Aha! - that is a trick question. The trick is that c2000 we were supposed-to recognize that the world was Not objective and external - and that instead we, each and personally, participated in creating the reality of the world.
We were supposed to recognize that this participation in creating the 'objective, external world' needed to become active.
And that this active-participation needed consciously to be chosen.
And for our creative contribution to be Good, entailed that we also chose to be aligned with God's creative destiny.
The problem was and is that a failure to choose this active embrace of God and creation led to an evil default - which we see all around us today. Instead of actively/ consciously-choosing Good -- Mankind has passively and unconsciously (and in-denial) chosen evil.
This choice and its consequences was, indeed, prophesied in some detail before it came upon us - it was in the nature of Man's destiny that this choice must and should arise; because the millennium approximately marks the transition from Man's spiritual adolescence to adult maturity - and spiritual maturity can only be chosen, not compelled.
Instead Man chose spiritually Not to become adult; and instead to arrest development at the adolescent spiritual stage - with predictably adverse consequences.
Yet, so much of the spiritual expectation of the millennial era was focused around one or other possibility that Man would-be-transformed; that this transformation would come from outside, would happen-to Man... that the world would change for the better.
People were talking about a vibrational or frequency change, an Age of Aquarius or some other astrological phase change, about moving into a new and more spiritual world and so forth.
There was a limited recognition that people would need to cope with this beneficial change for it to have maximum value - that we should go-along-with it; should not fight against it; that people would need to recognize and accept the transformation around them.
There was indeed a change around the millennium - in Men's minds, and also (necessarily) in the world that is not Men's minds (the environment, the outer world) - and this was an 'objective' change - and it was also apparently universal: nobody in the world seems to have been exempted.
But what does not seem to have been considered as that the good-ness of the change would depend not just on recognition, but also on the activity of men's thinking - on a positive embrace of the divine destiny behind the changes.
In other words; the millennial change was about the objectivity of a freedom and necessity to choose. The better world was available to those who chose to participate in the world - primarily by the thinking of their real self, by direct knowing of an intuitive kind. But it could not passively be absorbed, and would not be attained without actively wanting it.
Positive change entailed (among other things) recognizing that this universe is God's creation, that the created world consists of living Beings that are purposive and conscious and in-relationships, and that this world is a place of learning for those who intend to resurrect into Heaven.
But for those who chose Not to recognize and actively participate-in the millennial change, but instead remained willingly locked-into the prior assumptions that the world is only material, there is no God, the universe is full of not-alive/ dead objects interacting impersonally, and death is annihilation of the self...
...Well, for such people there was Nothing Objectively Good about the millennium.
So, despite that the millennium did see a significant change in the human mind, in human consciousness - and that therefore 'the world' was also changed (because the world does not exist independently of consciousness) - this change was Not Good.
Although the millennial change might-have-been a great spiritual Good - in the event it was evil in effect.
Because by failing to work with the millennial possibility of Good, was also to choose evil; and willingly to accept the value-inversions of an increasingly anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-life and demonically controlled world System.
In sum; there was no objective change for the better in the external world around 2000; instead the external world got worse - objectively worse - in response to the Man's wrong choice, and the subsequent worsening decline and corruption of Man.
And that is why the world really is worse - to the spiritual eye - and keeps getting worse. And why this worseness includes the world that is not Man - 'the environment' as it is post-millennially conceptualized.
Man's evil choices have affected the reality of creation, which is itself being-corrupted.
The damage cannot be undone, but the trajectory of spiritual corruption can be escaped at any time by Christian repentance and active embrace of God, the Good, and by choosing actively to participate in the living creation.
2 comments:
I remember that in the 1990's (when I was a teenager), I had vivid dreams where I could fly or raise buildings from the ground if I chose to. I didn't think much of them, but in retrospect, it seems to fit with this Steinerian scheme of evolution.
It's really nuts seeing a blog post here exactly at the same time I've been thinking about this idea again (which you introduced me to).
I was watching a couple of series that started in the 90s and went into the early 00s. There's a real change in feeling as the show crosses the millennium.
I was pretty young when it happened (early teens) but I can remember the change in feeling. It's hard to describe. Things just felt different before and after.
Post a Comment