The innate sense of "cosmic importance"

Young children have an innate sense of the "cosmic importance" of what they do - and what they think. At such an age, our selves and our minds are part of a larger group. 

We may not be exactly aware of it, and we certainly don't know the exact scope of it (it often seems to include not just people, but other animals, nature, gods, spirits ghosts...), but we know that we are connected. 

This immersion in a group mind is for both good and ill, and is just a fact of life,

There is an in-between phase or stage, in which the inner contact is no longer a spontaneous, direct, quasi-telepathic thing; but instead is sought via symbols, language, image, stories - meand to an end; methods by which people get back (partially, temporarily) that childhood state.    

At this time and place of history; this is mostly or entirely lost. If people do feel connected and part of a large group, then it is not even at secondhand - via symbolic communications. The recent and current addiction to mass and social media is not about symbolic contact with a group mind, but about emotions; excitement, distraction, triggering of feelings. 

The experience is apparently of isolated selves observing a display of phenomena, hoping to be stimulated. 

But not entirely thus. I think there is always a sense of cosmic importance, of connection of "just being" part of something much larger - at back of people's minds, even though not-believed-in, even in these here-and-now conditions. 

Such "cosmic" intuitions are nowadays publicly mocked and pitied as necessarily immature, deluded, wishful, self-aggrandizing, sad, psychotic - in a word anyone who harbours or expresses them is insane. 

And, of course, they may be - especially when somebody tries to persuade and argue others into objectively accepting "his" special importance and significance on a large, even cosmic, scale!

Yet, this typically-modern way of explaining-away anything that might serve as a basis for purpose and meaning in life is altogether typical of our civilization - where is it a core element of the demonic "Project Despair".

This nihilism encompasses the whole of science (when science is taken to be a complete picture of life) as well as the workings of The System, its laws, bureaucracy, media and the rest of it. 

All public and official aspects of modern life are predicated on their being no "cosmic" purpose or meaning in our personal existence.   

The insanity slur is a typical modern value-inversion. 

The opposite is true: 

The reality is that anyone who does Not have a sense of cosmic significance is insane. That is; their thinking is necessarily incoherent. Their behaviour can be of personal and immediate significance merely - adding-up to nothing whatsoever.   

I think we should regard intuitive assumptions of cosmic importance as one of those aspects of innate knowledge that were built-into us by The Creator; to serve as a necessary basis for... everything else. 

What is "reality", and "real life"?

We all agree that this isn't reality - but what is? 

There is a deep confusion as to the nature of reality. 

People are, much of the time, engaged in distinguishing "real life" from something else - whether that be virtual (online) life, the memo-interactions of bureaucracy; or contrasted with media such as novels, movies or TV. 

But the "reality" that is supposed to be contrasted with these un-realities, is unclear. 

For some people reality means politics; whether international, national or local.

Yet politics is very much second-hand; with its facts, concepts and meanings all learned from secondary sources. 

"Political reality" is thus a highly theoretical thing. What's more politics is a miserable, dishonest, manipulative and destructive business. 

So if politics is real life... Well, for most people: "You can keep it!" It has near zero appeal. 

For other people, reality is the social life involving the people around them; with all the expectations and duties, the complications of sex and love for themselves and friends, the activities of their workplace, the functional business of living... These are what they mean by "real life". 

Yet this is - in a different way - a mundane business. It has pleasures and pains in various mixtures, but of-itself, our social life has neither purpose nor meaning. Social living is just something that happens, won't go away, cannot be avoided. 

Social life is also experienced (by most people, most of the time) as earthbound and ephemeral, without depth or resonance - "Just one damned thing after another" - and always ending badly. 

Other examples could be given of the basic, bottom-line unsatisfactoriness of what modern people regard as Real Life. 

My point here is that - as most people actually envisage it - reality is much less appealing, much less enjoyable, than the various forms of unreality on-offer. 

However, it is unsatisfactory to know that one is avoiding reality, and pretending that unreality is real. 

Indeed, this just does not work as a life strategy. We cannot voluntarily become pleasantly-deluded and live by those lies we calculatingly tell-ourselves. 

We cannot just believe what we want, just because it makes us feel better. It doesn't work. So those who try to make the choice of unreality, are caught up by the failure of trying to convince themselves of untruth. 

To live "as if" simply isn't strong enough to make a basis for existence.    

Consequently, when Real Life is hopelessly miserable and unappealing; and when both options of reality and virtuality/ unreality are equally hope-less - then despair seems unavoidable. 

The question of what is real, what is real life - what is really-real... Such matters are vitally important here-and-now - because this is something we really Need To Know. 

It seems paradoxical; but the most "realistic" thing that the archetypical modern Man can do, is to focus his best attention onto "metaphysics". 

That is, we need to make the basic nature of reality into the main subject of our primary effort. 

Like it or not; for us modern Westerners; right living depends on our right thinking. We don't do it; but we need to do it. 

Spiritual effects of World War Two - totalitarianism and dishonesty

Huge subject - but I've been reading memoirs and histories of WWII in the past couple of years, and pondering the spiritual effect this six year conflict had on the British people, especially. 

I have known for a while that WWI was the last time there was a significant Christian revival in the UK, in terms of a great increase in interest in "higher things" as well as full churches and more participation in public activities. 

This is confirmed by comments by CS Lewis and his circle, who noticed the revival and specualted about its meaning and direction. 

But I have become more aware of the negative effects of the war on British spiritual life. The obvious thing was recorded by Orwell - the qualitative acceleration of totalitarian bureaucracy, which is intrinsically evil - by which I mean, the totalitarian systematization and directing of Mankind is evil, and corrupts men; no matter what purpose it is used for. 

As part of this totalitarianism; the war brought a tremendous increase in systemic dishonesty. It seems that - from top to bottom - the attitude became focused on the predicted behavioural effect of statements - to which an understanding of actual reality would routinely (and indeed compulsorily) be subordinated.

   

I suspect that a great deal of the Christian revival was atavistic, backward looking, and attempt to recover an irrecoverable earlier stage of human religious consciousness. 

The revival mostly took the form of a (doomed to fail) attempt to revive the church-rooted ("medieval-premodern) form of top-down and mediated Christianity - and Christian spirituality was linked to this earlier, traditional, social form. 

After the war, the nation moved forward from its totalitarian (hence atheistic) wartime basis; and this was extended by the merger, bureaucratisation, and nationalization of many major industries and social activities. This created a secular public discourse, hence excluded Christianity, and the wartime revival rapidly collapsed. 

It appears that, in this era of human consciousness, war is always totalitarian, therefore innately hostile to the kind of spirituality that is necessary to Christianity. 

The sense of a nation or people in unity, self-sacrificing and cooperating on communal projects, working together for a common cause -- these are no longer net-benefits, but mostly mass psychological manipulations with evil intent behind them. 

I suspect that it would now be mistaken to expect any large scale spiritual benefits from war - which may be why so much high-level geopolitical activity is currently focused an escalating and spreading wars. 

In other words, mass Christianity used to be a benefit of war; but I think that mass Christianity is no longer possible - and the attempt to revive it will instead feed into the evil of totalitarianism. 

Of course, any individual person may choose to take personal spiritual responsibility, and learn spiritually from whatever his situation - including war. 

But modern war is extremely hostile to this situation of "ultimate beingness". 

For proof, we need look no further than the sin of dishonesty - and the extent to which systemic misrepresentation (untruthfulness of all kinds: hype, spin, selectivity, distortion, lies; i.e. a focus on shaping mass behavioural responses to "information") - has become integral to societal functioning. 

Once you become aware of this lethal defect, and begin to look for it; you will find manipulative dishonesty to be pervasive - not just at the political-institutional-corporate level, but almost everywhere and continuous among those who contribute to public discourse (including bloggers!). 

Of course, everyone who is part of the systemic dishonesty will publicly justify himself by claiming that it is in a good cause. But unless he recognizes and repents (privately, at least) the innate evil of dishonesty; then he is lost - spiritually speaking.  

When puppets "fight"

 

We know for sure that all the Western leaders are puppets*.

So when the puppets of the USA "fight" the puppets of European nations, then both puppets are being controlled by the same entity. 

When the puppeteer makes the puppets fight each other, this is because a fight is a necessary part of the plot, part of the driving narrative. 

*I don't know exactly who is the puppeteer-entity, the covert strategic intelligence/s controlling the puppets from outwith the public gaze. 

I don't know, and am not going to waste my time guessing -- because I do know who controls the puppeteer - and that is sufficient. 

"Cannot" end well, or "will not"

When somebody says "it cannot end well" they are usually making a pessimistic prognosis that is probabilistic. They are saying that it is too risky, that the strong likelihood is an adverse outcome. 

But when it is asserted that something will not end well, this relates to the underlying motivation. If the motivations behind a change are bad or wrong, then whatever happens (which may not be predicted) "will not" be good, because whatever happens will be expressive of that wrong motivation.  

That will not end well expressed my interpretation of the past six weeks. Whatever bad outcomes ensue are not probabilistic, but a consequence of being built upon wrong motivations.

 

Comment moderation on this blog - policies and pitfalls

For a blog that is currently (by the apparently wildly unreliable Google feedback) accumulating some 300K views per month (c 10K per day) - I do not receive or publish many comments. 

This is partly because I am not seeking comments - except from those who have something to contribute to the posts. 

I greatly value comments that have read, and engage with, the post - or blog matters more generally; and (almost) all of those I actually publish are ones I either regard as potentially helpful, or at least harmless! 

I'm very grateful for such commenters (they know who they are!), and owe a good deal to some of the matters they have raised and debated over the years.

Indeed; without them I would probably have stopped blogging years ago.   

I neither read nor publish anonymous comments, and I block (filter-to-delete) all comments from those whom I suspect to be trolls or shills (e.g. from people who appear from nowhere, having just opened a pseudonymous Google account, and suddenly submit at least one comment for every post!) 

Nor do I publish comments from people who seem to want to use the blog for confessional psychotherapy; or to "set me right" on matters concerning which they are ignorant - e.g. by informing me of the official orthodox theology of whatever is their church - as if that was a refutation of my views - views that they have not troubled to discover.  

In fact, one of my own nasty little Schadenfreude tendencies; is when I delete Anonymous comments, or block what I have decided are troll-shill commenters! 

I repent this spiteful glee... But not the acts of deleting and blocking, which is necessary work. 

Schadenfreude derangement syndrome

The current orgy of Schadenfreude continues to escalate - energized a few days ago by a staged, acted and broadcast PR pseudo-spat over the Fire Nation war; a news-event which has been uncritically accepted at face value, and thereby ecstatically celebrated, by (apparently) hordes of people; individuals who, just a few weeks ago, expressed deep scepticism over the machinations of mainstream politics and the mass media. 

Yet another Litmus Test massively failed! 

It is becoming clear that the double-negative agenda is alive and well, dominating and sweeping-aside what has thereby been revealed as a shallow, feeble, self-gratifying, and this-worldly Christianity.   

Double-negative values are a hallmark of The Left - which is united only by its opposition to (ultimately) God and divine creation. 

The self-identified political "Right", including advocates of an imaginary and impossible "nationalism", have recently come-out as crypto-leftists - which, indeed, is the inevitable convergence of all primarily this-worldly and double-negative ideals.

In sum: The Right is united only by its rejection of The Left (i.e. particular-labelled individuals and institutions) - such that the only powerful source of Right triumphalism is when their Left-identified enemies appear to be getting humiliated and destroyed. 

(Note: In our world, all is of-the-left - except where religion is put first - and where that religion is motivationally-rooted beyond this world). 

There is a strong lure in religion that seems to combine success and status, power and prestige, pride and self-esteem, progress and historical inevitability, with aspects of real Christianity that is "not of this world". 

The proposed syncresis of this and next-world benefits appears in many guises through history - and dominates much of online Christian discourse; which is the reason behind current ecstasies of virtual Schadenfreude. 

The "prosperity Gospel" is indeed much more widespread than its crudest evangelists: the idea that the path to economic, or sexual, success lies via Christianity is a very popular and influential one online. 

Of course, Christianity must and should be-of-this-world as well as the next: not least because the incarnation and mortal life of Jesus Christ is evidence of this. 

In other words our mortal lives have purpose for as long as they are sustained by God. So a retreat from The World is not even a theoretical option for Christians - we must and should engage. 

But... in a civilization and society so completely built upon materialism and the denial of the spirit; in a world dominated by corrupt, and demonic-allied, institutions; it ought to be perfectly clear and evident that goodness cannot, therefore will not, emanate from, nor be gifted top-down by, those with institutional and official power/ wealth/ social status.  

It ought to be evident that politico-media-events intended to demonstrate the humiliation or destruction of people, organizations, nations - are not going to be evidence of, nor harbingers of, goodness. 

Indeed, the likely reality behind the façade of apparent destruction is not even difficult to discern for those with a bit of accurate knowledge who stand-back from the contrived frenzy - even when these people have no religious basis. 

(In a geopolitical world of puppet leaders; the spectacle of one puppet berating another for the cameras, should be obvious as what it is: a puppet-show.)  

The spiritual war of this world is essentially about "hearts and minds" - and the great aim of the various factions of evil is not to impose physical/material slavery or misery; but to induce individuals to choose to commit themselves (hearts and minds) to one or another of the agendas of evil. 

Evil is only spiritually effective when it has been freely embraced. That is why our enthusiasm, support, and hope; are so assiduously cultivated by The Establishment. 

And that embrace of evil is precisely what we are observing, in real time, on a day-by-day basis. People who were, until recently, apparently Christian; are changing sides; abandoning salvation as their primary goal -- 

And instead they are committing more and more of their support, energies, enthusiasm, efforts (and, worst of all, hopes) on what is at root a negative, destructive, demon-motivated agenda. 

Like Son, unlike Father: King Henry the Eighth, versus Henry the Seventh

Henry VII and VIII - These two portraits express well their differences

It is a sad reflection on the English that Henry VIII continues to get continual attention, and a kind of sneaking admiration, for his (unsurpassed except by except by William I) rapacious brutality in the Dissolution of the Monasteries; together with his "achievement"of having six wives. 

Yet Henry the Eighth left England far weaker, poorer and more internally conflicted than he found the nation. 

By contrast, Henry the Eighth's father, Henry Tudor, was one of the best of English Monarchs, the last King of Merrie England. 

This is not recognized for various reasons. Henry Tudor's character was shrewd and compassionate - he was not "larger than life" like his son. 

Also, English people have forgotten the colossal destructiveness of "the Wars of the Roses", decades of selfish and self-destructive civil war between Lancastrian and Yorkist aristocrats; to which Henry VII put an end. 

As a measure of destructiveness; when the English population was only about 2-3 million, the Roses wars were a terrible drain on the fittest and most productive of the national population. For instance, the Battle of Towton (hardly known by anyone, nowadays) probably killed something like 4% or more of the military-age and physically able men (ie. something like 25,000) in a single horrific day of mutual slaughter.  

But the saddest reflection on our national memory is related to the marriage question. 

While Henry VIII married six times (plus mistresses, and illegitimate children) of which he killed two, and "divorced" (technically had-annulled) another two - in contrast, his father Henry Tudor had what has been described as perhaps the most genuinely loving Royal Marriage in English history. 

This, despite that the marriage was originally a "political" alliance between the houses of Lancaster (Henry) and York (his wife Elizabeth). 

Henry seems, indeed, to have been that most unusual thing among monarchs - a loving husband and father. The husband and wife were devastated by the premature death of his first son and heir Arthur, Prince of Wales at age 15; and then Henry was even more affected by the death of his wife - after which he was never the same again. 

Nonetheless, and despite the fault of a somewhat miserly greed in his final widowed years; Henry VII left England a stronger, richer, more peaceful, unified and powerful nation; and the English monarch probably the most secure and dominant leader in Europe. 

Most of which achievement (except domestic power) his son then exploited and dissipated for personal gratification - with adverse consequences that extended for several generations.   

If nations usually get the monarchs they deserve; then the relative English reputations of these two Henrys may partly explain how this happens. 

Are explanations really necessary? Must we personally seek understanding?

It's often been recommended that we should cease to seek explanations (which are, anyway, always wrong by ultimate standards); and should instead just accept what is. 

It is said: We should acknowledge that we cannot know, and strop striving for something unattainable, and very probably misleading. 

Indeed, it is often asserted, that searching for explanations is just a waste of time, because it will fail to find anything with which we can be contented.

Sooner or later; we will give-up the quest - so why not do it sooner?  

Another way of saying the same thing is that it is the activity and process of seeking which justifies the exercise. For instance, this is a common New Age-y suggestion - the ideal of being be a perpetual "spiritual seeker". However, on examination this advice reduces to meaning that seeking explanations - discovering, trying-out, then dropping one after the other -  is justified merely because it passes the time before death fairly-pleasantly, and relatively-harmlessly. It reduces spirituality from a matter of primary human concern, to the level of a hobby.  

Even since I became a Christian; I have often tried to stop myself seeking explanations; tried to be contented with some kind of simple faith. 

I have tried this with more than one Christian denomination/church. Tried to stop myself questioning and trying to understand - on the basis that such activity was futile at best, destructive of faith at worst - because it never seemed to reach an end point. 

Yet - especially - the events of 2020 hammered-home why - in a world such as that we inhabit; which is a world where public discourse is near-monopolistically dominated by evil-affiliated powers - the seeking of explanations and personal understanding is now almost essential for Christians --- if Christians are not to be led away from salvation and into voluntarily embracing damnation. 

I have noticed again and again that the attempt (here and now I mean - and I note that it was not always and everywhere thus) to be "content without explanations", to seek to "rest upon "the mystery" of existence", are attitudes that have long-since been weaponised as a tool of Satan. 

It seems to be a psycho-social fact that the only matters upon which people Actually Do cease to seek understanding, and are contented without explanation, on which they rest-comfortably as if upon the ultimate mysteriousness of existence... 

In practice, the only much matters are those where knowledge/ ideas/theories/facts are supported by the civilizational, media, official, bureaucratic, institutional consensus. 

In practice, therefore; the advice to cease seeking personal understanding is equivalent to recommending that we live in accordance with the dominant social consensus. 

There are many theoretical possibilities for conducting our spiritual lives, but in practice it seems that the only alternative to accepting social consensus, is personally to keep seeking understanding and a satisfactory explanation. 

So, I would remind myself - and suggest to others - that in the situation of a Modern Man of 2025 it is a snare to cease striving for understanding.

And that we ought instead to discover for ourselves, and to our personal satisfaction, explanations for every aspect of existence that we regard as important. 

Of course (as always) such a search must strive to be completely honest, and must Christianly-motivated; because if we seek (whether consciously or unconsciously) any this-worldly and hedonic outcome such as comfort or convenience, therapy or thrills - then our "explanations" will be expedient merely, and we shall not achieve solid understanding. 

The only real alternative to a personal quest for explaining and understanding the essentials of our faith; is to accept spiritually lethal rule by consensus external values -- which is embrace the side of damnation in the spiritual war of this world. 

*

(Note added: The relationship between understanding and explanation is synergistic. We must first understand, then try to explain - primarily to our-selves, and to our own satisfaction. Difficulties with explaining may reveal lack of understanding; or the attempt to be clear in our explanation may reveal problems with that understanding. Therefore explanation is a check, a test; and one that may lead back to searching for better understanding.) 

For the record: I Was Wrong, with my recent geopolitical prediction

Just to note that my recent geopolitical prediction that there would, before March, be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - was wrong. 

Soviet and socialist origins of the British folk music revival

Ewan MacColl (pseudo-Scotsman Jimmy Miller from Lancashire) and Peggy Seeger (pseudo-ethnic WASP). Hard-working, knowledgeable, talented, tyrannical spooks 

I'm reading an oral history of Folk Clubs, called Singing from the Floor, by JP Bean (2014) which institutions were the main manifestation of the British Folk Revival from the middle 1950s until the late 1970s. 

I knew this movement pretty well and participated somewhat, towards the end of this era; and perhaps because I came late to it, I had not previously realized the extent to which the trend was dependent upon the Communist Party (in effect the government of the USSR), and socialist Trades Unions, for planning, funding, publicity and organization.  

This top-down and social engineering aspect of the British Folk Revival is perfectly clear cut, not hidden, and was always openly acknowledged (albeit the fact that the activities of UK communism were primarily as a tool of USSR foreign policy, was never generally recognized). 

Like so much of popular music and popular culture generally, it turns-out that the public face and administrators of Folk Music (aside from the always present actually "folk" musicians, such as farm workers and miners) were the intelligence branches of the Eastern Bloc, and their sympathizers and collaborators within the UK Establishment and Labour movements. 

(All of which is ironic considering, this was supposed to be a grass-roots, bottom-up movement, emanating from "the folk" and representing the ideas and ideals of the "secret people" of Britain - the often nameless working "masses". But I suppose this always has been standard operating procedure for the left, who are always appointing themselves spokesmen on behalf of somebody else.)

In the end, the movement outgrew its roots, and the aspects of folk music that I most liked were either disconnected-from or hostile-to the original Soviet-agent "controllers" such as Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, or AL Lloyd.   

But there is no doubt in my mind that a major aspect of the Folk movement was covert-agenda-driven, was upper and middle class in origin and actuality; and that this strategy was highly successful in its (presumed) political aims of permeating many performers and audience with a particular world view and assumptions. 

And what applied to Folk Music (top-down, organized and funded for strategic political purposes by leftist sources) was analogously true (although probably with less direct Soviet influence, and a more Western Intelligence impulse) for the much larger "pop culture" of Britain. 

Thus were built-into people - at an early and formative stage of life, and especially associated with enjoyment, happy memories and day dreams during the "coming of age" years of teenage and young adulthood - ideas and ideals that have been for many decades a cultural compulsion and obsession in The West. 

And which consequently still exert a near-monopoly in large sectors of the population in the UK.

Job done!

Systemic social problems - the implicit utopianism of the Left and the implicit selfishness of the Right

In any possible and realistically-imaginable society in this mortal life on earth, there will be situations and people who are having an absolutely and/or relatively miserable time of it. 

This may be due to the necessity for "dirty work" - or it may be due to all manner of negative aspects of any system. Because no matter how overall-optimal a system of society may be, it will be imperfect; it will include groups and/or individuals who are less favoured at least - and usually groups/ individuals who are systematically dis-favoured. 

By my understanding, Leftism began in the late 1700s with movements such as abolition and pacifism; and gathered strength through the 1800s with many varieties of socialism; before developing the current New Left-ism - sexual politics such as feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, transhumanism etc - to dominate from the later 1960s. 

Early Leftism was often explicitly utopian - positing an ideal society that was sometimes claiming to be a possible paradise; even if not quite "Heaven on earth". 

In recent decades Leftism has abandoned explicit utopianism, but retains a wholly-implicit, never stated, assumption of the perfectibility of human society; from which stance proceeds its critique of any degree of absolute or relative inequality, or suffering. 

In other words, Leftism is rooted in a denial of the systematic imperfection of all possible human societies; which is why Leftism is insatiable, and leads to the state of "permanent revolution" that has prevailed over the past six decades.

All problems that the Left focuses upon are always regarded as systemic and requiring systemic change; then, because all possible systems have problems - the Left  

To take racism in the USA as an example; at first the focus was upon laws and practices that excluded or disadvantaged, so that opposite "affirmative action" laws were introduced. The focus then shifted to unequal outcomes; so that quotas were introduced. Then the focus shifted to individuals' subjective feelings of oppression, disrespect, neglect etc ("micro-aggressions"). Then to a requirement for positive acts of group affirmation, admiration, celebration. 

And so forth. 

What all of these imply without ever stating; is than any degree of imperfection in a social system is intolerable and ought to lead to system change - with the unstated assumption that this will lead towards a perfect system where no such problems will occur. 

This strong assumption of perfectibility would probably be denied; yet there is always an assumption that things can and will be improved overall by each proposed or actual system change; and that there is no limit to such improvability. 

Such assumptions and denials inevitably lead to systematic dishonesty, which has been such a major feature of Western social development over the past several decades; until here-and-now those with power think and behave wholly manipulatively with respect to their implicit Left-agenda; and are "not even trying" to be honest about anything.   

I regard this implicit assumption of societal perfectibility as an almost inevitable consequence of the atheistic this-worldly materialism of Western Societies; in certain personality types. I am thinking of those people who regard suffering as the main human problem; or who judge a society on how it treats what they regard as its most "disadvantaged" members. These are the Leftists, and are in practice systematically dishonest. 

Other atheistic this-worldly materialists are less concerned about suffering; and more interested in optimizing peace, prosperity, comfort, convenience, and gratification. These are those who regard themselves as on "the Right". They accept the inevitability of imperfection and the necessity for compromise in systems - but disagree among themselves on what social system is optimal, and/or how to attain it. In practice, Rightists are systematically selfish - i.e. favouring a social system that they believe favours themselves (+/- favouring people like themselves). 

As I see it; the only alternative is to adopt a Christian not atheist, spiritual not materialist, and Heaven-focused not this-world-focused, perspective on all possible social systems. 

 

The current orgy of virtual Schadenfreude

The current online orgy of virtual Schadenfreude - triggered by media reports of the activities of the new US Presidential administration - is a dismaying spectacle in many ways, from my Christian perspective.

"Schadenfreude" describes the (spiteful) emotion of gratification at the (real or imagined) sufferings of others - typically of one's enemies. "Real or imagined" is relevant, since the current sufferings are substantially imagined, being learned-of via news-media reports and governmental/ bureaucratic announcements. 

That is why I inserted the word "virtual" - because the information on the sufferings is substantially indirect, secondhand, and obtained via mass/social media and from State sources. 

At least two things should be said about this online delight. 

The first is to clarify that reports of sufferings will almost certainly be misleading. 

The second, and more important, that the reported activities being celebrated are almost-wholly negative and destructive in nature - therefore not driven by any explicit and conscious, positive Christian motivation.

I have been deeply suspicious of claims of destruction of the managerial bureaucracy, since I had inside experience of such events about thirty years ago, within the UK National Health Service. 

The government of that era claimed to be determined to "cut red tape", including severely reducing the particular layer of bureaucracy within-which I was working. 

Official announcements from the specific layer of NHS bureaucracy also claimed (and complained) that it was being reduced severely. About 150 jobs were supposedly to be cut from a single office complex where I worked - and official returns to this effects were submitted. 

The news media duly reported the 150 jobs cut. 

Yet those on the inside knew that this was a kind of theatre for public consumption. 

In reality, hardly any jobs were cut - and these were almost exclusively among those who wanted to leave anyway and were grateful for severance pay. 

Nearly all of the 150 sacked/ let-go were redeployed within the larger organization; and/or rehired into almost the same jobs, shortly after the big announcement of cuts. 

The message is that, when you hear or read about job-cuts, layoffs, closures etc; all this kind of stuff may quite easily be faked - but faked in a way that is not detectable without detailed inside knowledge. 

The deeper problem with this current celebrations of destruction, is that of the underlying motivation. (Because the difference between virtue and sin, between good and evil, is essentially that of motivation - rather than specific action). 

A motivation for destruction as such, is anti-divine-creation, hence an evil motivation - and therefore leads to more and greater evil. 

And this applies pretty much for anything that might be destroyed - almost regardless of how useless or evil it is. 

An historical comparison could be the Dissolution of the Monasteries that happened in England under the rule of Henry the Eighth. 

The Roman Catholic Church itself, and its religious orders in particular - monasteries, friaries, priories, nunneries - owned a vast and still increasing proportion of the national wealth (from memory, something between a third and a half of the land). 

Church abuses were rife and widely experienced by the English population; there was a good deal of exploitation, luxury, self-indulgence, and political activity; and apparently much less (although certainly still a significant amount!) of asceticism, scholarship, piety, charity, and virtue. 

Therefore, there was no shortage of those among the English who celebrated (even when they did not personally benefit from) the truly colossal appropriation, violence and destruction that followed. 

My impression is that there was a good deal of tacit, if not active, public support for the Dissolution - as well as senior political, and a large segment of religious, leadership involvement. 

A great deal, therefore, of Schadenfreude was evident in the Dissolution. 

For instance; when the last major Abbey, in Glastonbury, was closed and demolished, and the greatest monastic library in England was destroyed; and its Abbot and two other senior clerics were publicly hung on top of Glastonbury Tor - it seems that the local population were pleased to observe their ex-landlords get "what was coming to them". 

Yet the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a national catastrophe, especially for the middle and poorer classes, from which it took England generations to recover - if indeed it ever did recover. More than a century of terribly destructive religious wars and exterminations were initiated. For many decades, there were almost no schools or hospitals, and no organized provision for relief of the poor.  

My simple point is that when goals are negative and destruction is the primary aim - and when this is unacknowledged, un-repented; spiritual disaster will surely ensue. Because this is, in effect, a celebration and endorsement of evil. 

No amount of negative action ever amounts to a positive strategy - and almost all current self-styled positive motivations are merely double-negative simulations. Or else, like Western "nationalism" as of 2025; almost wholly wishful, conjectural - hence in practice very secondary to other motives, and far too feeble to be effectual. 

With respect to the native populations of Western nations in 2025; any motivation that is truly good, positive, virtuous; absolutely needs to be consciously chosen and a grass-roots/ bottom-up phenomenon. 

Because, however differently things were in the past, good cannot now be done covertly nor in a top-down fashion. 

So that all fantasies of covert positive top-down agendas among the ruling elites are impossible, as well as unreal.   

  

In sum - the current orgy of online Schadenfreude may concern much that is merely virtual; and by its celebration of negative and destructive motivations, is very likely (from a Christian point of view) to prove multi-valently corrupting of those who engage in it. 

(As, indeed, seems to be the case.) 

What prevents "war in Heaven"? Or, the necessity for death and resurrection

The phrase war in Heaven is common enough, sometimes used to describe a rebellion of Lucifer and the demons against God, and a subsequent war among spiritual beings with Michael the Archangel leading the forces on God's side*. 

Yet, if we really think about it, "war in Heaven" is nonsense, an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 

Because - if there is war, then it isn't Heaven. And if there is a Heaven, then there cannot be war in it, nor even the possibility of war. 

*(If the war of God and angels versus demonic rebels did indeed happen in the time before Christ; and I believe something of that sort did happen, albeit it was and still is probably continuous, rather than a finite war - then it was not a war in Heaven. It was/is a war in the First Creation which was not and cannot be Heaven - not a war in Jesus Christ's Second Creation.)  

Heaven did not exist, and was not even claimed to exist, until Jesus Christ. It was Jesus that "made" Heaven, and made Heaven a possible destination for Men.  

But the "trouble" was and still is, that Jesus made Heaven on the other side of death; Jesus insisted that Men must die (as did he) and be "born-again" in order to dwell in Heaven. 

This has never been popular! 

People do not want to wait until after death. They want Heaven here and now! - or as soon as possible. They want to dwell in Heaven as they are, and not as they become after death. They want Heaven on Earth. 

Why then did Jesus insist that Men must die? Why not abolish death? 

Well, if we assume Jesus was both good and competent; then we must assume that death was necessary for Heaven: necessary for Heaven to exist; necessary for Men to live-forever and go to Heaven; necessary in order that Heaven actually be Heaven. 

And this can be understood by considering how war in Heaven is prevented. 

While some kind of powerful government could suppress dissent, detect and punish rebels etc - this would not be Heaven. (Being a thwarted, or brainwashed, rebel is not a Heavenly state!)

War in Heaven can only be ruled-out eternally if not a single one of the denizens of Heaven ever want war - and this situation must be eternal.  

In other words; the inhabitants of Heaven must - of their very nature, spontaneously, by their own fundamental desires and motivations - always and forever desire to live in love and harmony with God, and with each other. 

The "problem" was how to arrive at this situation; given that Men (and all other Beings) just-are free agents? 

The problem is: How can free agents become eternally good?

And my answer is that Men need to be able to make permanent their commitments, their choices, their deepest desires. 

Here on earth we cannot stick to our commitments, cannot stick to our choices. 

New Years resolutions get broken! The grandiose hopes of qualitative self-reform and betterment in a new Christian convert, never work-out. The "Old Adam" is ineradicable, as the Apostle Paul famously complained.  

We may passionately want to do this or that, or to be good, loving persons; but always we get distracted, or sick or older; our motives or mood change; circumstances change - and over-and-again we want something different, and end by doing something else altogether. 

Even/especially the greatest Saints are self-acknowledged to be great - almost continuous - sinners (by the truest standards of sin; sin as something-like deviation from the loving nature of divine creation).  

For there to be a Heaven, Men need to be able to choose God, Divine Creation, Love and all that is Good - and to choose this-only and this-forever. 

The way this happens is resurrection. 

We can therefore consider resurrection to be the way that we are enabled to make our commitments permanent. 

And resurrection first requires death. 

Thus resurrected Beings can live forever in Heaven without war, resurrection includes a permanent choice, an eternally-binding commitment, by which Men are (thanks to Jesus Christ) now able to make for ourselves.

It will surely be asked: "But why can't we have resurrection without death?"

The only real answer is: because that is the nature of things. If we want resurrection, we must die. 

It makes sense to me that resurrection can only be after death; because it entails a kind of permission to be re-made as eternal Beings; and although resurrection is a material process as well as spiritual, the process is essentially spiritual - because the material is a sub-set of the spiritual. 

(i.e. Originally there were only spiritual Beings  the material came later in creation. All materiality is also spiritual, but there can be and is spiritual being that is not material.)

I conceive of death as a kind of dissolution, or dissolving of my beingness from its current temporarily incarnated (embodied) level of creation, back towards a primal and immaterial (only-spiritual) simplicity that is a barely-conscious mere-existence. 

I envisage resurrection as redirecting the death-process by which only-and-all of that which is Good in me is taken, retained, rebuilt into the resurrected me.

The resurrected me is still me because it is a transformation of my eternal Being; but it is only remade of that which is Good, which is Heaven-compatible and Heaven-sustaining. 

The resurrected me will be eternal because this selective process retains only that which is harmonious and loving; and leaves-behind forever all that would have potential to generate dissent, rebellion or war against that-which-makes-Heaven-heavenly. 

In other words all of my mortal self that leads to death (all evil, and all "entropy") is left-behind in the process of resurrection, therefore after resurrection creation is unopposed and life is everlasting. 

How this selection process during resurrection actually happens, I guess to be the point at which the Christian imperative of "following Jesus Christ" comes-in. It may be as if we are continually-guided-through the process of resurrection (knowing what must be retained, what must be let-go and shed) by the very simple matter of Love. 

The discernment of what to keep, what to discard; comes from that love which motivates anyone who permanently desires Heaven, and the outer direction of that love to Jesus Christ and what he offers us. 

In different words; it is the loving and personal attention of Jesus Christ towards our souls during the process of dying, that enables resurrection; and which enables Heaven to exist...

And which enables Heaven to be heavenly, including that there can never be any desire for, or possibility of, "war in Heaven".  

**

H/T - Francis Berger's comment that a possible motivation for those who insist on an Omni-God is that they fear that anything less than an Omni-God will not always and forever be able to defeat Beings that might strive to usurp creation. God therefore (supposedly) desires to retain an infinite and qualitative gulf between Himself and all created-Beings. (Or rather, this gulf just-is, and a consequence is that nobody and nothing can subvert creation.) Such a line of reasoning is, I think, just an extreme case of the much more general problem stated here: how can Heaven stay "heavenly" when its inhabitants are free agents. The above is my understanding of how this is so, and some the consequences. Once it is understood that the denizens of Heaven can, by free and irrevocable choice, permanently be fully in harmonious accord with God's creative purposes and methods - then there is no reason why Men cannot rise to a level of divinity on-a-par with God the primary creator; and join-with God as partners in the work of creation.  

Saving the Appearances - excellent audiobook version read by Aaron Parker

A complete audiobook version of Owen Barfield's most important book Saving the Appearances has been recorded on YouTube by Aaron Parker.  

This is an excellent resource, because Saving the Appearances, although extremely well written, has often proved to be difficult for people to understand. 

At least, many people, including myself, seem to have misunderstood the book and failed to recognize its exceptionally deep and transformative implications on a first reading. 

I think this is likely to be helped by Aaron Parker's impressive narration, which is highly engaged with the text; and articulated with an emphasis and modulation that makes it both easier to maintain concentration, and to grasp the argument. 

Saving the Appearances has been a life-changing book for many people. If you have never yet tried it, or tried and didn't "get" it; then here is a new kind of opportunity for you. 

At what point in The Lord of the Rings did Frodo claim the One Ring for himself?

Illustration by LizaGreywords

At what point in The Lord of the Rings did Frodo claim the One Ring for himself? 

Perhaps not when you think! 

Over at my Notion Club Papers blog, I expound a convincing and coherent theory by a Tumblr-user name of Mikke; that shines new light on what exactly happened at the climactic scene of The Lord of the Rings. 

Dirty Work: What about the "necessary evils" of civilization?

Having grown-up in the 1970s (i.e. as a teen), and one who also read a good deal of philosophical/ political stuff from the late 19th, early 20th century onwards; I was familiar with the problem that any civilization entails a good deal of Dirty Work.

My interpretation of Dirty Work is the stuff that needs doing in order for a particular society to sustain itself, but which is the kind of thing that it would be better if nobody did; and therefore it is an ineradicable flaw that somebody has to do it. 

Whatever the society, real or imagined, and no matter how ideal in terms of what is realistically possible - it was pretty generally recognized, including among honest socialists (who used to exist!) and others of the left, that there is always Dirty Work that needed doing. 

That DW might be coal-mining, agricultural drudgery, factory assembly lines - or it might be military and police, prisons and guards, propaganda and incentivizing... But there is always Dirty Work to be done - and it was regarded as a genuine problem how to square this necessity with the ideal society; because it is a problem with all societies. 

Even among those who acknowledged the problem, there were always people who supposed that kicking the can a bit further down the road constituted an answer. 

Replacing labouring people with machines was one instance - because it replaced the problem of doing exhausting physical labour; with instead a vastly complex system of multi-national, multi-personal, economics and trade - including systems of education, training, factory work, transportation etc - all of which was just as systemic, just as mandatory (hence, ultimately coerced), as the toiling peasant.

The same problems apply to any imaginable system of religion that might be integrated with any ideal society. The building and maintenance of churches, the provision of religious professionals (priests, theologians, administrators etc) and the systems needed to provide these (education, training, discipline, monitoring etc), a system of laws and rules for the religion - the problem of Dirty Work in any realistically conceivable religion is indeed very extensive   

So this problem of the necessarily coercive and Dirty nature of every realistically conceivable society, was a constant problem for those who were honest, and who also hoped and intended to improve human life on this earth. 

The key terms above include "realistic" and "honest" - because (starting in the middle sixties, and beginning to become dominant through the 1970s) it became evident that it had become acceptable, indeed mainstream in public and intellectual discourse, to dispose of the problem of Dirty Work by being unrealistic and dishonest. 

For examples; by denying there was a necessary problem, or removing the problem by hand-waving. That is certainly the point we have now reached, and for a long time. 

The discussions of sex and sexuality, or race, are prime instances. The favoured outcomes are merely wish-fulfilment daydreams. Realistic evaluation - e.g. in terms of negative outcomes of policy, inevitable compromises, necessary and unavoidable flaws - is not just neglected but prohibited. 

This began with the denial of adverse personal and social outcomes from a system that allowed, then encouraged, extra-martial sex, promiscuity, normalized cohabitation, and introduced "no-fault" divorce - and went on from there as the sexual revolution expanded without limit.    

Environment is another instance. In the early-mid seventies it was acknowledged that preservation of nature and enhancement of the natural environment would require a lower population, a lower "standard of living", a great simplification of life, fewer and less complex machines - with less consumption and travel and so forth... 

But currently all such Dirty Work inevitabilities are just left-out, blocked from discussion - and boosteristic, vague, wishful thinking reigns unopposed.  

Much the same applies among modern Christians. While it used to be very generally accepted that there is a large Dirty Work aspect to system-integrated Church Christianity (of all denominations, although the main problems differed for each) - that this was an ineradicably very mixed solution to the problem of religion; nowadays such matters are left-out of discussion.

Probably in consequence; the Dirty Work, systemic aspects of the Christian churches have almost-completely taken over; and everything else (the actual religion that is supposed to be "provided" by the apparatus of organization) is so marginalized as to be all-but invisible (or, as in the Birdemic, eliminated until-further-notice). 

Furthermore; those who advocate a return to a society rooted in orthodox traditionalism seem to be living in an unrealistic and dishonest fantasy day-dream; where either there are no Dirty Work aspects of their desired theocratic system - or else these necessary flaws are re-interpreted as Good Things. 

This problem applies to all actual and possible Christian Churches. System always entails Dirty Work. 

What I mean is that stuff which used to be known as "necessary evils", are either no longer regarded as necessary or (more often) no longer regarded as evil!... Usually on the basis that the system advocated is, overall, judged better than the (totalitarian, materialist, evil-motivated) system in place currently - which is a very low bar to leap! 

And this applies pretty much across the board, including among far too many Christians. Dishonesty and unrealism are institutionalized; and not just accepted, but required in public discourse - even among dissenting minorities. 

So I have circled back to my old (well-worn?) point about the necessity of honesty, if anything is to be accomplished from the situation we now inhabit. 

And the further point I wish to make is that - in a world where honesty is neither valued nor permitted - this is a matter for each individual to do for himself. Self-honesty. 

Striving for honesty about everything, with oneself, for oneself (and God). 

Personal responsibility in all (or as many as possible) things - in other words. 

Recognizing "Entropy" (change, death) as The Problem - there have been three suggested Answers

Even if we (somehow) lived in an utterly perfect society under an utterly ideal political system - there would still be the problem of evil. 

Even if the problem of evil was (somehow) cured; then there would still be the problem of entropy - of change, degeneration, disease, death. 

Entropy is the ultimate enemy.

(Although modern Westerners have lost sight of it; the ultimacy of the problem of entropy has been recognized at least since the earliest known Greek philosophers, and is the focus of the Fourth Gospel's account of the purpose and work of Jesus Christ - i.e. at the very heart of Christianity.)  

There have been (I think) three suggested ways that purport to solve the ultimate problem of entropy:

1. By Stasis

2. By Spirit

3. By Resurrection  

The cure by stasis is that entropy is caused by (indeed actually is) change; and is solved by a reality in which there is no change. Eternity is therefore static. 

The cure by spirit is that entropy is caused by matter, by "the material"; and therefore is solved by the replacement of matter by immaterial spirit. (Including that our death is, ultimately, due to being incarnated.) Eternity is therefore spiritual. 

The cure by resurrection is that there must first be death, and after death (for those Beings that "follow" Jesus Christ) there can be a transformation, a re-making; such that we again become incarnated (i.e. made of solid "matter") that is everlasting, inhabiting a Heaven where we remain our-selves, and in which there is change.  

The idea of resurrection as a cure for entropy is therefore something new and different from the more ancient ideas of stasis and/or spiritualization.  

I find the answers of stasis and spirit to be incoherent from a Christian perspective; because they raise the problem of why a loving personal God would compel His children to pass-through the entropic phase of mortal incarnation. If stasis, or spirit, are the answer - why bother with all this tedious mucking-about in this state of change and as matter? If entropy is to be solved by stasis or spiritualization, why create the problem at all - why create change, why create matter?  

But resurrection has not been understood as a third and qualitatively different solution from stasis and spirit - so that most supposed-explanations of resurrection, instead revert to variations and combinations of stasis and spirit. 

A satisfactory and coherent explanation of resurrection needs to include:

1. Why death is necessary? Why does God not go directly to the non-entropic state of things? 

2. Why our continued mortal life is necessary? If death is necessary to the abolition of entropy, then why don't we die ASAP and get on with the real business of post-mortal resurrected living? 

It is because I could not find any such explanations, that I was compelled to devise coherent answers for myself; and why I ended-up with a new kind of metaphysical Christian theology. 

The Litmus Tests are really learning opportunities

The Litmus Tests to which I so often refer on this blog, are a mixture of old and new - they are continually being added-to. 

I first conceptualized them in 2020 in reference to the Birdemic and Peck, which were added onto much longer established Totalitarian Establishment strategies - such as pacifism, socialism, feminism and sexual revolution, antiracism, climate change etc. 

Since 2020 there have been further Litmus Tests, such as (especially in the UK) the war against the Fire Nation. And currently there is a Litmus Test with reference to taking sides in the civil war that is splitting the globalist materialists of the Totalitarian Establishment.

(Or apparently so - because the civil war may ultimately, at the highest level, be a faked show put-on to manipulate the masses.)   

It is pretty clear that the Litmus Tests never stop. As commenter Laeth has said; each new Test probes for different vulnerabilities among those people (and institutions) who had been able to hold-out against being assimilated into active support to the Totalitarian Agenda*. 

Thus the healthism of the Birdemic/ Peck led to the corruption of most of the the holdouts among mainstream Christian churches... Conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons that had resisted the sexual revolution; became wildly-enthusiastic about closing their churches and suspending activities until further notice; and imposing lockdown, atomistic social isolation, and habits of systematic interpersonal fear.  

Later; some of those who had successfully resisted the Birdemic manipulations, then joined with a nationally-orchestrated, media-constructed, Orwellian "two-minute hate session" against the Fire Nation - a two-minutes that has continued for three years, so far (and which is still actively attempting to create a self-annihilating all-out state of war, with the UK as prime target). 

The current situation wit hte new President in the USA is but the most recent Litmus Test. This has, like previous tests, been able to subvert and "turn" a significant proportion of those "holdouts" who had resisted the Birdemic and Fire Nation Tests. It seems that perhaps a majority of "based" online anti-woke, self-identified Christians; have gone all-in for an almost delirious combination of schadenfreude with this-worldly-optimism; the whole thing focused on various Antichrist-figures among the mainstream, totalitarian establishment. 

In one sense these Litmus Tests can be understood as an almost inevitable consequence of the increasing power of Satan and his demons and human servants within this-world - clearly, they will continue to win more-and-more souls to an more-certain (self-chosen) damnation. 

On the other hand they may perhaps be seen as tests allowed by God; because of the opportunities each one brings for a different kind of spiritual learning, and therefore spiritual development - an education in preparation for our post-mortal resurrected life. 

(Which education is, IMO, the purpose of our sustained mortal life. We each continue to live because we have more that it would be good - and perhaps essential - for us to learn.) 

However, I personally do not see the Litmus test as allowed by God nor as a divinely ordained method of spiritual education. Instead I see them as things that God cannot prevent, in this world as it actually is. 

My understanding is: The Litmus Tests originate variously, but become strategies due to their potential for evil and are sustained for that reason. 

They are not of-God; but God can and does (as always) make the best of the bad situations that result, because of his love for each of us, as His divine children. 

And we should take the same attitude of making the best spiritual use of the situations. We should regard the Litmus Tests as direct challenges - not to our peace/ prosperity/ comfort/ convenience; but challenges to our innermost spiritual freedom, the primacy of Christian love, and the requirement for absolute personal responsibility. 

The core part of this is realizing that, for all their geopolitical qualities, the Litmus Tests are Not primarily about material circumstances for large numbers of people in this-world - on the contrary; their true primary reality is directed at the free individual human soul; who always-can and needs-to discern reality in-and-for-himself; whatever the pressures and distractions of this material and social world.   

*Note: As I have previously said; the special significance of Litmus Tests, as with all temptations to sin, is that failure on even a single Test can be sufficient to induce a person to choose reject salvation and choose damnation. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to express satisfaction that some particular person or institution has passed one, or several, or a majority of the Litmus Tests. In principle and in practice; even when just a single Litmus Test is failed, then that may be a sufficient basis for corruption and inversion of values. And this is made much more likely because the Global Totalitarian Establishment will reward and amplify any such failure; to convert passive acquiesce into active support.     

The scope of aphorisms

I have often recommended aphoristic writers. 

And I have (at least since I began regular blogging in 2010 - a year or two after I became a Christian) myself developed an aphoristic style of writing (as may be evident by comparing my earlier writing). 

So, I need no persuading of the virtues of aphorism. 

However there are limitations on the effectiveness and value of this type of writing. 

An aphorism only takes the reader so far and to an uncertain destination. 

Why? Because really to comprehend, we must see the workings of thinking. 

The ideal is not to present conclusions merely, but that the reader - through the process of reading - participates in the thought processes of the writer.

 

Therefore the best use of aphorisms comes when they are presented in some quantity, and in a sequence that represents the movement of the author's thought. 

When this is done well, a reader can get benefit from the journey - even when the destination turns-out to be a place he dislikes. 

**

Note: The first aphoristic text that grabbed me was Wittgenstein's On Certainty; which is derived from notes made on a few occasions; jumping around a problem, tackling it by rushes, from different angles. I can't remember Wittgenstein's conclusions, if any; but I appreciated the way he tackled the business. 

Is a real (or feigned) resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics, en route to the needful spiritual awakening?

There is, for a month, what superficially appears to be a resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics from the USA (i.e. a politics rhetorically rooted in national economic and societal self-interest); and this is depicted, by some of its supporters, as being the first step in a rebuilding of Christendom; - therefore a stage en route to the much-needed spiritual awakening. 

Putting aside that this Secular Right revival is, I believe, feigned not real - and that this will soon become evident - even if we were to accept it at face value, then is it "a good thing" spiritually?

We cannot expect any answer to this question from studying individual policies, e.g. by trying to infer an implicit coherent net-strategy behind the flurry of apparent contradictions*. 

As always we need to infer underlying intentions, motivations etc - which are rooted in the nature and affiliations of those persons and groups making the statements and policies.

If, however, we assume for the sake of argument that we are witnessing a genuine attempt to build a stronger secular society - a society that is clearing the ground of the self-hating and self-destroying post-sixties New Leftism; and if we assume that this is being done in order to promote the material well-being of nations - we can then ask from a Christian perspective whether, if it is intended and could happen, this would be A Good Thing?   

Would it be A Good Thing if the USA could become a stronger nation, characterized by enhanced military power; secure borders; enforcement of law and order; a more efficient, more meritocratic, more genuinely productive, and more home-grown economy etc...

Would this kind of material improvement actually be A Good Thing for the spiritual status of its people (and of the world)?  

On the surface, the answer seems obvious - that such a society would be preferable to what has been the case for the past several decades. 

But on the other side, we also need to look ahead: we need to ask whether a stronger and more cohesive, but still fundamentally materialist, God-less, acquisitive, consumerist, comfortable, better-entertained, techno-totalitarian society would really be A Good Thing? 

We need to ask whether this is what is most needed - here, now? 

Whether the vast human effort and attention, bribery and compulsion, involved in striving for such change to such a society, is not very badly misplaced? 

And most fundamentally to ask whether this is possible At All? Given all that we should have learned by-now, about the innate self-destructiveness and evil-tendencies of any and all such societies? 

After all, the strong, increasingly-Godless, rapidly-growing USA of the 1950s was exactly this sort of success story. 

Yet, even at that time, in the mid 20th century; it was clear to thoughtful and observant Christians and secular people alike, that it just would-not-do, and was inevitably doomed to go (more or less) exactly where it actually went.

There are many examples of such analysis, but one will suffice: Nihilism by Eugene Rose, later Father Seraphim.  

People here-and-now need to step-back from immediate, and substantially manipulated, emotionality; and instead consider such long-term, strategic, spiritual matters; because we can be sure that those who practice the dark arts of Geopolitics are already doing so. 

 

*Note: Those with memories that extend back more than a few months, ought to have learned that having some public figure speaking some or several specific factual truths, or refuting one or a few of the innumerable lies of mainstream Leftism; does Not amount to anything At All, in terms of indicating a trend towards a truthful, honest, more-Good society. When underlying metaphysical assumptions are poisonous, then debates over particular assertions are always utterly ineffectual. 

The lesson of so-called AI: Most of Man's "thinking" is just "thinking-about", like the abstract symbolic token-juggling of Artificial Intelligence

If you have ever experienced real thinking on a subject, you will know that this rare and relatively brief activity is qualitatively different from thinking-about the same thing. 

Once you have actually thought on a matter, you can recognize when others have not - but are merely parroting on that subject. And you will also be aware that most of your own speaking and writing is also a species of parroting - even when it is a matter of parroting your own previous real-thinking... 

(This, by the way, is analogous to Wittgenstein's distinction between doing Philosophy, and the usual academic business of just "parroting" on the subject. It is what I mean when I say that I was only doing science from 1994 to 2015, although I was officially "a scientist" for some years on either side of that.)   

The current mass imposition of so-called "AI" (Artificial Intelligence) provides one potentially valuable learning experience, if it makes us realize (with shame) how much of our own mental activity is hardly superior to the kind of automatic and unconscious processing of these computer programmes.

The shame is that Man is free, hence capable of doing more than parroting. 

But computers are not Beings and cannot be free; hence they are always, only, and necessarily; forever stuck in the activity of "thinking-about" - by which I mean the whole business is symbolic and abstract, and the relationship of this token-juggling to real-reality is purely asserted; and the validity of the assertion purely conjectural*. 

(*This applies even when computers are used by spiritual Beings, such - especially- as demons; the computer cannot ever itself become a Being, because all Beings are eternally pre-existent, and cannot be made or destroyed. But a computer and its activities may be included within the scope of the spirit of a Being; rather as (but in a material way) the water in our blood may be included in our own Being.) 

We can describe the business of thinking-about in terms of tokens; tokens that "represent" things, concepts etc, and the "thinking-about" is the process of (for instance) selecting, extracting, extrapolating, combining, and arranging these tokens. 

The tokens are supposed to represent reality, in some way; but there is no "participation" in this reality - the token is not that which it represents, and the processes of token manipulation are utterly separate from the reality that is supposed to be represented by it. 

No matter how much it may be claimed otherwise, the tokens and what happens to them, are not that which they purport to represent.  

But there is another kind of thinking which is involved in the actuality of that which is being-thought, a thinking that participates in reality. This is a matter I have tried to discuss in terms such as primary thinking, and direct knowing (and which is discussed in Rudolf Steiner's books Truth and Knowledge, and The Philosophy of Freedom). 

This participating-thinking can be envisaged (although this description here is linguistic, hence itself, of course, a model) in terms of our thinking becoming the same as the thinking of other Beings; a sharing of thinking in real time. 

This is reality, because participated thinking is real - so to believe the above we must also recognize that our thinking is potentially part of ultimate reality... Our thinking (when it is primary) changes the world. 

But many/most people nowadays assert that our human thinking is itself always-and-only a symbolic activity, that our thinking is just another instance of token-juggling - and this elucidates why so many people are so completely confused by and about AI. 

They are confused because they have pre-decided that human thinking is exactly the same kind of abstract symbolic merely-representative activity as computation, then they can find no difference between thinking and the stuff that AI programs are doing.

Yet much/most of what we modern Westerners call thinking is indeed guilty as charged: merely symbolic, merely representative, merely pattern-making with tokens...  

And perhaps more so now than ever before, because of our ideology that this Must Be what thinking is, that thinking cannot-be otherwise - and to believe anything else is wishful thinking or delusional. 

Thereby, that non-participating, alienated, symbolic-representative understanding of the world which led-to, is-encapsulated-by, and is imposed upon Men by the current so-called AI - becomes habitual, and indeed mandatory, in public discourse. 

To think otherwise is partly a matter of assumptions, and partly of experience. If you have never experienced primary thinking, direct knowing, then it is easy to believe that it does not exist - or that it is just a self-deluded variant of that token-juggling which constitutes almost all of our personal, social, and professional living. 

And people probably never will experience the participating possible in thinking, if they are not motivated to do it; unless they invest a level of time, attention and effort that is extraordinarily rare - even, or especially, among the intellectual classes involved in science, academic, law, philosophy - and Christian theology. 

Note: A clearer understanding of the distinction between abstract-symbolic, token-shuffling thinking-about, and the participative possibility of real thinking, may be had from a careful reading of Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances (1957). 

Courage without hope? Once possible, possible no more

One of the ideas of JRR Tolkien that seems to have influence far beyond the scope of his works, is that of the Northern idea of courage without hope. "Northern", especially in terms of the Norse culture of Scandinavia (including Iceland), and also the broader Germanic culture, including Anglo-Saxon England.  

It seems that the Northern style of paganism was one without ultimate hope, because only the greatest heroes could look forward to a continuation of martial life beyond death; but (in the Scandinavian religion) even these, and the gods themselves, were destined to be defeated and annihilated in the final battle of Ragnarok.

The quality that Tolkien, and others, admire about Northern courage, is that such Men would continue to strive and to fight, despite that they accepted the certainty of defeat. 

This kind of bleak, stoic, attitude of courage without hope, is one that is often advocated as suitable for modern Men; since our culture is also one without ultimate hope. 

Indeed moderns are without even the proximate possibility of a temporary persistence of life beyond death; as warriors training for that final, doomed-to-fail, battle.

Something similar might be asserted for the Hebrews of the Old Testament, who seem to have believed themselves all to be destined to a (literally) nightmarish post-mortal existence as demented ghosts in Sheol; yet who were apparently capable of extreme fortitude and striving.  

But I regard the conceptualization of courage without hope to be a modern, anachronistic, and fundamentally untrue characterization of the attitude of ancient Men. I regard the conceptualization as flawed by failing to take into account that ancient Men were much more groupish in their consciousness, much less individual. 

Ancient Men were not alienated, did not experience themselves as cut-off from other people, the natural world, and the world of spirits and gods. 

On the contrary, they seem to have experienced life as spontaneously immersed in the consciousness of these other Beings. Their awareness, and their actual perceptions, included other Men, animals, plants, spirits and gods - and the dead were, at times, directly experienced as being present and active.  

My understanding is that this spontaneously immersive and diffusely-aware consciousness, this connectedness to other including spirits and the dead, meant that ancient Men could not be without hope in the way that modern Men routinely are. 

We Moderns are spontaneously alienated from "the world" from our adolescence; and we are kept in this state of genuine hope-less-ness through adult life by both implicit and explicit metaphysical assumptions of our culture. 

We Moderns are not just alone in a dead universe, we mostly believe that our consciousness is a mere by-product of brain functioning; we are taught that the only communication is via signals, symbols, words and images; all of which are distorted, manipulative, and prone to misinterpretation -- so we can rely on nothing to be true. 

We are even taught that our inner subjectivity, our stream of thinking, is cut-off from our own minds and bodies; as well as isolated from every-body and every-thing else -- so our self-awareness and -experience is trapped and helpless, a mere prisoner inside the brain-box.  

Our culture both asserts, and has these assumptions built-into public discourse - mass media, official communications, laws, rules and regulations; that the universe happened without overall purpose or meaning, that the material is the only reality, that there are no gods or spirits; and that human life is a merely contingent product of prior material causes. 

We are said to be no more than a "random" combination of genes, developing in an accidental environment, and bounded by a death which entails complete destruction of body and mind. 

Thus modern Man is hope-less, disconnected, and alone in an utterly futile universe that lacks purpose and where values are merely temporary expedients; conventions made-up to motivate people duing their brief existences and to make society possible. 

Therefore, ancient Men were never hope-less in the way that is normal for modern Man. Their courage was, indeed, rooted in a spontaneous, unconscious and inevitable sense of connectedness to a purposive and meaningful reality - innate assumptions that were far more powerful than even the most nihilistic religious conceptualizations. 

In modern Men, as we see all around us; hopelessness leads inexorably to cowardice; because there is no reason at all for Men to be courageous in the nihilistic world of Western Culture.   

What makes Good good?

All Christians believe that God is Good and loves us. 

But what does this actually mean? 

What does it mean to be Good? 

In particular; is Good a matter of preference merely, as modern materialistic ideology would have it. Are Good and evil "relative" and interchangeable? 

What this "relativism" of values seems to mean in current Western/ Globalist culture, in an underlying and implicit way, is that what matters are peoples' feelings (or more exactly, some peoples' feelings) - especially their "hedonic status", i.e. whether they are happy or suffering. 

What counts as Good is what is believed to lead to happiness, while evil is whatever causes suffering (or is asserted to cause suffering) - and Good and evil can therefore change places according to the cause of gratification/misery in the current situation. 

It should be noted that this modern Western hedonic morality as the basis of values, is rooted in the assumption that we can objectively know, and indeed measure, the hedonic outcome of choices... 

The assumptions that we know and can quantify other-people's state of happiness; and that we understand the relationship between present action and future emotions - including in large numbers of people; and that that we can predict the major psychological consequences of material actions.

These assumptions seem to me nothing but wishful-thinking at best; and most often sheerly-obvious nonsense...

Nonetheless; these are among the assumptions upon-which modern mainstream morality and values are based.  

  

Or is there instead some objective basis to Good and evil? By "objective" I mean here to ask: is there something about the nature of reality that distinguishes Good from evil? And if there is something objective about Good - what is it? 

Traditional orthodox mainstream Christian theology has it that God is Good because God created everything from nothing, because God is "omni" in nature. 

This is the argument of monotheism, something that this type of Christian shares with Jews and Moslems, and which is rooted in an assertion that God is Good because there is nothing else. 

In other words, by this argument, God is Good because God is everything, so that it is irrational, meaningless, to believe otherwise. Because there is nothing else but God - to be evil is meaningless, futile, insane... evil (by this account) has nowhere to go, and nothing to believe-in. 

The obvious objection to the monotheistic omni-God argument; is that if God made everything, is everything, controls and knows everything - then this abolishes the difference between Good and evil. 

The trad-orthodox definition of evil is more a matter of "Good is God" than "God is Good"; because (by this account) there is ultimately nothing except God and that which is wholly made by God - and God has been defined as Good. 

Apparent differences between Good and evil can therefore only be illusory, or temporary... But, even then, it is unclear why God should make or allow such illusions. 

(Indeed, it is unclear why the omni-God should do anything at all - since everything that has happened, is happening, or could happen - is all God Himself and his own 100% God-made creation. Creation seems to change nothing essential, to have no purpose or direction; because everything always was/is/shall-be.) 

Therefore, if we regard Good as relativistic, we just get a kind of this-worldly hedonic therapy, in which anything and everything is "justified" by assertions that it will make "people" happier, or less miserable. 

Or else, by trying to make Goodness identical with an omni-God, by asserting that all-is-God and God-is-Good; we end up actually abolishing the distinction between Good and evil. 

Anyone evil is then insane by his opposition to the only actual reality... Yet even this statement does not stand, because God must have made that person the way he is - i.e. insane.

The omni-mono-God philosophy explains nothing because it explains everything!

And such a conception of God seems especially antagonistic to Christianity; which must surely have an essential place for the divine Man Jesus Christ, and his doings at some point in history; and for the necessity of (in some meaning) "following" Jesus.

For a Christian; Jesus must make a difference, and that difference must be deep, cosmic, temporally-located, crucial. 

My own views on this subject have been expounded scores of times on this blog; but I will focus on the major objection to it. 

My understanding of Good: If God is a Being (or indeed two Beings - Loving Heavenly Parents) who found-themselves among a multitude of other Beings; and if this God began creating at some point in time; and if this creation is founded upon Love...

So that creation is something like "the purposive and mutually loving relationships between Beings that were previously and otherwise mutually unloving, lacking in shared-purpose"...

Reality is therefore a growing creation in an environment of chaos...

By this "model", Good is defined as God's project of creation; and evil is some kind of opposition to this project (anything other than joining with the project of creation - is may be any kind of opposition, from trying to exploit creation for selfish reasons, or trying to destroy creation). 

In theory, there is also the alternative of opting-out from creation. 

By my understanding of Good; Beings such as ourselves find-ourselves in an ongoing divine creation; and we need to decide whether we are on the side of creation or not.  

Good is the decision to join with God's creation. 

Opting-out is the decision Not to join with creation. 

Evil is the decision to oppose creation. 

Main objections to my understanding: Some things that some people find wrong with this scheme, are that I regard God as "just" a Being (actually two Beings) among a multitude of other Beings; that God's creation had a beginning and has therefore not been eternal; that God is finite in knowledge and power...

And that Good is only one among other rational possibilities. 

By my understanding; to be evil is to oppose the project of divine creation; but that opposition need not be irrational. Evil may be short-termist, evil will be un-loving, and may be manipulative, sadistic, spiteful... 

But evil need not be irrational (evil is only irrational when it denies the reality of divine creation). 

By my understanding: There really is no compulsion to be Good, because Good is one side in the spiritual war arranged around the actually-existing reality of divine creation. 

There is indeed One God, in the sense that there happens-to-be one divine creation, and this was an is the creation of God. 

There is one creation which is that we know, and which includes all other Beings that we can know. One creation within-which we and other Beings find-themselves when they become self-aware, when we/they become "conscious" of reality and their places in it among other Beings, and having relationships with these other Beings.  

Such matters could have been otherwise, but were not otherwise: this is reality - this is the situation within-which we exist.   

To loop back to the original incoherent ideas that Good is relativist because choice is rational and real; or else that Good is objective and necessary because there is mono-omni-God creating everything; I would say instead that Good is objective because God is The Creator; but the choice of Good versus evil is also real, has consequences that may be permanent, and it is a coherent choice to choose evil - even when the reality of one divine creation is acknowledged. 

By my understanding: To choose Good is to choose to affiliate with God's objectively real project of creation, and this project is built from love, because creation is the product of love.

Any Being capable of love is capable for choosing to affiliate with creation.

But evil may be a coherent choice, because creation takes place amidst continuing chaos - and continuing chaos is termed "death" (by the Fourth Gospel" and is spiritually-analogous to the scientific-material concept of "entropy". 

Evil is not entropy, but coherent evil entails an ultimate commitment to entropy and chaos in preference to divine creation, because entropy/ chaos is all that would remain when evil has done its work...

After evil has worked through to its conclusion; there would be a world without creation, which is a world without love; and that would be the return to a pre-creation world of mutually un-conscious and unloving Beings; i.e. the end state of evil would be Beings uncomprehendingly existing in a situation that has no coherence and no direction.

Thus evil is a possible and coherent thing to desire.   

In other words, by my understanding, divine creation is incomplete and (in principle) vulnerable to evil, and to entropy; or, this would be the case without the Second Creation of Jesus Christ. 

Primary creation of God is of-itself therefore incomplete and contingent; and Jesus Christ is therefore essential to the triumph of Good. 

But the triumph of Good is not the imposition of Good across all that exists - it is a Second Creation that consists of Beings that are only and wholly Good. That situation called "Heaven". 

This is why Christianity is the only coherent religion; and why Jesus Christ is and was essential. Jesus was Not essential to the primary divine creation; but Jesus is essential to the indomitable and eternal triumph of creation - in Heaven. 

   

Note added: What makes Good good is loving-creation - but only if you agree that love is, indeed good. Otherwise not. That which is good is therefore objectively real; but what makes the real objective, is personal.