The problem of self-justifying ethical systems

It is a matter of frequent observation that during the era of modernity - i.e. for the past several hundred years - that there has been a continual pressure to change ("reform") generally-applicable religious moral systems in ways that conform to a need for people to justify their own personal and specific desires and pleasures.

Most often the impulse is sexual. 

I could not count the number of twentieth century political figures, intellectuals, and authors; whose anti-Christian atheism has been (more or less explicitly) motivated by their desire to have systemic-justification for their own sexual desires. 

(The same applies to other, non-sexual, preferences. It is quite normal and unremarked, for people to argue from their own preferences to the conclusion that everybody and everything be organized-around their gratification. But sex and sexuality is the commonest and most obvious example.)

At first this was a desire for extra-marital sex, then for (a lot of) promiscuous sex, later for same sex relationship, then for changing sex and all the rest of it. But whatever the personal desire happened to be in an individual - this was linked to a general demand that social/ civilizational ethical codes and moral values be altered to endorse it positively. 

This kind of systemic self-justifying morality is so "normal" in our era, that it seems (somehow) admirable to the modern mind (as well as supposedly inevitable) that people will advocate and propagandize to encourage society to allow/ encourage/ subsidize their personal sexual aspirations. 

This powerful desire for societal - indeed civilizational- ethical systems to permit/ approve/ enforce one's personal sexual (or other) preferences has become the almost unquestioned basis for a good deal of organized radical politics for many decades. 

And yet; such an attitude is both very unusual in world historical terms. 

It is also, and  would have thought very obviously, an incoherent and unsustainable way of developing social ethical frameworks! 

In the past it seems to have been normal for those who devised societal ethical systems to construct them on the basis of what they supposed to be "the general good" - albeit that the "general" was typically restrictively defined, to almost entirely the ruling class, priestly class, or whoever had greatest influence on societal morality. 

Individual desires were (at least among the powerful) accommodated by "hypocrisy" - in other words, those who gratified desires deemed unethical by the general system; nonetheless supported the general system - on the simple basis that: the general morality was best for most of the people (i.e. people who mattered) for most of the time and over the longer run.  

But here-and-now, it is usual and normative for an individual person - but particularly the intellectual class - to reason that because he personally has a particular sexual desire; therefore society ought to be restructured to accommodate and enforce the fulfilment of that desire. 

Personal preference is projected into the demand for social norms to be built-around it. 

This goes with a fanatical hatred of hypocrisy, regarded as The Worst of ethical transgressions - which increasingly permeates literature and the arts from the late 19th century. 

Such that it is now regarded as much better for someone to be openly and explicitly cynical, selfish, even evil - and explicitly to advocate a low standard (or even inverted) morality; than to express belief in the rightness of high moral values, but then fail to achieve them. 

Consequently the anti-hero, a selfish, cynical (but charismatic) villain who does whatever he desires and takes whatever he fancies - is the admired character in modern cultural productions. 

Whereas anyone who espouses high moral standards (higher standards than he personally can achieve) will be portrayed as boring, coercively-authoritarian, coldly cruel - and he invariably gets exposed as a vile hypocrite before the end. 

Such has been the inversional-denouement of most mainstream, popular, and (especially) critically-admired TV, movies and novels for several generations. 

It is a bizarre but stark reality of Western Civilization here-and-now that the primacy of general morality over personal gratification has become so very enfeebled as to be almost ineffectual. 

And instead the dominant societal ethic has become one in which it is explicitly argued that gratification of individual sexual desires (of one sort or another) ought necessarily and always to be the basis for general, societal, ethical systems*. 

However... Does it really need to be pointed-out that maximizing a multitude of selfish short-termist sexual desires is - and surely obviously? - a reliable recipe for social annihilation?  

Self-justifying ethical systems are clearly a blueprint for cumulative moral destruction. 

Yet it is remarkable how seldom that surely-destructive consequences of self-justifying ethical systems have been noticed or acknowledged by the most influential commentators of the past few generations...

On the other hand; sex is very far from being the only example when obviously and necessarily destructive consequences of their moral projects are invisible to mainstream intellectuals!  

Which facts tell me that the the mass of the most prestigious and powerful intellectuals of The West, have been (for a long time, and continuing) actively promoting degenerative social destruction, and are therefore (whether witting or unwitting) allies and servants of the demonic party.

This blind or wilful mass servitude to the agenda against God, Divine Creation and The Good; is something we ought continually to bear in mind when we consume the outputs of officialdom, mass media, news, science, the arts, education - and everywhere else that intellectuals are employed.

Especially whenever we suspect that general moral systems are being pushed on the basis of self-justification. 

Because I think the problem lies with a rather specific moral weakness of intellectuals as a class; which is a burning desire for ethical self-justification - at almost any cost.  

*I am here pointing out the evil of self-justifying ethical systems. But this destructive fallacy would not have arisen to dominate had it altogether lacked moral appeal; had there not been significant and oppressive evils in the previously-existing justifications and implementations of group morality - sufficient that these could seem intolerable. 

Such that a return from where-we-now-are to pre-modern morality is not just unattainable but undesirable. 

As so often; both alternatives presented by modern culture for our choice are bad; although the pre-modern is certainly the lesser evil. 

My inference is therefore that we are each required to discover a third - and genuinely good - alternative; and I observe that society does not offer us any genuine alternative ready-made. 

Therefore; moral exploration and discernment is something that each must do for himself. 

Saturday music: Some Irish reels on flute, by Kevin Crawford

I have a particular fondness for Irish reels* and jigs played on the flute; and this is an exceptionally good example of the genre - played by Kevin Crawford and backed by Bodhran (drum) and Guitar: the tunes are Dillon's Fancy, Maids in the Meadow & Toss the Feathers. 

I find Crawford's playing here to be irresistible; almost miraculous in its rapidity and accuracy, the decorations and emphasis - and the way that the necessary breathing is integrated into the rhythm - usually as off-beats which add a kind of syncopation. 

The flute tone is also rich and pleasing - especially the low notes.  

*A reel is a fast folk tune, in 4/4 time with lots of quavers, originally for dancing - but nowadays more often for listening (hence played even faster than when for dancing).

Is Everything a Total Fake?

It is an interesting and significant fact, that major-controlling institutions in our totalitarian Western society often tolerate - and indeed fund and publicise - books, TV, movies, and social commentary; the arguments of which categorically assert that Everything in public discourse is a Fake - and, in the most uncompromising versions - always has been a Fake, through history.

The expounded idea is that official and mass media narratives are (in general) pure illusion, based on nothing at all; an eggshell of false narrative enclosing a void of real life content. 

At the most extreme level, the "Everything a Fake" people seem to be saying that "nothing ever happened" - at least nothing that was said officially to have happened. They are suggesting that public discourse has always been pure illusion.  

With individual exceptions - this is not generally true, especially not as we go further back into eras in which the mass media and state propaganda systems were smaller and less effective.

I feel confident that "Everything has always been a Fake" is not true, from the big changes in increasing fakery that I have experienced through my lifespan, and by the obvious acceleration of such trends through the 1990s and into the 21st century. 

If Fakery has got so much worse in living memory, then clearly things were less faked in the past. 

Also, we know that Total Fakery isn't the norm from the huge efforts that The System invests to make things happen. 

This would not be the case if it was normal and expected to manufacture significant fakes from zilch. Important fakes aren't built on nothing, for the obvious reason that then they would be less effective. 

We all know that lies mixed with facts are much more convincing than complete fabrications. 

 

When fakery incorporates real aspects of actual events; fakes are far more difficult to disentangle and thereby disprove outright - hence far more convincing to the credulous and inattentive majority. 

What (in general) happened in the past was that underlying events were essentially real (albeit much more often contrived by the authorities than realized at the time); but the truth of reality was exaggerated, or twisted by fakery, in order to manipulate public opinion. 

The incremental trend (especially over the past several generations) was both for fakery to become more dominant; and for the underlying real events to become more top-down contrived. 

For instance, the 2020 Birdemic was very nearly a Total Fake; in that it was invented, planned, and implemented top-down - and some "evidential" aspects were Total Fakes (e.g. things that had not happen were theatrically staged and filmed). 

But as a total phenomenon; the Birdemic incorporated many real world actions and events - and the consequences of pseudo-therapeutic interventions (e.g. extra deaths caused by supposedly anti-Birdemic medico-social changes) - into its pre-determined narrative. 

Eventually; there resulted a hyper-complex and deliberately-confused mass of many inventions, illusions and lies - built-upon and mixed-with a few factual realities. 

Consequently; we know for sure that the official narratives are all false and deliberately misleading; but it can never be known what actually happened minus the Fakery. 

The lesson is that although some small things are indeed a Total Fake, most important lies will interweave real facts and events. 

Which does not, of course, mean that there is "some truth" in (for instance) the Birdemic, the CO2 Climate narrative, or the current top-down imposition of AI; because events and facts are not truth. 

We must learn to distinguish between facts and truth: facts only have meaning when interpreted by theory. 

Thus, when theory is false and dishonest, then "real facts" can only serve to sustain a false and dishonest understanding. 

In sum: all the major strategies of the global totalitarians are fundamentally and intentionally false - despite their not being total fakes; and despite whatever correct facts and real events are woven into them.

Total Fakery is not the real problem - which is why people are encouraged (officially!) to entertain the idea of Total Fakes at such length, and in such detail. 

It is intentional untruthfulness in service to evil intent, that is the real problem.         

 

Seeking an external, socio-political, cure for modern alienation

Like many people I began to feel alienated, cut-off, "trapped inside my head", from other people and from nature, at the onset of adolescence. 

And I sought some, at least theoretical, way of relieving this chronic state of dysphoria. Something better situation that I could look forward to. 

Up to the age of about nineteen, I pinned my hopes on socio-political change. 

It was Karl Marx who seemed to have popularized this idea of alienation as a socio-political phenomenon; due, ultimately, to class economic disempowerment. And the idea that alienation both could and should be cured by wholesale communist revolutionary societal change.  

As an adolescent; I implicitly agreed with this basic analysis. I saw the problem in The World (not myself). However, I was never a revolutionary communist. 

Nonetheless I saw the answer in socialism: either in a gradualistic Fabian socialism that would free everyone by abolishing poverty and providing universally decent and stimulating conditions. Or, more deeply, in a socialism of the William Morris type - a medievalism that fitted with my yearnings for Middle Earth, and what seemed like the paradisal societies there depicted. 

In sum - I looked outside myself and to society at large for the answer to my personal alienation. My implicit idea was that if society in general could be set right, then I personally would feel engaged with "the world" in the ways that I most hoped for. 

My impression is that this external and socio-political solution is where most people stand on the issue of alienation, most of the time; in so far as they are at all aware of it in themselves.

(This is, indeed, a deep reason why so many people are so engaged by politics; why for so many politics provides their bottom-line motivation; why ideology has replaced religion in The West. People are not just seeking different social arrangements, but more profoundly there is a hope that such arrangements will alleviate their post-adolescent estrangement and assuage their yearnings to participate in reality.) 

I mean that most people never get further than seeking a cure for their inner malaise in some hoped-for societal reform or revolution. 

But aged nineteen I changed my perspective; and changed it to one that saw the answer in terms of my own consciousness; my attitude to the world; how I understood reality, framed it, my aspirations and attitudes. 

This perspective I adopted is one that seems to have been initiated partly by the failure of politics; and then by reading several key books -- including Michael Tippet's Moving into Aquarius (which led onto CG Jung), Colin Wilson's The Outsider, and the early few chapters (written or much influenced by Wilson) of William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness. 

Over the following years this led onto all sorts of other books of a very broadly "New Age" kind - but it is important to note that I remained an atheist (as I had been since age six); or at most perhaps an abstract kind of pantheist. 

In particular, I did not believe this reality was created - and especially not by a personal God. 

So, in practice, my perspective throughout "young" adult life was - at its bottom line - psychological; in other words the desired change of consciousness was something that needed to come from physical/ material changes in the minds and brains of myself and (plus/minus) other human beings.  

In sum, and in terms of an answer to alienation; aged about nineteen, I moved from seeking a bottom-line societal, to seeking a bottom-line psychological answer to this problem. 

And the answer was necessarily understood in terms of improving my own "happiness" primarily, the happiness of others I cared about secondarily, within the span of this mortal life - because mortal life was all that really-is.  

After a few years of approaching and circling the matter; it was only at the age of forty-nine that I fully began to seek the answer to alienation in spiritual and other-worldly terms; made possible after becoming convinced that reality was created by a personal God. 

In seeking a cure for alienation in the assumption of an individually-relevant purpose and meaning in life; I came to see that this made objective sense (that is a sense that rises above the subjective level of wishful thinking or delusion) - in a universe created by a personal and loving God. 

It is within that context I now sought a cure for alienation - and eventually found it in the resurrection promise of Jesus Christ. 

My current understanding is (ultimately) neither socio-political nor psychological but instead spiritual. 

I believe that alienation is part of the human condition in this mortal life; which life God intends to be a transitional and learning stage of our eternal existence, a phase en route to Heaven. 

We cannot escape this-worldly alienation in this mortal life, except partially and temporarily, because this is the primary creation in which entropy and evil are mixed, and permeate our-selves.

In that sense this mortal life on earth is by its nature (and considered alone, as if free-standing) something of a tragedy, that cannot be cured within its own limits. And that is why decades of seeking and striving failed to fin an answer. The was no answer to be had. 

But because I regard mortal life as a temporary phase; I can confidently look forward to a complete answer to my alienation - which answer is that full, active and conscious participation in the divine work, in context of mutual love untainted by death and evil - on the other side of death; in the Second Creation of Jesus Christ. 

Reading mainstream Christian theology nowadays, I am amazed I converted!

I have just been reading an exposition of mainstream Christian theology - the theology common to Western and Eastern Catholics and the major Protestant denominations; and I am struck by how it nowadays strikes me as utterly unsatisfactory - being over-inclusive; and consequently incoherent, and evasive. 

It would really have repelled me from becoming a Christian, had I realized that I was signing-up to commit-to believe in such stuff.

From my current understanding, the deep problem seems to be at least twofold:

One is recurrently trying to fit Christianity into oneness philosophy - which leads to a recurrent compulsion to talk of unity as our aspiration and ultimate goal; and thereby to dissolve away individuality, freedom, evil, and indeed Time.  

The other is trying to make Christianity into a this-worldly religion, suitable for incorporation in a church, a method for improving human behaviour, and to serve as the basis for a nation. 

Part of this was making Christianity into an historical religion, provided with an arc either of spiritual decline or spiritual progress. And a this-worldly end-point - including a "second coming" of Jesus. 

   

By trying to provide for too much, Christian theology ends-up making itself into a species of abstract nonsense. 

Whereas Jesus's teaching (as seen in the IV Gospel) is actually very simple and clear; but it is next-worldly. 

The reality of Jesus's "religion" was neither about making better-people nor a better-world - either immediately or in the long term - so the fact that this evidently did not happen, and shows no sign of happening, is not a refutation.  

Jesus offered individual people the chance to follow him to resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

It is by resurrection (by being born again) that better people are made, and it is post-mortal Heaven that is the better world - the world which Jesus actually promised. 

So really, the Christianity of Jesus Christ was next-worldly, and its societal effects on this world, are derivative from the individual consequences of personal confidence in Jesus's promises about the next world.

 

But, unsurprisingly, most people want palliation and happiness now, they demand that their religion promises a better mortal life, an improved society and civilization, they want justice on earth far more than the promise of Heaven. 

And (apparently) from soon after Jesus ascended; the theologians and philosophers have made valiant attempts to construct a "Christianity" that provides what various people, at various times, have demanded of a this-worldly religion. 

By passing itself off as this-worldly when it actually is not; and by trying to satisfy people's demands for a better mortal life and a more congenial social situation - official Christianity became bloated, distorted, and non-sensical. 

Which is a terrible shame indeed, because all this is a significant obstacle to the intellectually honest. 

I was only able to become a Christian by persuading myself that I was not thereby committed to believing everything that people officially told me - any more than in my life as a scientist and academic I was bound to believe everything written in textbooks, or indeed everything said or written by even the best in the field.

Eventually, I did find the truth in Christianity, and only in Christianity; but the real truth is of a different kind - than the this-worldly promises which I - like most people - were seeking and hoping for...

Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to live a better life in a better world; but we need to be clear that at best this can only be a temporary and local palliation of the fundamental human condition. 

The lesson of Jesus Christ is that we really can have what our hearts most desire; but only on the other side of death, and only in Heaven but not on Earth.  

  

Owen Barfield's concept of participation provides the basis of what is needed for Christians, as of 2025

Owen Barfield's concept of participation provides the basis of what is needed for Christians, as of 2025 and going forward. 

Barfield assumes that participation in Divine Creation is both our nature as created beings; and also the proper aim of created beings. 

Creation is in the direction of developing participation in the direction of freely creating in greater consciousness. 

More exactly, that this is our proper aim as Christian beings who have chosen to live by love and therefore in harmony with God's creative will. 

The reason why participation is so centrally and vitally important to Christians, is that it is by participation that there is creation in the first place. 

Creation is itself (if properly understood) a matter of participation; because creation is (as all Christians acknowledge) primarily a matter of love. 

For there to be love in this "relational" and personal Christian sense; there must be distinct beings each with the capacity for loving - and then love needs to be mutually chosen.

The cohesion of divine creation should therefore be understood as an ongoing process of harmonizing the motivations of beings; harmonization through the love between beings. 

In different words; divine creation is (partly) a matter of once indifferent beings, coming to participate-in the creative direction of God's loving nature; through loving God and loving one-another. 

It is this love between Beings that is the basis of the harmony that is creation.

But divine creation is also living, dynamic, continuing, increasing... And by the Christian understanding it is God's intention that Men become fully (and divine) Sons of God; share in the work of creation, and who each contribute something unique (because from themselves), new, and additional-to creation. 

Therefore, the direction of creation is towards greater consciousness and choice among beings - towards an increasingly-active participation - which change must be freely-chosen by each being. 

That is to say; there is a change through time from a mostly passive, mostly unconscious, harmony of creation in which individuals largely serve the divine will and each does not bring much new and additional to the whole...

And towards what must necessarily be a more collegial participation in the work of creation; by which every single being that chooses to live by love, is consciously enabled to contribute that which is unique in himself and which he learns to the totality of creation.

Tolkien: Evil is not able to create anything new...

PS: Hope you all enjoyed this stolen meme...

Old Men in Shorts - versus growth in old age

A phenomenon that has swept my part of the world over the past couple of years is old men out and about on the streets and in shops, wearing shorts - or what Americans call "short pants" - ie. short trousers. 

This used to be very rare, except at the height of summer and on holiday - but nowadays, it's clear that old men have - in droves! - set aside their long trousers, and taken to wearing shorts all the time and in all seasons. 

This weirdly-misguided and counter-productive assertion of continuing youthfulness; fits with the theme of  a thought-provoking post from Francis Berger where he discusses "growing old" with an emphasis on what kind of growing this ought to entail:

"Growing old should refer to the spiritual—that we should use old age to focus on changing, developing, and expanding our spirit; on reflecting on our mortal lives and our memories; on learning lessons yet unlearned; on tying up loose ends and neglected frays from our mortal relationships; on preparing and building up our “self”, our true “self”, for resurrected life."

While the sight of superannuated codgers in cut-off trews seems like a trivial inconvenience, merely an eyesore; I have nonetheless come to regard this as symptomatic of a deep and increasing the spiritual resistance to growing old; which is one of the besetting sins of modern Western civilization. 

The reason is obvious enough; that, without a confident expectation of continued personal existence beyond death - a post-mortal life that is affected by present life; then there really is no benefit but many disadvantages in getting-old, and no viable coherent prospect of growing-old. 

The life of the modern middle-aged and elderly person (including, so far as I can tell, nearly all self-identified Christians) is then inevitably some kind of combination of an always-losing battle to remain (or seem) youthful; and a progressively-increasing terror of physical deterioration, suffering, dying, and then annihilation. 

Frodo's big mistake in first-using the One Ring, and its evil consequences

Tom Bombadil and the hobbits - by Miriam Ellis

It is interesting, and typical of Tolkien, that the wrongly-motivated way in which Frodo begins using the One Ring; subsequently and rapidly has deleterious consequences for him.

Read the whole thing over at The Notion Club Papers blog.

That "somebody else thinks like me" feeling

Colin Wilson in the 1950s. Even if I couldn't write The Outsider like him; 

I could at least wear spectacles and a chunky roll-neck pullover; which I did... 

The "somebody else thinks like me" feeling is probably, mostly, a feature of psychological adolescence; by which I mean that transitional mental phase between childhood and adulthood: it is a feeling I associate with reading particular books, more than anything else.

(Although I did sometimes get the same feeling, albeit very rarely, when meeting a new person.) 

A particularly memorable and clear example was Colin Wilson's The Outsider, which I encountered age 19; at a point when my mind had for several months been increasingly occupied by exactly the matters that were the focus of that book - especially the problem of the triviality, dullness, and alienation of mundane everyday life... 

How there are experiences in which this alienation may apparently be overcome - but that these "moments" of fulfilment are always (it seems) brief and temporary, and incomplete. 

Wilson's book was a thorough and multi-faceted explanation and analysis of the problem; such that I realized "it's not just me" who experienced modern life in this way. 

My initial hope was, naturally enough, that Wilson's writings might be, or might point-to, The Answer; but of course that was not the case. 

(I say "of course" because I now believe that there is no full and permanent "answer" to this problem in this mortal earthly life; because this life is a transitional and learning phase of an eternal soul, so this life is itself a kind of adolescence. Therefore a full answer that is the resolution of the problem is only possible by moving on to spiritual maturity, which lies beyond death.) 

Nonetheless, it was a considerable encouragement to realize that I was one of many people who knew and grappled-with this problem - and who regarded it as a very significant problem. Since there was nobody in My Real Life who talked about such matters, or who seemed to take them with the seriousness that I did - The Outsider book - and those that followed along the same line (both by Wilson and recommended by him) - meant a great deal to me.  

What is it to be spiritually uncompromising? (With reference to the Christian Litmus Test Fail of so-called "AI")

A couple of years after becoming a Christian, I encountered the work of Fr Seraphim Rose - I warmed to him immediately, as he was a modern Westerner who had become an uncompromising and spiritually-dedicated Eastern Orthodox monk - while at the same time embodying a warm-hearted, loving nature.  

One of my greatest disappointments on becoming a Christian was the insipid worldly compromise of all the Christians I knew-of: they were, where it most mattered, spiritually indistinguishable from the mainstream of atheistic materialists. 

Seraphim Rose - with his ascetic and hermit-like life - was (it seemed to me) on a different and qualitatively higher level of holiness; that very unusually enabled him to discern clearly; and give full value to the depth, as well as breadth, of the modern spiritual malaise.

By contrast, other Christians I came across really did not seem to grasp the profundity and seriousness of our civilization's spiritual malaise. 

However; I fairly soon recognized that the monastic life - which attempts to live materially in a way that is compatible with spiritual understanding; is not an answer. 

Seraphim Rose was almost unique among monks in his warm-hearted asceticism; because other monks are either warm-hearted but worldly, deluded, often corrupt -- or else they may be genuinely ascetic but with a narrow, harsh and prideful rigidity. (A group that Seraphim Rose called "the super-correct".) 

In other words, I now distinguish between the inner spiritual self on the one hand; and the public and social self. 

Indeed, I think that the - inevitably failing - attempt of people to live their lives fully in accordance with the highest Christian hopes; is actually a major source of spiritual corruption among Christians.

What actually happens is that Christians cut their Christianity to fit the cloth of their nature and circumstances. 

In other words, the limitations of their personality and abilities, and the pressure of their lives, are allowed to dictate the scope and aspirations of their Christian faith.

They limit their definitions of Christianity to whatever they can themselves accomplish.    

Examples include the spiritual Litmus Tests of our time. 

The practicalities of living in an evil totalitarian system mean that most people will "inevitably", more-or-less, go-along-with the demonically-originated evil strategies that are designed to engineer our society into a machine of damnation. 

A current example - a spiritual test that most Christians have failed spectacularly! - is so-called "AI". 

The way it seems to work is that a Christian finds himself in a work or life situation in which he is compelled to use, and even to work-with and develop and propagandize-for - "AI" systems. Compelled in that either he follows these bureaucratic diktats, or else he fails to get the job, is sacked from his current job, or cannot get promoted above a low level. 

Or else the Christian cannot resist the temptations of using AI to amuse or divert himself. 

Or he may find that he cannot resist using "AI" to add a professional (pseudo-creative) gloss to his own productions; or to project an image of greater knowledge, competence, understanding than he personally possesses - maybe at work, or in his hobbies.  

Then, because Christian finds himself in his actions and life either compelled to use, or expediently using, "AI" - he argues that therefore "AI" is not (in its actual origins, and implementation) intentionally evil; but is merely a neutral tool; or a Must-Do qualitative breakthrough in societal capability - with potential significant benefits for humanity that we therefore have a duty to exploit... 

Because Christian actually uses "AI" and has no intention of stopping; he infers that - because he is A Christian - therefore "AI" must be A Good Thing, and he soon finds himself defending and proselytising for "AI" in both public - but also even in private.   

I have come to believe that if Christians try to insist upon a compatibility of Christian actions with spiritual aspirations; what this actually leads-to is a dishonest denial of real and significant evil among Christians, and the air-brushing of their own sins as trivial or non-existent.

"Rigorous" and devout Christians are therefore, in practice (nearly-always) those who make a big deal about their own avoidance of some categories of Big Sins (like murder, theft, rape, sexual infidelity and unchastity, drug use &c.) - while denying, engaging-in and defending many other sins; but especially those expedient and publicly acceptable besetting-sins of mainstream modern life...

Sins such as systematic untruthfulness  - eg. the frequent and extreme levels of habitual and pervasive dishonesty that are now a condition of all middle class employment, including in all churches. Or fear and resentment. 

And defending or promoting the cause of global AI.  

The orthodox and traditional idea is that all men ought to cease from all sinning; so the answer to such examples of sinning as lying for money and status, and covering-up the demonic totalitarian plans for corrupting Mankind with "AI" - is that people ought to stop doing this - as people should stop doing everything bad. 

My view is different, because I accept as a fact that people cannot (as well as will not) stop sinning*. 

People who must deceive in order to keep their jobs and get promotions, will continue to deceive. 

People who are managerially-instructed to implement and promote "AI" will continue to do this; and those who personally get pleasure or profit from using "AI" systems will continue to exploit them for such purposes. 

In general terms: people will continue to sin, and will continue to have no serious intention of ceasing from sin. 

However, this is not a reason to pretend that sins are not sins, that evil strategies are not real, that people personally aren't working to overall-promote the plans of the demonic world rulers. 

But following what I take to be a core teaching of Jesus, I expect that all Men are and will be sinners and will not, cannot stop doing this, and shall not even have any serious or workable plans to stop sinning - and this applies even the most devout and ascetic and good of modern monks like Seraphim Rose, even in the most ideally un-worldly of environments. 

I see no reason why this our pervasively-sinful and evil-promoting lives are incompatible with being a genuinely devout and uncompromising Christian in our spiritual aspirations.  

In sum: we must not compromise our Christian principles in all their depth and rigour merely because we cannot and never will live-up-to-them. 

Indeed, only by separating our spiritual understanding and aims from the corruptions of everyday life; can we really discern, understand, appreciate the nature of this world - and the profundity of our own corruption - and do this without being overwhelmed by despair (which is itself a potentially terrible sin).  

We can always be at work at clarifying our spiritual nature in the most uncompromising way - indifferent to the constraints and practicalities that are inescapable. 

+++

* This is what Jesus also says, by my understanding; at least in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus does not select his followers for their good behaviour, nor does he say that his followers should cease from all sinning - but instead Jesus implies and says he came to save actual sinners. Stopping sinning - either in particular or in general - is Not the way that Men attain eternal resurrected Heavenly life. 

Dealing with fear by personal thoughts of faith and love; not via groupism, nor with optimism, pride, or safety-seeking

People always want to know "what to do" - and this need is used to manipulate us.

Because all the standard available notions of "doing good" and improving-the-world are long since captured and put to work for strategic evil...

But, of course, we really do need to know what to do! 

There's always a lot of the sin of fear about; it is infectious and people also have a tendency to seek it (a misplaced sense of "duty" to face the "reality" of "the worst" (in practice, "the worst" as interpreted and presented by the mass media) and overcome it. 

Chronic, existential fear isn't something that can be avoided or eradicated (at least, not for those capable of the experience). 

Yet we do genuinely need to overcome; we need to deal with fear; so we need to consider how to deal with it.

Typical wrong ways of dealing with fear include optimism - adopting a belief that the feared thing cannot or will not happen; or pride - that if it does happen, I personally (and my gang) can overcome it. 

Another wrong way is to seek safety from the feared - to flee it, or defend against it. 

These are bad ways of dealing with fear; because they are negative, they try to use one sin to fight another. 

Thus - optimism is dishonest, pride is this-worldly, safety is impossible in this mortal earthly life... 

Others fight fear by trying to build protective alliances, "groups" - with the implication that fear is something we collectively intend to defeat, sometime in the future, so long as we can persuade or coerce other people to join un in the fight...

But fear needs to be fought immediately - not in the future, and this means fought by each person as-he-now-is, and individually. 

We must take personal responsibility to do what is needed, without delaying for conditions to improve.  

The first faith required is that God would not leave us without the necessary resources. So anybody and everywhere can do what is needed - it's a matter of knowing what. 

Also, the answer will be (must be) for individuals and not dependent on social factors, will be immediate, can be consciously adopted - and is a matter of free action. 

The answer is therefore going to be neither hard nor abstract - and shall be within anyone's grasp who chooses it. 

Since we know that the answer must be possible to happen individually, immediately, and therefore directly. 

It's pretty well-known among Christians that we should fight fear with love and faith (a loving kind of faith, faith in the ultimate power of love).

But people get hung-up on exactly what such action means in practice, here-and-now...

For instance; faith is usually weak, and often weak because external in source, self-contradicting, and neither grasped nor inwardly endorsed. 

Faith will not overcome fear unless is real and strong to us personally, which means experientially. 

And of course Christian faith needs to be in God the creator, known as personal, parental, and good (not, therefore, faith another kind of God with other characteristics) 

Love is the basis of divine creation; and love cannot be dictated - therefore to be effective for good, love must be genuine. 

We can only make a positive difference for that which we really love. 

And as for action - the false assumption of our materialist civilization is that action must be physical to be effective; whereas if action is to be individual and immediate - then such action needs to be known as spiritual not physical; and thinking recognized as (potentially) an action that affects divine creation. 

So it is possible for any person to do positive good for whatever and whoever he really loves, and almost instantly; by thinking upon the subject on the above lines. 

But the needful will probably only click, and happen, pretty briefly...

Because the conditions necessary are rather delicate. And what it is that happens is known primarily by direct apprehension; rather than indirectly via images, words, concepts and the like...

Description and communication come after the needful has happened, and will be approximate at best - that should be expected, and not regarded as a weakness or refutation of what has happened. 

All of which also needs a kind of faith in the way that "things work" in divine creation  - by love and spiritually - also, faith that God will take notice and incorporate what brief yet significant good we may accomplish in such ways. 

 

Media negativism - the next step in disbelief

Lots of people nowadays affect media negativism; and state that they "always" disbelieve the mass media...

However, in reality their scepticism is merely skin-deep. 

What happens is that, whenever the media publishes something with which they disagree or that contradicts their world-view - then they reflexively doubt it. 

But (and aren't we all prone to this one?) when something gets into the mass media that confirms our prejudices; suddenly we find ourselves bringing it to the attentions of others with some variant of a triumphant: 

"There! See! I told you so!

Supposedly Alternative or counter-Establishment bloggers are among the very worst offenders in this regard: indeed most of the most productive, popular and influential "Right Wing" blogs would have nothing to say if they failed to comment on mass media reportage in just this manner. 

Yet, of course, if the mass media are utterly dishonest and slavishly serve the totalitarian agenda - which they are and do - then we ought especially to disbelieve and ignore them when they seem to be reinforcing our preconceptions. 

Because we can then be confident that we ourselves are there-and-then being-manipulated.  

Anti-war pacifists... Then not

I have a low opinion of self-proclaimed anti-war pacifists - especially those who make a big thing of it: the Peace Studies type. 

Although I understand it, and from the inside; because I was that way myself as a young man (for obvious reasons). 

But what really gets me, is how fragile and evanescent is pacifism - no matter how established and entrenched by years of reading the relevant books and magazines, watching the relevant TV plays and movies. 

In 2022 nearly-all these anti-war pacifist upper-middle-class intellectuals, bureaucrats, managers; became fanatically pro-war activists overnight. 

And continuing.  

Why this 180 degrees, instant and effortless, change of "convictions"?  

Apparently, very simply, because they were told to become fanatically pro-war by their favourite politicians, newspapers and especially The BBC. 

That, in a nutshell, illustrates the depth and strength and moral seriousness of decades-long ideological anti-war pacifist convictions - in practice. 

Two favourite real-life names...

A Chinese chap, whose post I used to see in the college pigeon-holes, that was called Ivan Ho. 

A friend of a friend from Yorkshire, whose name was Annette Curtin. 

Even decades later; these can provoke an inner chuckle. 

Rather than being a part of the fake "Alternative" economy and promoting it self-interestedly; it's spiritually better to have a job explicitly in service to evil totalitarianism - and repent the fact

Rather than being a part of the fake-"Alternative" economy; and defending it on the untrue basis that it is genuinely Alternative; it is spiritually better to have a job explicitly in service to evil totalitarianism, and to know that is what you are doing. And to repent the necessity. 

The idea that there is any qualitatively-distinct "alternative" economy - independent-from and opposed-to the mainstream System of socio-political discourse and exchange - is itself part of that totalitarian System.

That there is an "Alternative" is delusional; because All institutions of any significant size/ wealth/ power/ influence are necessarily bound to the mainstream by multiple legal, financial and regulatory ties; or else the institution could not arise and be sustained. 

(This also applies to churches.) 

Nobody can run any kind of operation that pays taxes, employs people, has property etc - and also be autonomous. 

And if you are part of the System - you serve the System.  

Since nobody can qualitatively escape working for The System, since everything that pays us a living wage is compelled to serve Caesar; the essential is to know and repent that plain fact. 

Jesus apparently didn't try to stop people working as publicans or tax collectors (or even priests! e.g. Nicodemus) - but he did insist that they acknowledge that they are thereby (as well as for innumerable other reasons) sinners. 

This repentance at the inevitability and inescapability of being-a-sinner in this mortal life and world; is part of what being-a-Christian requires of us.

And why people whom society regarded as especially "bad" by the nature of their jobs, were so often the earliest followers of Jesus. 

So given that we are all in the same boat in a qualitative sense, and that quantitative differences make no significant difference to salvation; why am I saying that it is sometimes/ often worse to regard oneself as part of the Alternative sector?

The reason is simply that such people suppose themselves to be qualitatively and significantly more virtuous than those who are part of the mainstream - by virtue of the source of their income. 

And therefore, instead of acknowledging and repenting their servitude to evil totalitarianism, they continually celebrate their own moral superiority to others!

Indeed - such people (almost invariably) are engaged in active promotion of their bit of the pseudo-Alternative - and therefore promotion of The System. They want our attention time, support, and money; for themselves and their enterprise. And this is dishonestly justified by the false pretence that this selfishly-beneficial redirection will subvert and (maybe?... eventually?...) replace totalitarianism. 

But the beginning of wisdom is to know that in our this-worldly lives we all serve Caesar; and that, as of 2025, Caesar serves Satan. 

Christian theologians misunderstanding the Ancient Philosophers: Ultimately, fundamentally - "purpose" really means desires of living Beings

I talk a good deal on this blog about purpose, and how important it is - yet purpose is an abstraction, hence not really real, but just a symbol for reality.

(The reality is the personal desires of living Beings.)  

For most theologically-minded people, the abstract nature of purpose is important; because theologians want purpose to be detachable from individual persons - such that it can be implanted or put-into a Being - for example by God.

The currently-dominant half-baked philosophies of "AI" are also dependent on this abstraction; since they assert that purpose is something that can be built-into computer, robots and the like - inserted by external entities such as computer programmers and engineers, and their paymasters. 

But - if I am rigorous, and manage to escape the bad habits of my socialized 21st century metaphysics - then I acknowledge that purpose is ultimately the desires, the "wantings", of Beings. 

In a nutshell - purpose is an attribute of particular (living, conscious, eternal, spiritual) Beings.

A major difficulty of classical traditional theologians in the 21st century (and indeed for several centuries already, albeit increasing) is that inherited Christian theology implicitly incorporates the Ancient Greek (Platonic, Aristotelian - and also scholastic Aquinas-derived) sense of purpose as an attribute of a Being. 

(e.g. When Aristotle, apparently, explains the motion of things - such as gravity - in terms of where entities want to be; or when Aquinas describes the stars and planets as being angels.) 

The ancients knew, from their personal daily experience - but unconsciously and implicitly, that they inhabited a living universe. This formed an unspoken background structure, a matrix, for all their philosophizing.  

Those in the past were developing their abstract logical arguments on the unconscious, implicit - yet vital - assumption of a living universe of Beings with desires. 

But modern theologians - who expound (as they suppose) ancient or medieval theology and philosophy have (almost invariably) lost this implicit assumption - at least since their adolescence - and have not restored it by conscious choice... 

The consequence is that the bottom line assumption of modern classical-theologians is of the divinely-entailed validity of an abstracted version of Greek-Medieval logic; operating in an originally-dead universe. 

(And this originally-dead-universe mind-set has been inherited by nearly-all post-reformation theology; and the atheist traditions of philosophy including science, and also and more obviously the "rationality" that underpins and regulates the modern System of governance, corporations, media etc.)  

In sum: modern (post-medieval) theology is rooted in pure abstraction - which is why it is experienced as dry, quibbling; irrelevant to me-here-now - why it Does Not Convince. 

In order to follow the reasoning of such philosophers - we are compelled to think from a stance in which abstract logic is the primary reality - operating in an otherwise life-less reality. 

So that human beings, you and me, are being regarded very much as-if we were (bottom line, ultimately) nothing-but the product of logic! 

We are excluded from the assumptions; and, consequently, the conclusions. 

Into this assumed-dead universe, God then "puts" souls - souls that he has made from nothing. 

God puts into these inserted-souls other attributes - such as purpose, and freedom.

And this kind of abstract stuff is what we are invited to imagine, invited to believe!... Nay instructed that we Must believe; about our-selves, everybody else, the world and universe!

To put it starkly - classic traditional theology of the 21st century pictures a kind of zombie universe; dead but animated by some kind of insertion of properties. 

However, this isn't what people believed 2000 or even 1000 years ago - because it leaves-out their spontaneous animism - their implicit and unconscious knowing that ultimately reality consisted of living Beings, and the properties and attributes of these Beings emerged from this living nature. 

No matter what the ancients said and wrote: this animism lay behind it; which was why the abstract logical scholastic philosophy was not - to them, then - dry and quibbling and irrelevant in the way it is to us, now. 

The history of human consciousness, and therefore of philosophy and theology; is one of emergence from spontaneous innate animism - to the present state when animism is no longer spontaneous, but is denied and ridiculed...

Consequently our ultimate metaphysical philosophy is either/ both incoherent and/or consists of irrelevant autonomous syllogisms.  

But we need consciously and by choice, to recover the implicit and (mostly) unconscious animism of the past - if we are really to understand-by-experience the nature of reality. 

Therefore we must beware of the delusions of abstractions understood in a way that did not apply to Aristotle and Aquinas - whose minds included the built-in assumption of living Beings as a "given"...

And this built-in assumption underlay everything they thought and wrote. 

*

Note: The above insight is heavily indebted to the work of Owen Barfield (eg. Saving the Appearances) and Rudolf Steiner (eg. The Riddles of Philosophy). 

Is the primary authority of the Fourth Gospel "just" a matter of my personal preference?

My according the Fourth Gospel primary authority is indeed a matter of my personal preference, since even before I was a Christian it always seemed that it was the most beautiful book of the Bible. 

But is it just that - merely personal?

No - there is something more to it than taste, and something that may be generally true.  

For many years I interpreted the IV Gospel in the mainstream orthodox way, as a kind of "mystical appendix" to the Synoptics and Paul's letters, or else part of a mosaic of Biblical evidence but without special eminence. 

This framework meant that the meanings of the IV-G could-not and did-not change anything substantive - it merely provided a kind of "radiant glow" around the main stuff, which was elsewhere. 

It was only after I had decided to read and re-read the IV Gospel as the primary authority - on the basis of what the book said about itself confirmed by my deepest intuitions, and that it really did feel deeply like a near contemporary eye-witness account by an intimate of Jesus...

Only after doing this multiple re-read; did I realize - and with considerable shock - that instead of being mystical, abstract and vague - the IV-G was actually highly coherent and clear...  

But about what? There I was shocked to find that what it was so clear about was that the essence of Jesus's teaching was that of resurrected eternal life, possible for all those who recognized and "followed" Jesus. 

This was shocking because it was so plain; and because I had a kind of inner snobbery against a religion which was based-upon promising its adherents eternal and fulfilling life after death... 

This offer of better times to come later seemed like a simple-minded basis for a religion, designed to appeal mainly to selfish and simple-minded people...

Almost like the nasty caricature of Christianity by its enemies - a controlling socio-political scheme offering "pie in the sky" for those who do what we say, and think what we tell them to think. 

A classic bit of priestly manipulation...

Except that in the actual IV Gospel, when read as a coherent whole; the offer of resurrected life was not conditional upon obedience to an external authority or adherence to complex laws and rules. 

Indeed, there wasn't anything in the valid parts of the Gospel* about setting-up a priesthood or church. 

The Gospel is about an un-socio-political, as non-institutional, as could be imagined; it is all about loving familial and marriage relationships.  

IV-G was about our attitude-to and relationship-with Jesus primarily, and his Father secondarily yet necessarily. 

So that when I then went back to re-read the other books of the New Testament in light of the IV, I often seemed to be reading about another Jesus; a Jesus whose focus was very different from IV-G, and who was (as his priority) proposing primarily to set-up a new priesthood and a new church - with all that entailed in terms of laws and practices**. 

Therefore to read the IV Gospel as the primary authority of Jesus Christ that the Gospel itself tells us that it is; seems to entail a very profound reshaping of what has become the mainstream orthodox understanding of "what Christianity is" - its nature, aims, mechanisms.

If the IV-Gospel is accepted and embraced as true and valid in its own right; then the rest of the Bible needs to be approached with a great deal of selectivity; and a good deal of it needs to be discarded.

Small wonder - it seems to me - that the IV Gospel has, and apparently since very early after the ascension of Jesus; been accorded only a minor, subordinate, supplementary role in defining the teaching of Jesus and the true nature of substantive Christianity.   

*The process of reading and re-reading, spontaneously led to the rejection of a few parts of the Gospel being recognized as - to me - obviously alien and from another source, with a contradictory implication from the unity of the whole. For instance, Chapter 21 comes after the Gospel - pretty clearly - has ended with a recapitulation. 

**. More exactly, "Christianity"/ following Jesus is presented an inner desire and attitude, that can (when necessary) be practiced in the context of any religion, or none. 

The biggest Christianity problem of our times

A few observations... 

Lack of Christianity is killing people, and the world. 

In that sense any kind of Christianity - of desiring salvation by Jesus Christ - is better than nothing. 

I believe that the decision concerning salvation comes after death of the body. Which is just as well; because it means that the very large majority who are not Christian and have little prospect of becoming so, still have the chance to choose.

Nonetheless, it is still "our-selves" that makes the choice after death: the eternal spiritual self that we carry over through death... 

This means that any of the majority (it seems) who were born with good souls, souls capable of love and valuing love, and who are genuinely ignorant or innocent in mortal life; will have a good chance of choosing rightly after death...

When they have discovered that the offer of resurrected, eternal Heavenly life is real and possible; their loving nature and desires will make them want what Jesus offers.  

Yet, even among those born with good souls; how few adolescents and adults - especially in The West - are genuinely ignorant or innocent! 

And it is exactly their desires that are disordered - that are too-often (at least, so far as one can judge) actively turned-against salvation. 

And even among self-identified Christians, there seem extremely few who seem to have salvation as their positive priority...

And it seems that the Churches are so confused or corrupted in their priorities that they seldom seem to help and very often strongly hinder clarity on this crucial point. 

Because negative desires - such as fear of death or misery or hell - do not suffice; and indeed (given the many alternative possibilities to salvation) hardly assist at all in making the right choice.  

This is perhaps the biggest "Christianity problem" of our times. 

 

Discussing free will: A problem with arguing about Christianity, is that most people most of the time don't understand what they are arguing-for

I'm a bit obsessed with this business of "understanding" as a pre-requisite!

As a spontaneous "philosopher"; I am naturally an argumentative person, who has striven for the past couple of decades to suppress this trait because it was (mostly) a pointless waste of my life... More exactly, it was pointless in terms of trying to change other-people and the-world (which is what I was trying to do)... 

Actually, the arguing was sometimes useful to me, in clarifying my own understanding; especially when I became aware that I did not really understand what I was arguing-for. 

This was also something that sometimes happened when I was teaching... I'd be standing writing something on the board and expounding it; when I realized that it didn't make sense or I was just putting-out a black box assertion. 

These were significant moments of learning. 

It has happened on this blog too. Early on in its history; I was trying to explain to William James Tychonievich what was "free will" and how it worked - because he did not seem to be able to grasp what I was saying and kept on questioning me...

When I realized I myself did not understand what I was saying about free will. 

Ultimately, I was parroting forms of words that I had heard or read elsewhere, and they really didn't make sense. I was repeating the classical theological arguments about free will, that I had come across in Boethius, CS Lewis, and scholarly accounts of Aquinas - and I recognized that I could not understand them, not really.

Further thought led to a recognition that my personal inability to understand was not (in this case) from inadequate intelligence or insufficient thought; but that the arguments were intrinsically un-understandable because they contained abstractions that served the role of a black box; a logical package the role of whose content was asserted but could never be grasped. 

The classic theological argument I was defending was that God was assumed to be omniscient, omnipotent (an "Omni-God" and created everything from nothing including me; and that free will was then gifted to me by God. 

The particular incomprehensible abstraction was that God could and did give free will - which is the agency of an individual to act from-himself and independently of God. 

This is incomprehensible because if literally everything - including everything about me and my environment is made by God; then it makes no sense that God could "give" something that was independent-of and autonomous-from God. 

In other words: The assumptions excluded the answer; the assumption was that absolutely every-thing came from God, was contradicted by the assertion that God could make something independent-of-God, and then give it to me.   

 

 

How is it that such a stark contradiction became Christian dogma - how is it that so many very intelligent and thoughtful people have ignored (or not seen) it? 

One answer is that such people were not really interested either in understanding or in explaining free will, but were instead absolutely committed to the assumption that the Christian God was an Omni-God. 

So the fact that they personally did not really grasp what is is free will or how free will worked; did not really matter to them.

Another reason that the contradiction is ignored; is that the contradiction was re-named a "mystery"; and thereby safeguarded from critique.  

What they were (evidently) most focused-on was winning any possible argument directed against the idea of the Christian God being an Omni-God - and the statement that an Omni-God could and did create autonomous beings by an act of gift did not really need to be understood. 

How such a gift actually made sense was of secondary importance to them. 

Also, having made this assertion of gifting free will; the incomprehension was sustained by the fact that their definition, their understanding, of free will was negative - free will was being defined in terms of independence-from God. 

Significantly, the scientific assertions about free will have a closely analogous negativity - being defined in terms of something that is not caused. 

Something I have learned is that when something is negatively-defined, it becomes ungraspable in itself, of itself. 

So, the mainstream orthodox statements about free will have the effect of making it mysterious at best and ineradicably incomprehensible at worst... 

...As anyone knows who has tried to discuss free will in the public forum. Argument devolves to assertions that some-thing was done by free will, versus assertions that it was instead the inevitable outcome of preceding causes - whether scientific causes, or caused by God. 

Free will is a particularly stark example of the problems of un-comprehended "abstraction", and definition by negation. It results in making mysterious, and indeed unreal, something that is one of the primary spontaneous experiences of every human being! 

Something, moreover, that is essential to being a Christian (at least by my IV Gospel rooted understanding.) If people cannot freely decide to follow Jesus Christ or not, then this excludes values from Christianity. 

Arguments against those whose assumptions make free will incomprehensible (whether orthodox traditional Christians, or mainstream secular people) is futile - since these people do not really themselves understand what they are asserting - and do not see any need why they should understand it!

To repeat: such people often have a fixed and committed belief that personally genuinely-understanding what they affirm is not necessary. 

(As indeed, it would not be necessary if free will had indeed the negative, abstract, subordinate role they assert for it.) 

The general lesson I draw from this is related to the importance of really understanding for oneself - and of not being satisfied by black box abstractions, or parroting stuff taken from other people... 

This is true, no matter how prestigious is the source of the black box argument. 

And further; if we are to avoid intractable error, our personal understanding needs to be in positive terms. 

It might be objected that this cannot possibly happen in practice; given the sheer number of things that must be taken on trust in any complex civilization. 

This is true in a quantitative sense, about most matters of assertion; but is false when it comes to those matters which are of core significance to our-selves. 

And there we come to the crux, for a Christian at any rate. What really is most important for us to understand - what, indeed is it vital for us personally to grasp? 

In the past, Christians regarded belief in the Omni-God as vital and necessary; but understanding free will was merely optional; to the point that it was not understood - and indeed not understandable within the assumptions. 

Yet; here and now, for myself and probably for most people; it is vital to understand - that is really to grasp in positive terms - free will, agency, the basis of individuality. To say it is "real but a mystery" is an evasion, when something looms so large at the heart of our existence. 

The needful understanding is something made impossible both to those who accept mainstream orthodox Christian theology (and indeed theologies of most other religions); as well as the much larger numbers of people who regard "science" as the basic assumption behind all explanations. 

As so often; the individual cannot look to any of the most powerful influential, prestigious, ancient or modern external sources for an understanding of some-thing that he may regard as a matter of prime importance. 

As so often; the individual must either do it for himself - i.e. discover by his own efforts a genuine understanding of the reality of free will...

Or else must take the consequences of assimilating, living-by, and thinking in-accordance-with, the socio-cultural insignificance of his own agency.  

 

*

Note added: It is pretty obvious why it has suited, and still suits, the powers that be; to create and maintain a situation in which free will is kept mysterious, contradictory, un-understandable -- while top-down and collective imperatives are by contrast clear, simple, easily comprehensible. This endemic doubt and uncertainty keeps people obedient to external authority. When people cannot satisfactorily conceptualize them-selves; then they are controllable at the deepest spiritual level. 

Civil War and/or World War may not be socio-politically stoppable - but Must spiritually be understood, before taking sides

Lots of (very belated) media-chat at present about the strategically engineered conditions for within-nations Civil War/ Genocide in Western countries; alongside the ongoing Western escalation towards all-out inter-national World War. 

It is very late in the day to be noticing this, and it is probably many, many years too late for these possibilities to be prevented by normal, public socio-political action. 

Indeed, it seems to me that the only reasons such wars or genocides haven't already happened; is that the totalitarian Establishment cannot decide what is most wants to inflict on the masses, in the choice between Global and Civil wars - since it is probably not viable for both to happen simultaneously. 

But people need to recognize that this much-too-late awakening to the dangers or inevitability of "Civil War") is itself the product of a top-down Establishment initiative - the subject is belatedly being discussed, and socio-political resistance encouraged, only and exactly because it is by-now too late for social-political action to have any prospect of doing good. 

People are being encouraged, implicitly and explicitly, to take sides; when the sides they are supposed to choose-between have been created and sustained by totalitarian action; and for evil purposes. 

In fact, the masses - having been divided and set-against each other - are being led into a mutually destructive trap. 

The real challenge is to understand what is going-on the spiritual war of this world. 

Understand who are the sources of purposive evil that have engineered the present situation - and what is their underlying agenda. 

And any positive and good societal outcomes can only come after each person has chosen sides in the spiritual war: choosing not between the sides offered by officialdom, corporations and the mass media...

But instead choosing between the side that is God, divine creation, and personal salvation; or else choosing one of the many sides that are ranged against these.