How do we recognise when we Know some-thing? (A model of intuition, based on Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom)

In Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom (1894) he has a model of thinking that describes thoughts as being formed from the combination of a sensory percept (or a memory of a perception) with a concept - or idea. Percept and concept, combined equals a though; the process of this combination through time is think-ing. 

 

But many or most of our concepts are false - being derived (perhaps especially nowadays) from external sources that are untruthful. And, naturally, when our sensory perceptions are understood using untrue concepts - then the resulting thinking will itself be false. 

However, for Steiner, the true and correct concept to join-with a percept is actually universally available - from what might be termed a realm of truth. We might, in this model, think of the realm of truth as a kind of divine omnipresent, all permeating ether of true ideas. In principle, it is possible to know the truth - really to Know something - if we combine our perceptual inputs with those real-and-true concepts, drawn from the divine ether. 

 

How might this happen? In the first place, we must be correctly motivated - and this motivation could be described in terms of love; and also in terms of a seeking motivated by the transcendental values of truth, beauty and virtue. 

A properly motivated person can therefore - in principle - know the truth; because he is always able to access the true concept with which to interpret his sensory/ memory perceptions. 

 

Yet we all know that what happens in our modern lives is that we are confused and distracted by a vast deluge of false concepts. It is usually very difficult to pick out the true concept from among some many, such frequently arriving, wrong, untrue, misleading ideas that are swirling in our thoughts. 

We need, therefore, to be able to recognise when we really-know something, from the more frequent occasions when we are wrong about it, because we are using wrong ideas to interpret it. 

The answer lies in that type of introspection which could be termed intuition; and my purpose here is to explain a model of intuition based on the Steiner model of thinking. 

I believe that we can, by introspection, recognise the provenance of a true concept. That is, we can we can look within our own thinking, and recognise when a concept comes from the 'realm of reality'. And I believe that this is an inbuilt (indeed God-given) ability. 

 

In other words, those who are capable of love have the ability to know when they Know. 

This is to know that our ideas come from a divine realm. With the proviso that this provenance-detection of reality is only available to those whose motivations (at that particular moment of introspection) are good (loving, truthful, virtuous, in pursuit of transcendental beauty). 

And, those whose real motivations are selfish, self-seeking, unloving, dishonest, manipulative, un-virtuous etc - are Not able to know when they Know. 

 

Such people (and I think there are many of them; and nearly all of us, for much of the time) live is a state of un-fixable, chronic confusion. They are unsure about everything - all of the time, because all of their ideas are wrong. 

And even if they - by chance - stumble-upon a truth, they will not be able to recognise that truth intuitively - it will be indistinguishable from the distracting mass of errors; because their motivations are to use that truth in some way that sustains the side of evil; against God and divine creation. 

 

So those with Good motivation can recognise when they really-know something. However, this inner, wordless knowing is different-from explaining to our-selves what exactly it is that we know - typically using language or symbols. This is a further and fallible, error prone, matter. 

Self-explaining is, indeed, a matter of 'modelling' - inevitably by selection and simplification, the totality of what we know, into something manageable with our cognitive ability and in the available time.

And - having explained our inner knowing to ourselves; there is a further step of 'translation' involved in communicating (or rather, trying to communicate) that inner-explanation to other people. And it is only this which is available 'objectively' (as we call it) in public discourse - to be subjected to analysis etc.  

It is in these at-least-two stages of modelling - of summarising and communicating - our recognised real-knowledge; that the varieties of differences in intuitions arise. But, all intuitions of knowing are - in and of themselves, true - hence the same; whoever is accessing them at any particular time and place.

  

Note added: This is just to emphasise that the above is a model, Steiner's is a model - therefore it is certainly wrong. It is an attempt to overcome our Ahrimanic consciousness with something else Ahrimanic. All true - therefore it is something that may, or may not, help understanding; but itself needs to be overcome. And in our era we need to overcome System with The Personal - with relationships between persons; and bringing that personal understanding (which is spontaneous in young chidlren) to consciousness, and consciously choosing it. Just a reminder... 

The opposing strategies of the two Popes

From a Christian perspective; Pope Francis is either an irrelevance, or the single most dangerous and damaging person in the world. 

Which, depends on one's assumptions about what is the best future for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Francis leads the largest Christian denomination, and the only one with a centralised world-leader (the second and third largest - Orthodox and Anglican, have national level leadership). And he is leading them into greater confromity with the Globalist secular (and leftist) agenda. 

Insofar as Roman Catholics are led by Francis; that is their primary, overall direction - towards world government along the lines of The Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030.

Towards a world in which CO2 Climate Change dominates the economy; a world of mass and unrestricted first-world immigration, third-world migrations sustained by core antiracism; of (gradually, with increasinly fast) embracing of the sexual revolution as a positive moral gain; and (as of 2020) the birdemic regarded as a great plague compelling the above restructuring. 

 

In total, Francis's strategy could be seen as based on the assumption that the mass majority of self-identified Roman Catholics (both ordained and lay) are correct in their de facto embrace of the above process of secularisation and liberalisation; and therefore the best way forward is for the Pope and Magisterium, the bishops and priests, to conform to that mass-majority.   

In another phrasing; for Francis the short-term tactical expediency of confroming to the Global socio-political trends is also the best long-term strategy for the RCC survival and thriving. Presumably; Francis sees the best future as one in which the RCC has 'a seat at the table' of the other great movers-and-shakers of the world. 

And indeed that has been happening. Francis personally is certainly given much greater approval, publicity and backing from the mass media and major political actors. 

Presumably the strategy is that this would extend through the hierarchy of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to the laity - who could then lend a Catholic influence to the mainstream. 

But the view of the other, still living - Emeritus - Pope Benedict XVI - is the opposite. 

Benedicts view is that the future of the Roman Catholic Church lies in reforming itself around the most devout of its members - what he called a Creative Minority. 

In other words, Benedict was a kind of elitist - on religious grounds. He apparenty felt that the mass of Roman Catholics were leading the church astray, and into assimilation with secularising socio-political trends. 

 

For Benedict; the way ahead was a tough path; where things got worse before they got better; a path that could only be tackled with considerable faith. 

Because Benedict envisaged, and argued in favour of, a reduction in size of the RCC, a shedding of lax and secular ('corrupted') members - who would, presumably, leave voluntarily when the reformed church demanded from them more, and different, than was compatible with social expedience. 

(And if they were priests who would not join the Creative Minority agenda, they would ultimately need to be expelled from Holy Orders, even against their will; if laity, they would be excommunicated.)

 

So, en route to a future of RCC survival and thriving; for Benedict there must and would be a period of shrinking, contraction - and concentration of members into a coherent and purposive Creative Minority. 

This much smaller, but more devout and correct, RCC would then be a seed for a renewal of growth in the future'; and this future would be one of renewed differentness-from, distinction-from, the secular world. 

I think Benedict saw the best future as a smaller but more-coherent and more-different church; acting as a countervailing power; mostly pushing against the mainstream of dominant socio-political power (such as the bureaucracy, multinational corporations and the mass media). 

Against, that is, the prevalent focus of The World which makes sexuality, healthism, envirnmentalism, race &c - into the prime value-issues of the world. By contrast, Benedict was in favour of maintaining the ancient idea of the Church as a (Holy) City of God; as much as possible distinct from the City of Man - or, indeed, a future unified Megalopolis of Man.   

Thus (by my understanding) the two living Popes have almost exactly opposite strategies from each other. 

And if, as I do, you approve Benedict's strategy; then you cannot (consistently) approve Francis's strategy; and would regard Francis's path as leading - not to church renewal but to church assimilation-into the Global Bureaucracy. 

...Not for the church to be a distinct voice from the tech and finance multi-billionnaires and global media, but to speak with exactly the same voice - at least when it comes to speaking about the core (i.e. socio-political, secular) issues of our time - and making them the tactical priority. 

 

Endeavour to understand! See through things! Thoughts are forces, and have effects! - Reflections on Rudolf Steiner's The Karma of Untruthfulness, by Terry Boardman

The role of the media is key - because it is through the media that people get their information and form their ideas; and it is ideas that determine human action. 

In The Philosophy of Freedom, Rudolf Steiner shows how vital it is that we combine the correct thought with the object; find the concept that truly corresponds to the percept - as distinct from illusory or sentimental abstractions. 

 

When our ideas about the world are full of untruth, empty phrases and dead abstractions; we cannot but create a deeply sick society; and catastrophes like the wars of the twentieth century are bound to recur. 

Meanwhile, the media go on distracting us from awakening to the realities of world events by presenting an endless circus of celebrity, sport, sex and shopping....

 

What can we do? Steiner's answer was simple and direct: endeavour to understand! See through things!

Thoughts are forces, and have effects.  

It is not supposed to be easy for humans to enter spiritual life. Crises are opportunities for change. 

Clear and proper understanding of what is going-on is the only way - "Nothing else is of any use". 

Excerpted and freely-edited from Terry Boardman's Introduction to Rudolf Steiner's lecture series The Karma of Untruthfulness - Volume 2 - Steiner's lectures are from 1916, Terry Boardman's Introduction from 2005. See also this 20 minute documentary. 

A century ago; in "The Karma of Untruthfulness" Steiner gave the first 'media studies' course in which he analysed the causes of the ongoing Great War. 

And he gave what I believe is the best advice for those and these times: our first duty is to understand, clearly and truly, what is happening: to See Through Things. 

And this is primarily a matter of having true ideas, true concepts - with which to understand the 'facts', observations and perceptions. 

'Evidence is a red-herring'. Everybody has, more or less, the same' data; and certainly enough data: 

It is having right ideas/ true concepts, that differentiates the rare wise man from the mass of fools.  

 

Understanding truth, and then recognising that Thoughts Are Forces - have general effects; so that thinking truth is a positive intervention in The World. 

Indeed, clearly to understand; to think, to know Truth - is the single most positive intervention we can make in the world. 

NOTE ADDED: The above imperative of understanding marks a cleavage point from a more mainstream spirituality of oneness, quietism, 'mindfulness', and Zennish, Hinduish-type New Age teachings - which assert the totality of the present moment, non-discrimination, non-judgmentalism, neither thinking nor choosing, reducing or eliminating the 'ego', 'consciousness' etc...

If, indeed, a person was genuinely to be utterly Unworldly - taking no notice At All of the mass media or officialdom, and deriving no information At All from media, official or any bureaucratic sources; having No Opinion on any of the issues of the day (especially the Litmus Test issues); and if he took No Part At All in any public discourse on such matters... 

- Then (but only then) there would, indeed, be no reason to understand the truth behind the mainstream media/ official/ bureaucratic Untruthfulness. 

Otherwise - which category embraces every single person of whom I am aware, because I know of nobody wholly-unworldly - we must discern lies from truth, evil from Good, the side-of-Satan from those (few?) affiliated with God. 

We must therefore follow Steiner's advice, this needs to be a conscious choice; and actually to do so in practice we must be convinced, in particular, that "Thoughts are forces, and have effects" - otherwise we would simply not take the daily mission seriously enough, nor give it sufficient priority against the many other distractions, temptations and compulsions of modern living.

Peas for Knees - support my $100,000,000 Kickfundstarter campaign

 

The therapeutic value of frozen peas for the treatment of inflamed knees is well established in medicine; its roots probably go back to an ancient and traditional sacred art in Tibet, or somewhere. 

But, until now, the benefits have been limited by lack of awareness, inadequate knowledge, inequality of access, and systemic racism. 

That's why I have begun my Peas for Knees Kickfundstarter campaign for 100 million dollars to promote this vital therapy, worldwide . 

 

You are probably thinking... 100 million! What can he possibly hope to achieve with such paltry sums, when the problem is so huge? 

You are probably right! But every major worldwide operation must start somewhere - and I like to think of $100M as just the seed corn - or seed peas, if you will - which I will plant (each with infinite care and love) to aim for a much greater harvest of income, I mean therapeutic benefit, in the future. 

In other words; contributors should not expect to see anything much from this initial investment. In fact, nothing. The money may well 'disappear' like the drop in the ocean of global finance it actually is...

But to expect otherwise would be naive and anti-science. This is just the smallest of beginnings, of startkicks, of pump-priming, infra-structural thingies.

 

So just how do I expect to spend the money? How best to promote Peas for Knees? Where shall I start! 

First The Facts. I would begin with a worldwide investigation into best-practice and cultural differences in knee-pea usage - from the boulevards of Paris to the beaches of the Bahamas - I am prepared to travel anywhere that peas and knees are to be found together and five star accomodation can be booked in advance. 

Once a baseline has been established, then I can get my sleeves rolled-up for funding some solid and original research - so long as it is cheap. 

Although validated by innumerable Daytime Television personalities; the science of knee peas remains dismayingly vestigial. 

What size of pea? 

What density of packing? 

What is the best temperature for storage? 

Are peas significantly better than sweet corn niblets?

All these require newly commissioned research project/s; with teams of person/people in white coats (or photographs thereof), creative statisticians, and (most of all) skilled advertising copywriters. 

Before you decide how much you can afford to contribute - then double it; I would like you to think about an impoverished and crippled child in Africa, call him Ekon (which means strong... get the irony?). 

Ekon has no mother or father, is riddled with with horrible parasitic diseases that somehow don't spoil his cuteness; starving and without access to clean water or a deep freeze - he is looking mutely up at you with large and appealing eyes, a tear is rolling down his cheek and making a track in the thick dust consisting of dried animal poo... 

You can make Ekon happy - Now and Forever - just by paying me some money. 

 

I urge you to send your contributions, no matter how large, without delay - direct to La Banque (Secrete et Evile) de Suisse quoting the reference "KFS Peas for Knees... &etc." 

It will make you feel much better.

Demonic servant, unconscious dupe and psychotic berserker: three different ways of being wrong about 2020

As I sample the mass of material being written; I have come across three different ways of being wrong about 2020. 

 

1. The demonic servant of Satan - the purposively evil

These people recognise that 2020 has been a world-historical watershed - but they like it; and want more of the same!

These are the people are are pushing the 2020 agenda in one or all of its manifestations - The Great Reset/ Build Back Better and UN Agenda 2020. 

They fail the three current Litmus Test manifestations of being on the dark side in the spiritual war, by actively supporting one or more of: 

1. The birdemic lock/ down/ social/ distancing/ masking 'response to the fake epidemic;  

2. The antiracism/ MLB stuff;

3. Climate/ Change/ Emergency/ Green/ Sustainable stuff. 

(And behind this is their approval of the long term sexual revolution agenda, through its various mutations and continual escalations.) 

 

2. The unconscious dupe - the minions of Satan

These are the people who just haven't noticed anything special about 2020. 

Who carry on with their little burblings and warnings and pleas about society and politics; as if nothing much had happened. 

The tone of their writing (and speech) is unmistakeable, immediately recognisable. These are the smug, 'concerned', nice, compassionate, pragmatic, self-blinded fools. 

At some point, probably repeatedly; these 'useful idiots' have (like everybody) been personally confronted by the horrible reality of the 2020 global totalitarian coup, its psychopathic and deliberate evil; but they have chosen to push this aside, to disregard it. 

Not to 'get carried away', not to 'over-react'; to anticipate a return to normal, soon; so long as 'decent' people remain civil, tolerant, non-judgemental... 

The dupes function as the low-level serfs and slaves of the powers of evil - the orcs-in-lipstick and trolls-with-sharp-suits of the dark lord. 

 

3. The psychotic hallucinators

These delusional characters are less common than the above; but I have seen several instances. 

On the one hand, they recognise that 2020 has been a watershed in history, and they (overall) deplore the changes; but on the other hand, they blame 2020 on the birdemic! 

They really believe that the birdemic is an unprecedented threat to humanity, that rightly demands unprecedented societal response to combat it - all of which is unfortunate but, sadly, necessary. 

These mad-men and -women are seriously focused on the Deep Reasons as to why this terrible viral scourage has happened her and now - and what this tells us about the sorry state of society, medicine, politics, international relations, and our civilization. 

They regard the birdemic as some kind of judgment visited upon mankind... 

In their delirious minds; they perceive positive test results as hundreds of millions of prostrated, near-comatose patients; they vividly visualise besieged hospitals suffocating under an apocalypse of incoming virus-riddled zombies; they can discern virus victims in secret warehouses - in vast heaps, stacked like firewood; dead bodies of children, youths and young adults strewing the city streets...

These are the devil's berserkers: crazed maniacs released upon the world - playing-out their fantasy roles; saving mankind by rampaging against all that is valuable in normal human life and relationships.

 

Athough varying in degrees of corruption; in 2020 all three ways of being wrong indicate the person is on the wrong side in the spiritual war: the side of Satan. 

Because this is a spiritual war which has now come to the point where everybody has taken-sides. 

And if you are not on the side of God, Divine Creation and The Good - then you are working against it. 

Why are the two great commandments *exactly* what we must do to gain eternal life in Heaven?

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

(See also Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 12:28–34.)

 

I am struck by how exactly the 'two great commandments' - first to love God and then your neighbour - fit with my metaphysical understanding of reality; and how they are said to suffice to enable us to enter Heaven. 

(Because, in the above passage, when Jesus is quoted as saying "This do, and thou shalt live"; the 'live' refers to resurrected eternal life in Heaven.)

My understanding of God's overall intention is that he wishes to enable Men to develop spiritually, to rise-up to become fully Sons and Daughters of God. This means to become fully divine; which means to dwell together in Heaven as a family (or rather many families, interlinked). 

And what do Men do in Heaven forever? My answer is To Create. Specifically we shall be participating in God's divine work of creation - including the pro-creation of new Men to begin the process of development. 

 

(This derives from my understanding that God is essentially 'the creator' - and that to become 'more divine' is to become more fully a participant in the ongoing creative development of God's already-existing divine creation. And my experience and intuition tell me that creation is the only activity which never palls, is always motivating and gratifying. Creation is also open-ended. Anything other than a Heaven of creation would both be dull, and would run-out and cease - on a timescale of eternity.) 

 

And God's purpose is understood in the context of my belief (metaphysical assumption) that Men are and always have been unique and different individuals. 

So, God's purpose entails getting this diversity of Men and enabling a situation in which these many and different Men can work together with the same purpose and harmoniously - forever. 

Because the many and diverse do not spontaneously have the same purpose, nor do they spontaneously get-along. 

The necessary purpose and harmony come from Love - which is why Love is the primary requirement of a Christian (and that those who reject Love, or are genuinely incapable of Love, neither want the life of Heaven - nor would be allowed to enter it.) 

 

The first great commandment - to love God - is about purpose. For Heaven to be possible, its participants all need to share the same purpose, be pointing in the same direction, have the same ultimate goals. 

To 'love' God means to love God's purpose; to accept God's purpose as my purpose. This enables us to have 'faith' in God, to trust him.  

Therefore, the first qualification to enter heaven, and dwell in Heaven for eternity, is that we share God's purpose. That is why is commandment comes first. 

The second great commandment is what enables the inhabitants of Heaven to work together, to create harmoniously - to coordinate a multitude of individual creativity into a great symphony. To do this requires, as well as shared purpose - as well as everybody pointing in the same direction; attention and loving care towards other people engaged in the same work. 

Love of neighbour means that we harmonise our creative endeavour with the others in our Heavenly Family, primarily; and secondarily with all in heaven. I see this harmony as a developmental thing: individuals love the same ultimate purpose, and also a love of neighbour - therefore individuals will create, and monitor the consequences of their creativity, informed and shaped by these two loves. 

In the first place, an individual would not create any-thing he knew to be hostile to purpose, or neighbours. In the second place, when an individual dis, inadvertently, create something that turned-out to be working against purpose, or interfering with the harmony between individual creations, then he would work to compensate for this disharmony, to mend the problem, to restore purpose and loving harmony. 

God's creation is therefore a work-in-progress; and as God recruits more and more resurrected Men to join this work of creation, it is essential that this work-in-progress be maintained. 

 

I see the first commandment as being a vertical arrow, pointing up to all Heavenly residents sustaining a commonly-agreed future, keeping creation moving in the correct direction; and the second commandment as several or many sideways arrows that tend always to maintain harmony in this upward pursuit; by mutual observation and adjustments.  

And this is why someone who is prepared permanently and irreversibly to endorse the two great commandments has everything that is both necessary and sufficient to enter Heaven and receive the gift of eternal life that Jesus brought. 

 

(Note: Jesus's role in this, is that he made it possible. After we die, and if we endorse the two great commandments; then we 'merely' have to follow Jesus to Heaven.)

The many facets of this mortal life; Developing clarity about the distinction between emotions, existential status, worldly- evaluations and affiliations

Typically, many things may be going-on in a person - and they may be dissociated. It may be common for us to conflate how we feel - emotion-wise, with our evaluations of the world; and again maybe with our status with respect to good and evil; but this is an error. 

Here and now I feel pretty bad - because my health is poor and I am afflicted with various aches and pains and limitations. That is one fact. 

On the other hand, I am full of happiness and gratitude concerning my situation in life.  My 'existential status' is positive!

 

Then again; I regard the world, England, and all the main social and political institutions, to be on a decades-long trajectory towards less efficiency, declining effectiveness - and (which is different) towards great degrees and pervasiveness of evil. 

Socio-politically; I regard the here-and-now world of 2020 to be in the most pervasively and extremely evil situation ever in history (so far as I know; value-inversion has never been so evident, nor so widely supported and enforced - top to bottom); and I believe that things are rapidly getting-worse.

 

Then again; spiritually I am (now I notice it) full of joy at God's creation, and that the Creator loves me and provides. That is (here, now) I trust God to provide (in my actual life) the kind of experiences I most need for my spiritual development...

(I mean my actual life here-and-now provides what I need to learn-from - if only I can both discern and become aware-of these.)

 

I am also (now I think-about it - and it was there unconsciously) full of joy at the prospect of following Jesus to resurrected life in Heaven; and I know that nothing which happens on this earth can prevent that happening (nothing except me). 

...Then again those bad feelings (aches, pains, malaise) are still there; and have forced-themselves on my attention. I am still suffering their effects. 

And so we go back to where we started. 

 

None of these perspectives invalidates or disposes of the others. 

Clearly the trust in God's providence and my love of Jesus transcend the significance of my personal feelings and my socio-political evaluations (they provide a frame for the lower levels); but feelings and S-P evaluations are also real, indeed necessary - and part of my actual life; and they are facets of my life from which I need to learn. 

The fact that I am currently feeling rather miserable and 'sorry for myself', and that  further - I fully expect my material daily life to keep getting worse month by month (including that this incremental worsening may soon be overwhelmed by a catastrophic civilizational collapse) does not invalidate or overwhelm my existential happiness and/or my spiritual hope. 

Neither is negated by any other. 

 

Life is complex! (And if we don't notice the complexity, that is an error on our behalf.) 

This mortal life is indeed Much More Complex (of course!) than I have indicated by this brief summary. And we cannot raise one aspect to become our sole concern; our attention spontaneously and irresistibly moves from one aspect to another.  

This mortal life on earth is not the kind of thing that ever gets sorted-out. To expect that is a misunderstanding. To want to reach a 'state' when everything is sorted - to want to remain unvaryingly in that optimal state, with that focus of concern - is also a misunderstanding. 

To want this mortal life to be 'uni-faceted', is to misunderstand God's intention.

 

As long as we are alive, God wants us alive; and we are kept-alive only for as long as we have the possibility of learning from our experiences. 

(Of course, all mortal lives end in death - later, if not sooner - and that is A Good Thing; because otherwise we could not be resurrected, and would never attain to Heaven.)

A successful life is one in which there is a lot of learning (maybe learning a few big things, many small things - or some mixture) - therefore we should not worry about the multiplicity of our actual lives, nor wish they would be sorted into one facet, nor dismayed that we fail (again and again) to remain-at-the-highest-level-all-the-time. 

 

Yes, we must strive for the highest level and everyone needs to attain it sometimes - but we should not be dismayed when we are compelled to focus on other 'lower' things - because there are lessons to be learned everywhere. 

And it may be that for me, or for you, some of the main lessons we most need are - in fact - at lower levels.

Massive and pervasive dishonesty is a spiritual disease - the same disease that blinds people to its omni-prevalence

Dishonesty is a sin; thus a moral failing. But its roots are deeper.

The world is in a spiritual war - between God and his allies on one side; and Satan, demons, and the mass of variously evil-affiliated humans on the other. And Satan's side hugely-outnumbers God's side. 

That is the global state of play, as of 2020. It is a basic and essential fact of life. 

 

But, of course, almost everybody is blind to the fact; just as they are blind to the fact of truly staggering levels and pervasiveness of dishonesty in public discourse - extending from the international reach of the mass-social media and global/national government; to the level of millions of committees, and billions of interpersonal interactions. 

For such a moral sickness to have afflicted so many people simultaneously; indicates a deeper underlying cause. 

And that cause is the condition of spiritual blindness and denial which has swept Mankind over the past couple of centuries - beginning in The West, but now seeming to include almost everybody, everywhere. 

 

Consider that in the ancient past - from everything that is known - everybody perceived spirits, including 'the dead' and ghosts - who were present and active in the world around them. (The same was the case, if we can remember, in our early childhood.) 

But now, almost nobody does - and the reality of such spirits is denied, and their reality-significance is excluded from public discourse (including most religions).

Because spirits are denied, evil has no objective reality; because the nature of evil is spiritual; evil just-is to be on the side of the demonic spirits who are opposed to God and God's creation. 

If spirits don't exist, then evil doesn't exist - and therefore so-called-evil for Modern Man has been re-defined psychologically, subjectively and therefore relativistically. In effect; evil has now been explained-away.

 

Dishonesty too. Since honesty and truth are a product of God's creation - lies have no objective reality when creation is denied: when the universe is seen as value-free... just a collection of mechanical causes and mathematical randomness...

We can conclude that Men have changed. Modern Men sleep-through the spiritual reality of the world, in the same way that a sleeping Man is unconscious of what goes-on in the bedroom around him. The bedroom is still there, still effectual - perhaps dangerous; but the sleeper knows nothing of it.

However, this modern condition of innate spiritual insensibility is something we are 'born with'; it is an aspect of the modern condition. 

Modern Men are, in this respect, spiritually differently-set-up than Ancient Men. Modern Men just do not (except in altered and impaired states of consciousness - drugs, delirium, psychosis...) perceive spirits, the dead, ghosts etc. 

 

My understanding is that this insensibility to spirits is an aspect of the evolutionary development of consciousness - and happened because Men are destined to develop towards greater freedom, greater agency - and thus a more God-like consciousness. 

In a nutshell, because Modern man does not spontaneously perceive them - Modern Man is free to choose - and indeed Must choose - to be aware of spirits, the dead, ghosts, angels, demons etc. 

We cannot (and should not try) to choose to 'perceive' (see, hear, smell, touch) spirits; but must choose to be aware of them - to know them experientially.

(I say 'must' choose; because the alternative is this 2020 world of near-universal self-damnation.)

 

How does all this relate to honesty? 

Well, honesty (for all its practical benefits) must ultimately be a transcendental virtue - pursued for spiritual reasons. This is because it is so often expedient to be dishonest - and anything less than the full intention to know truth and communicate it truth-fully is dishonest. 

All forms of hype, spin, misleading, selectivity, exaggeration etc are In Fact dishonest - and indeed more morally wrong (because strategic and deniable) than many a plain lie.   

And truth-full-ness is impossible in a world in which the spiritual is not known, and is denied. The spiritual Just Is a part of our world, a very major - indeed primary - part; therefore there can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.   

There can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.

 

Or, to put it positively - to be honest we must know the spiritual realm. 

Of course, knowing the spiritual is not sufficient to salvation - since we might know the spiritual and also reject God and Creation; know the spiritual, and yet choose to fight and try to destroy all that sustains God and Creation. 

That is the demonic position - the spirits who know the reality of God and Creation yet have made an irrevocable committment to oppose God; and the devil is therefore correctly described as the Father of Lies. 

Evil regards truth as merely expedient; therefore evil is always as dishonest as is expedient - therefore the world of evil is a tissue of lies.  

(The Global System of lies, a Matrix of lies - a virtual-reality of lies...)

 

This is the deep reason why the side of evil (as represented by mainstream, world-dominant secular leftism) is incoherent: evil cannot be coherent! 

But evil does not 'need' to be coherent, because evil's purpose is to oppose God, Creation and The Good. 

Opposition need not be coherent, and it never is; it merely opposes The Good in whatever manner presents-itself; and justifies its evil using whatever excuse seems likely to be effective, here-and-now.

 

In sum - the fact of dishonesty everywhere, and all the time, is a consequence of Modern Spiritual Self-Blinding. 

Which is a product of the choice (which almost everybody seems to have made - although apart from the demons, this choice is reversible by Christian repentance) to choose Not to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual. 

Until we are again in a position where the reality - and significant, active presence - of God, angels, demons, the dead, ghosts and much else - are a part of our experience and discourse; then evil will remain dominant. 

And this is a matter of conscious choice. 

 

So every single person is ultimately responsible; there is no excuse of 'ignorance'. 

Not-choosing is not-an-option. 

You and I and everyone already-has-made a choice; but... that choice can be changed.   

Why I am socio-politically pessimistic...

It is not surprising, but even Christians mix-up hope with optimism, and this-world with eternity. 

But in reality our Hope of salvation (getting to Heaven) and theosis (spiritual development during mortal life); have almost nothing to do with Optimism about our socio-political situation - with 'saving The West' - or, in my case, with restoring Albion. 

Therefore, while Christians must have hope, we are not obliged to be optimistic. And while despair is a sin; my pessimism about the prospects of a Western (or English) Christian revival rolling-back the Global Satanic Establishment coup, is merely my current personal evaluation about future socio-politics. 

And although I sometimes have preferences among the various powerful/ high-status/ famous/ influential persons and institutions of public discourse and organisation - from what I actually know; I regard them - one and all - as being On The Wrong Side in the great spiritual war of this world. 

 

Therefore... I am generally un-impressed by bravado and sabre-rattling among Christians when it comes to what Christians should Do, what Action we should take, and how important it is to Fight - when it comes to this-worldly socio-politics.  All this amounts to a vague wish that first somebody-else will make a Big Strong Army of God - and then I will consent to join-in the battle.

By my judgment, Kristor - at the Orthosphere - gives better strategic guidance, when he says:

The only question then is whether we shall die nobly, as faithful Christian witnesses and vassals of Christ our Captain and Head, or debased, as defectors from the cause of Truth in favor of the Father of Lies, and so for the sake of some lesser and impermanent good.

So; while it is indeed appealing to suppose we might engage in some modern, idealised version of The Crusades, side-by-side with other brave men and as part of an Army of God; it seems more likely that we should be preparing for a 'fight' requiring far greater courage and resolution: to make the choice that leads to a reviled death alone - or (if we are fortunate) with a handful of faithful family.

You know the kind of thing I mean...   

Forgiveness necessary even in Heaven? Yes.

There is a point of view that regards the requirement for forgiveness as sub-optimal, in the sense that 'If God knew his business, there would be nothing to forgive'. In other words, there are some who think that life ought to be perfect, and if so then there would be no need to forgive, because nothing even sub-optimal (let alone bad) would ever happen. 

And some people see Heaven that way. As a place of always-perfection. With zero need for forgiveness.

 

But I see Heaven as a place of Love, and Love is creative, creation (like Love) is dynamic - and if heaven is a dynamic situation, a place of doing; then it does not make sense to regard Heaven as the kind of perfection that is unvarying, unchanging.  

That ends-up with something more like a blissful/ static 'Nirvana' than Christian Heaven - which is made by a personal and loving God for his divine children - who remain persons (and are resurrected, presumably with unique bodies). 

 

My understanding of Heaven is that our main 'work' there (which is also the highest form of play) is to participate in God's on-going loving-creation. Thus Heaven is a place where there are many creators, in addition to God; each an unique person. 

This means that all these individual creators need to be brought into harmony; or else there would be a clash and opposition of creative activities - as there is on earth. 

My understanding is that this Heavenly harmony of multiple creation is quite naturally achieved by Love. If we have experience of a loving family, we already know that the individuals are continually - quite naturally and spontaneously - making their (creative) contributions to family living within this imperative of Love. So the many acts of many individuals are, over time, harmonised by Love. 

But at any given moment-in-time, there are dissonant aspects. 

Individuals are motivated by Love - nonetheless, the distal consequences of their love-motivated actions are not wholly predictable - and things may turn out worse than intended, errors will be made; there is need for compensatory correction. 

 

Here in mortal life on earth; our creations are temporary, because every-thing is temporary. So many mistakes and errors of creation just disappear over time. But in Heaven, all the creation is eternal. What then happens to the inevitable errors? 

Well, in Heaven errors cannot be erased - but they are compensated. I believe that compensation must be a divine principle. 

Of course, compensation is important here on earth as well. As a family member, we may do something, and it turns out badly - we have made an error. Often this cannot be undone, and so we do our best to compensate for it. 

 

That - I assume - is the nature of creation. Creation is full of errors, and full of conpensations. 

Over time, mistakes are compensated - but they are still present. Still woven into the fabric of reality... 

And this is the reason why forgiveness is vital for Christians.  

 

Love does not lead to perfection, Love cannot prevent all errors. Therefore we can, should - and in Heaven we Do - compentate for our errors (repentance in action!). 

Yet those errors remain, and therefore need to be forgiven. 

Forgiveness is integral to the functioning of Heaven - Forgiveness is, indeed, integral to Love. 

 

The same happens here in mortal life on earth. There are no 'perfect' parents, siblings or children - and we should not want any such nonsense. But there are (within earthly constraints) Loving family. 

(If you must have perfection; then 'the perfect family' is simply a perfectly-loving family.) 

Loving parents, sibs or kids will make mistakes - they surely will... 

And therefore these mistakes must be forgiven if Family Living is to be maintained - on earth as it is in Heaven. 

Indeed loving errors are forgiven, quite naturally and spontaneously, when Love is present and effective. It is only the incomplete and transient nature of love in this earthly life that causes problems. In Heaven, we shall be resurrected to eternal life, with a permanent commitment to Love. 

Eternal Love between all persons is what makes Heaven heavenly - and forgiveness is just one of the many consequences. 

How might Romantic Christians 'go it alone' - without spirituality degenerating into mere self-therapy

With the Christian churches having 'converged' actively to embrace one or all of the priorities of secular leftism (in 2020 these are the birdemic, antiracism and climate change - long-term it also includes the developing subversions/ inversions of the sexual revolution); and now that these Christian churches have de facto closed and/or all-but ceased their core activities --- we are in a situation where serious Christians Must go-it-alone... that, or else give-up being Christian. 

But as a Romantic Christian, I would assert that this is what Christians ought to be doing anyway, as their primary mode of faith. I mean that we ought to be taking primary responsibility for our religion by personal revelation and discernment - by intuition of our real and divine Selves.

This, rather than - as in earlier eras - accepting our Christianity from external sources such as institution, tradition, scripture or theology. 

Now, obedience will not suffice as the first duty of a Christian; because that which was obeyed is corrupt and/or absent. 

 

In sum - we are compelled to do what we ought to choose to do. 

But conscious personal choice to take responsibility is essential; or else it will certainly not be done properly. 

As always, motivation is of most importance. 

Nowever, to go-it-alone as a Christian is A Big Ask. 

Our spiritual practice needs to do many things; things which at one time were assisted by all kinds of institutional, ritual, symbolic and communal factors. 

The biggest danger is that 'spirituality' degenerates to being merely 'therapeutic'. In other words, spirituality becomes reduced to the psychological, and the psychological becomes hedonic - becomes a self-therapy matter of trying to 'engineer one's own feelings' to be as happy as possible, and to diminish any suffering, miserly or negative emotions. 

This degeneration to therapy, by my understanding, is exactly what happened to New Age spirituality. It became almost purely a matter of self-help, directed towards feeling good - and thereby (sooner-or-later) becoming assimilated to mainstream society - and thus onto the side of evil (Team Satan). 

So, we need to consider the primary things of life. And (at a proximate level) that means a spiritual life of self-monitoring for aspects other-than (or, as-well-as) pleasure-pain, gratification-suffering...

 

My understanding of the basic 'function' of this mortal life is that (for Christians) it is mostly about learning. We have experiences, and are intended to learn from them - that learning being directed-towards resurrected life in Heaven.  

But how do we know we are learning, have learned?

I think that we know (or sense) we have-learned something (probably) when we feel a sense of increased meaning and purpose in life; leading to a higher level of motivation. 

 

Because of the nature of mortal life, which is intrinsically evanescent, these feelings are themselves temporary. Mortal life is not cumulative (all its worldly manifestations, including brain-memories, are wiped-out by death. All detectable and measurable personal experience is vulnerable to loss by forgetting, disease, degeneration etc. - so we should not expect that our feelings be cumulative 

Meaning, purpose and motivation are of course, also positive emotions - like increased pleasure or reduced pain; but they are not reducible to the hedonic axis. They are not just types of gratification. 

And we need to be conscious of meaning/ purpose/ motivation. It is not enough that these happen unconsciously. They need, therefore, to be feelings - which are conscious-emotions. If they just stay as un-conscious emotions, as body-state manifestations, then we are at the level of automatic and instinctive behaviours. With un-conscious emotions we have abandoned the distinctively-human and reduced life to the animal level.

 

Whereas The Task of this era is precisely to become conscious of that which - in earlier phases of human life - were un-conscious not just emotions. 

We need to become conscious in order to choose; we need to choose in order to become free agents, to take responsibility. 

Therefore, it seems that an important task of Romantic Christians will be to become more acutely aware of our feelings of increased meaning, purpose and motivation; with the aim of learning from experiences; and directing our lives in accordance with this learning.

How the Dungeons and Dragons Alignment system leads to an insight into JRR Tolkiens orcs and goblins

Lawful Evil - Saruman's Uruk-Hai 

Neutral Evil - The orcs (or goblins) of the Misty Mountains, including Moria. (These are depicted in most detail in The Hobbit.) 

Chaotic Evil - The ordinary rank-and-file Mordor orcs

Read the whole thing at my Notion Club Papers blog. 

The difficulty of Heaven, the easiness of Hell

The difficulty of Heaven is that it requires mutual love, mutual harmony, mutuality of purpose. Whereas Hell is potentially a solo venture - we can 'go it alone'. Hell does not need other people, and tends-towards solitude.

It is typical of the value-inversion of an atheist-communist that Sartre got things exactly wrong; when he said that Hell is other people." 

Rather: Hell is what you get from having Sartre's conviction that Hell is other people. Hell is a consequence of souls who regard other people merely as instruments or obstacles to the assertion of one's own Self; who regard 'other people' as objects to be manipulated or eliminated as required to attain one's own goals; and this attitude is itself a product of the rejection of Love.

 

Heaven is essentially a family; and for a family to work - all of its members must be loving of each other. Any one can opt-out of family, reject family, unilaterally; but sustaining family requires mutuality. 

This shows, in microcosm, the sense in which Heaven is difficult, and Hell is easy. 

But when Heaven does happen (which it can, since the work of Jesus Christ has - by resurrection - made possible a permanent and eternal commitment to Heaven); then the possibilities are open-endedly expanding. 

Heaven will spontaneously increase, will develop, will create - without limit; because in Heaven creation is mutually-reinforcing and cumulative - because Love feeds on itself, nourishes itself. 

 

However, in Hell the opposite is true: Pride feeds upon itself; Pride increases at the expense of everything-except My Self. 

The long-term tendency in Hell is towards rejection of cooperation, towards solitude; thus towards diminution.

 

In The Great Divorce, CS Lewis depicts Hell as a place where everybody tries to get-away-from everybody else; by spreading-out, locking themselves in and others out; by socially-distancing. 

Lewis's Hell spreads-out even as all human interaction breaks-down. Men contract and repel, thus Hell spreads.*

This contraction of Hell to self-isolated and mutually-hostile souls happens as a natural consequence of increasing Pride: Self-assertion, self-ish-ness, and ever-more immediate short-termism... all these ensure that life trends-toward a continually-escalating conflict of each against all. 

 

*However, in a Hell ruled by Satan; the population who crave self-isolation would be prevented from spreading-out; and would instead be forced-into close proximity in over-populated cities; in order to torment them further. And this is indeed the Global Establishment's plan for planet earth. 

Note: By no coincidence; we can perceive an earthly approximation towards Hell in the global developments of 2020: towards a world of self-asserting, resentment-driven, mutually-hostile individuals - each of whom increasingly regards himself as a victim of the prejudice and selfishness of others. A world that regards other people as threats and obstacles. A world of physically-distanced and identity-obscured solo-individuals; fighting (hopelessly) against overwheling impersonal tyranny by asserted entitlements and 'rights'. A world demanding to 'use' others and their lives to extend my personal survival. Here in the UK millions of people are currently legally consigned to the literally-Hellish state of 'self-isolation'; characteristically (fiend-ishly) presented (by our inverted morality) as a public duty, for the 'protection' of others. PSYOPS...    

What is God like? What does God want from creation?

I have had the privilege of reading in manuscript a collection from letters from William Arkle to a young friend and spiritual-disciple/ -colleague; spanning from the middle 1980s to near the end of Arkle's life (in 2000).  

These have provoked all kinds of thoughts on that vital matter which Arkle 'made his own': questions on the nature of God, and God's hopes and aims in creation. 

 

For all Christians; God is (or should be) a person, not an abstraction. 

We are God's children (that is related-to, descended-from God); and God loves us. 

Beyond this, there are differences of understanding; and there is indeed a difference in my understanding and that of Arkle. More precisely, in his early work, Arkle described what I believe is true: God is a dyad, Father and Mother in Heaven: God is our Heavenly Parents. 

This is also the understanding of Mormon thelogy; and it natually goes-with an understanding of each Human Being as - in his or her eternal primordial essence, and eternally in future - either a man, or a woman (never neither, nor both). 

This metaphysical reality does not necessarily map-onto what may happen to an individual man or woman in terms of biological sex and/or sexuality during this mortal, earthly incarnation - which has the nature of a temporary experience for us to learn-from. My understanding is that - whatever happens 'superficially' in mortal life - each of us eternally has been, and eternally will be, essentially (by the nature of our true and divine self) a man or a woman eternally. 

 

But by the 1980s, Arkle had apparently moved to a view of God as primarily both man and woman simultaneously (a He/ She); and this goes-with an idea of sex as relatively superficial to the essence of Human Being - and with reincarnation as potentially alternating (as 'required') between the sexes; neither being the essence of a Human Being. Or with sex (and marriage, and procreation) being 'discarded' when a Human Being has reached Heaven

(Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield also share this understanding of sex. And it also goes-with an understanding of spirit-form as both the past and future of Man: Man was a spirit, will become a spirit; and physical incarnation is an intermediate stage, for experience and learning only.)

Whereas by contrast; my view (and the Mormon view) is that physical incarnation is higher than spirit life: bodies are better. Including that God is embodied - i.e. God is physically-bounded and in the same as human form (or rather, causally vice versa); God is not an omnipresent spirit. 

So, for me, God is embodied, and indeed two bodies: God is a dyad: Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

This matter of "what God is like", whether God is One or Two, is a vital to our metaphysics; because it decides our understanding of why God embarked on creation. Our inferred motivation of a unitary, solo God is very different from that of two Heavenly Parents, distinct but united by their mutual love. 

 

(Traditional Christian theology has it that God was utterly self-sufficient, and without needs (or desires). Trinitarian theology makes the love of this unitary God also be (somehow) sub-divided into the mutual love of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But either way, the creation of Men and everything-else by God is an ultimately gratuitous act - and Not a matter of God seeking greater satisfaction, Not a matter of God needing, wanting, desiring or yearning. I personally reject this line of reasoning on the basis that God is a person, like our-selves in an ultimate sense; and that God does have passions, wishes. In particular I regard Love as the primary passion of God, and I regard Love as having in its nature many aspects such as needing, wanting, desiring and yearning.) 

Arkle's inference, based on his understanding of God as unity and a real person - is that God before creation must have been lonely and bored. God's greatest need was for things to do, and people to do-things-with. 

From this, Arkle derives an understanding that creation is essentially a matter of overcoming loneliness and boredom; of creating Beings who can develop to become like himself, and of creating many other things 'for fun'. 

Arkle encapsulates this in the ideas that in making Men who can evolve towards full-deity God is literally Making Friends; creating Beings who - it is hoped - will become 'friends' at the same divine level as God. And secondly that all the other Beings of Creation are made as a kind of ultimate 'play'. So that for Arkle life is - at its highest, most divine - created life is about play with and among friends.  

It should be noted - and this comes through repeatedly in these late Arkle letters, that loneliness and boredom are negative motivations - therefore creation is a kind of cosmic therapy for the unitary God.  

My own view, based on God as the loving-dyad of celestial husband and wife, of Heavenly Parents; is that creation is a natural consequence of the existential nature of Love. Creation is the positively-motivated overflow and expansion of spousal love. 

This is nothing esoteric, but a motivation that has been experienced (albeit perhaps partially and temporarily, as is the nature of mortal life) by countless husbands and wives through Man's history. Parental love seeks its own increase through children; and through a creative attitude to life and living.

In different words, the spontaneous expression (consequence) of parental love; is to co-create (in harmony with God's already in-progress creating) an open-ended, expanding-and-harmonious world; in which the family lives creatively. 

In a nutshell, God is like the perfection of married love, and what God wants from creation is analogous to what a loving husband and wife want, given a husband and wife who are themselves members of loving families. 

Thus (in an eternal persepctive) God wants children, and loving-developing family relations; wants new family and friends (i.e. permanent friends, maintained in harmony by analogously-familial love); wants a whole created-world of other (increasingly creative) Beings of many kinds, natures, motivations - but (ideally, and in actuality in Heaven) all maintained in Harmony by their mutual love. 

 

Rexing a song instead of singing it - A phenomenon surprisingly common, but seldom noticed (when done with panache)

 

Rexing is what I (and my siblings) term speaking a song, instead of singing it - but doing so with such verve and panache that most people will not notice. 

When done well, most of the audience will assume, will indeed recall, that the song has been sung, and perhaps sung well. 

The name comes, of course, from the supreme and perhaps most extreme exponent of this way of performing a song: Rex Harrison. In the number above, from My Fair Lady - Rex speaks every word. I'm sure you will agree that he brings-off the feat marvellously; and few would feel in any way short-changed. A Master at work. 

I don't think Rex was completely incapable of singing - he will sometimes throw in an occasional, strategically placed, fairly accurate - albeit brief - sung-syllable; as with perhaps his most famous (Oscar awarded!) number from Doctor Doolittle:

To be fair; even Rex could not get away with Rexing just any song - Nessun Dorma wouldn't be a good candidate, for instance. But if a song is Rexed with total confidence, it is remarkable just how much can be done with a very high degree of success. 

(In Miss Saigon, Jonathan Pryce seems to have Rexed most of his dancing, as well as the singing - and received multiple awards.) 

My brother was once doing the comic baritone role in an amateur Gilbert and Sullivan opera, and during performance week caught laryngitis. He all-but lost his voice - certainly could not sing a whole show; but there was no understudy. I asked him what would happen, and he stated his intention simply to Rex the whole thing! Which he did, all went well, and nobody seemed to notice... 

(This might mean either that he Rexed-it superbly, or that his usual singing was not significantly different anyway... Make-up your own mind!)

But the plain fact is that most people, most of the time, can't tell the difference between Rexing and singing. 

Therefore - if you are in doubt or despair about singing: Just Rex-it!  

 

Nice-Evil and Nasty-Good - the two major spiritual categories of 2020

Everybody already-knows, from innumerable fictional and historical examples, about Nice-Good people and Nasty-Evil ones. 

Good characters are currently depicted as kind, beautiful and with all the 'important' (litmus test) virtues. Evil characters, vice versa (always racist, anti-enviroment, denialist, *-ist etc.) 

But these unmixed-types are actually rare nowadays. Nice-Good people have never been common, and are very hard to find just at present; while Nasty-Evils are so obvious that they tend to have limited power to do harm. 

 

The categories are:

On the side of God: Nice-Good, and Nasty-Good.

On the side against God, and for Satan, Nasty-Evil and Nice-Evil.   

And of these the mixed types of most common, most significant.

If someone looks and behaves like an orc nowadays, he is unlikely to be given much power; such mooks are common enough, but destined to be used by nice-evil leaders as disposible weapons. 

 

The face of Establishment evil in 2020 is (more-or-less) nice. (except for the eyes, which are always a give-away) A middle aged housfrau-type, spouting compassion; a revolutionary-idealist, fresh-faced young women; a cool techno-charmer who seems to have 'all the answers'; a craggy old gent who will protect us... such are some of the faces of evil.   

Meanwhile the people on the side of God/ Good and Creation are seldom saints, and often sinners. They want the right things, but they cannot live up to their high ideals. The aim for Heaven, but fail - and repent their failures. 

Such are excoriated by the evil-mass-media as hypocrites - or mocked on the lines of Christians being people who allegedly are supposed to be perfect (or at least better than anyone else) but who have 'feet of clay'. 

 

In practice, the clay does not need to be very sticky nor very abundant. Even when someone is an example of Nice-Good; a single solitary lapse from what the Establishment, with their distorted and inverted pseudo-morality, regard as evil - is sufficient to lead to a firestorm of condemnation. 

For example Mother Teresa (Nice-Good) was roundly lambasted, and in many minds discredited, by revelations that her mission was not very effective when considered as a modern social work organisation. Her actual, overt spiritual aims being regarded as nothing more than sly propaganda, smuggled-in deceptively by connecting it with welfare.  

 

My point is that - as of 2020 - the side of Good will consist mostly of (more-or-less) Nasty-Good people; while the (much, much larger) side of evil will contain a majority of Nice-Evil characters. Indeed, the Satanic personnel who impinge upon you and me, are almost certain to be Nice people - e.g. those working for the (evil) bureaucracies, charities, NGOs; smart-naive-idealistic youngsters, solid family folk, retired professionals... 

That is the nature of our world. That is the task of spiritual discernment. We must discern the evil among the nice, and the Good among the nasty. And we should take the side of Good, wherever and however we find it; as against evil - no matter how charming, intelligent, kind, compassionate, or cute the agents of evil may be. 

 

Motivation trumps all - Good and Evil are the sides in our spiritual war (not behaviours nor dispositions). 

We are all sinners - and need to acknowledge the fact (and if we don't, we are on the side of evil).

And repentance (i.e. knowing the true nature of Good, recognising sin), with the committment to follow Jesus Christ, is limitless in its power.

Jack Kerouac: Understanding the spiritual war

JK at home with a cat and his Memère

Most readers would know the name of writer Jack Kerouac - probably for the 1957 novel On The Road; which had the effect (in popular culture; although arguably this is not what the book actually says) of glamourising the Beat Generation and a counter-cultural lifestyle of hard-drinking, drugs, promiscuity and rootless irresponsibility. 

All of which Kerouac personally engaged-in. And then he went on to have a dissipated life of impulsivity; and soon died prematurely of chronic binge alcoholism. 

Most people, most Christians, would say that Kerouac was 'a bad man'; and if they wanted to argue in his favour would do so on the basis of his innovative and poetic prose. 

Yet one does not have to read much into the biography of Kerouac (or indeed to read his books with care and attention) to know that his motivations were good, and his sins were repented. That he had a sweet nature, and aspired to the kind of life that would have made his Catholic mother, and his pious French Canadian ancestors proud. 

But, he was repeatedly overwhelmed by his many moral weaknesses. 

Kerouac had saintly hopes and goals; but his actual life was undermined by a fickle, short-termist, hedonic, emotionally labile, often depressive disposition; which he did not remotely have the strength to overcome. 

Therefore (much like Philip K Dick) Jack Kerouac makes a test case for our Christian discernment. 

In terms of what ought to matter decisively to Christians, Kerouac was a Christian. In terms of what side he took in the spiritual war of this world; Kerouac was on the side of Good. And, except for a period on the middle 1950s when he was a very serious and idealistic student of Buddhism; Kerouac was explicitly a follower of Jesus Christ and wanted more than anything to live eternally in Heaven.

So I am saying that despite-everything (and including that I would not want him as a friend or house-guest): when taken in the proper context Jack Kerouac is Good and plenty of nice-old-ladies are evil. 

And this is the sort of spiritual fact that Christians should be able to recognise, and take-on-board.  

 

Evil? Those nice little old ladies walking around in masks and cringing with fear?

You have probably seen plenty of these, as I have, over recent months. 

Little old ladies (and men) who are walking everywhere swathed in 'face coverings' ,and who treat all other people as rabid-leper-zombies by giving a ridiculously wide berth, or cringing in terror if someone passes nearer than the official two yards; and who yearn for more lockdowns, less freedom, more masks for everyone... more destruction of everything. 

Am I really saying that these terrified little old ladies are evil*?

 

Well, yes! Of Course they are evil! And very obviously so. 

And why should they Not be evil? They are mostly people who grew up from the 1950s to the 70s; during the time of mass Christian apostasy, New Leftism, and the enshrinement of sexual hedonism as a Human Right. 

They are almost-never Christian, almost-always significantly leftist (whether socialist, feminist, antiracist, sexual revolutionist or whatever) - therefore, their highest values are likely to be niceness/ leftism and their own health/ life extension. 

 

Instead of recognising fear as a sin, they regard chronic terror as a moral duty. Instead of repenting their own fear, they celebrate and advertise cringing as a mark of supposed virtue. 

And they want, demand, that everybody else be forced to behave like themselves - because they hope that doing so will extend their own lives by just a bit more...

What happens to their family, neighbours, nation, civilization is of no concern. If bringing down the world is the cost of giving them having another month or year of life: then so be it. 

 

By rejecting God, Jesus and the spiritual life (which ought to be the life priority in old age) - they open themselves wide to manpulation by demonic powers, and by the human servants of evil. Evil knocks, is welcomed, and invited in.

That the nice little old ladies can easily be terrorized is not their fault. That responsibility lies with the Establishment and their 'advisors'. 

But that NLOLs live in continual fear but regard that fear as A Good Thing, and do not repent their own fear; certainly is their fault. 

That they want/ demand/ support legislation that everybody else also live in fear (and get angry when they do not) certainly is their fault. 

That they continue to be as hedonically selfish and wedded to their 'human rights' regardless of consequences, certainly is their fault.   

 

Christianity is a tough religion. Nobody gets off the hook; because all are required to make a choice, the choice cannot be avoided, and neither can responsibility for that choice. 

All Men Do make a choice; all Men Are responsible for that choice; and that choice has eternal; Consequences. 

And evil has many guises. Including little old ladies.

But we know evil when it impinges on us. 

*Note: Here I am using my understanding that evil means 'on the side of Satan': on the side against God, Creation and The Good. Assuming it is valid; this conceptualisation is - I find - a powerful and clarifying discriminator. 

How to recognise evil? When it impinges on us, we know

These are great days for learning about the nature of reality, the spiritual war of God and creation under assault from Satan and moral inversion; and that is what this mortal life is for. 

But it is possible, frequent, to feel overwhelmed by the task of discernment... Yet to feel overwhelmed is to fall into a snare. 

In reality things are made easy for us; if we maintain a proper (eternal) perspective, and stop trying to analyse and strategise about the specifics of this-worldly effectiveness. 

 

What we need to do is simple, albeit difficult. It is simply: to recognise evil when it impinges upon us. 

We don't need to know about evil that is abstract, absent, elsewhere, to-somebody-else we don't know or love. It is only that evil which actually impinges that we must know.  

 

So, the task is two-fold: the first to be aware of evil, to know it; the second to reject it. 

Evil knocks on our door, and asks (or demands) to be invited-inside. All that we need to do is to say No. Because evil cannot enter without permission.

 

Naturally, evil adopts disguises - It might come in the form of a kind old lady, a sexy youth, an expert professional, a charming wit, a pitiful wreck of a person. Evil might be in words, symbols, music, landscape, architecture... pretty much anything. Even worse - evil often regards itself as good, has a 'clear conscience'; and sees goodness as the 'real' evil!

But the thing is - We Always Know Evil. 

 

We all have an inbuilt, spontaneous, sensitive evil-detector; active 24/7 and that penetrates all disguises; an alarm that sounds when evil impinges, when evil requests an entry. 

Therefore we need not care about all the disguises and deceptions of evil - Our simple task is just to become aware of that inner alarm, in our heart; to recognise its warning; and to respond. 

 

Cross-sectional, a-temporal definitions of individual identity - versus Beings regarded as lineages-in-time

 

This subject of the definition of Beings in terms of lineages is something (i.e. a metaphysical assumption) that turns-out to be of the greatest importance - as it gradually sinks-in. There is a half-way understanding of this point, which is an incoherent hybrid - but when taken seriously this changes 'everything'. 

 

I first came across this discussion in evolutionary biology, discussing the idea of homology. For example, the arm of a man is homologous with the wing of a bird. This means that both have the same evolutionary lineage - it is assumed that the bird's wing and human arm evolved from the limb of some more ancient animal ('common ancestor', some kind of reptile, presumably). 

Here lineage implies continuity - that there is a continuous and unbroken series of parents and offspring, that link the bird wing and the human arm. 

In contrast "convergent evolution" can lead to structurally or functionally similar structures but from a different lineage. The bat's wing is not derived from evolution of the reptile limb, but mostly from the mammalian hand. So the bat's wing can be called analogous with the bird's wing, but homologous with the human hand.

(And the extinct pterasaur's wing is mostly mostly with the ring finger of a reptilian ancestor!)

 

In the wing example, different lineages are reflected in the bone structure - but one can imagine identical structures that have arisen from different lineages. (This never actually happens in anatomy (I don't think) - presumably massively improbable due to the role of 'chance' in natural selection; but it can be imagined.)

However the reverse often happens - that an homologous structure is functionally very different. Example are among the hormone-secreting endocrine glands. The anterior pineal gland is evolutionarily homologous with an ancestral 'nose' (in some aquatic chordate)! Or (better known) the pineal gland is homologous with a reptilian 'third eye'. 

So, here we have a definition of commonality distinguished either on the basis of lineage, or similarity of structure or function; but where the two definitions are not necessarily present at the same time in the same place. There is similarity of structure/ function and there is relationship by lineage - and we can infer one, or the other, or both. 

 

This distinction of similarity can also be applied to identity. What gives Joe Bloggs his identity as JB? Is Joe aged 21 identical with Joe aged 2? First of all is he identical in structure/ function?...

Obviously not. 21 year old Joe doesn't look the same, doesn't do the same things as when 2 years old. Yet we say he is still Joe, and has been Joe (without interruption) throughout the intervening years.  So we can see that our real-life, spontaneous definition of human identity is more like 'lineage' than being related to structural or functional considerations. 

I think we could say that Joe now is the same as Joe then, because his existence was continuous. And Joe would still be Joe even if he changed his structure and behaviour - even if he underwent transformation. Even if that transformation was so complete as utterly to replace the structure and lead to wholly different behaviour. Identity is preserved by continuity of existence or 'lineage'.

(Just as we regard the caterpillar, chrysalis and butterfly as the same individual - through their radically-transforming metamorphoses - because of their continuity of existence.)

Rather than the lineage of parents-offspring, Joe Bloggs remains the same person because he is A Being who has continuously existed as such, each transformation of Joe's structure/ function proceeding continuously from the previous.   

By contrast, as a thought-experiment; an imaginary android-replicant that (apparently) looked and behaved identically with Joe Bloggs, would Not be Joe Bloggs - that is would not be Joe according to spontaneous, human, common sense discernment. 

Clearly; our natural definition of identity is based on lineage, on continuity of existence - not based on structural and functional considerations*. And, as so often, the natural (the child-like) is true.

 

What I end-up with; is the idea of dividing-up reality, of defining the bounds-of and distinction-between 'things' in terms of their lineage/ continous existence - rather than cross-sectionally, in terms of attributes, appearances, definitions or descriptions.

I then realised that this was 'a matter of time'. We nearly always leave time out of our distinctions and definitions. We look at phenomena as-if reality was to be found in an infinitily-small cross-section of time! - So small that time can be left-out of the definition. 

But the identity of Joe Bloggs includes time, indeed the being of Joe is potentially endless - in both directions, with roots in the past and the potential for continued existence in the future. 

One could say that Joe Bloggs is a 'process' - but that is a physics word. Really Joe just is a person, which is a type of Being; and the idea of a Being is one that even small children understand. Spontaneously. Including that thchildren understand that a being always extends back in time, is 'in' time. 

Instead of the infinitely thin time-slice world of mainstream theology, philosophy, science etc.; we have instead a world of Beings, each of which is something-like an infinitely long thread traversing-through time. We can look at that thread at different time-points, but the Being is that thread, as it goes-through time: dynamic, in time... 

But more accurately, time and the Being cannot be separated; because Being is inseperable-from time. We could say that Be-ing is itself an 'ing' kind of thing; that is alive, happen-ing, and therefore across-time.

So that Being entails time, requires time; time is included-in/ part-of the definition of a Being. When we identity a Being we are therefore identifying an entity that is the merely current instant (here, then gone) of a lineage, going-back through time, transforming.  

 

And I end-up with a very different way of understanding, knowing, experiencing the world: the world in its ultimate essence, at the bottom-line (ie. metaphysics). 

Instead of the mainstream notion of a universe of Things, interacting by Laws of Science, and regarding Time as (just-another) 'dimension'; we instead have instead a living-world of (perhaps-transforming) Beings-in-Time... Beings which may have relationships with each other.

*Set aside the question of whether the discerning person may be mistaken. I am talking about what the discerning person knows truly. If we know truly that a replicant was not continuous with Joe, we would not regard it as Joe. And if we know truly that somebody that neither looked nor behaved like Joe was a result of continuous existence (and transformation); then it would still be Joe - just like the adult Joe is still Joe despite any perceptible resemblance to the baby Joe.)

For this mortal life to have meaning and purpose; we must have eternal life *and* an unique, individual outcome in that eternity

Philosophers - or indeed authors more generally - who assume that this mortal life (bounded by conception and death) is the unit of meaning; always fall into one of two categories. 

The optimists say that real life is 'life at its best', the bad stuff is due to wrong persepective, wrong choices; and our problem is that the best is infequent, does not last, or may be absent. 

The pessimists (more common) assert that real life is 'life at worst' - i.e. the reality is suffering, disease, decay... And that the best bits of living are ultimately evanescent illusions - wishful-thinking, self-deception; a personal delusion, a temporary mania...

 

The two attempted escapes from this, are either to assert ultimate one-ness - which attempts to remove the difference between the good and bad bits, by removing individual awareness of that discernment. Or else, versions of 'living in the moment' - which (in effect) say that the instantaneous moment is the true unit of life. Life is therefore static; and whatever is in the moment is everything. 

(This collapses when one moment changes to another - then what? Or when the moment is bad and there is no counterbalance or context for its badness - e.g. pain is totality.)

My conclusion is that there is no possible coherence attainable when the unit of life is regarded as being bounded by conception and death. Because what meaning and purpose in my life is possible when my life (and every life) is temporary and inevitably ends in death? 

Life and living is then finite; death and nothingness the only infinite.

 

But this point can be generalised. If all individual lives converge on the same identical outcome, then there can be no meaning to those individual lives. An assumption of convergence is itself lethal to meaning.

If all human lives end-up in the same and identical state of anything (whether bliss or suffering or nothingness); then individual life has no meaning. Indeed individuality is then a problem - The Problem. 

Conversely put; if we all end-up the same (and if that situation is eternal) then the only situation that could provide meaning and purpose to my own individual life; would be if individual lives lead to unique outcomes... 

 

This problem of convergence onto a common end-state seems to be something I observe in many atheists, many religions and spiritual belief systems, and among many Christians (who seem to regard their anticipated life in Heaven in terms of some kind of de-differentiated glowing sexless angel, ecstatically praising God with music and chanting, forever - in an unchanging situation beyond time). 

Obviously I am being hyperbolic and mocking; but some such convergence of outcome, some such definition of Heaven in terms of negation, seems common among self-identified Christians through history, especially of the intellectual sort. 

And such convergence is lethal to meaning in our own mortal life. Indeed such Christians often have a theology that itself converges-onto 'Eastern Religions' of a deistic type, with this life as maya (illusion), and the-self (with its mortal attachment) being seen as the enemy, and dissolving of all individuality into unity... 

 

In sum: If my life converges eternally with other lives to any common end; then my mortal life is futile - because everything that is me is washed-away, and what remains is depersonalised. 

(The individual self is a mere changing blink in time, and the 'me' that remains eternal has nothing uniquely 'me' about it.)

 

Take it a step further - if the-above, then there is no point in me existing in the first place. 

Why bother having me-personally, or any other individual persons; if they are just going to be washed-away by convergence-onto some common outcome? 

No point. We might as well (should have) gone directly to the final and eternal state... without any of this tedious and mucking-about in mortal life.

(Mortal life would be deleted, and existence would be like a Go To Jail card: "Go to eternity; go directly to eternity; do not pass mortal life; do not collect 200 pounds.")

 

My conclusion is that for my actual mortal life (this life) to have genuine meaning and purpose; then my eternal destiny (the situation I end-up-in forever) must be unique to me. 

If this is indeed so, then God's main problem is to make an eternal Heaven from a bunch of unique individuals. 

And this is just what Jesus Christ, and the resurrection he brought, is all about: enabling each of us to become an unique individual, who can live eternally together with other unique individuals, in Heaven.