The ultra-orthodox of the mainstream (self-identified) Christian churches are unrepentant sinners

It is clear to me that the real Christians who remain (so far as they themselves are concerned) faithful and loyal members of the mainstream Christian churches - I shall call them the ultra-orthodox; are actually Romantic Christians... 

But not only without knowing it, but often in denial of the fact. 

(And to be in denial of a truth is to be an unrepentant sinner.) 

Thus, the ultra-orthodox are extremely selective in their conceptualization of the True Church; having adopted a (sometimes) tiny-minority understanding of the identity and stance of what their church really is; while simultaneously asserting (often with aggressive dogmatism) that the tiny-minority stance they regard as True Church is objectively so. 

Well, no amount of aggressive dogmatism, bluff, bluster, or argument can conceal the fact that the ultra-orthodox are working on the basis of fundamental (i.e. metaphysical) assumptions concerning the nature and doctrines of their churches that they themselves have chosen - yet the core assertion of the ultra-orthodox is that the way they have reasoned to reach their position is the one and single truly objective mode of reasoning that is valid for their church. 

This kind of paradox is, indeed, the only way to be ultra-orthodox in the modern West. 

Traditional orthodoxy was possible only in a society in which a particular church dominated; and permeated the society such that all who were raised within the church would - unconsciously, and passively - absorb the same fundamental assumptions. 

Nobody in the modern West has had such an experience and upbringing for several generations; therefore, there is always a choice between rival conceptualizations of the real/ true/ good essential nature of the church...

And that choice cannot be made objectively, impartially, by necessity; without having-already-made a choice between assumptions. 

It is this initial act of choosing that the ultra-orthodox conceal from themselves - by their smokescreen of aggressive dogmatism.

The aggressive dogmatism of the ultra-orthodox is therefore a kind of emotional self-management - a self-deception; a kind of therapeutic confidence builder-and-sustainer - whereby doubt is buried beneath externalized anger at those who refuse to accept the falsehood that the process of becoming ultra-orthodox is merely a matter of accepting that which is objectively undeniable. 

Differently put: I infer that the ultra-orthodox are - self-deceptively - tapping the psychological energies generated by their own inner conflicts, in order to fuel their motivations. 

It is their suppressed knowledge of self-contradiction, that powers the surface-level of confrontational aggressive dogmatism. In a world where strong and long-term motivation is so hard to find, this kind of burning intensity is addictive - consequently hard to give-up on.   

Of course; once a closed cycle of reasoning has been-assumed; then 'everything makes sense' to one who is within that circle. Yet, anybody outside of the circles of assumption can perceive that the whole thing is rooted in a concealed and denied personal choice of assumptions.   

As I have said before; ultra-orthodox Christians are actually Romantic Christians in denial; and the problem is that this is dishonest - hence is rooted in unrepented sin. 

Ultra-orthodoxy of whatever church is, for these reasons, an unstable and transitional spiritual state. 

Unstable - because they are trying to avoid ultimate personal responsibility for what, in fact, they have personally decided; and instead claim to be merely obedient to the external and primary authority of their church. And - late or soon - they will be brought to decide between the two options. 

Therefore; to remain on the side of truth and Good - either the ultra-orthodox will eventually (perhaps after death) need to acknowledge the personal basis of their convictions: will need (in other words) to take individual responsibility for their faith. 

Or else they will (presumably) suffer the inevitable consequences of unrepented sin. 

What is 'a church'?

I find the way some people talk of churches to be slippery to the point of dishonest. 

In particular, many people elide the difference between a (typically small) group of people bound by a personal (often familial) relationship; and very-large, bureaucratic (hierarchical, sub-specialized, explicitly regulated) organizations. 

To me; this resembles another common - and deplorable - merging-conceptualization; which is to call marriage and the family 'social institutions'. This phraseology is a gross reduction of fundamental aspects of the proper and ideal human life, to a simple abstract model of functionality.  

To equate a family/ extended-family with a bureaucratic institution, on the basis of a few analogies, or a shared functionality; is an extreme of prejudiced modernist positivism, which is itself anti-spiritual and materialistic. 

This is important because the large, bureaucratic, corporate 'Christian' churches have become net-corrupt, net-harmful.

Which means that the possibility of a genuinely Christian group life needs to move away from socially recognized and sustained institutions - and towards non-institutional forms of the Christian life.  

For there to exist non-institutional forms of Christian life (i.e. outside of the totalitarian System), there must be a recognition that some human groups are (or can be) not institutions. 

And this is where familial forms of Christianity could and should come-in - by which I mean groups that cohere because of love between a particular set of persons, rather than because they are structured organizations. 

Unless we distinguish such love-based Christian groups, and conceptually separate them from the corporate Churches; we are colluding with the powers of evil - who aim at treating all forms of human association as formal institutions; and thereby bringing all kinds of human association under the purposively-evil control systems of totalitarian bureaucracy. 

Incoherent thinking can now be permanent because of Modern Man's rejection of animistic thinking (also incapacity and disinclination for rigorous abstraction)

It is striking that Modern Man is now in a situation where he is incapable of detecting and reacting-against even gross incoherence among his beliefs and actions. 

Mainstream narratives might reverse over the space of days; and continue to fluctuate - yet Modern Man carries on respecting and obeying institutions that, one would have though obviously, are indifferent to truth and addicted to dishonesty. 

(The capacity for people to believe and act-upon arbitrary assertions, contradictions to common-sense and direct personal experience, and massive lies; are among the more remarkable aspects of this pervasive disorganization of thought.)

This seems to be something recent, and related to Modernity - since there are no historical examples of such gross incoherence. 

I think the reason is that historical Man was, substantially, an animistic thinker - who regarded the important entities of this world as living Beings with consciousness and purpose. He would allocate these beings according to their inferred motivations (eg. benign or hostile) and evaluate the world in accordance with these assumptions. 

Ancient Man might turn out to be mistaken about imputed character of beings, might 'blame' entities for doing things which Modern Man regards as otherwise-explicable (as when a tree falling might be blamed for murdering a child). But it was easy to keep track of the 'logic' of things; and to see whether they made overall sense - easy; because this style of thinking is spontaneous and natural to human beings. 

Such 'anthropomorphic' thinking is altogether absent from official, media and public discourse. Modern Man has been entrained to reject personified ('anthropomorphic') thinking as childlike and primitive. 

We have been taught that that instead Men ought to think in terms of abstractions - such as those derived from science, mathematics, economics, sociology, management etc...

The always-implied and sometimes explicit use of abstractions occurs primarily when the leadership class desire to make their choices seem entailed, objectively-necessary; as when The Science is claimed to dictate a course of action. Or when it is convenient to portray some decision or event as impersonally caused; or some unpredictably 'random' event.

Such abstractions are also readily introduced whenever required to displace blame away from the leadership class or their favoured individuals or groups. 

Yet there may be a switch back to animistic/ blame thinking - i.e. to imputing character and intent to persons or groups - whenever convenient for the purposes of scapegoating dis-favoured individuals or groups. or simply for firing-up public discourse - e.g. inducing fear, anger, hatred, resentment, despair...

In other words; one major source of endemic and persistent incoherence in the thinking of Modern Men, is switching back and forth between animistic and abstract modes of reasoning. 

The usual 'answer' proposed is that animistic thinking needs to be more-completely excluded; with the idea that abstraction is more rigorous and objective, and ought to be sufficient. So if The Law becomes incoherent and unpredictable because of imputed motivations and natures (i.e. anthropomorphism rooted in different attitudes to different individuals or groups); the call is typically for greater coherence between laws and objectivity in implementation of laws.  

Yet, somehow, this never happens, but instead the opposite; and the situation gets ever-worse. 

This is because a minority of people are capable of abstract thinking, and therefore cannot be convinced by it. Furthermore, of those capable of abstraction, extremely few will deploy it by aiming at absolute truth all of the time and in all things; and instead nearly-all abstractors will use their ability for reasons of personal expediency - to promote their own short- or long-term interests. 

And the reason that so few people will use abstraction truthfully is that - in our Godless, unspiritual, hedonic society - there is no ultimate or personally-compelling reason to be truthful.

To live by truth entails someone valuing truth 'transcendentally' - that is; above, beyond, and more-than the he values the risks and benefits of this worldly gratification. Such an attitude to truth is rare historically, and largely confined to a minority of people in some Christian societies - or those who have been raised with such Christian values. 

Such a minority included scientists from the 1700s to the middle 20th century in Britain; and indeed many academics and scholars in this same period. But there are (so far as I'm aware) no such groups of significant size or influence nowadays.   

Furthermore;  even in these most-selective of truth-driven groups, the strict truthfulness only applied to specific sub-areas of human existence not to life as-a-whole. So - even when scientists were completely honest in relation to their scientific work; they were not so honest, and might indeed be dishonest, in other areas of human life: religion, interpersonal relations including sexuality, money dealings... 

My conclusion is that in a world where abstraction is impossible and unwanted; if we are to attain coherence of thinking that is also sufficiently strong and motivating to dominate our lives - there needs to be a conscious and deliberately-chosen restoration of animistic thinking.

We need - as our bottom line understanding of reality - to regard this actual world as consisting of many living Beings with consciousness and distinctive motivations; engaged in purposive relationships. 

The above argument is based upon pragmatic considerations; but (of course - as I have often said), I believe that ultimate 'metaphysical' reality indeed primarily consists of Beings in relationships; and that abstractions are At Best only secondary, selective and summarized Models of animistic reality.

This is a living universe, created by a personal God; and we would do well to remember and affirm the fact. 

   

Good and evil personified... With whom shall You affiliate? Whose vision of life do You affirm?

In this era and place; we are called upon to move-away-from an understanding of life and reality based upon the abstractions to which we (especially intellectuals) have become habituated; and towards a much simpler and more animistic personification. 

(This; positively because it is the divinely-decided direction of development of Men's minds; and negatively because the system of abstractions has been thoroughly confused, subverted, corrupted and - increasingly - inverted - such that those who hold by them are readily 'turned' away from God.)

In other words, instead of regarding ultimate reality as consisting of abstract concepts such as forces, fields, particles, processes, laws, principles etc. - we should be thinking of Beings and their relationships. 

This applies to 'morality', to Good and evil. While I have often tried to explain Good as that which is in harmony with God and divine creation - and evil as that which opposes this; what Good boils-down-to is a particular group of Beings who have made a commitment to work together in familial relationships. Evil is a shifting coalition of Beings who oppose them. 

Therefore; while Good is abstractly summarizable as primary and positive - with evil as secondary and negative; in practice we meet-up with Good and evil as two sides in a spiritual war: the side affiliated to God the creator, and the side against God. 

(To what extent there are Beings on neither side, I will leave out of this discussion.)

These two sides are two groups consisting-of people and other Beings; and two particular personages of God the creator; and 'The Devil' - who is leader (to the extent that there is a leader) of the anti-God coalition.  

And while, as I said above, there is an asymmetry in the fact that creation is primary and anti-creation is secondary - there is also an asymmetry in the fact that before creation was 'chaos'. And so the anti-God side can (albeit incoherently, since they themselves are created) regard themselves as being in favour of the primordial state - something that is 'deeper' and more fundamental than God-made-creation. 

What this means in practice is that 'morality' presents itself as choosing between two sides, between two rival and incompatible modes of explanation and bases for motivation. 

We can either affiliate with the God party, or become one of those who oppose God (and who may work expediently together - in temporary alliances - in varying degrees). 

To put it simply: in deciding on morality, we are invited (or required) to choose between two persons, two Beings, of different nature and purposes. 

Even in trying to opt-out from this choice (to make a choice for our own nature and purpose) we find that at any given time and place we are necessarily working for one side, or the other - albeit perhaps not consistently or coherently. 

Thus, the ultimate moral choice boils down to a preference between God and The Devil. 

How well we make this choice of persons (which is also a choice of serving Good versus evil) will depend on the choice itself, and the morality by-which that choice is evaluated; but from the God-side I would say that the choice can be made with varying depths of consideration. 

That is; with varying depths of personal responsibility - or else, attempted avoidance of responsibility.  

For instance, in evaluating the nature of God, we may actively and consciously seek, and perhaps achieve, direct knowledge of God's nature...

Or else we might get our ideas of God second-hand, unconsciously, from whatever of culture happens to have-impinged-upon us - and perhaps motivated by a desire to 'fit-in' and 'do-well' in society-as-it-is-Now. 

And we might determine our preference of God versus Devil likewise; by social and socially-acceptable evaluations. Or else we might try to go as intuitively-deep as we can; such as to confront our inferred nature of God from the most fundamental aspects of our-self that we can attain. 

But the question fundamentally presents itself as: this Being, or that one. 

God's extended family; or The Devil's anti-God coalition?...

To which group do I most want to belong; which life do I most desire? 

Evil is incremental, but Good is qualitative

People have a false idea about the nature of Good: a false understanding which itself often leads to evil. 

I think part of the problem, is the tendency among intellectuals to seek symmetry in concepts, as if symmetry was to be expected. Whereas (it seems to me) that, aside from structures, genuine symmetry is rare and exceptional in this world. 

So the usual assumption is that Good and evil are two sides of a coin, or a continuum. (Or even that pernicious idea that Good is a happy medium between two extremes of evil.) 

We all know from observation, and experience, that evil is incremental; and that people can be corrupted gradually, step-by-step - by pushing them further and further into doing (and not repenting) evil acts until the person joins-with the side of evil. 

We can observe this gradual, insensible corruption among our acquaintances, in society-at-large - and perhaps we have seen the same in ourselves.

There seems to be a general idea that affiliation to The Good can be accomplished likewise. The idea that we can increase faith, reach towards a Godly (or Christ-like) state, can "become better Christians", by incremental steps of doing more and more Good acts. 

That seems to be a covert assumption under which many churches operate - the assumption that if churches can get people doing more and more "good things" - they will gradually become stronger and more secure in faith. 

Furthermore, there is an assumption that a partial Good has the tendency to lead-onto affiliation to overall Good. So that if a person is dedicated to some Good like the beauty of music, or the truth of science; or has adopted some partially-valid spirituality (such as Western Buddhism, or Jungian psychology) - then all such things are "steps in the right direction" and will tend to develop Christian affiliations. 

Well, these are empirical claims. That is they are not self-evident; but are claims about the nature of human beings and how the world works. I do not agree that this is how the world works!  

In contrast with evil; I regard Good as a qualitative, not quantitative, thing - and therefore not capable of being adopted by increments. 

While it is true that evil acts tend to lead to corruption, desensitization, and towards an affiliation with the side of Satan - I believe the situation is utterly different with Good. 

Good works do Not lead to strong faith - as can easily be observed in the mainstream Christian churches - especially in in relation to the birdemic and peck...

In early 2020, mainstream Western churches (including those known for exceptionally good behaviour and acts of charity) - all, and without any apparent soul searching or crisis of conscience, quickly and comfortably made strong affirmations of their affiliation with the side of global totalitarian bureaucratic materialism.

That is - they adopted the materialist healthism behind the birdemic scam - while many have since adopted one or more of the Litmus Test issues by which totalitarianism is pursuing its goals: antiracism, climate change, the sexual revolution and transagenda, and the rest of them.      

From this gross failure of the true spiritual mission of the churches; it ought-to-be evident that partial Goods do not reliably tend to lead towards the affirmations of Christianity - or at least not on a detectable timescale. 

What instead happens is that most people get 'stuck' on partial Goods; convinced of their Goodness but unable to perceive or unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of their perspective; and thereby blocked from making the necessary deep and existential commitment to God's agenda which their behaviour contradicts. 

For instance; Jungian psychology is a partial Good if compared with the gross reductionism of mainstream materialism. Yet it is a very partial, radically-incomplete, perspective that accepts many of the errors and distortions of positivistic scientism; and which tries to be agnostic about the reality of a personal God - when agnosticism is de facto equivalent to atheism.

Consequently; most Jungians have taken the side of evil, and are deeply committed to aspects of the agenda of evil.  

Yet, despite its innate contradictions and metaphysical gaps and blockages, people get stuck in Jungianism; and (in effect) try to solve its deep incoherence by a lifetime of superficial tinkering.   

This happens frequently, because the problems of Good and evil are often metaphysical - that is, they are due to primary assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

To become a Christian entails believing that there is a personal God who is creator, who is Good, and of whom we are children - and then making an inner commitment to live our lives eternally in harmony with the purposes of such a God. 

Such fundamental assumptions and decisions are Not a conclusion of incremental life experiences. Accomplishing acts of charity, devotion, worship, learning... these do not lead people by step towards adopting such an overall world view and affiliation. Nor does dedication to the partial and this-worldly Goods of creating aesthetic beauty, pursuing the truths of scholarship, or healing of the sick. 

Good is thus qualitative, because God is qualitative - and because our choice to work with - or against - God is qualitative. 

Either we adopt such an affiliation, or we do not. 

Someone who affiliates to Good is 'Good' in spiritual terms - even when he does not do many 'Good acts'. Conversely; someone who leads a life of 'service' and does many Good works, may be and often is on the side of spiritual evil. The Good works have not prevented him from serving the agenda of Satan. 

In sum: Good and evil are not symmetrical - they are different in their nature. Men can be corrupted incrementally towards evil, by inducing them to perform evil acts and not repenting - or indeed celebrating - them. 

But, contrary to centuries of church practice and belief: Good cannot be pursued in an analogous fashion.  

As a result; partial Goods may not be 'better than nothing'; but may, in practice, be worse than nothing; since partial Goods may sufficiently gratify individuals that they fail to seek a full and coherent answer to life's problem; and instead get-stuck on something that helps them feel better, but without providing a sufficient solution to the core problems of this mortal life - and without providing the love, faith and courage to resist the temptations of the world. 

Implications of Modern Man's waning capacity to pool consciousness and generate thought forms/ elementals/ egregores/ dynamic archetypes

I have been re-reading Dion Fortune's Applied Magic - and thinking about her descriptions and discussions of 'thought forms'. These are essentially the same phenomena variously called elementals, egregores and dynamic archetypes. 

These hypothetical entities are generated by the pooled consciousness of a group of people, attain some kind of separate agency, and then act back to influence or indeed control that same group. 

So, a group of people whose attention is focused and motivated is posited to undergo a merging of thought to generate an entity that then develops 'a life of its own' such that - depending upon its nature and orientation - will then drive the group towards those goals (and by those methods) with which it was established. 

In sum: there is a reciprocal relation between group and thought form; and the though form depends on the group for its original form, energy and continued existence - but the thought form may develop in new directions and impose these on the group; and the individuals in the group are also subjugated to the thought form and cannot (or cannot easily or always) withdraw assent and membership. 

I will here assume that, if not an exact formulation, these thought forms are at least potentially real phenomena. 

In fact I am going to argue that the ability to generate thought forms was essentially universal among Men, at least until the end of the Medieval period in Europe - but that this was a phase in the development of human consciousness that has now dwindled to almost vestigial levels of power. 

This is because the ability to generate thought forms by group pooling of consciousness is double-edged; because it is also a vulnerability to control-by thought forms - directly a vulnerability to being controlled by an irresistible thought form; and indirectly to being-controlled-by the group in which an individual is participating. 

Which is to say that thought forms are experienced as overwhelming, universal (to the group), mandatory - and, in a word, as objective reality. 

Therefore, thought forms of this kind are what Owen Barfield - in Saving the Appearances - calls collective representations. 

Taking up the ideas of Owen Barfield (and Rudolf Steiner) concerning the 'evolutionary development of human consciousness; I am struck by how deftly this can be applied to the changing capacity/ vulnerability of humans to thought forms. 

In brief; I regard known history as one in which humans (at different rates in different places and among different peoples) are gradually losing the pooled consciousness that was at first natural and spontaneous; then became a product of ritual, symbolism, use of sacred texts and traditions etc - which can be understood psychologically as inculcating associations and building them among groups to reach the desired state of pooled consciousness. This then because the basic of social cohesion and purpose. 

Dion Fortune was writing as a 'ritual magician' active in the 1920s and 30s; and at that time it was still possible for selected and highly-motivated groups of people (i.e. members of magical lodges) to be trained in concentration, control of emotions, and the use of symbolism and ritual - to attain that pooled consciousness and generation of 'objective' thought forms, which had receded from the population at large. 

The thought forms might be positive and benign - as with the Hite magic Dion Fortune's Christian mysticism; or negative and malign (self-gratifying, and manipulative) - as with Aleister Crowley and other Black Magicians.  

But generation of benign, positive, and overwhelmingly powerful thought forms by groups became more difficult and rarer though the twentieth century - and (I infer from my reading in the field, not from experience) had essentially ceased by the millennium. Nowadays, White magical rituals apparently have an as-if quality; more like attending a drama than being irresistibly affected by objective reality.

And the same applies to Western churches. Whereas they once had the ability to generate positive thought forms that would then impose upon members - not this has waned in strength such that all the churches are overwhelmed - and have been re-orientated - by the mainstream globalist totalitarian ideology. 

What of this totalitarian ideology? Is this a thought form? If so, is it really weak? 

The answer is yes - it is a thought form and it is weak. The fact that the totalitarian ideology must command the attention and motivation of 100s of millions of people is precisely because the levels of attention and motivation are so weak. Yet people no longer experience this ideology as objectively real, and require a continuous and escalating level of media propaganda combined with exclusion of alternatives in order to make it effective. 

Furthermore, the content of the mainstream ideology is negative - it can only generate even minimal levels of motivation by inducing negative (sinful) emotions such as fear, resentment and despair. And - even so - these strategically-induced mega-mass thought forms are only temporarily effective, and need to be swapped around, and novelties introduced - every few months.   

What, then, is God's positive purpose behind this development of consciousness away from groups pooling and making thoughts forms? 

The answer is that the loss of pooling is a consequence of the increased autonomy of thinking: the greater potential strength of individual thinking. We are less passively controlled, because we are more actively generative. Less immersed-in what seems 'objective' because we are able to range across reality in the primary thinking of our divine-selves.  

We are now more able to resist the influence of thought forms, and domination by 'the group' - and this works both ways - resistance to good group influences and evil. 

We choose and make that reality we live-by. This choosing is necessary - because we cannot pool with a group; and also, therefore, the direction of choice is also an unavoidable personal responsibility. 

Each Man now has the capability consciously to resist any and all external influences; to think 'for himself'; and therefore to become able to pursue his own unique destiny through this mortal life. 

This is possible, despite that vastness of negative global totalitarian thought forms - because these are low-density elementals, they are experienced as diffuse archetypes - that, at the point of impact upon us, are not able to exert the irresistible (and often unconscious) pressure of ancient thought forms. 

Now, exactly because modern consciousness is cut-off and self-conscious; the thought forms generated by our attention and chosen source of motivation, are unique and individually-tailored. 

Each person's positive, God-aligned, thought form is (by analogy) high in density, resistant to subverting influences, and in its motion powered by that which our deepest intuitions tell us is true, beautiful and virtuous.  

An individual thought form can therefore work like a knife whose edge can penetrate through any amount of the toxic gaseous influences of mega-mass ideology. 

In other words; our positive personal thought form - when motivated by faith and harmonious with divine creation - can 'beat' a whole world of shifting negations. 

Are Tolkien's orcs incarnated demon spirits?

A very interesting guest post from WW over at the Notion Club Papers blog; puts the case that orcs might have been demonic spirits, housed in corrupted elf bodies. 

My review of the new biography of Warnie Lewis - CS Lewis's older, less famous, brother

Can be found over at the Notion Club Papers blog. 

Christianity and self-gratification - is it a guide to goodness, or an evil-manipulation

I was always struck by CS Lewis's hardline attitude to happiness or self-gratification in relation to Christianity - the way he emphasized the problem of mixing-up the 'therapeutic' aspect of belief with the business of what is actually true. 

In the Screwtape Letters and Great Divorce (as well as his more abstractly theological works) Lewis negatively depicted people who fluently excused whatever they wanted to do - what they currently enjoyed doing, or what made them feel better - by making arguments that linked these to Christianity. 

In the Narnia chronicles; this was encapsulated in the phrase stating that Aslan (i.e. Jesus) is Not a Tame Lion. That is to say; Christianity cannot be comfortably domesticated and stay Christian. 

Certainly it is a real problem; but - especially in The Last Battle - Lewis also depicted the opposite problem, which happens when the cruelty and destructiveness of the evil demon Tash is explained as being the actions of Aslan; or later, the oxymoronic false-invention Tashlan, syncretized from both good and evil deities. 

These actual evils - in reality motivated by greed, selfishness and sadism - were effectively propagandized as consistent with the fact that Aslan is Not a Tame Lion 

And therefore the fact that God is not aiming at our immediate self-gratification is twisted into a mask for 'the devil'. 

In other words; on the one hand it is true that, at a superficial level of here-and-now, the goodness of God may be experienced as harsh life-lessons that are, nonetheless, necessary for our ultimate and eternal benefit. 

Yet, on the other hand, to know when this is actually the case, and when evil outcomes are instead a product of evil intent; requires honest discernment as to the motivations. 

So, the experienced and observed miseries and sufferings of this world are not evidence in either direction - they might be necessary and temporary means to a good end; or they might be the end in itself: cruelty, destruction, misery, suffering might be the actual purpose of evil beings. 

The correct answer must come from discernment, and the discernment - while taking-account-of-evidence, cannot derive-from evidence. 

As always, we are driven down to an acknowledgment that all knowledge depends on intuition; an individual act of an individual being. 

And, further, that Christian discernment entails acknowledgement that there is a side of Good (i.e. God) and a side of evil (i.e. the demons). We first need to know this in order to choose one or the other side; and only by choosing a side can be - even in principle - make a discernment as to whether a particular event was motivated by good or evil intent.

For a Christian; to deny that good and evil are separate and opposite sides, amounts to the false-deity of Tashlan - in other words, to base discernment on an assumption of unity, oneness, 'non-dualism' is itself (merely) a type of evil. 

From this analysis we can see that Christianity is related to self-gratification (i.e. the pleasurable, comfortable, desirable) in that God wants us to be deeply and eternally happy; but such a goal entails that we must sometimes be temporarily and superficially miserable. 

To know what is going-on in the here and now we need to depend on divine guidance - which (because God is The Creator, is Good, and is our loving parent/s) we have all been equipped-with. 

We all have potentially available both direct access (i.e. in our stream of thinking) to true inner guidance (because we have within-us something of the divine, being children of God)...

And this inner guidance also enables us to have access indirectly to external guidance - both directly from the Holy Ghost, and indirectly from all other sources of information such as legitimate and wise authority (e.g. of Men and books), true-tradition, and any other cultural product. 

In sum; deep self-gratification is a sure guide to the operations of God and His agents; while superficial self-gratification may be a consequence of the manipulations - or sadism - of evil Men and/or the beings of supernatural evil.

 

Temptations in responding to the oppressions of here-and-now evil

One major strategy of purposive-evil - here and now, in The West and globally - is to oppress people with so much actual and prospective evil that people will give-up and yield, go crazy, or try to fight evil with evil. 

This decades-long strategic plan is one of crushing all that is good by sheer weight of evil discourse, has been made possible by the totalitarian takeover of The System - the web of linked-bureaucracies that control all major institutions including mass media, politics, public administration, law, religion, 'science', education, 'health' etc.  

Spiritually; the strategy is to make us frame the world as (on the one hand) a vast, inexorable, objective, all-embracing organization that orders everything and does everything... And (on the other hand) you or me - standing alone and isolated, friendless and hated, worthless and expendable - stupidly and pathetically thinking-about resisting the inevitable. 

The idea is that we should surrender, fawn, and (in our hearts) beg The System for mercy.  

In return; we shall eagerly believe/ think/ say/ do anything that They currently require of us, and enforce The System on our-selves and each-other... 

And, eventually - after getting ever less-and-less in return for ever more-and-more self-degradation and lying - that we should break, despair, lose hope; and seek permanent oblivion (death-as-annihilation) to escape such a spiritual wasteland and hell. 

A second level of the plan is to channel resistance to evil, such that it is either counter-productive or futile. There are several 'temptations'. 

One temptation is to withdraw from evil, to escape it. While this may be an important, or even, vital temporary tactic; the fact is that evil cannot be escaped in this world - where it is all-pervasive as never before. Further, the attempt to escape may open the mind to evil-inspired fantasies and to dreams.

Furthermore, the desire to escape evil is a double-negative that is not itself good - and is, indeed, prone to being manipulated into evil. 

(To clarify: resistance-to-evil is not itself good. Good can be accomplished only by striving for 'positive' good.)   

The spirit we should instead cultivate is one in which we become aware of our own 'good heart' and rooted in a commitment to love - that is, we may become consciously connected-with, rooted-in, the divine within us which each person has as a consequence of being a son or daughter of God. 

This is quite simple, and experienced as obvious - once we ask the right questions of ourselves and the world; and correctly understand our situation and role. 

Naturally, the powers of evil has many tactics for undermining the confidence of someone who is rooted in a correct understanding of himself and his proper role. His attitudes may be undermined so he loses confidence; or else inflated so that his 'confidence' extends form its true and proper sphere towards prideful and false assertion of self-importance. 

It can be made to sound like an impossible balancing-act to steer between the dangers of inflation and submission - that is, itself, another demonic strategy - to make life seem impossibly difficult, so we may as well 'give-up - Now!'

But - part of having the right attitude is to know that this is a false analogy - we are not steering a course through hazards; but are beings with a divine core self, who are living with the benefit of both inner and outer guidance (intuition and the Holy Ghost).

And who have the inestimable advantage of being able to err and sin and then, as soon as we become aware of the fact, an unbounded capacity to repent and realign with God's creative will.  

To be perfectly accurate; we have nothing to worry about.  

And if we aren't - deep down, and in our hearts - replete with care-free joy and supreme confidence - then we must be living in a state of error. 

The demons can increase the weight of oppression incrementally, piling problems on, and on - but we can never be crushed by it... unless we thus choose. 

We cannot win at this business of life; but it is a colossal error to suppose that we are supposed to win. 

We are supposed to learn-from living, not to win a prize for it. 

The prize (i.e. eternal, resurrected, Heavenly life) comes after this life and by following Jesus, and not as a consequence of any accomplishment during this life. 

But the magnitude and scope of this prize increases in value whenever we live by love; and whenever we think (or otherwise create) in harmony with divine creation. 

Such choices come-to-us, even if unsought - and we can always do/choose the right thing - so we should face life confidently - that is, with confidence in the primacy of the spirit and the indomitable triumph of the divine. 

When Mens' core motivations are defective...

The depth of The Problem in current civilization is located at the most basic level of motivations: i.e. primarily in what people want; secondarily in how strongly they want it. 

There is a significant defect in the strength of motivations, which arises ultimately from the wrongness of motivations - we cannot be strongly-motivated over time, by fake or feeble motivators. 

Potentially (and in the past) the strongest innate motivators for Men are 'religious' - and since religion has been excluded (or severely weakened) the remaining motivators are all labile, short-termist and selfish - for example sex (or the desire for any other pleasurable sensation). 

The short-termist and selfish desires of sex are not capable of being synthesized into any kind of coherent strategy for life, or The World; and the un-repented effort to do so has led to the self-contradictory, self-defeating, negations of the evolving (de-volving) sexual revolution - which began in propagating a hedonic free-for-all, and has becoming a bureaucratic, totalitarian minefield . 

In other words; people are trying and failing (over and again) to make a life and a philosophy of life, from the strongest motivators that remain to them after the spirit has been deleted - which are the evanescent (and zero-sum) pleasures of sex, travel, intoxication, status, power, resentment, fear, sadism and spite... fleeting daydreams or nightmares of various kinds. 

But so long as the spiritual dimension is excluded, ignored or downgraded - persistent failure never leads to insight, learning and repentance - so Western man chases will-o-the-wisps with all his energies -- until dragged-down by despair, disease, or death.       

Yet religious motivations are failing as well. They have, in The West, become so enfeebled that a large majority of the most devout church goers (of all types  of church, including Christian) are indistinguishable from the Godless-masses when it comes to supporting the core evil agenda strategies. 

Even when religious people discern the proximate, in-your-face, evils of Western Civ; such people fail to understand that these are the inevitable, baked-in, product of remote but primary ultimate causes that often enjoy their unthinking, habitual, or even passionate, support. 

Thus there is a double-whammy of weak motivations - because the only valid motivators are long-term, cosmic in scope, and coherent. 

The usual response is to 'thrash-around' seeking immediate, socially-approved and momentarily-rewarding motivators from the content of modern culture - all of which are all evil and manipulative in origin; such that they are invariably temporary in effect, and leave people positioned in ever worse - ever more desperate - situations; drowning in tidal despair while grasping-at (ever-smaller and soggier) straws of optimism.

Taking a step back and trying to understand more deeply the ultimate causes of this situation in order to find a strong and valid motivation for our-selves is now an absolute necessity; the alternative to which is spiritual death. 

In such a pervasively and overwhelmingly corrupt culture; this deeper and larger consideration absolutely must be done by individuals; done by each and every human being. 

This seems to be 'asking a lot' of people - who have, through much of history, either followed their instincts, been given-out a spirituality to live-by; or had trusted sources of institutional guidance which they simply needed to obey. 

It may be 'asking a lot' of people to 'go-it-alone' in the quest of true-motivation - it may seem 'unreasonable' to require every single individual to do this for himself...

But consider: Who will benefit? 

The answer is that each individual will benefit from his own efforts; not merely temporarily in this mortal life (by the benefits of discovering and choosing a strong and lasting motivation from-which this mortal life may be created); but also forever.  

And this is something that - exactly because only-we can accomplish it - our loving God has therefore made possible for anyone to accomplish - if only they make the serious attempt. 

How much more incentive do we need?

Embrace the simple-clear positive; eschew the complex double-negative

Christians do themselves, as well their cause, long-term harm by their habitual (addictive?) use of double-negative theology. Indeed there is a very influential branch of theology and Christian practice that has elaborated this into a vast systematic edifice (the negative path, or via negativa) - plus, this is the basis of much 'eastern' religious philosophy in Buddhism, Hinduism (and Sufism).  

I think we can see the collapse of double-negative thinking in the 21st century; because its lack of simplicity and clarity render it incapable of dealing with the protean and pervasive challenges to faith of this era, as emanating from globalist totalitarianism with its linked-bureaucracies of governance and mass media. 

Negative motivations are counter-productive, because when all is illusion then individuals are (in practice) rendered passively obedient to that which is dominant. And, anyway, the number and strength - and fluidity - of deceptions are now too great to be individually discerned, diagnosed and rejected. 

In a world where (for many or most people) it is a case of me-against-the-world: - my Christianity against a world of demonic- materialist ideology - it seems we must be clear in our own minds; if we are not to be confused and bamboozled, and simply worn-down to impotent exhaustion by the relentless and increasing weight of error and evil.

For us, it is a case of motivation, motivation, motivation! 

Thus, we cannot anymore be motivated by such double-negatives as the avoidance of sin - most Christians who imagine this is possible are simply denying their own vast scale of sinning in domains such as dishonesty, resentment, and fear. Avoidance of sin is now effective (hence valid) only when there is a primary positive impulse towards Good. 

But most people's idea of The Good is some notion of altruism/ unselfishness/ helping-others - which is another negative value. In a world based on utilitarian hedonism, where 'other people' live materialistically - 'altruism' reduces to me trying to 'make' people happy, which is impossible; so it ends-up with the negative goal of diminishing suffering. 

(In practice, altruism at the political level entails a small class of super-powerful/ super-privileged/ super-rich individuals pretending to administer the world on behalf of the 'oppressed' by monopolizing and confiscating all resources - supposedly because this globalist-establishment are the 'agents' of 'social justice.)   

We cannot (if ever Men could) be motivated by a desire for 'freedom' - because freedom is a negative value that only gains motivating-power for Good, when there is some existing positive motivation towards Good that is being thwarted. 

We cannot, if we intend to accomplish Good, be motivated primarily by obedience to any external authority or institution; because all such are so corrupted that in practice Goodness can only be discerned and practiced by the independent thinking of individual persons, and their autonomy of thinking. 

And that returns us to the primary of personal motivation. 

In other words; it is now imperative for Christian Good both that individuals are motivated to think for themselves and do-so, and that they operate from baseline assumptions that are positively-motivating - which means simple and clear enough to be effective. 

In practice; each must discover these for himself. They are not available off-the-peg and will not be the values that get-inculcated-into the passively obedient or non-conscious, routine-thinker. 

Since the problem is insufficient motivation, we need to begin from whatever positive and good motivations we already have; and follow these motivations through, with honesty and diligence to... wherever they will lead. 

The Big Problem is that so few people seem to have the motivation even to recognize a problem with The World Now. 

This could - in theory - be because the world is now so pervasively and persuasively evil that Modern men are helpless against its temptations... But that would be to assume God has failed to give Men a reasonable chance of salvation...

Alternatively, it may be that Modern men are of innately poorer quality than Men of the past; that a mass of Men (especially in The West) are innately more dominated by evil, more prone to evil - and feebler in their strength of Good motivations than before. 

I regard this 'worse Men' as the most probable explanation for a world full of Men who do not even want to be Good; but who instead legislate and enforce inverted-true values, such that great evil is now called great good - and praised, rewarded and accorded the highest status. 

In other words: I assume that God is as Good as ever, as powerful a creator as ever; but the 'quality' of pre-mortal souls available for incarnation into this mortal life is lower than in the past. A lot of incarnated souls nowadays are less naturally-good/ more heavily disposed-towards evil, compared with the past. 

And therefore (here-and-now) all the major (large/ powerful/ wealthy/ high-status) human institutions of The Hegemonic West (including churches) are net-corrupted; are overall affiliated to the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world. 

Quite likely - you and I are similarly misaligned and enfeebled compared with Men of the past - although I would not be writing, you would not be reading, this - unless there we had at least some motivation to be motivated for Good... 

However... What worked for our ancestors may not work for us: since we are worse, and so is The World. 

We need things to be simpler, clearer and easier than They did; if we are to be able to develop and strengthen our embryonic Good-motivations into something positive by-which we can navigate our path against the current of a hostile evil-world of apparently overwhelming strength and scope. 

 

A Hobbiton-esque water mill (ruined)

Photo credit

I walked past this semi-ruined water-mill today (on one of our favourite walks, around Stocksfield in Northumberland); which always reminds me of JRR Tolkien's stylized illustration (wheel too small for a real mill) from The Hobbit (detail below):

Although The Shire was located a couple of hundred miles south; such evidence makes it likely that Hobbits once inhabited these Northerly parts of England. 

 From some time before 1913

(Another farmer - a Northumbrian shepherd surname Dagg - with probable hobbit ancestry)

How we make our 'luck' - individually and socially

Most of us are prone to lament our own 'bad luck' - whether in terms of personal adversities, and/or the the time and place we inhabit. 

A Christian who believes that God is Good, as well as the creator, ought to assume that overall, we get the 'luck' we need.

Yet it feels wrong to attribute to 'everything that happens' to 'the will of God' - because that would put us into a position of passivity, and God into the role of a manipulator rather than a teacher.

So, on the one hand, in a created universe there is no such thing as 'luck', but on the other hand, in this reality made of beings in relationships, all purposes are not those of The Creator. We need to understand other ways by which life works.  

What follows is one of my favourite passages from the work of William Arkle - and one that has had a major influence on my thinking. 

Whenever I return to it, I find myself struck with renewed force at its discerning wisdom.

**

Edited (by me, for brevity and clarity) from 

A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle, 1974

It is accepted that if we cut off the leg of a live bird, the bird feels pain and distress. But we suppose that if we cut off the branch of a living tree, the tree neither feels anything nor is aware of anything. While it is accepted that the tree is a living ‘thing’, it is not considered a living ‘creature’. 

This is because the tree cannot communicate its distress to us. But the fact may be that we are simply incapable of receiving the tree’s communications. 

Out of the thousands of such  assumptions made about our natural background, many will be quite wrong and a lot more partly wrong. 

We have denied real intelligence to most of the animal world; but species like the dolphin are now found capable of a high degree of intelligence, playfulness and co-operation with man. This has not been recognized before, simply because we had not tried hard enough to develop communications with the dolphin. 

It has been too readily assumed that lack of communication implied lack of consciousness; but never in ourselves, always in what we failed to communicate with. While it is not suggested that we can talk to stones, there is some sort of communication which links us with everything. 

And if the structure of nature is conscious of us, even if we are not properly conscious of it, this structure will express its friendship or hostility - and which will be based upon our attitude to 'the environment'. 

Because we do not get the messages from the background we avoid responsibility for failure to communicate. Therefore, when we suffer from savage storms, we assume that the savagery does not originate from our-selves but from 'nature'. 

[Either storms are meaningless and 'just happen', or] superstitiously, we fear that maybe some God is angry with us... We seldom consider the possibility that we ourselves have upset the structure of the natural background (of which we are an integral part) through the more intangible aspect of our personalities. 

The burden of all this is that a great deal of our ‘luck’ may be caused by the reaction of our background to the quality or attitude of our own consciousness. 

As this is a collective phenomenon in most instances, we may find ourselves conditioned by unpleasant effects which are not the result of our wrong attitudes but of the attitudes of our fellow men. 

This sort of luck or background conditioning falls equally upon the deserving and the undeserving. In sum; this sort of luck is not luck at all, it is the result of our collective behaviour. 

To put it into a few words, it is a rational proposition to say that if we lived more harmoniously with one another as well as with our background of ‘natural phenomena’, then this background would become more harmonious to us. 

Such a good outcome would not be caused by the intervention of God, but as a direct result of the unconscious effect our attitudes are in creating in the structures on which they impinge.

**

This, I find a helpful perspective from which to consider the (partly self-willed) end of Western Civilization, and its consequences. 

We may find ourselves interpreting much of what has-happened, and (presumably) will-happen in terms of our 'bad luck' in living here and now, and with such evil rulers. But the fact is that while our attitudes and choices affect our own lives, they also affect others - otherwise they would be merely subjective. 

And the flip-side of the power of our own good choices to benefit the 'collective' situation is that we ourselves are inevitably part of 'the collective' - indeed, typically we are far more collective in our attitudes and choices than we recognize. (as with such phenomena as RUP - Residual Unresolved Positivism; or R.U. Leftism).  

So when we ourselves become targets of environmentally destructive Climate Change politics, or antiracism and the transagenda, or (maybe soon) find ourselves embroiled in World War Three - there are two aspects to the situation: inner and outer; individual and collective. 

Individually, it is usual that some of our own attitudes are supportive of exactly that which is being-deplored. Typically, we support some 'principle' (or institution) that, further down the line, leads to consequences we don't like.

For instance, we act in ways that support agencies, charities, corporations, political groupings etc, who pursue net-evil goals, harm human beings and the natural world, and encourage people to reject salvation and choose their own damnation.  

Therefore; collectively, we have, by our individual attitudes and habits, earned a share of the adversity that falls upon whole communities from economic collapse, totalitarianism, and war. 

This should not be understood as an excuse for fatalism; because we are (if we choose) individuals with a capacity for positive spiritual influence of a general nature - beyond ourselves, beyond our minds. 

But conversely, as part of the same set-up; we are all somewhat responsible for evils of the collectives of which we are part. 

We can and should repent our complicity in evil, but repentance is not reform. 

We may know and reject evil; yet we cannot cease from doing evils; including to the non-human world of beings (whose agency and capacity for communication we typically deny). 

Therefore we should not be surprised when this living, conscious, purposive world of beings - who are as mixed in their nature and motivations as are we - try to 'tell' us ('communicating, sometimes, by various adverse occurrences) that they dislike what we are doing to them; that they react-against us,  

Where are 'other worlds' located? The 'mental block' of modern consciousness.

I've changed my mind on this topic several times, over the course of this blog. It is an important issue, and one where I think we probably need a coherent answer to avoid spirituality being sabotaged by corrosive doubt.  

The general question has many specific versions. One is to ask where exactly Heaven is located - especially considering that Christians believe in resurrection, so that the vagaries of spirits being everywhere (and nowhere) are denied us. 

Is Heaven (inhabited by the resurrected dead, walking-around...) up in the sky, outer space, a remote planet? All answers seem either evasive or absurd.

Another version is the Underworld (the Dwat), or the world after death (Sheol, Hades), the 'Inner World', the Collective Unconscious - or Collective Consciousness... people talk as if these are locations, or domains - but where? Why can't we detect them?

Then there is Faerie, Elfland - is that under a mound, in or through a forest, across the seas - or maybe on a different plane of existence through-which we must travel? 

It is easy to reduce answers to absurdity; in a modern world where we assume we have explored the whole planet, and that 'scientific instruments' allow us to detect anything that is real. 

I suggest here that, as so often when a question seem unanswerable - this is because we are asking the wrong question. We are assuming that The World is reality, and our knowing of that world is secondary (and optional) thing; an essentially passive matter of recognizing reality. 

In other words, we are assuming that our minds have no significant role in the existence of reality, except to fail to notice it or to distort it - we assume that real reality (Kant's das Ding an sich: the thing-in-itself) is out there and 'solidly real', even when unthought, unperceived, unknown. 

Yet this almost universal habit of thinking about reality is incoherent - therefore wrong (as demonstrated by, amongst others, Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfeld). Instead, a coherent understanding of reality must include the consciousness of the knower.

(Without the knowing-consciousness of a being, there is only meaningless disorder - literal primordial chaos.)

This is Not to say that consciousness simply makes-up any reality it wants, a reality without any reference to anything out-there, because there is nothing out-there (ie. philosophical 'idealism') - it is instead to say there is no knowing, no knowable, without consciousness; so that consciousness and reality cannot be separated.

We may notice that this question "where are other worlds?" was Not regarded as a problem in much of the past in human history. The answer seemed obvious, or else an answer was not requested or required.

And the question was not a problem because people knew other worlds, people once perceived these other worlds for themselves - either on an everyday basis, or (later) in special states of consciousness induced by religious ritual, dreams, trances - or whatever. 

That which is perceived is not regarded as unanswerable. 

Therefore I conclude that the question is a product of changes in human consciousness. 

We ask where other worlds are located because Modern Man no longer spontaneously perceives other-worlds, and has mostly lost the ability to perceive other-worlds. 

In other words; Modern man cannot know the location of 'other worlds' because he has developed a mental block. 

The other-worlds are still 'there', where they always were, but Modern Man is blocked from perceiving them by a change in his consciousness*. 

Indeed, the other-worlds can still be perceived, but only in altered states of consciousness that, to some extent, undo the recent changes of consciousness - and diminish our level of consciousness. 

Inner-worlds no longer impose on Men, that is why they are not perceived. To know inner-worlds for has become for Modern Men a matter of knowing, not perceiving. 

A matter, that is, of direct-knowing.  

We should not strive to 'see through' the blocks, nor to dissolve them away - because they are there for good reasons; instead we can think over and around the blocks.

In other words: Final Participation.  

Then we will know where are other-worlds...

And the answer is: in this same world... 

Where they have always been. 

(*The reason for this change in consciousness is another matter, dealt with extensively elsewhere in this blog. In a nutshell, the mental block has the positive function of increasing freedom, agency; by removing us from the former state of automatic/ habitual, unavoidable and unconscious subjection to God's created reality. The mental block gives us the freedom positively to choose to align-ourselves with divine creation. In other words the block both imposes and gifts Modern Man's with personal responsibility for his spiritual affiliation.) 

Dowland's Now, O, Now in a surreal and soothing video...

Very pleasing little movie (albeit a bit over-extended) of one of John Dowland's most famous Lute Songs. 

Theosis and Salvation - the reason and the choice

Salvation is a personal decision - the individual person's choice to follow Jesus to resurrected everlasting life. 

But the reason why such a choice is made is for the sake of others; because of what we want to do in the Heavenly state-of-being. 

This doing entails love of others - including God, and 'fellow Men' - and becoming more-divine - that is becoming fully aligned with God's creation and the sub-creation of our fellow resurrected Men.

(The term for this becoming fully aligned with God's creative purposes is Theosis.) 

Thus; while Salvation is individual, Theosis is relational. 

Therefore; the reason-for Salvation is Theosis. 

Anamnesis in relation to Jesus - is this a germ of truth in Gnosticism?

Anamnesis is a kind of unforgetting - in theology/ philosophy it can means a recollection of suppressed or blocked truth and reality, that is triggered by some kind of 'releasing stimulus'. 

It was an aspect of Gnosticism* - as with the Hymn of the Pearl; an allegory for this mortal life in which the son of a king is sent to earth to retrieve a pearl, but forgets his mission (among the temptations of life) until reminded of it by a letter. 

Supposedly, historically, this was Not intended to mean Jesus; but maybe it did originally - to some extent. 

At any rate it fits my understanding that Jesus (having being incarnated specifically to bring resurrection to Men, did not 'remember' his mission; because, presumably, the time was not right - or the right 'trigger' had not been arranged.

Thus Jesus did not become divine (i.e. attain to his divine creative powers), until his baptism by John; when John recognized who Jesus was, and the spirit of God provided signs to that effect. 

*Gnosticism was mostly wrong, and wrong in several fundamental assumptions; but, of course, everything that catches-on and effects the world has some truth in it - even when that is distorted, partial or inverted. 

Which was your favoured Monopoly token?

I am re-reading (third time) Anne R Dick's memoir The Search for Philip K Dick - which contains the information that his favoured Monopoly token was the Old Boot - and a critic commenting on the book later suggested that this was significant, in terms of PKD's self-image. 

Maybe... 

My own favoured token was the Flat Iron; and the reason I gave myself for this choice was the way it could slide smoothly over the board. 

The most popular token among family and friends (about which fights would occur) was the Little Dog; which seems an obvious one, because it was cute.

The other die-cast tokens in my game were the Top Hat, Battleship and Racing Car. 

In retrospect, it is surprising that I did not favour the car or the ship - so maybe there is some occult significance in the iron - but I am not sure what. 

I don't enjoy ironing, and never have; although doing it is indeed one of my current family-household chores. 

(Maybe the childhood choice was some kind of unpleasant self-fulfilling prophecy?...)

So, what was Your favourite Monopoly token as a child - and can you infer whether it represented anything about your character? 

Explaining demonic spirits and the damned souls; as the consequence of choices related to love, mortal incarnate life/ entropy/ death, and resurrection

We must die in order to be remade - to be resurrected. 

This is salvation. 

Damnation is the other choice: to reject salvation. 

We must be resurrected to enter that state called Heaven*; because for Heaven to be 'heavenly' - all within it must have-been remade, wholly-good - without disposition to evil. 

Or, to enter Heaven, we must make a permanent commitment to repent and repudiate all sin - all evil, all that opposes divine harmony - and the way that this permanent commitment is made is by resurrection -- in which all that is Good (God-harmonious) in us is retained; while all that is not is left-behind and discarded.

Such a permanent commitment is made from love; and therefore must freely be chosen - cannot be compelled; and can only be made by those capable of love who choose to make love their eternal foundational principle. 

(Only thus can Heaven be a place that is wholly Good (a place without any evil-motivation) and also wholly-free - inhabited by beings with divine powers of creation; who will always and spontaneously use their godly-powers harmoniously with God and other Heavenly beings.)  

The need for death is true for men and women - and for all other beings. 

Which is why this incarnated mortal life on earth is dominated by entropy: because every-"thing" must die, if there is to be a possibility of resurrection. 

In other words: If every being on earth is to have a chance of attaining and choosing Heaven - they all must die, sooner or later. 

Pre-mortal spirit life, although wholly-good, is very imperfect - especially in terms of freedom, of agency. 

The harmony and goodness of pre-mortal life is dependent on the passivity and obedience of spirits; because pre-mortal beings are not innately wholly good (in the way that God is wholly-good, or resurrected beings are wholly good). 

Because pre-mortal spirits are not-wholly-good, the harmony of goodness in pre-mortal life is attained top-down, by the direction and control of God. 

In effect, so far as pre-mortal spirit life goes; God is the wholly-good parents of a mixed bunch of children - some mostly-good, some mostly-evil - none wholly good. It is only by the obedience of these children that goodness prevails. 

But pre-mortal spirits mature, they grow-up, they change... Sooner or later, they get to a point where they must throw-off the passive goodness of obedience to parental authority and control. 

Then these pre-mortal spirits have a choice...

Either the spirits can incarnate on earth - some time afterwards to die, and make the choice of resurrection, or not. 

(This is God's plan - because God wishes to make and inhabit Heaven with resurrected (incarnated everlasting) beings, who have have by their choice of resurrection made an eternal commitment to live in harmony with divine creation.)

Or else those pre-mortal spirits who do not want to die and be resurrected; or who simply do not want to die - and those who reject the divine plan for an harmonious Heaven of free-beings who have chosen to be remade without evil... 

These spirits can escape their previous state of obedience to divine goodness, and enter the sphere of earth while still spirits - and therefore immortal. 

These are the demons. 

(This explains why demons are spirits - not embodied; and why they are immortal. They are spirits because they have refused temporary mortal incarnation, and are immortal because they are spirits, and unaffected by 'entropy'.)

If the pre-mortal spirits choose mortal life on earth, they must choose temporary incarnation and death (as necessary pre-requisites for resurrection); but if they reject this package, then such spirits have rejected even the possibility of Heaven.

This is why all demons are evil, and why demons are worse than incarnated Men - because demons, by their rejection of mortal incarnation, have all chosen to reject the possibility of that death which makes salvation possible. 

(If demons changed their minds and repented, and wished to prepare for the choice of Heaven; they would need first to incarnate and die. Whether this this is possible or ever actually happens I do not know.) 

So - demons have rejected the passive ('secondhand') good of pre-mortal spirit life under the parental influence of God; and they have also rejected that mortal life on earth which is a necessary stage to prepare for remaking-by-resurrection, and Heaven.   

The ruling principle of creation (that which makes creation cohere) is love; and love is the reason why the dead choose resurrection and heaven.  

The essential reason why demons have rejected mortal incarnation, and why some dead mortal Men reject the offer of resurrection into Heaven and instead choose damnation; is that demons and the damned are either incapable of love, or have rejected love as the basis of life and chosen... something else.    

Differently phrased: Demons are those never-incarnated beings who have rejected living under the domination of entropy (i.e. mortal earthly life); and by doing so rejected God's plan of salvation. 

The damned are those who chose to live and die as mortal incarnate Men on earth, and have become dis-carnated beings (i.e. souls severed from their bodies); and who die and then reject resurrection and Heaven; instead choosing some other fate.

*Note: Why our final God-destined state-of-being is embodied, incarnate - rather than spirits - is a topic I have considered elsewhere.   

Christianity as a 'natural religion'?

Christianity is nearly-always described as a religion of revelation - in other words it needs to be 'revealed' to us, we need to be told about it; told by - for example - written scripture, handing on by tradition, teachings of church authorities etc. 

The contrast is a natural religion that could be reached by each person for himself, by intuition, reasoning, observation etc. based on suggestions from the material that can be found in pretty-much any human culture. 

(The paganism of animistic hunter-gatherers is regarded as an example of natural religion; since it seems to have arisen spontaneously - albeit with local variations - all over the world.) 

When I became a Christian, it was partly by accepting the need for revelation (and by evaluating the strength of validity in various contending revelations) that I got-out from trying to reach Christianity by my own unaided efforts. 

The is no real doubt that mainstream Christianity, in whatever of its denominations or churches, is way too complex to be arrived at except by revelation; but the big question is whether the necessary and sufficient essence is, in principle, attainable without external help... 

And, if not accessible during this mortal life, then potentially core Christianity might be accessible after this mortal life (i.e. after death) but before making the choice to accept or reject resurrection. 

Over the years I have come around to the idea that Christianity is, or can be, a natural religion; and does not require revelation - indeed, what has traditionally been regarded as revelation may more often be an obstacle than assistance nowadays -- especially since the churches are so corrupted by worldliness (corrupted to the point of value-inversion), and their teachings so vast and (to common sense) incoherent or contradictory. 

I think it is largely uncontroversial that theism - specifically the belief in a personal creator God - can be a natural belief. The this world was made, and with some design and purpose, and by a being who is like a person - is a plausible line of reasoning, that often occurs to children. 

And the further idea that this God is relates to each of us like a loving parent, is also one that can occur to anyone who thinks about the subject - by analogy with the human family. 

In short, all the necessary background to Christianity can be arrived-at without being taught - and (because it is true) potentially confirmed by intuitive conviction. 

As for Christianity; I think the core idea is also simple enough, and close enough to the desires of the human heart, that it could be arrived at by almost anyone. 

The fear of death and desire for everlasting life is spontaneous; and that this continued life would be embodied is also natural; and that this life-after-life would be in a better world without death or decay are all plausible day dreams - even for a child. 

So the necessary materials for a Christian yearning are there. As for the mechanism by which this might be achieved - which is by following Jesus Christ, as a sheep follows the Good Shepherd - this is not something that is likely to be a natural or spontaneous conclusion. 

Therefore, natural religion breaks-down at the point where we need to know how to attain resurrected life eternal. 

But, since this following of Jesus through-death to life-everlasting happens after our death, it seems reasonable to assume that it is something made clear to us after death. 

No matter what a person's experience during mortal life, he could be shown the possibility of resurrection after his death and how to attain it. 

Therefore; whether he was born before Jesus's time or lived in a part of the world where Christianity was unknown, or had been taught or reasoned-out some false idea of Christianity - every soul could be given the knowledge of what he need to do to follow Jesus.

Thus, Christianity can be a natural religion. And this fact may turn out to be vital to salvation, as the corruption of the churches continues to spread and advance.  

Heavenly Parents and the dyadic/ one-creator God - an update

As I have often written, but not recently, I believe that God is dyadic - consisting of a Heavenly Father and Mother, a man and woman who are (in some sense) incarnate and not spirits. 

This is the Mormon understanding, and reading about Mormon theology was where I first came across it. 

I am not trying to persuade other people that I am right; but I shall here consider why I personally believe this, and what it is that I believe. 

In the first place it is due to what might be termed intuition; in the sense that when I first encountered this idea, my heart seemed to jump and warm; as if I was discovering something true, good and with great possibilities of more-good. 

There was an immediate and positive sense... not so much that this was true, but that I wanted this to be true - this came before my conviction that it was true.  

Following this I read more about Mormon theology, and realized that the dyadic, man-woman nature of our Heavenly parents was just part of an entire metaphysical understanding of creation (including procreation - the creation of beings including people) as something dynamic, interactive, developing, evolutionary, open-ended, and expanding. 

In other words, that creation itself was creative (and therefore creation was not, as I had previously assumed, a done-thing, a closed accomplishment, a finished totality - once-and-for-always.) 

I then began to explore the implications of these ideas for myself; using concepts I got from William Arkle (and his reflections on God's motivations for creation); and Owen Barfield, including Barfield's accounts of the 'polar' philosophy of ST Coleridge. 

I was also building on a longer-term fascination with 'animism' - with the (apparently innate and spontaneous) tendency to regard the world (the universe) as consisting primarily of beings - all of whom were alive, purposive, conscious - albeit in different ways, at different scales and timescales etc.

The motivation for creation, and why God should have created this kind of creation, was something I had found difficult to grasp (none of the usual explanations made much sense to me). But when I conceptualized God as the loving dyad of a man and woman, then it seemed obvious why such a combination would have wanted to create - including others who might eventually become like themselves.   

Furthermore, it did not seem possible that creation had arisen from any state of oneness of self-sufficiency, since this would make creation arbitrary; nor could creation arise from a tendency towards differentiation, because that would lead to meaningless-purposeless chaos. 

There must (I felt) have been some kind of original 'polarity' - in abstract and physics-like terminology, there would need to be at-least two different kinds of 'force', the interaction of which would be creation. Coleridge (also Barfield and Arkle) saw this in terms of a 'masculine'-tendency for expansion and differentiation; and a 'feminine'-tendency for one-ness and integration.  

But in terms of my (non-abstract) preferred metaphysics of beings and animistic assumptions; 'masculine' and 'feminine' simplifies to just a primordial man and a primordial woman; this would mean two complementary, unlike-but-of-the-same-kind, beings; the love of whom would lead to a desire for creation.  

(In the same kind of way that - in this mortal life - love of man and woman usually leads to a desire for procreation.)

At some point I validated this understanding by means of meditative prayer; by refining and asking a simple question, feeling that this question had 'got-through', and receiving a clear inner response.  

In summary; the above account is something-like the sequence by which I desired, concluded, became-convinced-by, the metaphysical assumption of God as Heavenly parents; by some such mixture of feelings, reasoning, and 'feedback'. 

All this happened a good while ago (about a decade); since when I have been interpreting things on the basis of this framework, and it seems to 'work', so far.

What the real-life, this world, implications are; include a reinforcement of the idea that the family is (and ought to be) the primary social structure; on earth as it is in Heaven; and a clarification of the nature of creation - starting with the primary creation by Heavenly parents and also including the secondary creation of beings (such as men and women) within primary creation. 

This metaphysics has further helped me understand both why and how love is the primary value of Christianity; i.e. because love made possible creation in the first place, and is the proper basis of 'coordinating' the subcreative activities of all the beings of creation.  

And it helped me understand how creation can be open-ended and expansile, without degenerating into chaos; because it is love that makes the difference.

Also, it helped me to understand the nature of evil; and how evil is related either to the incapacity for love or its rejection. Without love, the innate creativity of individual beings is going to be selfish and hostile to that of other beings: non-loving attitudes, thinking, and actions by beings, will tend to destroy the harmony of creation.  

I don't talk much about this understanding, and I often use the generic term 'God'; because it is difficult to explain briefly and clearly that the dyadic God of our Heavenly parents serves as a single and 'coherently unified' source of creation

But God is two, not one, because only a dyad can create, and creation must-be dyadic. 

And the dyadic just-is the one-ness of God the primal creator.  

Note added: It may be said, correctly, that the above does not depend on the Bible; but then neither does the metaphysics of orthodox-classical theology depend on scripture. We can find resonances and consistencies within the Bible - but assumptions such as: strict monotheism - creation ex nihilo (from nothing) by a God outside of creation and Time, the Athanasian Creed descriptions of the Trinity, God's omnipotence and omniscience, original sin... These are ideas that would not be derived-from a reading of scripture - the most that can be said is that someone who already ideas can find Biblical references that can be interpreted as consistent-with these assumptions. They are (apparently) products of philosophically sophisticated theologians who brought these ideas to Christianity from earlier and mostly pagan (Greek and Roman) sources. Also, these kinds of metaphysical assumption are theistic - to do with a personal god - but not specifically Christian. The salvific work of Jesus Christ (principally: making possible resurrected life everlasting in Heaven) was done within already-existing creation, and Christianity is not therefore an explanation of creation-as-such.   

If every person is innately different, then how come some people strive to be different?

The history of whether people are - or are meant to be - essentially the same, or essentially different, is a matter of metaphysical assumptions and cannot be determined from observations and evidence -- although observations and evidence may be more, or less, consistent with the metaphysics - in different times and places. 

(Men and women, and people of different ages, have always and everywhere been regarded as qualitatively different, at least in this mortal life - until 'officially' the-day-before-yesterday, in a few Western nations...)

From what I can gather of hunter-gatherer spirituality; they regard each person as different and unique; because an unique combination of ancestors (and perhaps animal spirits). 

This is how I feel about people, 'instinctively', spontaneously. Each person that I get to know seems to be unique, with resemblances. There are, for instance, distinct likenesses between my mother, sister, and daughter - such that they are obviously relatives and have an (hereditary, presumably) affinity; but each is a very different person. 

So, from this perspective, everybody is primarily an unique individual - but some people have secondary, more-superficial similarities. 

In this primal set-up; we assume difference; and explain similarity. For example, similarities may be explained in terms of innate attributes (intelligence, personality, size, strength...), heredity, or having had similar experience. 

Traditional religions in agriculturally-based societies posit a very different set-up, however. Such societies tend to regard groups of human beings as having an essentially-identical nature, and from this assumption of sameness they explain differences. 

This goes-with - although not entailed by - the idea that souls are created from nothing at conception - i.e. because souls come into life with no baggage, it is easy to think of souls as starting-out this mortal life identically; only gathering differences throughout life. 

All people may be regarded as essentially the same in origin, or they may be divided into groups such us Us and Them, or castes - aristocrats and peasants, for instance. 

Perhaps more exactly, in agrarian society there is an ideal of sameness. 

For instance; all priests, or all members of a religion, or all citizens of a nation, may have an ideal type toward which they are encouraged to strive; and from which departures are disapproved, and perhaps punished.  

In such religion; it is often stated or implies that Men are created the same, and differences emerge later; and again in the afterlife there is either an identical state for everyone (Sheol, Hades), or else categories of particular people (Valhalla for warriors, saved and damned) within-which there is a single ideal type. 

Traditional Christian Heaven is often depicted and imagined as containing hosts of angels, and of the saved, with little or no differentiation between the individuals - as if ideal Men have returned to a primal and intended sameness. 

In modern society there is an incoherent mess on this issue, as about most things of importance; and I will not attempt to summarize the contradictory nonsense that constitute feminism, or the official views of homosexuality, or the transagenda. 

These are all destructively-motivated power ploys and PSYOPS - not attempts to describe reality. 

In brief, modern society demands total sameness - but the sameness demanded varies according to time and situation. On Tuesday race divisions may be treated as mandatorily homogeneous and primary, but by Thursday it may be about the need for sameness among (biological) men and women - while by Sunday the demand for sameness may related to chosen-identity of men and women.

Overlaps and contradictions between mandatory beliefs are ignored, because the requirement is for obedience to arbitrary whim. More more obviously arbitrary and dishonest the requirement for obedience; the more deeply corrupting such obedience will be - which is the purpose behind it.   

What is important is that - at each momentary demand to regard X and Y as the same - there be total-obedience to the asserted opinion. 

I regard the fundamental truth to be that we are all different in origin and as far back as we existed (which is eternally), and sameness is something either imposed or achieved. 

In traditional society sameness was mostly imposed; and in modern society likewise, with respect to those areas in which the rulers wish the masses to be the-same: eg in terms of obedience to Litmus Test issues.

The situation is that difference ought to be taken for granted, because it is innate; yet at the same time both traditional and modern societies depend on treating groups as de facto identical. So there is an innate tension.   

The modern idea of wanting to be, and displaying, personal difference; is a consequence of society imposing sameness on what are in fact fundamentally-unique individuals - and this desire typically emerges at adolescence, when the child is psychologically detaching from parental control. 

The adolescent therefore feels this innate tension between actual individuality and imposed uniformity most keenly. 

In traditional societies the adult role is more of an externally-imposed 'stereotype' then childhood; and innate individuality rebels against this artificial uniformity. Adolescence is a short phase during which the child is channeled into one or another of the 'uniform' and finite adult roles, as demanded by society. 

Modern ideology pretends to support individuality against this channeling, but actually demands uniformity on key (destructive) issues. The stereotypical roles have been subverted, demonized, and indeed eliminated. 

The consequence is a psychological state of perpetual adolescence - with all the contradictions that implies. The adolescent cannot grow-up, and doesn't want to.   

   

So we get the result that all means of large-scale and and coordinated societal organization tend to - indeed must, operationally-speaking - treat individuals as groups, as categories, as all-the-same. But underneath this is the experienced fact that - when we get to know people - they are all essentially different!

People then feel that they need to assert individuality; and (since these are social-functions) the asserted individuality gets channeled into a finite range of fixed categories...

Leading to the absurdity of standardized patterns of 'rebellion', standard 'rebellious' fashions and behaviours - yet all being claimed as 'self'-expression!

*

I find that I continually need to remind myself that we are all unique individuals, and that therefore - in an ultimate and spiritual sense - we each will have an unique destiny in a world created by God, our loving parents - who regard us each as uniquely as all good parents do of their children. 

A good parent does not want all his or her children to end-up as identical; but for each to fulfill his or her own specific destiny. 

A good family is not held-together by externally imposed uniformity; but by he mutual love of its members, all pointing towards the same loving future in harmony with God's creation. 

We begin and (after resurrection) end as real, unique, individuals; and Heavenly harmony is an achieved product of love - not a state of of imposed uniformity. 

Of course, the defects and practicalities of life on earth mean that this ideal is not attainable on a large scale, or permanently. 

Nonetheless, the ultimate reality of individuality is worth remembering, and that harmonious cooperation of individuals is something striven-for not spontaneous... 

But that the harmony of love is a higher, and happier and more creative, form of cooperation that the imposition of sameness.

We can thus experience Heaven on earth - but not permanently nor continuously. But that experience can (and should) motivate us towards inhabiting Heaven after death.