Western Geopolitics and "You just go around the house... Creating!"

My mother, who (in stark contrast to her eldest child) was a wonderful housekeeper; used often to say to me - in an extremity of exasperation - "You just go around the house... Creating!" 

By which she meant I was disrupting and disordering her meticulous and laboriously-achieved state of neatness and convenience; for instance by carrying cups of tea or coffee, heaps of books and papers, around the house, taking off and dropping pullovers or socks - sitting in the midst of an island of mess...

And then leaving such messes behind, whenever I moved on to the next location. 

Now I know - from decades of failure - how very difficult it is to maintain a functional household; I can see that she was right to chastise me. 

At the time, I could not see what the fuss was about. After all, things just (apparently) tidied themselves. Something carelessly discarded would miraculously reappear in its proper place...

My mother's bit of Northumbrian dialect, was based in an implied oxymoronic phrase related to "creating" chaos. 

I now find this notion to be very interesting - I mean the idea of creating-chaos; because - by my best and deepest metaphysical understanding - creation and chaos are in truth opposites. 

...So that if one is really creating, one must thereby be reducing chaos - and if one is actually inducing chaos, then one is destroying the-created. 

Anyway, pedantry aside; what was implied by my Mother's phrase was:

The process of (at best) care-less, but often deliberately-motivated; reduction of the-created towards a state of disorder, mutual conflict, dysfunctionality... chaos. 

In other words; my Mother's phrase characterizes the long-term and systematic geopolitical behaviour of Western civilization since around the millennium (and the end of the Eastern Bloc): 

They/ we just go around around the world... Creating: that is to say - creating chaos. 

And this strategy is pursued over the long-term and by multiple means: such as bribery and corruption (aka. "foreign aid"). "International Law" and multinational organizations are part of this. 

Also economic pressures of many kinds, such as "sanctions" (which are actually directed mainly at causing chaos within the West, but sometimes have the desired side-effect of causing chaos abroad). 

There is, of course, war-all-over-the-place - and the attempts to induce more and bigger wars; by multi-pronged campaigns (and staging of "incidents") to induce previously amicable/ tolerant neighbours into becoming bitter enemies - and to keep things that way. 

This is happening All The Time - both at a large scale (e.g. in Asia) and at a smaller scale (e.g. in Europe). 

One "excuse" is (presumably) to weaken enemies, so that "we" may be relatively stronger... and thereby "do more good" for these other places. 

But that excuse is shown as a lie by the top-down and simultaneous deliberate weakening of the West; and the fact that we do not believe that we are good. 

Indeed, being atheist materialists - we lack any positive conceptualization of what good actually is; and instead suppose ourselves to be fighting evils of various (fluidly defined) types.  

The euphemistically termed "colour revolutions" - that are those Western-planned/ -funded/ -media-supported overturnings of national governments (all over the place; within the West as well as anywhere/ everywhere else) - especially by those themselves incapable of government - so as to install puppet regimes... 

New governments which lack native legitimacy, hence never last, hence lead to civil disorder or war - and other kind of chaos... 

This has been done dozens of times since 1990; and the pace of global disruption is still increasing! 

At present hardly a week goes-by without some such attempt, and many are "successful". Regimes are changed.  

However, the invariable result of "successful" West-induced regime change turns-out always to be chaotic, dysfunctional, damaging. Because, either there is careless indifference as to outcomes (so long as there is short-term selfish profit), or else destructive chaos is the real and covert motivation from the get-go.    

"More chaos" happens a lot nowadays, because - in an entropic universe - inducing chaos is Much easier than creation: much easier than creating cooperation, functionality, predictability. 

But It Was Not Always Thus!

Consider the Roman Empire. Yes, it was a crushing top-down tyranny with many bad features; but there is no doubt that it created greater cooperation and greater civilizational-functionality on a global scale. 

The Romans, unlike the modern West, did not purposively and over the long-term destroy societal functionality, did not deliberately "create" wars and economic chaos, did not encourage and fund agents of destruction. 

The Romans did not induce net-chaos; because they (unlike "us) had other, better, more positive things that they were trying to accomplish. 

Compare the Romans with what happens at present!  

The Roman Civilization - and indeed a Roman Household - aimed-at (and sometimes achieved) a society that was clean, well-ordered, and effective. 

This did not happen by accident, nor as a by-product of deliberately inducing and sustaining chaos. 

Like the household of my childhood; Roman coordinated functionality happened because of clear purposes and plans, hard work, rigorous monitoring, and as a consequence of great efforts and labour*.

And this was possible because of what-was-good in the Roman Civilization. 

Top-down, purposive functionality does Not happen nowadays, because there is extremely little that is good among those with power and in leadership positions in Western civilization. 

Or, to put it more accurately; because Western civilization is controlled by those whose affiliations are overwhelming evil, demonic; anti-God: anti-divine creation. 

And the reason for this is clear and simple: the Romans were very religious. 

They recognized the reality of gods, spirits, and of transcendental values and purposes. 

Roman lives were permeated by religious devotions, and a religious perspective. 

For a Roman, including the Roman ruling class and their servants: life therefore had ultimate purpose, therefore meaning; and this "Roman" meaning was linked to each Roman-person as a member of Roman society, a Roman family - a Roman role or job that contributed to the whole. 

However, for our ruling class, in complete contrast, life has no purpose, no meaning, no personal relevance - except for a selfishness and hedonism that becomes ever more short-termist, and thus more easily manipulated by the demonic powers.  

Of course, none of this strategic and purposive "Creating (of chaos)" by Western civilization is explicitly stated - of course, there are always pseudo-constructive, pseudo-moral, rationalizations for destruction.

Always "reasons" why it is a good thing for the West to intervene everywhere, "for their own good", and in the end always to destroy - both abroad and at home.   

Part of this disguise of motivation, is to propagate the false dichotomy of chaos versus order. 

Acceptance of this calculated-error allows Them to depict order as necessarily oppressive, and chaos as if it were creative. 

Any nation that is reasonably functional will - like the Roman Empire - necessarily contain many attributes of oppressive order; and (under the order versus chaos scheme) can therefore be depicted as objectively evil and deserving of partial (or even complete) destruction. 

So that West induced national chaos as a consequence of intervention - e.g. civil war, starvation, disease, mass maiming and death; is routinely spun as if we were doing them a favour! Making the nations of the world free from oppressive order, one after the other; and all from the goodness of our Western hearts!

"Supporting" a nation is thereby made wholly compatible with action leading to destroying masses of people and the functionality of that nation - often for many decades. This induced social collapse may then serve as an excuse for further intervention, or takeover - or looting of resources. 

Meanwhile the same is happening at home, within the West. Always it is disguised by quasi-moral reasons; characteristically combined either with indifference to actual outcomes (including lying about or ignoring outcomes); or else by relabeling increased chaos and collapsing functionality as good things - like diversity, equity, freedom, vibrancy!   

...Meanwhile actual creativity - which was our "USP" for several centuries - is at an all-time low in the West.

Ultimately because human creativity is real only when it is good; when it contributes to divine creation; but our civilization is now rooted in denial of the divine - which is de facto allegiance to Satan.  

The lesson from my Mother is that chaos is easy, functionality is difficult. 

Anyone indifferent or hostile to functionality has an easy time of getting what they want; and need not expend much effort in getting it.

Therefore; the first and indispensable step towards doing anything constructive about deliberate global rampant chaos; is to acknowledge and understand the nature and reality of divine creation.

And then our-selves affiliating to it. 

**   

 

*Note added: A functional civilization or society must genuinely operate in pursuit of higher (transcendental, hence positive) values; such that it believes-in these values, believes these values are good, attains self-respect from these values; and regards it as beneficial that these values be spread and enforced elsewhere. 

These positive values are what enables a society, sufficiently and overall, to pursue coordinated functionality - society is engineered in pursuit of these values. Without such over-arching, and transcendent, and positive values - society will disintegrate for lack of cohesive principles.  

Thus, in their heyday, the leadership and masses of both the Roman and British Empires regarded it as good to make foreigners Roman/ British. 

In both instances; the means to this end included religion primarily, laws and education consequentially - which were top-down and enforced on colonies. 

It was this underlying reality that led to the surface homogeneities of Roman/ British societies. 

FURTHER NOTE: I should not be understood as advocating a return to the values of the Roman, or even the British, Empire! What I am intending to highlight is that the civilizational dominance of these Empires both were rooted in a transcendental conviction of having positive values to impart. In other words; their sense of superiority was substantive, because it was religious. That is Not the case for Western civilization now: without any exception, all of its self-defining values are not merely negative but double-negative. And this is why Western civilization-as-is, is wholly oppositional - hence necessarily destructive in sum. 

It was a big mistake to conflate God the Creator and Jesus Christ (and the Holy Ghost)

Most Christian theologians through history have made the big mistake of conflating (in some theoretical/ mystical way) God the Creator with Jesus Christ. 

The mistake was made (IMO) because the theologians were monotheists first, and Christians only secondarily; such that they assumed the reality of Jesus's divinity "must" mean that he and God the Creator were ultimately One.

But this is untrue. 

Consequently there are plenty of rational people throughout the past two millennia who have coherently believed in God as Creator, but disbelieve the divinity of Jesus Christ - or reject what Jesus offered Mankind. 

Atheism on the one hand and non-Christian-theism (belief in God, but not the divinity of Jesus) on the other are - or should be - two different things; and they have different consequences.

 

To be a atheist is to reject purpose, meaning and the coherence of reality - it therefore renders the atheist self-trapped in a state of sustained irrationality:  a kind of insanity.  

A non-Christian theist may therefore be rational and coherent.

The difference that being a Christian makes is additive to coherence: it is hope. 

For the not-Christian theist there is no hope for himself. Himself-specifically does not matter, perhaps is unreal, or perhaps the self will dissolve. 

The not-Christian theist will therefore intrinsically regard mortal life as a tragedy - because it contains much evil, because it contains change/ entropy (ageing, disease and disaster) - and because it is inevitably terminated utterly, by the death of himself.    

So a Christian has hope of resurrection and eternal life in a Heaven without death or evil. 

But, so far, this hope is located only beyond death. 

To believe only in post-mortal salvation is to recognize the coherence of reality, and to anticipate joy in eternity - but, of itself alone, this makes our present mortal life into (at best) merely an inferior version of Heaven, a time of waiting. 

It is belief in the Holy Ghost - which I understand to be our experience of the living presence of Jesus during this mortal life - that converts the remote hope of post-mortal salvation into something that can, potentially, make our present lives into something better than a mere putting-off of Heaven. 

The Holy Ghost is what enables integration of our our personal and present life with both salvation to come, and the reality of this world as purposive, meaningful and coherent. 

The usual "Christian" (but actually dogmatically monotheist) habit-compulsion conceptually to conflate the nature and role of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; is therefore not merely a theological error, but leaves people permanently-confused and systematically-misled - about the consequences of not being fully-Christian.  

The divine "purpose" for individual persons: God gives us what we need (but Not Only what we need)

Each person's life has "meaning" - and that meaning is related to divine purpose. 

I think this is quite clear, if you know what to look for - in your own life, and the lives of those you know and love. 

I mean that people always (sooner or later) get the experience/s they most need for spiritual development. 

However, that does not mean that every individual "automatically" learns from each such experience -- Indeed, very often, it seems that people do not learn from personal experiences that could be of great personal benefit. 

Or else people learn something wrong and contrary to divine purpose, from experiences; they choose to lean a lesson contrary to God's hope and intentions. 

For instance; when some adverse experience that could be corrective if properly understood; is instead used as an excuse or rationale for doubling-down on some sin; such as fear, resentment, or despair. 

But what makes all this less obvious is that not all of life is related to divine purpose. 

It is the nature of this life and world we are currently experiencing that there is entropy/ death and there is evil. 

What this means is that things happen that are Not part of the divine purpose. 

What God the Creator can do and does; is make the best of these things. 

So that if some-thing happens to a person that is simply the result of entropy (some degenerative phenomenon or disease for example*); or a consequence of evil motivation or service to evil; then consequently God will create - such as later to enable something to be gained (or salvaged) from this adverse occurrence.   

All of this points at the need for discernment, because understanding and learning are inevitably confused and clouded by the nature of ourselves and this world; the process of discerning and learning is one requiring active participation and culminating in freedom to choose how to be, and where to go next. 

We must be able to discern which experiences are God given, and which are not. We must and inevitably do also work from our state of freedom. 

Creation is not something done-to-us. Divine purpose is that we participate in creation. 

And when an experience was not a part of divine purpose, we may need to be able to discern at what point God has (later) been able to present us with the possibility of deriving Good from evil. 

We make such discernments partly from that which is divine within-us; and partly (since the time of Jesus Christ) by guidance from the Holy Ghost... 

In other words, the capacity for true discernment is innate, and does not need to be derived from external sources - although, of course, external sources of guidance may be helpful in true discernment - just as external guidance is (here and now) more usually harmful. 

So much for this world we live-in, this mixed-world, this world that mixes divine creation and purpose with entropy and evil...

A further thing that God purposes that we learn is that this mixed world (the Primary Creation) may be escaped after death and the separation of our spirit from our incarnate form; because after death (and only after death) we may follow Jesus Christ through resurrection with eternal life; and into a Second Creation that is Heaven. 

Therefore, there will be divinely purposed experiences in this mortal life of ours (assuming we live long enough) that may be understood (if we are prepared to learn) as pointing towards the possibility of Resurrection and Heaven beyond death. 

i.e. Experiences that may (if we discern aright) be understood as pointing towards Salvation. 

Yet if, for whatever reason, we do not get such experiences during this mortal life (perhaps we die in the womb, or as infants) then such experiences as we need to be enabled to choose Heaven; will surely be provided after death. But again we are free to learn from them or not, and to choose Heaven or not. 

In sum: there is a divine purpose (or more than one purpose) for each person incarnated into this world; and this purpose is related to learning a lesson, or several lessons, during our life. 

Each person's purpose will be unique, because each person is unique - because each person had a pre-mortal spirit life before human incarnation  - which is why people are unique individuals from before birth. 

Because our purpose is unique, and because this world is a mixture of divinely created purpose with entropy and evil; discernment is required. We must recognize when we are being divinely taught; and when not...

But even when our life's happenings are due to evil Beings, or due to the innately entropic nature of this world - we should be alert to the ways in which divine creation can shape subsequent events, sooner-or-later to present us with possibilities for learning important life lessons.

Meaning and purpose are not "given": they need to be discerned...

We need to learn from them, and that is our job: we also need to learn the right (i.e. divinely intended) lessons from them.  

*Or death. The Fourth Gospel strongly suggests that death was regarded as The Number One Main Problem of life as-is-on-earth. Death is the problem that Jesus for which usually claims to be offering a solution. 

Christians should altogether stop saying "heathen" or "pagan" - when they mean (something like...) mainstream modern materialist atheists

The title says it all, pretty much. 

Christians should altogether stop saying "heathen" or "pagan" - since nowadays they don't exist - not really. 

Aside from the fact that both words originally meant something like rustics or country dwellers; ancient pagans and heathens were typically highly religious people; people who believed in the gods, the world of spirit, survival of the soul after death, and objective morality. 

As such, pagans and heathens bear near-zero resemblance to the great mass of not-Christians in the Western and developed world today. 

Nowadays, most people (including most self-identified Christians of whatever church or denomination) are this-worldly, materialist atheists. 

They/ we deny the reality or importance of the world of spirit; and believe that the universe of everything was/is not created - but instead arose and continued as a product of the operation of objective "scientific" factors that are alike indifferent to Humankind and each Man.

Nothing like modern materialist-atheists (i.e. like nearly all of us) was to be found in the ancient world. 

What is now normal, is something relatively new - merely several generations old.    

And the fact that there is no generally accepted term for almost-everybody-alive-now; is indirect evidence of how taken-for-granted this world-view has become. 

We need to adopt a new term to refer to this new kind of person, this new phenomenon; but to equate modern this-worldly, un-religious, aspiritual, anti-Christians with heathens and pagans, is just wrong. 

Notice: The Boss Baby (2017)

 

Having seen it at the cinema on release; I re-watched DreamWorks The Boss Baby (2017) yesterday, and really enjoyed it - even more than first time. 

The movie comes towards the tail end of that golden age of 3D animation which coincided with my kids growing -up; and which produced so many superb films that I think people got a bit blasé, and began to assume that this was "the norm", and could be expected to continue forever on autopilot. 

It wasn't and didn't; because excellence always depends on human ability and creativity - which is always in a limited supply. 

But this may explain why The Boss Baby didn't make more of an impact on release - because it is an excellent movie in almost every way - well scripted, structured, and edited; cleverly witty, very funny, inventive, and heart-warming.

There are some stunning sequences of animation, in various styles and with several themes, right from the very beginning; and these are kept very fresh and various. 

Although I did, as usual, find the inevitable finale of a long chase/ race against the clock to be the least good part of the movie - it had plenty of entertaining or affecting moments; but even the best of this genre (such as Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc, The Rise of the Guardians) seem to overdo this aspect of the plot arc - at least, for my taste. 

The Boss Baby even has a rather interesting and hard-hitting premise; which is that babies are not wanted by modern people in the way they used to be - and pets are often preferred (here, it is specifically cute puppies that are the main competition). 

The over-arching moral message is valid and somewhat counter-cultural: based on the life ideal of a loving family; and that having this is better than a successful career. 

In sum: people who like this sort of thing, will find TBB the sort of thing they like. 

Saturday morning music (and clog dancing) - Shane Cook and Emily Flack

I suggest it is impossible not to enjoy this video of a young woman clog dancing in a barn, accompanied by virtuoso fiddle and shoe-taps. 

**

(This is Irish style, 'tho' done by Canadians - for some English clog dancing see this.)

"Will power" characterized the spirituality of the religious elite during the era of Medieval consciousness

Religions, as we know them, emerged in the era of Medieval consciousness  - which was a millennia-long transition between the immersive passive un-consciousness of Original Participation and the current alienated Modern consciousness. 

There were (perhaps) two main forms of religion - one for the masses, the other for elite religious specialists. 

The Medieval mass consciousness was based on obedience to the religious institutions; and spiritual participation was made possible by intermediary phenomena; such as symbol, ritual, scripture, song - or social dynamics. 

The Medieval elite consciousness was based upon control of the whole person by "will power"; that is by human will aligned with divine will. 

The basic idea of Medieval era elite consciousness; was that a human being might discover the divine will; and then organized his life around the process of getting his own will into accord with the divine - and the totality of his behaviour into accord with his own divine-aligned will. 

So, the religious life was about prolonged discipline and training (e.g. varieties of initiation); aiming towards conscious goals. 

If successfully, the will was directed at the divine, and mastered all aspects of behaviour; to produce a transformed person (the higher type being described in various terms - holy, enlightened, an adept etc).  

Since the religious elites led the masses - and the obedience of the masses was directed at the religious elites - it was vital that there was sufficient alignment between elite and divine will. 

Usually - in most places, most of the time - there was not sufficient human-divine alignment. 

But sometimes and in some places there was; so it remained a valid ideal; especially in a world where individual consciousness was not much developed in most people. 

This idea of subordinating the whole of life to an elite will (purportedly aligned with the divine will) was "a good thing" insofar as the human will really was aligned with the divine will. 

And also insofar as the Medieval mode of consciousness infused this process of deployment of human will with "the spirit"... 

Because otherwise the whole thing was merely legalism - with all the ambiguities and imprecision intrinsic to the interpretation of language

It is this second aspect of the spirit infusing the human will, that has changed so much in the modern era - such that now the religious elites seldom even claim seriously to to be highly-aligned with divine will. 

Indeed, elite religious authority is usually based upon the same modes as the secular - that is to say institutional legitimacy, laws, rules, guidance understood as normal language (and in practice interpreted in the secular ways that such language is interpreted - e.g. legalistically, by historical and linguistic analysis, quasi-scientifically etc).  

What the modern era is left-with; is therefore the forms of Medieval consciousness, but minus the spontaneous spiritual infusion that used to accompany these forms. 

This, I think, is a reason why the Medieval forms are so badly-disenchanted; and exhibit such a dry, monochrome, dull, "school dinners" atmosphere...

Lacking spiritual infusion, their motivate only feebly, sometimes imperceptibly feebly; and consequently the elite religious specialists become assimilated into mainstream elite social mores: which are currently those of bureaucratic totalitarianism; hence evil; hence anti-Christian. 

(This can explain why the church leaders are the primary conduit for this-worldly and socio-politically-expedient corruption in the major Christian churches.)

And this, in turn, is why so many of the religious elite have turned away from them to immerse in the psychological gratifications - e.g. political spectacle-excitement, media entertainment, self-gratifying pseudo-moralism, therapies and palliatives - of mainstream secular culture. 

"Successful" churches are nowadays enterprises; providing meeting places and organizing holidays, staging events, serving as cafes and theatres, hosting social and health services - and so forth. 

This, then, is our situation. The aim, I presume; if our Christian life is to be strongly-enough motivated to transcend the pervasive pressure of secular society - is for each of us is to seek "enchantment" - i.e. infusion by divine spirit. 

...That same spiritual infusion that Mankind enjoyed in the past - but accepting that this is not possible either by passive immersion or by mediating phenomena. In sum: We need to seek the spirit actively and consciously - or else it will not happen. 

And we need to seek to integrate our-selves not by will power - which is now alienated from the divine. Nor by integration with the unconscious - from which we are detached, and which is anyway not Christian. 

But instead by seeking re-connection with our own partially-divine, eternal, original selves that are currently cut-off and alienated -- both by modern culture; and cut-off also by the forms of Medieval religion without the spirit. 

Because it is our eternal self that is in direct contact with the divine; and which therefore knows when it is aligned with God - and when it is (usually) more or less in a state of disharmony with creation - i.e. sin.  

For us; will power, and the disciplined seeking of conscious goals that characterized elite religious life in the Medieval era of consciousness; needs to be secondary to seeking divine-motivation, and divine-guidance and correction, by this inner-directed seeking consciously to establish direct-contact with our eternal selves.  

This is something new and unprecedented; and therefore difficult - but not so difficult as it may seem. The first step is to recognize what is wanted; then to recognize when it happens...

And the third step is not to expect too much! 

What is needed is sufficient Christian motivation to be able to navigate a Christian life in a hostile world - the ability to discern and the commitment to choose the divine and reject the demonic. 

We do not need, and shall not achieve, permanent and pervasive personal transformation for-the-better! 

We will neither become holy nor enlightened persons (unless we already are these things). 

But what is attainable; is a steady and robust desire to follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven.  

The change of human consciousness throughout my life-span

We all begin our lives in the state of immersive, spontaneous, initially un-conscious Original Participation - which was, pretty much, the consciousness of mature adults in the earliest (e.g. hunter gatherer) phase of human history - a state of mind when we are in direct contact with an animistic (living, purposive, aware) universe of beings/ spirits, gods. 

The Medieval Consciousness (aka Intellectual Soul) is that of the great span of recorded human history, of agricultural society, of civilization - the "axial age" when religions were developed; changing through the Ancient Egyptian (for example), Ancient Greek, Roman and into the Medieval era. 

During this era, spirituality was largely communal, and contact with the world of spirit (experience of the spirit within us) was via intermediaries such as church structures, priests, symbolism and ritual. 

For Christians this type of consciousness reached a peak in the Byzantine and Holy Russian societies of Orthodox Catholicism; and for Westerners it peaked in the Medieval times with Roman Catholicism in Western Europe. 

Modern Consciousness - in which man is alienated from God, the gods, the world of spirits, and other beings; began to emerge with the Renaissance and Reformation (as traditional forms and symbols began to lose their objectivity and power) - and accelerated through the Industrial Revolution up to now. 

So that now it seems obvious common sense that this is a purposeless, meaningless, dead universe - going nowhere, and in which we humans and individual persons are irrelevant; such that our "morality" is merely maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering until we die and are annihilated. 

Looking back; it now seems that I experienced the dying residuum of the Medieval Consciousness; which, although relatively feeble and only among a minority, was behind the radicalism of the counter-cultural desire for a simple, "natural", agrarian - and essentially modified-Medieval - life and society. 

My point is that until the late 1970s a restoration of Medieval Cosnciousness actually seemed a realistic possibility; such that alternative living and self-sufficiency were topics of mainstream social discussion and aspiration. The revival of folk music and arts, and even "hippie" styles of dress and fashion - all seemed to presage this. 

It really seemed possible then that we might "go back" to a village-based and agricultural society - on lines described earlier by William Cobbett, and depicted fictionally by William Morris. 

Much of the mass youth interest in Tolkien was related to the hope aroused by his work that a Middle Earth kind of life might yet be genuinely possible. 

And for some (but not me, at that time), this included an expectation that Christianity would again have a central and pervasive influence on society: a Chesterton/ Belloc type Distributism.  

But through my life span the Medieval Consciousness has faded in objectivity and power; until now it is not regarded as a realistic possibility - or only except in a remote, abstract, wishful and as-if kind of fashion. 

This can be seen in the disintegration, decline and corruption of all the major Christian churches; and their extreme alienation and giving up of shaping spiritual experience.

But the most significant decline of Medieval Consciousness (and the cause of church changes) is in the minds of Men - an inexorable dwindling which I have both experienced and observed. 

This is where we find ourselves. I regard these changes in consciousness as objective, as causal, and as irreversible. 

So it is from here that we ought to regard the future.

Since we cannot go back, and (further) my experience and observations suggest that trying to revert ourselves and society to Medievalism of consciousness is not just ineffective; but actually spiritually harmful... That, any rate, is how I read the various "utopian" experiments in back-to-the-land, communal and Alternative living. 

Since what we have now is so dominated by the powers of evil, and so devoid of both purpose and meaning and hope - it seems to me that it is imperative we actively and consciously attempt to move our consciousness, and consequently our lives, forward into nigh unprecedented territory. 

**

NOTE: It may sound, from the above, as if I regarded Original Participation and Medieval Consciousness as taboo, necessarily harmful and to-be-shunned; but this is not the case. For many people, in many situations, both still have much to offer in the way of "therapy", encouragement, and even guidance. However the point I wish to emphasize is that they are not enough. They are both too feeble for what is necessary in our world, and both are harmful if made a strategy. They cannot suffice. There is no future in them. 

Knowing Jesus from personal experience - how is it done?

Meeting Jesus in a dream...

What does it mean, how should we understand it? 

I suppose that - for a Christian to have strong faith - he needs to know Jesus from personal experience. 

But what does this actually mean, in practice? - and in a world where there is an apparently infinite amount of conflicting advice concerning how to do it. 

Where should one even begin to look? 

Most sources of advice on how to know Jesus will direct us at specific secondary and second-hand sources, that need first to be discerned and recognized as true (among a mass majority of other sources of information that are required to be rejected), and then the information provided about Jesus needs to be understood. 

This will not suffice for obvious reasons; including failure to locate, failure to evaluate correctly, failure to comprehend correctly. 

And it observably does not suffice for most people most of the time - who never get to know Jesus.  

To know Jesus, indeed to know anything, we need to know it directly, unmediated. 

Know from inner contact, yes; but specifically the contact of Love. 

This knowing is and must be simple; because it must be comprehended by a single mental "moment".

With Jesus; the need and purpose is to have a clear and simple apprehension by which we know a few things (whether separately or perhaps all-at-once); such as what he offers us, that this offer is real, and what to do if we want to accept his offer. 

This experience of direct-knowing is what matters - but it does Not matter how this experience is achieved...

Possible examples of "how" people get to know Jesus include the usual religious activities: scripture, ritual, symbolism, churches, prayer, meditation, spiritual and physical disciplines...

It may included divinely-purposed experiences in this mortal life: such as miracles, answered prayers. 

Or it may include dreams, near-death, or post-mortal encounters (e.g. meeting Jesus, meeting a beloved resurrected person). 

But in practice; how we get to know Jesus may also include many negative experiences; such as realization of death, rock-bottom despair, extreme fear, sin, loneliness... 

Therefore; in principle, almost anything that induces a turning-away which becomes a turning-toward may lead a person to experience Jesus directly and personally. 

So much for the direct experience; but this is useless unless recognized as such! If we insist on rendering the clarity and simplicity of direct knowing into indirect forms - by translating into words, concepts, pictures - then we have made it into something abstract, complex, ambiguous... 

Into something that requires theoretical interpretation. 

Consider the example of a dream. 

In a dream we may meet Jesus in visual or audial imagery - and there is a strong tendency to focus on dream content: what Jesus looked-like, what did did, what he taught us...

Thus we get misleadingly caught-up by trying to interpret the meaning, decode the message, understand the implications... 

But the proper way to understand this kind of dream - or any other experience of Jesus - is to disregard specific content; and instead reflect on what we know experientially in consequence; and know so simply and so clearly that we can grasp it whole. 

**

NOTE ADDED: The above came from my reflecting upon how it is that the Fourth Gospel ("John") had become so important to me over the past years - its simple and clear "message" hitting me with the force of revelation; but that I would not expect other people to learn from reading it in the same way. 

For me, that particular means worked towards the desired end. But for other people, a very wide range of means might lead to the same end. 

In sum: the means to the end are personal, contextual - hence idiosyncratic. 

The problem is that - for too many people - being given the right answer is insufficient, because they are set-up to reject any answer when that answer is simple. 

Furthermore (as I said in a comment over at Francis Berger's place) It is a huge change of attitude required, from people assuming that reality is going to be something forced-upon them (almost irresistibly) by external power -- to recognizing that (as of here-and-now) people who want to know reality must make an explicit choice and pursue reality actively - and as an individual. 

That people do not do this is partly from psychological factors such as laziness and wrong priorities; but also most people assume that any belief or knowledge that is actively-chosen on the basis of inner-conviction (no matter how solidly-affirmed that conviction), must be just engaged in a wishful-thinking fantasy.

Nothing quite so nerve-rending, quite so demoralising, as the sight and sound of the Stuka

Theoretically, there is no target so easy to hit as a plane approaching directly head on; in practice, it never worked out that way. 

In the Arctic, the Mediterranean, the Pacific, the relative immunity of the torpedo-bombers, the high percentage of successful attacks carried out in the face of almost saturation fire, never failed to confound the experts. Tension, over-anxiety, fear—these were part of the trouble, at least; there are no half measures about a torpedo-bomber—you get him or he gets you. 

And there is nothing more nerve-racking—always, of course, with the outstanding exception of the screaming, near-vertical power-dive of the gullwinged Stuka dive-bomber—than to see a torpedo-bomber looming hugely, terrifyingly over the open sights of your gun and know that you have just five inexorable seconds to live… 

Any plane that hurtles down in undeviating dive on waiting gun emplacements has never a chance. Thus spoke the pundits, the instructors in the gunnery school of Whale Island, and proceeded to prove to their own satisfaction the evident truth of their statement, using A.A. guns and duplicating the situation which would arise insofar as it lay within their power. 

Unfortunately, they couldn‘t duplicate the Stuka. 

"Unfortunately", because in actual battle, the Stuka was the only factor in the situation that really mattered. 

One had only to crouch behind a gun, to listen to the ear-piercing, screaming whistle of the Stuka in its near-vertical dive, to flinch from its hail of bullets as it loomed larger and larger in the sights, to know that nothing could now arrest the flight of that underslung bomb, to appreciate the truth of that. 

Hundreds of men alive today—the lucky ones who endured and survived a Stuka attack—will readily confirm that the war produced nothing quite so nerve-rending, quite so demoralising as the sight and sound of those Junkers with the strange dihedral of the wings in the last seconds before they pulled out of their dive.

**

I have recently finished reading (actually listening to the excellently-read audiobook) of Alastair Maclean's HMS Ulysses. 

This was an absolutely superb war novel - Maclean's first, and written from personal experience - and (clearly) from the heart. 

The numerous characters are convincing and (mostly) empathic - including that rarest of types: a really good man; the situations are vividly and memorably described; the trajectory a stepwise (almost merciless!) cranking-up of power and horror. 

The above passages are vivid evidence of the unique ability of the Stuka, the best Axis dive-bomber - indeed the best "pure" dive bomber ever, in terms of accuracy; as a weapon in which the element of induced terror was so great as to lift its tactical effectiveness to another level beyond its mechanical capabilities.

Consequently; as an anti-shipping weapon; the Ju-87 destroyed more allied shipping than all other aircraft types put together. 

 

Giving-up on clear and effective communication - "Footway" bureaucratic notices

 

I noticed this on the (interminable, clearly maliciously-motivated) roadworks on the Great North Road; and I thought: 

"Who the dickens decided that "pavement" or "footpath" - terms that everybody from the youngest child to oldest codger understands - should instead be called a Footway?" 

But a moment's reflection was enough. 

The bureaucrats it is (together with their friends the politicians), who always and endlessly decide to rename things. 

Rename them without regard for clarity of communication or traditional associations* - and in accordance with their own incentive structures that reward institutional change - including change for the sake of change, or change for the worse (it does not matter which). 

That the purpose - the only proper purpose - of a sign is to communicate information, and that "Footway" fails to do this - is irrelevant to the bureaucrats/ politicians, and fellow travellers. 

 

I first noticed this more than 20 years ago when I saw that the road signs and marking in Hay-on-Wye (which straddles the border between England and Wales) had important instructional highway signage in a bilingual form - with Welsh coming first! 

Presumably this is for the benefit of the (non-existent) hordes of monoglot Welsh who could pass their driving tests only in Cymraeg.

The 99.99 (recurring) percent of road users who can only be distracted and delayed by the priority of a foreign phrase, and who need to read the English in order to obey the important and urgent traffic instruction; are irrelevant compared with the all-conquering bureaucratic imperative of making a point. 

*In 1974 the then "Conservative" government, gratuitously abolished or renamed many of the traditional counties of the UK. My then place of residence, Somerset; was renamed "Avon". Most egregious was the Scottish county of Clackmannanshire charmingly became... "Central Region". Some of these changes were later reverted by popular demand. 

Totalitarianism and/or Chaos: Ahrimanic backlash and/or Sorathic escalation in response to the latest global Litmus Test

The latest global Litmus Test (aka the most recent Establishment agenda theme) is playing-out negatively and for evil - as any change must, when not motivated by positive good. 

Whatever the original intent of the event and its propagation may have been, the existing Establishment power blocs are competing over what it implies.

Competing, often within different parts of the same media outlet! - as would be expected when there is a genuine schism and "civil war" within the Establishment.  

We need to be clear that in this war, both sides are of evil intent; but different types of evil. 

On one side, and this includes the political "Right" (actually, part of the Left); and this also includes the nationalistic "Christian Right" - there are the Ahrimanic totalitarians. 

These desire - first and foremost - an efficient and effective international System... A coherent political-bureaucracy-media complex. 

And the Ahrimanic totalitarians are trying to escalate and use the new Establishment agenda to make the System work better, mainly so-far by undoing some of the more egregious consequences of political correctness. 

This is the true nature of whatever is real in the "anti-woke" backlash assiduously reported by the mainstream sources. 

What motivates these System-reformers is a materialistic and this-worldly desire for a more comfortable, prosperous, and secure life (first and especially for themselves, and those of whom they approve). To be done by means of working-towards an effective and efficient System. 

This is why there is such a strong enthusiasm among such people, for ruthless coercion of individuals justified by "rational" objectives and "the common good." In other words: "enemies" are to be made to conform to the new rules of a better System.

For a truly Ahrimanic totalitarian, this coercion of conformity is done impersonally, without sadism - because it is the result of "objective" calculation of System necessity.  

In sum: For mainstream Establishment totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the System...

The only difference between the "Political Right" and the "Christian Right", is that the System to be ruthlessly imposed is intended to be one that is explicitly Christian in its forms: a Church System*. 

(Insofar as any totalitarian bureaucracy can really be Christian when it is intrinsically evil!)

Consequently; our old friend The Boromir Strategy is very much in evidence! 

The Political/ Christian Right advocate using the "weapons" of the enemy, including the psychological motivations of leftist materialism - rationalized by the excuse that this is the most effective way to win... 

Under the assumption that "our System winning" (by whatever means are judged to be expedient) is the same thing as "Good". 

In sum: For Christian totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the Church System...

Mixed-in with totalitarianism (of various stripes) - and sometimes dominant - is explicit expression (across the board, including the "Right", including among self-identified-Christians) of the characteristically "sadistic" emotions of spiteful Schadenfreude. 

In other words, we see the fingerprints of strengthening Sorathic Chaotic Evil.

This is motivated mainly by personal gratification at the sufferings and destruction of "enemies"; or, at first enemies... 

Instead of the impersonal and calculating Ahrimanic justification of coercive imposition for reasons of Systemic-necessity; the Sorathic "Right" will characteristically express positive pleasure in the "need" for imposing suffering on their enemies. 

They typically express delight at the prospect of the misery and destruction of those who will not conform to the new programme. 

...But later, as evil feeds-upon-itself, they will go on to enjoy the suffering and destructions of anybody and anything that opposes or ignores our personal interests and enjoyments.

(And finally the ultimately nihilistic destruction of divine creation - and at last, the suicidal annihilation of their own self; as something created by God.)  

In other words - because people are currently riled-up and feel free to express their dark and usually-secret motivations - we can currently observe the inevitable waxing of evil that happens when both "sides" are actually rival factions of the spiritual war that opposes God and Divine Creation. 

Both totalitarian and chaotic evil are, in their different but overlapping ways, de facto working towards the self-chosen damnation of self-righteous sinners. 

In other words, all varieties of evil are working towards an increase of the self-exclusion of the unrepentant from Heaven; which self-exclusion includes those unrepentant for whom this-worldly expediency is affirmed as primary...

Those for whom their superficial assertion of wanting a more-Christian world and future Heaven, has become an insincere excuse for advocating and doing More Evil Now.

**

*NOTE ADDED: I would like to clarify that I intend the term Church System - which I judge to be the large (or at least vociferous!) majority of Christians who identify with "the Right" or nationalism - to refer to those whose priority is System. here-and-now, in This World - and starting from where we actually are. I mean those many who, at worst (explicitly or covertly), regard their favoured Christian Church as the best or only means to what they really and most deeply want: which is an effective, efficient and "us"-orientated social System. 

(Looking back some 15-plus years; I can see that I was one of these at the time I converted to Christianity. I wanted what I hoped the right Church might do for society during my mortal life and those I love; more than I wanted to follow Jesus to Heaven.) 

I also mean the term Church Systematists to include others, less culpable perhaps, who - sincerely and without covertly-pursued primary self-interest - regard System as a necessary materialistic means to the salvific and next-worldly and spiritual end, of what the uncorrupted Christian Churches advocate. That is to say the Church System totalitarians include those who want System-reform first, to be followed (some unspecified time later) by top-down and imposed Christianization, made possible by the attainment of power (i.e. the Boromir Strategy). These are blind or foolish (if sincere), but not so strategically-bad as those who merely desire to use the Churches for material ends  

But I do Not mean to include in the Church System category, those real Christians who retain loyalty to the spiritual goals of their Church in its ideal form - those who, by discernment and personal evaluation, seek and follow the Christian Truth among the lies and expediencies of the totalitarian-affiliated human institutions of the actual Churches of 2025.  

Some Christian Churches yet retain the capacity to help individuals in their Christian Faith; with political considerations as secondary and derivative consequences of this primary faith. 

Belief in the Hereafter: Glenn Gould

This passage is  quoted in 32 Short Films about Glenn Gould - and also Glenn Gould. Hereafter.

ELYSE MACH: I’d like to ask: Do you believe in the afterlife? 

Glenn Gould: Well, I was brought up as a Presbyterian, though I did stop being a church goer, ohh, about the age of 18 … but I always have had a tremendously strong sense that there is, indeed, a hereafter … that we all must reckon with, and lead our lives according to, this belief that there is, inevitably, a transformation of the spirit. As a consequence, I find all ‘here-and-now’ philosophies quite repellent … lax, if you will. I do recognize, however, that it is a great temptation to try and formulate a comfortable theory of eternal life, so as to reconcile oneself to the inevitability of death. But I’d like to think that’s not what I’m doing—I honestly don’t think that I’m creating a deliberate self-reassuring process. For me, it intuitively seems right … I’ve never had to work at convincing myself of a life hereafter. After all, don’t you think it seems infinitely more plausible than its opposite … oblivion?

 

There is surely a direct relationship between Gould's conviction of the reality of a personal afterlife, and the extraordinary and unique spiritual dimension he brought to the best of his life and performances. 

When I am able to grasp the fact of it; I am absolutely staggered at the perfection of the gift of Jesus: I mean resurrected eternal life in Heaven. It is so absolutely and exactly what I would most have wanted!

Yet most people, most of the time (almost everybody, almost always) are utterly insensible to this extraordinary thing. I know, because for most of my life I was one of them. 

I know how - in the particular and peculiar environment of this modern era - it seems natural (as well as adult and intelligent) to adopt a flippant attitude to this most important of all questions. I know the arguments - from the inside - about how eternal life, resurrection, Heaven etc - don't really make any difference to the wise Man of true values; how these are childish panderings to the weakness and vanity of... etc. etc...

Consequently we do not allow ourselves even to begin to grasp what is actually on offer; and oscillate back and forth between regarding the astonishing gift of Jesus as too-good-to-be-true, and then of-no-interest at all - or (somehow) hold both beliefs at the same time...

One common, and stunningly wrong, attitude is that the reality of eternal life makes no difference to this life! I have felt this myself. It is so incredibly, stupidly and obviously wrong, that such an attitude is itself a key to much of the pathology of modern thinking. I mean; the fact that I and others can and do think this way, is a revelation of a profound (i.e. deep rooted) incapacity to reason that is near universal.

I realise that Jesus's offer does not appeal to everyone. Which is presumably why only Christianity (and only some understandings of Christianity) 'offer' this destination after death. But I think there are plenty who, like me, want nothing different from what Jesus offers - and it ought to be a simple matter for us to get past the first step of acknowledging "Yes, that's what I most want"; and (but only) then move on to the question: "Is it true?"

Step one: do we want what Jesus offers? Step two: is the offer true? 

And, as Gould said, evaluating the truth of Jesus's offer is a matter of intuition. 

No 'evidence' is of relevance. But intuition must have something to intuit! An idea must be grasped with the fullness of imaginative understanding before it can be tested by intuition. 

And that is exactly where most modern people go so fatally wrong: they/we cannot imaginatively grasp the reality of resurrected, eternal Heavenly life (or, we do not allow ourselves to do this); therefore we cannot intuitively evaluate its truth. 

We cannot get past step one. 

Note: This post seems significant to me. It is re-blogged from September of 2020, at which it passed without apparent notice. 

Christian theology ought to build-upon our innate, spontaneous, natural assumptions - not subvert them

Since the creator is a personal and good God who loves us; it seems to make sense that we would be born into this world with the kind of assumptions (hence understanding) that is supportive (or, at least, compatible with) our salvation. 

I regard this as a deep truth; and that the "animistic" consciousness of young childhood - the assumption of inhabiting a living universe of other Beings - is therefore a true understanding of reality.

Truth about reality is therefore something originally inside us, within us, something we do not need to look for elsewhere, or to "other people", to find.  

In other words - if truth about reality is inborn, within, divinely implanted - then it is something we can know for ourselves, from our-selves - and therefore be sure about. 

This means that much of Christian theology is false when it asserts that ultimate realities are impersonal and/or abstract in nature - or too complex to comprehend. 

This is a lethal objection to Christian theology when it is asserted to be something that need to be derived second-hand, from other people or other places - a kind of hearsay - that we are supposed to obey: uncomprehendingly if necessary. 

From this perspective it is also clear that "mainstream modern materialism" (which inculcates and permeates assumptions that ultimate reality is a dead, purposeless, meaningless - a matter of physical and chemical processes) is false. 

(And, insofar as Christian theology tries to incorporate materialism, then to that extent it makes itself incoherent, self-subverting.) 

What modern materialism and mainstream Christian theology both do to a person, is inculcate the assumption that he must get his understanding from outside himself - because both replace our innate childhood world-view, with some-other world view that we must find somewhere in our culture. 

When people are looking around to "other people" or social systems to understand the world - then Satan holds most of the cards; and the Christian truth becomes just another option among many-more - lost among a much larger and constantly-changing mass of alternatives.

Even when people become Christian under such circumstances and with such an "external-seeking" mind-set - then it becomes very difficult to have strong faith - i.e. difficult to have sureness and confidence in the rightness of our particular world-view...

Once we leave behind the innate - and God given! - perspective that the true understanding has been  built-into us; then any and every world-view that comes from outside is a threat to our present conviction. 

In a world where truth is not-innate, where truth is said to be (or may be) external, abstract, impersonal, hyper-complex - then we find ourselves trying to cling to a particular and second-hand/ adopted understanding...

And constantly being offered alternative external views: constantly under attack from external world views: constantly needing to defend and justify our specific choices.  

No wonder Christian faith is so feeble! - when we have built it under the assumption that our childhood knowledge is something that is merely immature, and needs to be set-aside; such that we Must derive Truth about Reality from sources outside ourselves, from among the many, Many alternative offered by people and by culture! 

We can never really believe "other people" sufficiently to have a strong faith - unless, perhaps, all of those other-people are saying the same thing - which nowadays they certainly never are; not even within the strictest of churches! 

 

All too often - Christianity succeeds in subverting our natural childhood assumptions with abstract and complex theological dogmas - and succeeds only in enfeebling the consequent faith.

As was made blazingly evident in 2020. 

I conclude that (from here-and-now) the truth of Christianity "must" (if Christian faith is to be strong) therefore be such that it can simply be added-onto the innate and spontaneous assumptions about reality with which God provided us on entering incarnation; and with which we are (apparently) all born. 

Traditional Christianity - in practice a New Age type of "radical traditionalism"?

I often dip-into the writings of John Michell - who had a truly delightful ability to evoke an imaginative and romantic vision of the past; especially of past societies and places. 

Michell sometimes defined himself a radical traditionalist - in that his lifestyle, methods and society were radical, countercultural and New Age. He is, indeed, regarded as a founder of New Age in Britain, with a delightfully inspiring 1969 book called The View Over Atlantis. A very modern kind of chap, then; eccentric, eclectic, a magpie-collector of lost perspectives and knowledge... 

But Michell consistently advocated traditionalism. His greatest hero was Plato, or more exactly the Neoplatonic (perrenialist) tradition that is said to date back at least to Pythagoras; and sees abstract and ideal numbers and geometry, as the basis of created reality. 

Michell wrote and spoke eloquently about the ideal civilization as one of perfect unity, balance and form; a society that was served by its people - who were united and found their deepest satisfaction by their love of divine harmony, and whose life was spent in sustaining that harmony. 

In spite of his many neo-pagan followers; Michell publicly identified himself as a Christian, in the Catholic tradition of the Church of England; and his vision was a distinctly deistic version of the kind of society most closely approached here during the "Merrie England" era of the Middle Ages. 

  

It struck me that even the most ardent and sincere traditionalists among current Christians, are much more like John Michell than they are like the denizens of Medieval-type societies of the kind they hope shall return. 

In other words, like it or not (and they would not embrace the label like John Michel did) they are essentially "New Age Traditionalists" - who are inspired in the present by contemplating an imaginative vision of the past.

More exactly; I regard New Age spirituality as (approximately) an individual centred seeking after participation of consciousness - a personal quest for alleviation of modern alienation; often by discovering "technologies" by which their own consciousness may be manipulated in the desired direction. 

And the bottom line is "whatever works for me". 

Traditionalist Christians are typically also doing this: they have discovered a religious system, with characteristic ritual, symbolism and sacred books and activities - that "work for them" in inducing the desired spiritual state. 

But in most of New Age, this quest may be hedonic, may be wholly here-and-now and this-worldly...

While for traditionalist Christians, such effects, while usually present (I mean, joy, or at least pleasure, from living and participating in church-endorsed activities) is subordinated to other-worldly goals; perhaps including the transformation of this-world into a specifically-Christian version of Michell's more generic ideal structure and forms.  

 What I am getting-at is that the modern attitude to traditional and (more-or-less) ideal-modelled societies - whether actual and historical or potential and aspired-to - is contemplative and imaginative (at best) - and because of the actuality of our consciousness; it nearly-always takes (as with John Michell) a modern, New Age, and indeed "radical" form. 

In sum, traditionalism cannot help but be a radical traditionalism; and this includes individualistic and New Age discernments and evaluations. 

No matter how viscerally a traditional Christian may despise New Age spirituality - his own religious life shares essentially the same generic aims and methods. 

 

No matter how earnestly someone may seek to become a traditionalist like those of the past; our whole attitude and method will be "radical" - not least because we need actually to be modern society nonconformists and rejecters - that is radicals; in pursuit of becoming (it is hoped, at some point in the future) obedient traditional society acceptors. 

I regard this as an inevitable constraint - a product of the way that we now are, and the way that our consciousness is set-up - individualist and agentic, spontaneously-alienated, inescapably fated to make personal discernments and evaluations. 

For a Christian truth is never just "my" truth; but for a modern Christian, strong and motivating saving-truth needs also to be "my" truth - in a way that was not the case in the past.  

Thus the spiritually-effective Christian life will inevitably share some version of the New Age "Seeking" quest, and will be calibrated by means of a spiritual-responsivity that may well be individually-distinctive, or else rare among the mass of people.  

In theology, it impresses me to find evidence of active thinking - rather than defensive parroting

Its a sad, but inevitable, fact that almost all of Christian theology - is merely defensive parroting. 

Which is to say that the discourse is just people expounding arguments and evidences they have learned from sources approved by the church to which they have chosen to affiliate. 

It is awareness of this parroting quality (on one or both sides) that may produce that sense of frustration at lack of engagement, of unseriousness, of insincerity - or even cowardice; which has been so off-putting to so many modern people who are considering becoming Christians, or who are expressing genuine (not merely expedient) doubts about aspects of their church or Christianity generally.

I suppose there must have been some people who were actively thinking about Jesus Christ and Christianity at some point in history! Indeed, I suppose that the letters of Paul are evidence of this kind of grappling. 

But there has been in Christianity, and very early, and for most (not all) of subsequent history - probably as in most other religions - a strong tendency to draw a line under this thinking for oneself - and a switch to stating (dogmatically) that this primary engagement has been done, the results are in - and the answers are as follows...

From which point the idea is that good Christians need to understand and believe, to learn and rehearse, and to parrot. 

At which point there is no point in talking to them! Arguments are futile! Debate is simulated!

Unless - that is - you are merely curious about such people; or if your goal is to become like them, and be guided in all your fundamental life understandings, motivations and choices - by an institution. Which is, evidently, still a popular aspiration - although almost-never actually achieved.   

  **

Further Note: I have often myself engaged in this defensive parroting! So I know it by inner experience. 

For instance, in medicine, doctors explanations are of this kind, because the doctor has never himself been through the background to medical facts and claims, but is merely repeating what he has been taught or otherwise learned. 

And, of course, most enquiries and dissenting directed at doctors is (almost inevitably) itself shallow and ignorant, or selfish or manipulative... and is not motivated by a genuine desire for discovering truth. 

But Not Always! And then it is maddening to have one's one direct enjoyment met with parroting merely!

At other times, after becoming a Christian, I sometimes found myself in the same situation. I accepted the truth of some external claim - but did not really know it for myself or from primary experience - and indeed such experience tended to refute the external claim, but I deferred to authority on the basis that cleverer and better informed people than myself had been deemed to have sorted-this-out long ago. 

It was really when I - almost against my will - was nigh-compelled to dig deeper and deeper towards the most fundamental aspects of Christianity; that I began to find it ever more obvious that this would Not be how God would set-things-up! 

I mean; I began to feel clear and sure that God would Not create us and the world; such that we were supposed to pick some particular social institution (a church), then adopt an attitude of obedient service and trusting credulity to that institution. 

That would be an absurdly unreliable, fragile, contingent way to plan a system for the salvation of Mankind!  

At around this point, I began to notice when I was parroting about Christianity, and to dislike myself for doing it; and instead felt a necessity to discover the truths by my own thinking and spiritual experience.

And to regard such personal engagement as the bottom line for my understanding of reality - rather than regarding Christian faith as deference-to and parroting-of any particular external source. 

*

Another Note: Why has it become necessary (at least, I would say so) for us actively to think about theology; when in the past it seemed to be not just adequate but often desirable to parrot good authorities? 

My short answer is that we Now live in a totalitarian atheist-materialist world, where all institutions (including all churches) are part of a multi-linked-bureaucratic system that is intrinsically evil: by which I mean intrinsically in-opposition-to God, divine creation and salvation. This was Not the case in the past; and churches were (at least, in some times and places) overall in-harmony-with The Good; such that obedience to the church was sufficient - and probably the safest path.

(Furthermore, In the past nearly-all Men were communal, and substantially lived in a group-consciousness; such that individual and agentic thinking was rare and difficult; whereas now it is the spontaneous default - and indeed difficult to escape, even when we desire to immerse in a shared consciousness.)   

Why is "pride" often considered the worst sin?

The sin of pride is especially insidious and perhaps ineradicable, and an absolute barrier to salvation: because it is the ultimate complacency that "I am good enough as I am".

Salvation is resurrection, and resurrection is a remaking such that we become wholly good, wholly motivated by love...

This includes our recognition that we need remaking, that we need to reject and leave-behind that of us which is dissonant with the euphony of divine creation.

But if we are spiritually-proud, we see no reason why we need to be remade to be fitted for Heaven. 

The proud Man wants, instead, that Heaven be fitted around himself as-is.

Such pride seems very common and normal, and is found among the despised, weak, poor and sick - as also (more obviously) among the strong, arrogant and famous.

**

Note: Of course, pride is not the only blockage to salvation. Self hatred is another, because it is our-self who is resurrected. If we hate our self, we will not desire to be resurrected.

The latest massive-global Litmus Test

The most recent global Litmus Test from the totalitarian Establishment has been very successful. 

Almost everybody I have sampled online has failed it.

Which is to say, people have taken sides - when both sides are ultimately evil - as intended; such that the (Sorathic) agenda of chaotic evil has been advanced.

The last Test on this scale was the Arrakis war (CHOAM versus the Fremen) which was two years ago, so there has been plenty of time to plan this latest.

These Tests are clever, they aren't easy; they're designed to fascinate, shock, induce fear and anger, dupe, misdirect specifically those who have passed the earlier Tests successfully - and this has been achieved.

The lesson of the Litmus Tests, taken together and so-far, has been that Christians cannot allow the totalitarian Establishment to set (and therefore control) the agenda, our moral focus, our life-values, our bottom-line principles for discernment.

Because if we do allow this, by adopting an assigned role, joining a "group" - we are thereby consenting to be enlisted into a project of The Enemy.

We may never know the exact nature of this evil project, indeed there will probably be more than one purpose.

But whenever there is a top-down disseminated global frenzy and we feel the pressure to adopt A Position; we should recognize what is going-on.

Meaningful places are objectively real to me - but why?

For me, there have always been only a few and specific "meaningful places" and I feel more-or-less out of it and adrift anywhere else. 

Where I live now and the surrounding area is meaningful; and also where I used to live in the South West - Devon (although I haven't visited there for a very long time) and Somerset.

Outside these, not many. London, the South East, and pretty much all of the Midlands - except the Welsh border counties (eg Herefordshire, Shropshire) - leave me decidedly cool. 

I find parts of the Scottish side of the Borders to be very magical, and I used to find Edinburgh meaningful, but not for a long time now. And I never found Glasgow meaningful, which was why my time living there made so little an impression. 

Keswick is a favourite meaningful place, and Stratford upon Avon another. 

The first time I went to Norwich I was very taken by it; but later visits did not confirm this. However, I was very taken by Ely (I've been three times, now) and much of rural fenland Cambridgeshire - but not Cambridge itself. 

Oxford, I used to find meaningful, and visited many times across 50 years - but I also found that the magic of the place was progressively fading with every repeat visit. I shall be revisiting soon, and will be curious to see how it is faring...

The point of all this - is that experience has taught me that there is something objective about whether a place or area is meaningful to me. It's not something I can "manufacture" by will power. 

Places that are "theoretically right" for me, and which I strove to find meaningful - can stubbornly resist; and remain disenchanted (Glasgow, Cambridge, for instance). 

While, on the other side, I have also been surprised at how some places grabbed me - Stratford, for instance, I fully expected to find too much of a "tourist trap" yet I was actually bowled-over, and have had many holidays there.

The reason and significance? 

I think it has something to do with our personal destiny.... 

For reasons we probably will never know, I think we get some kind of inner spiritual guidance - subtle, but decisive and strong - about where we ought to be spending our time - and where Not. 

The Good Thief and instant conversion

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. 

Luke 23: 39-43

I have long been fascinated and inspired by the Biblical examples of people becoming an "instant Christian". 

Whether these narrated events actually happened is, for me, secondary to the fact that I understand the Gospel writers reported them as things that could have happened - and therefore (presumably) instant Christianity was consistent with early Christian practice. 

A particularly beautiful story is that of the "Good" or "Penitent" thief (later dubbed Dysmas by Apocryphal sources). 

What I get from this is that becoming a Christian was a simple and quick matter, in the beginning. 

It can, as here, be reduced to two main requirements, encapsulated in the sentences: Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom and To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

In reverse order I take this to imply: 

1. That Dysmas wanted that which Jesus promised - resurrection into Heaven, which I extrapolate from "with me in Paradise". 

2. That Dysmas recognized Jesus for what he claimed to be ("Lord"), and as following him to be The Way for Men to attain resurrection into Heaven. This, I see as consistent with "remember me" - meaning that salvation is by a personal relationship with Jesus.

Of course, I don't claim that these brief and narrative Bible versus entail the truths of salvation! But I find that they resonate with these truths; and that the felt-message is one of hope and joy for all Men, who are all (and always shall be) ultimately "sinners" - that is we are never, ever, fully-aligned with God's creative will. 

The Good Thief demonstrates that this is not a barrier to our attaining Paradise - so long as we desire to become fully-aligned. 

And that the transformation of our future state is but the work of a moment. 

I, Claudius/ the God and 4-Dimensional Chess in politics

I wonder if it was Robert Graves's massively-influential two-part pseudo-autobiographical novel I, Claudius (or "Clavdivs" as it was written on the cover of the version I read - and which my Granny noticed and read-out phonetically, leading to a continuing family pronunciation-trope) and Claudius the God; that popularized the 4-Dimensional Chess understanding of political leaders - so evident among the self-styled "Right" in the US today. 

Before Graves's books, it seems that Claudius was regarded as a mediocre and weak Emperor, who came in-between the two ultra-evil (hence much more interesting) Emperors: Caligula and Nero. 

Of course, Claudius Caesar was also the Emperor who successfully conquered England - so for us there is an inclination to assume that there "must have" been something more positive to him; since he succeeded in beating "us" where the great Julius had failed (twice). 

At any rate; Graves decided to depict Claudius as a good, clever, and sympathetic man; whose underlying desire and purpose - unspoken, kept in his secret heart - was to abolish the position of Emperor and restore the Roman Republic...

Who nonetheless, by a series of accidents, ended-up becoming the Emperor instead!

This assumption I found convincing in I, Claudius, which covers the time before he became Emperor; but becomes increasingly untenable as we progress through all the corruptions and evils of Claudius's actual reign, and his final decision to allow himself to be poisoned, and Nero to become his successor. 

Yet Graves sticks with the idea that Claudius always aimed at good; and manages this by attributing all sorts of 4-D chess attributes. Including the final desperate master-stroke of ensuring that Claudius himself would be followed by the worst possible successor - in the (as it turned-out, mistaken) belief that after Nero, the situation of Rome would become so very-bad that (surely?) the Republic would be restored.  

This did not convince me at the time I first read C the G (aged 14) - and it does not convince me now. 

Nor am I convinced by attempts to depict current (or recent) mainstream political figures - who advocate-promote-and-do, many or most of the usual mainstream-evil things; to depict such characters  as being - in their secret hearts - agents for good... 

Biding their time, taking the long view; (like Saruman) regretting that the ultimate end unfortunately entails implementing malignant means, here-and-now... 

But with a Master Plan to ensure the restoration of common sense and decency in public life; by means of a covert strategy far beyond the comprehension of us ordinary mortals - yet working behind-the-scenes, always and tirelessly, for our betterment. 

It's important to recognize how very bad things actually are - civilizationally

A recurrent source of disagreement I have with nearly everybody, and going back to about 2008; is that I am acutely aware that our civilization is in a really, really bad way - much, much worse than almost almost-anybody is prepared even to entertain as a possibility. 

This seems to me very obvious! And also that the problems are as deep as such problems can be - problems of false fundamental assumptions concerning reality, and problems that the strongest human motivations in this life are disordered...

The problem of habitual and compulsive dishonesty (including, most damagingly, with oneself), and the problem of being unable or unwilling to learn from repeated experiences. 

...To mention only some of the fundamental problems. 

I suppose one reason that this conviction of mine is hardly shared, is that people evaluate civilization first in terms of how they personally are feeling, here-and-now - and if they are feeling OK or happy, they infer that nothing can be seriously wrong. 

Or that people evaluate civilization in terms of sheer abstract survival and continuity. SO that as long as things haven't actually collapsed, or can - at least - be imaged as rebounding or self-correcting (even over multigenerational timescales) then nothing can be seriously wrong. 

And under this is the truth that matters of civilization aren't our concern, really. Civilizations are not as product of human will and planning - and neither is their continuation. They are a kind of unavoidable backdrop and essential sustenance - and (evidently) a colossal influence in spiritual aspirations, beliefs,  perceptions - and yet these matters cannot be positively influenced in an overall or top-down fashion (although they can be negatively affected). 

In the end, spiritually speaking; we are individual persons and agents - no matter how much we try to elude this; and our primary social concern is with loving relationships - which are the only like that "society" has to the great dramas of spiritual learning and salvation. 

Therefore I am not-at-all saying that we ought to recognize how very bad things actually are because this might help us to make them better! 

What I am saying here; is that - unless we recognize how bad things actually are - then we Will Not Actually pursue the real business of our lives - i.e. the great dramas of spiritual learning and salvation.  

While some may argue that we don't need to acknowledge the evil nature of the Big Picture in order our-selves to be good; this seems decisively to be refuted by experience. Unless people feel themselves spiritually detached from our civilization in a profound metaphysical and motivational way; then for so long they will be aligned with the agenda of evil - and at a deep level of affiliation that subverts surface declarations and practices.   

In other words: observation of what happens when not; brings me to the conviction that we need (yes need) to sense, know, acknowledge, take-account of; just how very bad things really are civilizationally - if we our-selves are to be able to become clear about this mortal life - and make Christian personal discernments and choices. 

To be free to choose to follow Jesus, and to learn from our actual lives; entails that we know the nature of our spiritual situation in this world.  

Anything less just doesn't cut it. 

***

NOTE ADDED: I would like to emphasize that the fullest recognition of how very bad things are; is, or can be, in its effect a great and immediate liberation. 

By it we are freed from futile engagement with that utterly vast, and impossibly complicated, web of distortions and manipulations that is the realm of public discourse. 

Positively: we become true agents; with both authority and need to stand on our own evaluations.

And thereby we become primarily responsible for understanding our place in this world, and deciding our desired destination beyond it.