their fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The sheep find The World - the world as described by their assumptions and as experienced in daily life; and indeed them-selves as people, as souls - to be utterly dull and deadly: hence the mobile phones.
Modern Romanticism, as accessed via those mobile phones, and social media; is nothing but distraction, escapism, superficial stimulation: thus cumulative despair. It is just politics, sex and pleasure; the mere stimulation of responses - anger, hatred, resentment, schadenfreude, lust, laughter, luxury, smugness etc.
What the sheep need, what they 'really want' is a Romantic Metaphysics that is true, hence liveable. They don't know they want it; but nothing less will suffice.
Metaphysics needs to be Romantic, hence desirable; and True, hence liveable.
Luckily, it is.
But so far, Romantic Christians have done a poor job of explaining their metaphysics - often because they understand it in ways that are abstract, over-complex, too systematic - until Romantic metaphysics sound like just-more-bureaucracy...
Charles Williams fell into this trap with his writings on Romantic Theology. His basic ideas were exciting: that falling- and being-in love could be a path of Christian life; that a life of creative activity could be a path of Christian life; that life was an adventure quest and we were part of an altruistic and mutually helping fellowship.
But when Williams got down to specifics; the exciting ideas dissolved into complex, incomprehensible terminology. More crucially, Williams's detailed ideas were either wrong or simply incoherent.
In fact, Williams could in practice make around-himself a world of Romance, in which he and his circle of friends, disciples, colleagues could live their lives. It was this magical personal charisma that so impressed so many people; which made Williams so popular and admired.
But this was the person, not the metaphysics. Once Williams had died, it could be seen that his writings held only the shadows of that ecstasy in living that the man' presence could impart.
So, the problem of Romantic metaphysics remains unsolved.. at least by Williams. But there is an answer.
The answer can be found in the writings of fellow Inkling Owen Barfield; albeit again in a complex and abstract way. The answer can also can be found in William Arkle, and at times much more simply expressed; but Arkle is hardly known.
Probably, in practice, people will have to solve it for themselves or it will not be solved at all. And one would suppose that there are strong incentives to do so. Yet who - of the millions of mainstream, miserable, modern hedonists - is making any serious attempt?
There exists an answer. But one thing is sure: without personal effort, there will be no answer.
Absurd, because of the idea of the modern masses looking up from their mobile phones and asking their Christian pastors (which they don't have) for metaphysics!
(However, if they did; they would still be given morals.)
But the statement is true, nonetheless - in the sense that nothing less will suffice to address the modern malaise than a different basic understanding of the nature of ultimate reality.
Christianity gets nowhere in stressing morals rather than metaphysics; because morals depend on metaphysics; and when the basic understanding is modern materialism, then morals will inevitably be some species of the hedonistic (as well as incoherent): there is nothing else for them to be.
But when Christian metaphysics is dry and abstract - as so much of mainstream traditional Christian theology is dry and abstract; and as Charles William's own metaphysics was dry and abstract - then the sheep may feel that their fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The sheep find The World - the world as described by their assumptions and as experienced in daily life; and indeed them-selves as people, as souls - to be utterly dull and deadly: hence the mobile phones.
Modern Romanticism, as accessed via those mobile phones, and social media; is nothing but distraction, escapism, superficial stimulation: thus cumulative despair. It is just politics, sex and pleasure; the mere stimulation of responses - anger, hatred, resentment, schadenfreude, lust, laughter, luxury, smugness etc.
What the sheep need, what they 'really want' is a Romantic Metaphysics that is true, hence liveable. They don't know they want it; but nothing less will suffice.
Metaphysics needs to be Romantic, hence desirable; and True, hence liveable.
Luckily, it is.
But so far, Romantic Christians have done a poor job of explaining their metaphysics - often because they understand it in ways that are abstract, over-complex, too systematic - until Romantic metaphysics sound like just-more-bureaucracy...
Charles Williams fell into this trap with his writings on Romantic Theology. His basic ideas were exciting: that falling- and being-in love could be a path of Christian life; that a life of creative activity could be a path of Christian life; that life was an adventure quest and we were part of an altruistic and mutually helping fellowship.
But when Williams got down to specifics; the exciting ideas dissolved into complex, incomprehensible terminology. More crucially, Williams's detailed ideas were either wrong or simply incoherent.
In fact, Williams could in practice make around-himself a world of Romance, in which he and his circle of friends, disciples, colleagues could live their lives. It was this magical personal charisma that so impressed so many people; which made Williams so popular and admired.
But this was the person, not the metaphysics. Once Williams had died, it could be seen that his writings held only the shadows of that ecstasy in living that the man' presence could impart.
So, the problem of Romantic metaphysics remains unsolved.. at least by Williams. But there is an answer.
The answer can be found in the writings of fellow Inkling Owen Barfield; albeit again in a complex and abstract way. The answer can also can be found in William Arkle, and at times much more simply expressed; but Arkle is hardly known.
Probably, in practice, people will have to solve it for themselves or it will not be solved at all. And one would suppose that there are strong incentives to do so. Yet who - of the millions of mainstream, miserable, modern hedonists - is making any serious attempt?
There exists an answer. But one thing is sure: without personal effort, there will be no answer.
Friday, 9 November 2018
The lineage of Romantic Christianity in England (a sort-of manifesto: a testimony)
To define Romanticism with precision has proved impossible - because it is a movement, a phase in human consciousness; but those who feel it will recognise it when we see it.
To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):
William Blake
William Wordsworth
ST Coleridge
Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.
Charles Williams
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Owen Barfield
William Arkle
Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.
Comments:
The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.
The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.
It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.
There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).
However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.
Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.
But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.
Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.
The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.
Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.
The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.
Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary.
To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):
William Blake
William Wordsworth
ST Coleridge
Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.
Charles Williams
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Owen Barfield
William Arkle
Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.
Comments:
The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.
The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.
It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.
There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).
However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.
Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.
But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.
Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.
The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.
Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.
The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.
Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary.
Thursday, 8 November 2018
Blondie: Atomic - For your Beautiful Doomed Youth moods...
Blondie were one of the very best New Wave bands (late 1970s early 80s); with several first rate singles. Atomic is certainly one of their finest - an extraordinary composition and superbly performed, which repays repeated listening
What I like about this: The Duane Eddy style guitar riff repeating over modal harmonies, the driving hi-hat percussion, and superb bass playing - here and throughout. The unexpected key changes between sections. The subtle way that synthesisers are used - hardly noticeable early and coming forward throughout. The way that the everything drops-out to almost nothing halfway, merely synth keeping-time, before rebuilding via a bass solo, and drum break, leading back to the main riff and the full-on sound.
As usual, Debbie Harry's vocals are outstanding; especially her low register singing.
The general atmosphere projected is decadent, appropriate to that era and that stage of my life: partying on the verge of (perceived) annihilation - alluring but deadly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)