*
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/thinking-about-thinking-creatively.html
*
Sunday, 18 August 2013
Saturday, 17 August 2013
IQ research, the sexual revolution and traditionalist Christians - another litmus test
*
There is a link, a strong link, between the post-1965 demonization of IQ research and the sexual revolution - and therefore with traditionalist Christianity (that is, Christianity which sees itself in continuity with the Christianity of the past 2000 years).
First there is timing - intelligence research, and specifically the ideas of group differences in intelligence and hereditary intelligence, is merely a quantification of universal common sense among humans.
Yet this universal common sense was denied and then inverted from the mid-sixties, exactly in parallel with the sexual revolution.
*
Everybody had always known that - for example - men and women have significantly different abilities and natures, and that these differences are intrinsic (inborn).
Everybody had always known that children - on the whole, on average - resemble-their parents in terms of abilities and personality - as well as appearance.
Research into intelligence and personality differences simply tries to put numbers to this stuff which everybody already knows and always has known
- yet in putting numbers to it, and making this knowledge thereby suitable for public discourse - there is inevitably a selectivity and distortion, as there is with all science.
*
There is a trade off, always, to getting greater precision - it comes at a cost.
The cost can be and should be discussed - the distortions and incompleteness need to be kept in awareness.
But the underlying reality remains.
*
What about the sexual revolution?
Well, just at the time when IQ research was being demonized, punished, vilified - so was traditional sexual morality.
This, again, was a matter of taking what everybody had always known and problematizing it.
In the first place,traditional sexual wisdom was not 100 percent correct - this was taken to mean that it was complete nonsense.
Secondly, it could be shown (sometimes honestly, often dishonestly) that different sexual traditions existed in different times and places.
But, instead of looking of common underlying features behind superficial differences, difference was instead taken to mean that sexual morality was purely arbitrary, and could be reinvented at will.
*
A whole style of evaluation thus developed - which now rules the public domain.
This involves pseudo-scientific micro-methodological critique of whatever disagrees with the prevailing anti-traditionalist, New Left, politically correct consensus.
100 percent perfection or outright rejection is the evaluation rule for opposed ideologies - meanwhile the prevailing ideology is judged by its expressed aspirations and intentions, and gross incoherence thereby excused.
Since the mid-60s discourse on sexual morality involves highlighting the individual exceptions, creating thought experiments which showed that abandoning traditional ideas/ knowledge would not necessarily lead to disaster, at least not to instant disaster - it was possible to imagine, at any rate, situations in which a complete sexual free-for-all and abolition of all previous distinctions was a part of a kind of euphoric bliss...
*
That was what much of late 60s popular culture was about - imagining this state of sexually free bliss; and thereby rejecting all of human history, knowledge, wisdom up to that point.
And the evaluation style which made this possible is precisely the evaluation style which made possible the suppression/ rejection of all traditional human knowledge relating to ability (IQ) and human nature (personality) - to the point of denying that there was any such knowledge at all, and that the whole domain of hereditary differences was one created and sustained wholly by evil motivations (thus providing yet another reason for rejecting traditional wisdom - closing the loop, sealing the fly bottle).
*
This is why an acknowledgement of hereditary differences in abilities and personality has become a litmus test not just of political seriousness and honesty, but a litmus test of traditional religion.
What I mean is that traditional Christian denominations and there adherents will, sooner or later, be confronted with decisions which either affirm the reality of traditional knowledge concerning hereditary human differences - or else, in rejecting this traditional knowledge, they will find that they have also rejected the evaluation mechanisms which enable them to reject the sexual revolution - at which point they will inexorably move towards 'liberalism'/ secularization.
Alternatively, if traditional denominations adhere to the evaluation methods by which the sexual revolution may be rejected, they will sooner or later find that these same evaluations will lead them to accept the reality of significant hereditary differences in ability and character (including between sexes and any relatively genetically separated human groups) - and this will bring them into head-on conflict with prevailing public morality.
*
This ought not to be a surprise nor a challenge for Christians who see themselves as adherents of traditional standards; but in fact it often is a very big challenge - since this aspect of dishonest New Leftism has seeped almost everywhere and assumed the appearance of scientific skepticism and informed common sense.
But that is precisely why it is a litmus test - sooner or later traditional Christians will have to choose between the traditional understanding of human differences which also enables and underpins traditional sexual morality; and the New Left relativism and cultural constructivism about personality and intelligence which will swiftly lead to embrace of the sexual revolution.
*
There is a link, a strong link, between the post-1965 demonization of IQ research and the sexual revolution - and therefore with traditionalist Christianity (that is, Christianity which sees itself in continuity with the Christianity of the past 2000 years).
First there is timing - intelligence research, and specifically the ideas of group differences in intelligence and hereditary intelligence, is merely a quantification of universal common sense among humans.
Yet this universal common sense was denied and then inverted from the mid-sixties, exactly in parallel with the sexual revolution.
*
Everybody had always known that - for example - men and women have significantly different abilities and natures, and that these differences are intrinsic (inborn).
Everybody had always known that children - on the whole, on average - resemble-their parents in terms of abilities and personality - as well as appearance.
Research into intelligence and personality differences simply tries to put numbers to this stuff which everybody already knows and always has known
- yet in putting numbers to it, and making this knowledge thereby suitable for public discourse - there is inevitably a selectivity and distortion, as there is with all science.
*
There is a trade off, always, to getting greater precision - it comes at a cost.
The cost can be and should be discussed - the distortions and incompleteness need to be kept in awareness.
But the underlying reality remains.
*
What about the sexual revolution?
Well, just at the time when IQ research was being demonized, punished, vilified - so was traditional sexual morality.
This, again, was a matter of taking what everybody had always known and problematizing it.
In the first place,traditional sexual wisdom was not 100 percent correct - this was taken to mean that it was complete nonsense.
Secondly, it could be shown (sometimes honestly, often dishonestly) that different sexual traditions existed in different times and places.
But, instead of looking of common underlying features behind superficial differences, difference was instead taken to mean that sexual morality was purely arbitrary, and could be reinvented at will.
*
A whole style of evaluation thus developed - which now rules the public domain.
This involves pseudo-scientific micro-methodological critique of whatever disagrees with the prevailing anti-traditionalist, New Left, politically correct consensus.
100 percent perfection or outright rejection is the evaluation rule for opposed ideologies - meanwhile the prevailing ideology is judged by its expressed aspirations and intentions, and gross incoherence thereby excused.
Since the mid-60s discourse on sexual morality involves highlighting the individual exceptions, creating thought experiments which showed that abandoning traditional ideas/ knowledge would not necessarily lead to disaster, at least not to instant disaster - it was possible to imagine, at any rate, situations in which a complete sexual free-for-all and abolition of all previous distinctions was a part of a kind of euphoric bliss...
*
That was what much of late 60s popular culture was about - imagining this state of sexually free bliss; and thereby rejecting all of human history, knowledge, wisdom up to that point.
And the evaluation style which made this possible is precisely the evaluation style which made possible the suppression/ rejection of all traditional human knowledge relating to ability (IQ) and human nature (personality) - to the point of denying that there was any such knowledge at all, and that the whole domain of hereditary differences was one created and sustained wholly by evil motivations (thus providing yet another reason for rejecting traditional wisdom - closing the loop, sealing the fly bottle).
*
This is why an acknowledgement of hereditary differences in abilities and personality has become a litmus test not just of political seriousness and honesty, but a litmus test of traditional religion.
What I mean is that traditional Christian denominations and there adherents will, sooner or later, be confronted with decisions which either affirm the reality of traditional knowledge concerning hereditary human differences - or else, in rejecting this traditional knowledge, they will find that they have also rejected the evaluation mechanisms which enable them to reject the sexual revolution - at which point they will inexorably move towards 'liberalism'/ secularization.
Alternatively, if traditional denominations adhere to the evaluation methods by which the sexual revolution may be rejected, they will sooner or later find that these same evaluations will lead them to accept the reality of significant hereditary differences in ability and character (including between sexes and any relatively genetically separated human groups) - and this will bring them into head-on conflict with prevailing public morality.
*
This ought not to be a surprise nor a challenge for Christians who see themselves as adherents of traditional standards; but in fact it often is a very big challenge - since this aspect of dishonest New Leftism has seeped almost everywhere and assumed the appearance of scientific skepticism and informed common sense.
But that is precisely why it is a litmus test - sooner or later traditional Christians will have to choose between the traditional understanding of human differences which also enables and underpins traditional sexual morality; and the New Left relativism and cultural constructivism about personality and intelligence which will swiftly lead to embrace of the sexual revolution.
*
Friday, 16 August 2013
My (non-) career as a freelance journalist
*
I never wanted to work in a newspaper office, or be a reporter; but had a long-standing yearning to be a columnist, an opinion writer - or else a reviewer of something like TV, movies or perhaps books. A pundit in fact.
And at one point, between academic positions, I did make some kind of attempt to 'make a living' with my pen/ word-processor - but unfortunately my timing was off.
*
For a few years around 1990, it was possible for me to make a significant amount of money writing for national papers - first New Scientist, and the Times Higher Education Supplement - then most lucratively for The Times (of London), where I think I peaked at 300 pounds an article, and they took everything I sent them.
An added bonus of these articles was the ego trip of being invited onto the radio, or sometimes the TV, to be interviewed or discuss something on a panel - his became frequent when I lived in Glasgow, Scotland and lived very near to the BBC studio.
But fairly suddenly these magazines stopped using the work of freelances such as myself, and generated their material 'in house' - and the opportunity to make a living dried-up at exactly the moment when I needed it.
*
Essentially, I would write on almost any topic for anyone; a lot of book reviewing, mostly of course for free.
Free, because this was a compulsion - partly the compulsion to write, and partly a compulsion to impose my opinions and personality on the world.
*
So now I blog, which serves the same purposes - plus a few more; since the feedback comments from even a micro-blog such as this one are more satisfying than anything I got for publishing in The Times: a process which felt like posting a letter into a void; except that I occasionally got a crazy letter scribbled on torn-out sheets, or cyclostyled and mass mailed.
One of these contained diagrams of demonic transformations, another included hand-drawn electrocardiograms, and another was unsigned - except for the photo of a dolphin...
*
I never wanted to work in a newspaper office, or be a reporter; but had a long-standing yearning to be a columnist, an opinion writer - or else a reviewer of something like TV, movies or perhaps books. A pundit in fact.
And at one point, between academic positions, I did make some kind of attempt to 'make a living' with my pen/ word-processor - but unfortunately my timing was off.
*
For a few years around 1990, it was possible for me to make a significant amount of money writing for national papers - first New Scientist, and the Times Higher Education Supplement - then most lucratively for The Times (of London), where I think I peaked at 300 pounds an article, and they took everything I sent them.
An added bonus of these articles was the ego trip of being invited onto the radio, or sometimes the TV, to be interviewed or discuss something on a panel - his became frequent when I lived in Glasgow, Scotland and lived very near to the BBC studio.
But fairly suddenly these magazines stopped using the work of freelances such as myself, and generated their material 'in house' - and the opportunity to make a living dried-up at exactly the moment when I needed it.
*
Essentially, I would write on almost any topic for anyone; a lot of book reviewing, mostly of course for free.
Free, because this was a compulsion - partly the compulsion to write, and partly a compulsion to impose my opinions and personality on the world.
*
So now I blog, which serves the same purposes - plus a few more; since the feedback comments from even a micro-blog such as this one are more satisfying than anything I got for publishing in The Times: a process which felt like posting a letter into a void; except that I occasionally got a crazy letter scribbled on torn-out sheets, or cyclostyled and mass mailed.
One of these contained diagrams of demonic transformations, another included hand-drawn electrocardiograms, and another was unsigned - except for the photo of a dolphin...
*
The appeal of bad art, poetry, music
*
I used to be fascinated, and quite powerfully attracted, by successful fake art - art which was bad yet prestigious - especially art where I could see how it was done.
I think this may be a much more general phenomenon than just a personal idiosyncrasy, because so many people purport to value as art what is obviously bad art or not-art-at-all - I the reason is not far to seek (in my case).
It is the hope that if they can get away with it, then so might I.
*
So, by supporting bad art, I was supporting a situation in which I might myself become recognized as a high status artist - and get access to what seemed like a very pleasant lifestyle of doing whatever I wanted to do then other people saying it was intresting (and paying me for it) simply because it was I who had done it.
*
An example would be Joseph Beuys whose work I first saw in a reverential display at the Arnolfini gallery in Bristol - an almost painfully stylish setting.
When I say reverential, I should note that not only were the man's 'legendary' hat and boots on display, but also (I kid you not) his toenail clippings.
Essentially, the idea behind this exhibition (and the general idea of those who revered Beuys) was that Beuys was not so much an artist, but that art was whatever Beuys did - or, if he didn't do anything, then it was the man himself - or descriptions, photographs or movies of him.
So although Beuys never produced any art at all, let alone art of good quality, he was guaranteed status, income and goodness knows what else, merely by being.
This sounded to me like a good life!
*
So, to a substantial extent, I bought-into the world of conceptual/ happening/ performance art; in which the accolade of artist was bestowed apparently at random, and where (in fantasy at least) anyone could be made an artist; at which point, they would be 'made'.
For similar reasons I wasted a silly amount of time and attention on poetry and music and prose which I knew was bad, but of a kind whose manufacture I felt myself capable.
In other words, I preferred fake creativity to real creativity because - as a reasonably intelligent person - I realized that fake creativity was within the grasp of anyone of reasonable intelligence who was reasonably knowledgeable about the field in question.
Looking around, I think the same kind of thing must be going on on a large scale.
*
I used to be fascinated, and quite powerfully attracted, by successful fake art - art which was bad yet prestigious - especially art where I could see how it was done.
I think this may be a much more general phenomenon than just a personal idiosyncrasy, because so many people purport to value as art what is obviously bad art or not-art-at-all - I the reason is not far to seek (in my case).
It is the hope that if they can get away with it, then so might I.
*
So, by supporting bad art, I was supporting a situation in which I might myself become recognized as a high status artist - and get access to what seemed like a very pleasant lifestyle of doing whatever I wanted to do then other people saying it was intresting (and paying me for it) simply because it was I who had done it.
*
An example would be Joseph Beuys whose work I first saw in a reverential display at the Arnolfini gallery in Bristol - an almost painfully stylish setting.
When I say reverential, I should note that not only were the man's 'legendary' hat and boots on display, but also (I kid you not) his toenail clippings.
Essentially, the idea behind this exhibition (and the general idea of those who revered Beuys) was that Beuys was not so much an artist, but that art was whatever Beuys did - or, if he didn't do anything, then it was the man himself - or descriptions, photographs or movies of him.
So although Beuys never produced any art at all, let alone art of good quality, he was guaranteed status, income and goodness knows what else, merely by being.
This sounded to me like a good life!
*
So, to a substantial extent, I bought-into the world of conceptual/ happening/ performance art; in which the accolade of artist was bestowed apparently at random, and where (in fantasy at least) anyone could be made an artist; at which point, they would be 'made'.
For similar reasons I wasted a silly amount of time and attention on poetry and music and prose which I knew was bad, but of a kind whose manufacture I felt myself capable.
In other words, I preferred fake creativity to real creativity because - as a reasonably intelligent person - I realized that fake creativity was within the grasp of anyone of reasonable intelligence who was reasonably knowledgeable about the field in question.
Looking around, I think the same kind of thing must be going on on a large scale.
*
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Wednesday, 14 August 2013
Bill Whittle - exemplar of the power but weakness of mainstream US secular Conservatism
*
If you don't know journalist Bill Whittle's video segments called Afterburner or previously Firewall - then you have missed a minor modern art form taken to just about its perfection.
This funny, but telling, example is Han Shot First!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns1m_aXJa58
*
Whittle is a mainstream secular Conservative in his basic stance. He is a relatively pure and principled mainstream Conservative - but not a reactionary; and his assumptions are secular not Christian.
In fact I do not know, and have not been able to find-out, whether Whittle is himself a Christian.
He is certainly pro-Christian, and seems to get close to saying he is a Christian in the following segment - but he never actually says so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9w_PK_ZEbU
And here is the problem.
*
Pretty much everything that Bill Whittle argues is predicated on Christianity being true - that is in fact the premise from which he is arguing. But, presumably, because he wishes to appeal-to and ally-with non-Christians, he does not set out these premises.
Therefore in practice he argues on the only-non-religious premises which are available - that is utilitarianism - policies aiming to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number, over the long-term.
And this is exactly the same premise as the ruling secular Leftists argue from - so the whole debate reduces down to wrangling over optimal means to identical ends... which policies are most practical and effective, what is the boundary of those whose happiness is being promoted, how long-termist can we be without sabotaging the chance of success etc.
All of which reduces to day-by-day political wrangling, expediency, point-scoring, electioneering, media manipulation and the rest of it. And this is a game which (sadly) Bill Whittle cannot win - although he is unsurpassed at playing the game.
*
What I am saying is that if he hasn't yet crossed the line and become a Christian, that is the priority for Bill Whittle. If he has crossed the line, he needs to be explicit about it. If he is explicit about it, he needs to state it upfront in his analyses...
And when he starts stating it upfront in his analyses, he will pretty soon recognize that none of what he wants is going to happen without a Christian revival, another Great Awakening.
So, that then becomes the priority.
*
If you don't know journalist Bill Whittle's video segments called Afterburner or previously Firewall - then you have missed a minor modern art form taken to just about its perfection.
This funny, but telling, example is Han Shot First!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns1m_aXJa58
*
Whittle is a mainstream secular Conservative in his basic stance. He is a relatively pure and principled mainstream Conservative - but not a reactionary; and his assumptions are secular not Christian.
In fact I do not know, and have not been able to find-out, whether Whittle is himself a Christian.
He is certainly pro-Christian, and seems to get close to saying he is a Christian in the following segment - but he never actually says so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9w_PK_ZEbU
And here is the problem.
*
Pretty much everything that Bill Whittle argues is predicated on Christianity being true - that is in fact the premise from which he is arguing. But, presumably, because he wishes to appeal-to and ally-with non-Christians, he does not set out these premises.
Therefore in practice he argues on the only-non-religious premises which are available - that is utilitarianism - policies aiming to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number, over the long-term.
And this is exactly the same premise as the ruling secular Leftists argue from - so the whole debate reduces down to wrangling over optimal means to identical ends... which policies are most practical and effective, what is the boundary of those whose happiness is being promoted, how long-termist can we be without sabotaging the chance of success etc.
All of which reduces to day-by-day political wrangling, expediency, point-scoring, electioneering, media manipulation and the rest of it. And this is a game which (sadly) Bill Whittle cannot win - although he is unsurpassed at playing the game.
*
What I am saying is that if he hasn't yet crossed the line and become a Christian, that is the priority for Bill Whittle. If he has crossed the line, he needs to be explicit about it. If he is explicit about it, he needs to state it upfront in his analyses...
And when he starts stating it upfront in his analyses, he will pretty soon recognize that none of what he wants is going to happen without a Christian revival, another Great Awakening.
So, that then becomes the priority.
*
Three types of tenor singing Rossini, with varying degrees of appropriateness
*
I love the tenor voice above all others, and am very fond of Rossini - but it is very, very seldom that Rossini is sung better than adequately by tenors.
Indeed I know of only one tenor - Luigi Alva - who has sung the Rossini tenor roles as they should be sung.
*
Mostly Rossini is sung by tenors with far too heavy a voice - of the examples below Gedda was a Spinto tenor, which is of the same type as Pavarotti. Although he skillfully held-back on his full tone and volume, and lightened it - he cannot get anywhere near singing the decorations of the aria.
Florez is a lighter and much more flexible modern lyric tenor - but still too heavy a voice for Rossini - because although he manages most of the decorations, he cannot separate the notes, and this shows up especially in the runs (the scales).
Listening to Alva after these is a revelation: that is how it should be done. The notes in the fast decorations are separated.
Alva was not perfect - there is sometimes a audible aspiration between the separated notes - but he is the only one capable of singing Rossini in the style it should be sung - in which the decorations contribute a great deal of the value of the music. Without hearing these decorations given full value, the music does not reveal its full value.
*
Nicolai Gedda - adequate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2uuTJfQOXY
Juan Diego Florez - good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_ma50DYZo
Luigi Alva: how it should be done
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xqRx5ggOqs
*
I love the tenor voice above all others, and am very fond of Rossini - but it is very, very seldom that Rossini is sung better than adequately by tenors.
Indeed I know of only one tenor - Luigi Alva - who has sung the Rossini tenor roles as they should be sung.
*
Mostly Rossini is sung by tenors with far too heavy a voice - of the examples below Gedda was a Spinto tenor, which is of the same type as Pavarotti. Although he skillfully held-back on his full tone and volume, and lightened it - he cannot get anywhere near singing the decorations of the aria.
Florez is a lighter and much more flexible modern lyric tenor - but still too heavy a voice for Rossini - because although he manages most of the decorations, he cannot separate the notes, and this shows up especially in the runs (the scales).
Listening to Alva after these is a revelation: that is how it should be done. The notes in the fast decorations are separated.
Alva was not perfect - there is sometimes a audible aspiration between the separated notes - but he is the only one capable of singing Rossini in the style it should be sung - in which the decorations contribute a great deal of the value of the music. Without hearing these decorations given full value, the music does not reveal its full value.
*
Nicolai Gedda - adequate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2uuTJfQOXY
Juan Diego Florez - good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_ma50DYZo
Luigi Alva: how it should be done
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xqRx5ggOqs
*
Christians against the sexual revolution: sexual sin versus positive focus on marriage and family
*
With few exceptions, Christians have not been successful in combating the sexual revolution: indeed there is little evidence that some of the major Christian denominations make any difference at all to the sexual behaviour of their self-identified adherents - if statistics of pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce etc. are any guide.
It is easy to understand why - at a psychological level.
*
The sexual revolution offers (so says the mass media) intense short-term, here and now, selfish pleasure - or, if not pleasure, then at least intense distraction and a pseudo-purpose in life in a nihilistic and hope-less secular world.
But what does mainstream Christianity offer against this?
1. There is the sinfulness of the sexual revolution - which at a psychological level is negative since it means here and now feeling limited, guilty, under attack, negative, bored, left-out, and without a life project.
2. The eventual positive hope of greater long-term and altruistic happiness from a successful marriage and family (but they might not be successful...) and an overall-better society based on sex in a context of marriage and family.
*
In sum, mainstream Christianity offers the hope/ possibility of a better long-term personal and societal happiness; in return for the certainty of less short-term and selfish happiness and more misery for persons and societies...
but this truthful equation is in fact denied and opposed by a vast and unrelenting mass media which dishonestly claims (explicitly, but more importantly as an inbuilt assumption) that 'you can have it all' and on easy terms - you can indulge your short-term and selfish wishes AND get a better (kinder) society in which both you and more other people are happier...
(...the evil ones being the negative Christians who want to thwart your legitimate and indeed virtuous desires and reduce people to abject misery so that they can may better be controlled.)
*
The mainstream Christian offer is too weak - what is necessary is an honest conceptualization of the benefits of marriage and family which is so strong that it leads to here-and-now happiness, hope and a direction in life.
An honest vision of marriage and family which can fill the present mind with joy, meaning, purpose and anticipation.
*
A positive and powerful advocacy is, in my opinion, the number one priority (but not of course the only priority...) for mainstream Christian churches in the secular West.
This is where they should be putting their best efforts - not least in drawing-out the scriptural and traditional and doctrinal links between marriage and family and the Christian life - there is works for everyone in this endeavor:
Marriage and family are the basic units or building-blocks of the Christian life.
*
With few exceptions, Christians have not been successful in combating the sexual revolution: indeed there is little evidence that some of the major Christian denominations make any difference at all to the sexual behaviour of their self-identified adherents - if statistics of pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce etc. are any guide.
It is easy to understand why - at a psychological level.
*
The sexual revolution offers (so says the mass media) intense short-term, here and now, selfish pleasure - or, if not pleasure, then at least intense distraction and a pseudo-purpose in life in a nihilistic and hope-less secular world.
But what does mainstream Christianity offer against this?
1. There is the sinfulness of the sexual revolution - which at a psychological level is negative since it means here and now feeling limited, guilty, under attack, negative, bored, left-out, and without a life project.
2. The eventual positive hope of greater long-term and altruistic happiness from a successful marriage and family (but they might not be successful...) and an overall-better society based on sex in a context of marriage and family.
*
In sum, mainstream Christianity offers the hope/ possibility of a better long-term personal and societal happiness; in return for the certainty of less short-term and selfish happiness and more misery for persons and societies...
but this truthful equation is in fact denied and opposed by a vast and unrelenting mass media which dishonestly claims (explicitly, but more importantly as an inbuilt assumption) that 'you can have it all' and on easy terms - you can indulge your short-term and selfish wishes AND get a better (kinder) society in which both you and more other people are happier...
(...the evil ones being the negative Christians who want to thwart your legitimate and indeed virtuous desires and reduce people to abject misery so that they can may better be controlled.)
*
The mainstream Christian offer is too weak - what is necessary is an honest conceptualization of the benefits of marriage and family which is so strong that it leads to here-and-now happiness, hope and a direction in life.
An honest vision of marriage and family which can fill the present mind with joy, meaning, purpose and anticipation.
*
A positive and powerful advocacy is, in my opinion, the number one priority (but not of course the only priority...) for mainstream Christian churches in the secular West.
This is where they should be putting their best efforts - not least in drawing-out the scriptural and traditional and doctrinal links between marriage and family and the Christian life - there is works for everyone in this endeavor:
Marriage and family are the basic units or building-blocks of the Christian life.
*
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
What is justice?
*
We think of it in terms of applying rules and laws - alternatively in applying principles. We look for precedents, and try to treat similar cases identically.
Yet, a just and loving father Father treats each child differently by sex, age, character, intelligence. Typically, the superficially similar cases are actually significantly different and require different responses.
All rules, laws, principles and the like are partial and distorted summaries of justice - and ideal justice is best captured by the loving Father metaphor; which is also the best metaphor for God.
Yet it is striking how often we judge God by His conformity to those partial and distorted summaries of rules, laws and principles which would not even suffice for an earthly Father! - and in situations in which the primary Fatherly metaphor reveal justice to be clear and obvious!
It is close to the essence of Christianity that each person is unique and that each is the child of God our loving Father - therefore, with each 'case' unique, justice cannot be captured by generalities and precedents.
In an abstract sense, there are no precedents to 'family justice' yet that justice is understandable and principled and indeed the model of all other forms of justice; how much more will this be the situation for divine justice!
*
We think of it in terms of applying rules and laws - alternatively in applying principles. We look for precedents, and try to treat similar cases identically.
Yet, a just and loving father Father treats each child differently by sex, age, character, intelligence. Typically, the superficially similar cases are actually significantly different and require different responses.
All rules, laws, principles and the like are partial and distorted summaries of justice - and ideal justice is best captured by the loving Father metaphor; which is also the best metaphor for God.
Yet it is striking how often we judge God by His conformity to those partial and distorted summaries of rules, laws and principles which would not even suffice for an earthly Father! - and in situations in which the primary Fatherly metaphor reveal justice to be clear and obvious!
It is close to the essence of Christianity that each person is unique and that each is the child of God our loving Father - therefore, with each 'case' unique, justice cannot be captured by generalities and precedents.
In an abstract sense, there are no precedents to 'family justice' yet that justice is understandable and principled and indeed the model of all other forms of justice; how much more will this be the situation for divine justice!
*
Monday, 12 August 2013
An angry God - why not?
*
Many modern people who describe themselves as Christian apparently find it hard to imagine an angry God - but why?
Do they suppose that a loving God would never be angry?
Do they suppose there is an intrinsic conflict between anger and love?
Surely that is absurd!
*
God is our loving Father - we need to ask whether it is sometimes appropriate for a loving Father to be angry, and to express that anger, and to act (lovingly) upon that anger.
The answer is - yes, of course loving Fathers may appropriately be angry and may act upon that anger.
Nothing more need be said: An angry God? Yes, of course.
*
Many modern people who describe themselves as Christian apparently find it hard to imagine an angry God - but why?
Do they suppose that a loving God would never be angry?
Do they suppose there is an intrinsic conflict between anger and love?
Surely that is absurd!
*
God is our loving Father - we need to ask whether it is sometimes appropriate for a loving Father to be angry, and to express that anger, and to act (lovingly) upon that anger.
The answer is - yes, of course loving Fathers may appropriately be angry and may act upon that anger.
Nothing more need be said: An angry God? Yes, of course.
*
The concept of Fake Creativity stands close to the heart of Leftism
*
In discussing creativity, a decision must be made as to whether we are going to give primacy to process or outcome.
(Not neglecting the other of the pair: but one or the other must come first).
I put process first - and therefore discuss creativity and how it leads to what are generally regarded as creative results - so if the work leading to a science Nobel Prize is regarded as a creative outcome, then I would say that some science Nobel Prizewinners were highly creative persons, but some were not. The same would apply to great composers, great writers, great artists etc.
*
If creativity is process, a mode of thinking; then this means that many or most of the people who produce work which is generally regarded as extremely useful, beautiful or true are not creative.
Furthermore, most creative people ('creatives') do not achieve anything that is generally regarded as useful, beautiful or true.
So it is not a compliment to call somebody creative or 'a creative' - it is simply a description of a personality type.
(A personality type which is very poorly understood, hence the reason for my writing about it.)
*
In previous eras, there was not a special status given to novelty or originality as an aspect of high quality work - but since about 1800 in the West there has been: greatness is supposedly innovative.
Therefore we have an incentive system in place to generate fake creativity: an incentive system in which there are un-creative people who dishonestly strive to be regarded as original because they want to appropriate the label of creative.
In sum, under modernity creativity has been reduced to novelty - and novelty can be faked.
*
But it is easy to generate mere novelty, therefore the discriminative test applied to novelties is whether they are approved by the social systems that allocate high status.
When novelty is socially approved, then the person who generated it gets to be called creative - maybe even a creative genius.
Thus: Novelty of outcome + Social Approval of that outcome = Fake creativity
*
And fake creativity is an attribute bestowed upon an outcome or person; bestowed by the social systems for generating status - in other words the mass media (primarily), politics, civil administration, the legal system, education... in a nutshell the Leftist establishment.
So, as you would expect, political correctness has captured creativity - and replaced real creativity with a fake creativity which is controlled by the arbiters of modernity: that is, mostly the mass media.
This to claim to be a 'creative' person has been changed from being the mere observation of a psychological fact; to an arrogant claim of deserving high social status for having achieved something which is approved by social arbiters.
*
This matter of being able to define/ bestow the accolade of creativity is of extreme importance to the Leftist intellectual establishment - indeed, fake creativity stands close to the heart of the Leftist project - because the Left works mainly via manipulations of esteem, including self-esteem.
*
In discussing creativity, a decision must be made as to whether we are going to give primacy to process or outcome.
(Not neglecting the other of the pair: but one or the other must come first).
I put process first - and therefore discuss creativity and how it leads to what are generally regarded as creative results - so if the work leading to a science Nobel Prize is regarded as a creative outcome, then I would say that some science Nobel Prizewinners were highly creative persons, but some were not. The same would apply to great composers, great writers, great artists etc.
*
If creativity is process, a mode of thinking; then this means that many or most of the people who produce work which is generally regarded as extremely useful, beautiful or true are not creative.
Furthermore, most creative people ('creatives') do not achieve anything that is generally regarded as useful, beautiful or true.
So it is not a compliment to call somebody creative or 'a creative' - it is simply a description of a personality type.
(A personality type which is very poorly understood, hence the reason for my writing about it.)
*
In previous eras, there was not a special status given to novelty or originality as an aspect of high quality work - but since about 1800 in the West there has been: greatness is supposedly innovative.
Therefore we have an incentive system in place to generate fake creativity: an incentive system in which there are un-creative people who dishonestly strive to be regarded as original because they want to appropriate the label of creative.
In sum, under modernity creativity has been reduced to novelty - and novelty can be faked.
*
But it is easy to generate mere novelty, therefore the discriminative test applied to novelties is whether they are approved by the social systems that allocate high status.
When novelty is socially approved, then the person who generated it gets to be called creative - maybe even a creative genius.
Thus: Novelty of outcome + Social Approval of that outcome = Fake creativity
*
And fake creativity is an attribute bestowed upon an outcome or person; bestowed by the social systems for generating status - in other words the mass media (primarily), politics, civil administration, the legal system, education... in a nutshell the Leftist establishment.
So, as you would expect, political correctness has captured creativity - and replaced real creativity with a fake creativity which is controlled by the arbiters of modernity: that is, mostly the mass media.
This to claim to be a 'creative' person has been changed from being the mere observation of a psychological fact; to an arrogant claim of deserving high social status for having achieved something which is approved by social arbiters.
*
This matter of being able to define/ bestow the accolade of creativity is of extreme importance to the Leftist intellectual establishment - indeed, fake creativity stands close to the heart of the Leftist project - because the Left works mainly via manipulations of esteem, including self-esteem.
*
Sunday, 11 August 2013
No such thing as deferred satisfaction - implications for effective religion
*
At the level of brain functioning, there is no such thing as deferred satisfaction - and maybe this applies in general?
The brain, the mind, is a satisfaction-seeking system - its online, active working memory is only a few seconds - and and the only way the brain can avoid seeking any particular satisfaction which presents itself is when another satisfaction is greater, and defeats it.
So we cannot defeat present temptation by reference to anticipated future benefits - we can only defeat present temptation when some other present satisfaction is greater.
*
Also satisfaction is compounded of positive and negative - addition of positive satisfactions and/or subtraction of negative satisfactions.
*
And this applies to religion.
A religion which is effective in changing life must be, can only be, effective by overpowering present satisfactions that are evil temptations as presented by the world and by a sinful nature; with stronger present satisfactions (of God).
Present satisfactions can only be stronger than temptation by some mixture of positive and negative - this fact has many implications.
A religion of weak satisfactions will not be effective.
*
For instance, the idea of Heaven is only effective if it provides here and now satisfaction; Hell the opposite - the intellectually accepted fact of Heaven or Hell has no effect on behaviors as such; but only by means of its here-and-now satisfactions.
*
A religion which lacks strong positive present satisfactions and yet is effective, will necessarily be so because of the avoidance of present negative satisfactions - avoidance of guilt, for example.
Thus an effective religion which lacks positive present satisfactions, yet remains religious, can only be operating by negative satisfactions - by its adherents here and now dominated by the need to avoid negative satisfactions: fear, pain, misery, suffering of various types.
A religion which is effective, lacks strong present satisfactions of a religious type, and also avoids strong present negative satisfactions (such as guilt); must be calling upon covert, unacknowledged present satisfactions - such as presently active emotions related to hatred, lust, greed etc. Its true, in the sense of effective, motivations are therefore non-religious.
*
So, a religion which hopes to be effective in changing life must look to its satisfactions; must look to its present satisfactions - positive and negative.
Because is these are too weak it will be ineffective, and if these are not presently active it will not be effective; and if the religion is effective yet satisfactions are not religious, then it will be effective at the cost of being anti-religious.
Ideally, it seems to me, effective religion should so fill the mind of its adherents with positive present satisfactions that there is but little space and less need for negative satisfactions; and non-religious satisfactions find this full and happy mind hard to penetrate.
This is, of course, the Christian ideal: that the mind should be filled with love.
*
When a Christian religion supplies no present and positive satisfactions, and the Christian mind is instead filled with and motivated by fear, pain, misery, suffering, guilt - then things have gone badly wrong.
And the desire to escape negative motivations yet retain motivation may 'naturally' lead to the embrace of non-Christian satisfactions: hatred, lust, greed etc.
*
Note: The ideal is a mind filled with positive present satisfactions - but positive present satisfactions often come from past memories and future hopes. Indeed, it is both inevitable and necessary that this may be the case - and for many people it must be the case; since their actual present circumstances are so filled by negative factors that, if it were not for memories and hopes, there would be no possibility of happiness.
At the level of brain functioning, there is no such thing as deferred satisfaction - and maybe this applies in general?
The brain, the mind, is a satisfaction-seeking system - its online, active working memory is only a few seconds - and and the only way the brain can avoid seeking any particular satisfaction which presents itself is when another satisfaction is greater, and defeats it.
So we cannot defeat present temptation by reference to anticipated future benefits - we can only defeat present temptation when some other present satisfaction is greater.
*
Also satisfaction is compounded of positive and negative - addition of positive satisfactions and/or subtraction of negative satisfactions.
*
And this applies to religion.
A religion which is effective in changing life must be, can only be, effective by overpowering present satisfactions that are evil temptations as presented by the world and by a sinful nature; with stronger present satisfactions (of God).
Present satisfactions can only be stronger than temptation by some mixture of positive and negative - this fact has many implications.
A religion of weak satisfactions will not be effective.
*
For instance, the idea of Heaven is only effective if it provides here and now satisfaction; Hell the opposite - the intellectually accepted fact of Heaven or Hell has no effect on behaviors as such; but only by means of its here-and-now satisfactions.
*
A religion which lacks strong positive present satisfactions and yet is effective, will necessarily be so because of the avoidance of present negative satisfactions - avoidance of guilt, for example.
Thus an effective religion which lacks positive present satisfactions, yet remains religious, can only be operating by negative satisfactions - by its adherents here and now dominated by the need to avoid negative satisfactions: fear, pain, misery, suffering of various types.
A religion which is effective, lacks strong present satisfactions of a religious type, and also avoids strong present negative satisfactions (such as guilt); must be calling upon covert, unacknowledged present satisfactions - such as presently active emotions related to hatred, lust, greed etc. Its true, in the sense of effective, motivations are therefore non-religious.
*
So, a religion which hopes to be effective in changing life must look to its satisfactions; must look to its present satisfactions - positive and negative.
Because is these are too weak it will be ineffective, and if these are not presently active it will not be effective; and if the religion is effective yet satisfactions are not religious, then it will be effective at the cost of being anti-religious.
Ideally, it seems to me, effective religion should so fill the mind of its adherents with positive present satisfactions that there is but little space and less need for negative satisfactions; and non-religious satisfactions find this full and happy mind hard to penetrate.
This is, of course, the Christian ideal: that the mind should be filled with love.
*
When a Christian religion supplies no present and positive satisfactions, and the Christian mind is instead filled with and motivated by fear, pain, misery, suffering, guilt - then things have gone badly wrong.
And the desire to escape negative motivations yet retain motivation may 'naturally' lead to the embrace of non-Christian satisfactions: hatred, lust, greed etc.
*
Note: The ideal is a mind filled with positive present satisfactions - but positive present satisfactions often come from past memories and future hopes. Indeed, it is both inevitable and necessary that this may be the case - and for many people it must be the case; since their actual present circumstances are so filled by negative factors that, if it were not for memories and hopes, there would be no possibility of happiness.
Saturday, 10 August 2013
Christians need to understand God (and in fact do understand God) sufficiently in order to love Him
*
That's it really.
*
And this should not be forgotten as the most important thing to emphasize - and not the line about the ultimate incomprehensibility of God - which is true, but not distinctively Christian and quite likely to mislead.
*
That's it really.
*
And this should not be forgotten as the most important thing to emphasize - and not the line about the ultimate incomprehensibility of God - which is true, but not distinctively Christian and quite likely to mislead.
*
Friday, 9 August 2013
The perils of reaction
*
If a movement is a reaction, motivated by reacting-against - then it is likely to be incoherent, unable to stand on its own feet, unable to motivate except by hatred, and (over time) almost sure to be net-destructive - since it is organized around opposition and may lack any other genuine focus.
This is the situation for secular Leftism. Historically, the Left as a movement was primarily a series of reactions against Christianity (theocracy, priests, The Pope, monks, Jesus Christ as divine, God, sexual morality etc); and secondly a reaction against 'capitalist' economics and social organization.
Consequently the Left is defined by what it opposes, and as Leftism advanced it became almost wholly motivated by hatred and destruction.
But the same problem confronts any movement which is primarily a reaction against secular Leftism - if it lacks a positive focus and sufficient institutional cohesion, anti-Leftism will - over time - drift into hatred and destruction.
This probably applies even to Christian reactions to secularism: more is needed than mere opposition to secularism, it is an insufficient principle for betterment.
Any worthy opposition to Leftism ought to be built-up coherently from positive principles, and aim at some comprehensible and in-principle sustainable state of affairs - and one which is expressed simply and clearly enough that its outlines are universally understandable; and inadequacies, gaps and problems can be predicted.
*
If a movement is a reaction, motivated by reacting-against - then it is likely to be incoherent, unable to stand on its own feet, unable to motivate except by hatred, and (over time) almost sure to be net-destructive - since it is organized around opposition and may lack any other genuine focus.
This is the situation for secular Leftism. Historically, the Left as a movement was primarily a series of reactions against Christianity (theocracy, priests, The Pope, monks, Jesus Christ as divine, God, sexual morality etc); and secondly a reaction against 'capitalist' economics and social organization.
Consequently the Left is defined by what it opposes, and as Leftism advanced it became almost wholly motivated by hatred and destruction.
But the same problem confronts any movement which is primarily a reaction against secular Leftism - if it lacks a positive focus and sufficient institutional cohesion, anti-Leftism will - over time - drift into hatred and destruction.
This probably applies even to Christian reactions to secularism: more is needed than mere opposition to secularism, it is an insufficient principle for betterment.
Any worthy opposition to Leftism ought to be built-up coherently from positive principles, and aim at some comprehensible and in-principle sustainable state of affairs - and one which is expressed simply and clearly enough that its outlines are universally understandable; and inadequacies, gaps and problems can be predicted.
*
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Why The Master hates Dr Who
*
It all dates back to The Master's attempt to get a job at a prestigious college in the USA.
Despite a dazzling curriculum vitae of graduating with first class honours, and vast numbers of publications (hand written papayri, parchments, printed books and electronic micro-podules), and teaching experience stretching across several millenia; his application was rejected without being sent to referees on the basis that The Master did not have a PhD.
The Master had, in fact, dropped out of the University of Gallifrey after completing his MA; and gone off on a Galactic Grand Tour while laughing at his old friend Who who had to grind away at mundane research for a further three years towards his doctorate.
Instead of showing sympathy at this humiliating injustice of rejection on an academic technicality, The Doctor (as he now styled himself) snidely remarked that this was exactly why Who had finished his studies instead of chasing-off after stars, seas and sensuality, leaving the job half-done.
The Master was, naturally, offended and angered by Who's arrogance; and spent the rest of his life chasing The Doctor around space and time, hoping to torture him to death as pay-back for that wounding remark.
*
The Master reacting to Dr Who's sarcastic quip
It all dates back to The Master's attempt to get a job at a prestigious college in the USA.
Despite a dazzling curriculum vitae of graduating with first class honours, and vast numbers of publications (hand written papayri, parchments, printed books and electronic micro-podules), and teaching experience stretching across several millenia; his application was rejected without being sent to referees on the basis that The Master did not have a PhD.
The Master had, in fact, dropped out of the University of Gallifrey after completing his MA; and gone off on a Galactic Grand Tour while laughing at his old friend Who who had to grind away at mundane research for a further three years towards his doctorate.
Instead of showing sympathy at this humiliating injustice of rejection on an academic technicality, The Doctor (as he now styled himself) snidely remarked that this was exactly why Who had finished his studies instead of chasing-off after stars, seas and sensuality, leaving the job half-done.
The Master was, naturally, offended and angered by Who's arrogance; and spent the rest of his life chasing The Doctor around space and time, hoping to torture him to death as pay-back for that wounding remark.
*
Harry Potter and the need for a single volume Half Blood Prince/ Deathly Hallows (with back story and notes)
*
I am again re-reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - and as I began to break down in tears in a cafe (halfway through 'The Missing Mirror' chapter), and was forced to lay the book aside and stop reading or risk dissolving into a blubbering mass; I realized for the nth time that many adults are missing reading this wonderful book for the simple reason that they are either unable or unwilling to read children's books.
*
The problem is that, according to conventional wisdom, the Deathly Hallows can only be approached via the preceding six Harry Potter stories; two of which are designed for intelligent (approx) eight year olds, the next for ten year olds, two more for 12-14 year olds, and only the last two volumes of being fully adult novels.
But, despite that I enjoy reading 'children's literature' - this was in fact not how I personally approached the Harry Potter series.
*
I had seen all the early movies (which I found entertaining but not deep - because the deep stuff has been censored or edited-out); but after abortive attempts to tackle the early HP volumes, I finally read some chunks of the Half Blood Prince, due to my inability to understand the movie (becuase it incompetently missed-out key facts).
Then, my daughter got very keen on HP and began reading through the series - and in order to be able to discuss it with her, as she progressed through each volume, I read the corresponding plot summaries on Wikipedia/ Harry Potter Wiki - then I eventually read the whole of Deathly Hallows and was amazed, astonished, delighted - and extremely moved by it.
So I went back and read all the earlier stories, but not in chronological order (I have read the whole series, aloud, in chronological order since then).
Anyway, my point is that, so long as it is regarded as essential for adults to read through the Harry Potter stories from the Philosopher's Stone onwards before tackling the last books, for so long will many adults be prevented from appreciating the wonderful last book.
*
In fact, in terms of both structure and style, the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows make up a unit: therefore, the solution is that they should be published together in a single mega-volume marketed to adults - and with all the necessary back story provided in the form or a Foreword or Preface, plus a few explanatory notes (probably as footnotes).
This would be ideal: but in the meantime I invite adults to plunge straight into the Half Blood Prince followed by Deathly Hallows, having read the back story on Wikipedia, the Harry Potter Wiki or somewhere similar; and looking-up any puzzling references as you go.
Because, you really don't want to miss these books - especially if you are a Christian.
*
I am again re-reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - and as I began to break down in tears in a cafe (halfway through 'The Missing Mirror' chapter), and was forced to lay the book aside and stop reading or risk dissolving into a blubbering mass; I realized for the nth time that many adults are missing reading this wonderful book for the simple reason that they are either unable or unwilling to read children's books.
*
The problem is that, according to conventional wisdom, the Deathly Hallows can only be approached via the preceding six Harry Potter stories; two of which are designed for intelligent (approx) eight year olds, the next for ten year olds, two more for 12-14 year olds, and only the last two volumes of being fully adult novels.
But, despite that I enjoy reading 'children's literature' - this was in fact not how I personally approached the Harry Potter series.
*
I had seen all the early movies (which I found entertaining but not deep - because the deep stuff has been censored or edited-out); but after abortive attempts to tackle the early HP volumes, I finally read some chunks of the Half Blood Prince, due to my inability to understand the movie (becuase it incompetently missed-out key facts).
Then, my daughter got very keen on HP and began reading through the series - and in order to be able to discuss it with her, as she progressed through each volume, I read the corresponding plot summaries on Wikipedia/ Harry Potter Wiki - then I eventually read the whole of Deathly Hallows and was amazed, astonished, delighted - and extremely moved by it.
So I went back and read all the earlier stories, but not in chronological order (I have read the whole series, aloud, in chronological order since then).
Anyway, my point is that, so long as it is regarded as essential for adults to read through the Harry Potter stories from the Philosopher's Stone onwards before tackling the last books, for so long will many adults be prevented from appreciating the wonderful last book.
*
In fact, in terms of both structure and style, the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows make up a unit: therefore, the solution is that they should be published together in a single mega-volume marketed to adults - and with all the necessary back story provided in the form or a Foreword or Preface, plus a few explanatory notes (probably as footnotes).
This would be ideal: but in the meantime I invite adults to plunge straight into the Half Blood Prince followed by Deathly Hallows, having read the back story on Wikipedia, the Harry Potter Wiki or somewhere similar; and looking-up any puzzling references as you go.
Because, you really don't want to miss these books - especially if you are a Christian.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)