*
No spoilers.
I bought this novella having seen the recommendation from Adam Greenwood:
http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/04/14/awake-in-the-night-land
I fully agree that this is a really, really good book; indeed it is good in a way and at a level that I found almost bewildering. The level of the thing seems to be far above me - I was just aghast at the way the story kept twisting and reversing, again and again and again, yet with a complete sureness of touch and cohesion.
I have already said that, simply as prose, it is as original and high in quality as anything I've come across written by authors of the past couple of generations; the plotting is, if anything, even better.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-prose-artistry-of-john-c-wright.html
Having said all this, I am not sure whether I got it all, indeed I am sure I didn't. Without being in the slightest pretentious (in the way that Henry James, James Joyce or Samuel Becket - and innumerable lesser modernists - are so often pretentious; I mean that sense of deliberately trying to impress the reader with a conviction of the authors' cleverness) I am nonetheless sure that JCW's mind, specifically his fiction-writing persona inclusive of whatever inspirations effectual, is operating at a level considerably beyond mine.
The Roman Catholic church is fortunate in having someone as advocate of his quality - and indeed the whole nature of this fiction strikes me as the best kind of product of this most intellectually-sophisticated of Christian denominations.
Another element, which I would not regard as typically Catholic, but which I found profoundly resonant, was the general idea that the salvation was a thing that involved a man and wife, together. This seemed to come from the author's heart and spoke to my own heart as an ideal, and indeed as a kind of ultimate or eventual existential necessity: that we are each individually, as man or woman, complementary half-persons, even at best.
I did not feel the book was anything so formal as an allegory, certainly there was no point-by-point correspondence going on - but without doubt there is an important and deliberate Christian relevance. This is a picture of the human condition in its essence. Indeed, it is the kind of book a Christian can and should learn from; and which may produce un-named stirrings and yearnings in the breast of a non-Christian.
I only finished the book today - so these are first impressions. What will be interesting will be to see and to feel how my ideas and evaluations develop over time, and (presumably) re-readings.
*
Monday, 12 May 2014
The pecking-order within the Left
*
As someone who was raised as a socialist, who imbibed the history of the movement and the legends of Trades Unions struggle, I was appalled by what had become of Leftism in the 1970s in England. The Left (and especially the leadership) was dishonest, grasping, parasitic, short-termist, materialistic, hedonic, lazy... it was, in short, almost the opposite of how it had begun.
*
(Because there was much that was good in early socialism, and many good and even superior men were among its leaders - even though the atheism, envy and all-round potential for destruction was always there for those acute enough to perceive it: the Left was, in other words, a slippery-slope.)
*
The 1970s parody of Union-based socialism (rooted among the skilled working classes) became discredited; but this only opened the door to elite-led post-sixties New Leftism which was about 'identity politics' - especially sex and race.
The New Left poster victims were not the starving coal miners or agricultural workers; but upper class female professionals who suffered insidious slights and invisible barriers to their career success and status.
And then Britain imported a primary racial concern from the USA (although this had to wait until after the Left had imported sufficient suitable 'races' by de facto open door mass immigration, so that it could then place these groups at the centre of its focus).
*
For the original Old Left socialists in Britain, women's and racial issues - and the environment - had been subsumed within the egalitarianism of socialism; and the Labour movement was hostile to this kind of identity politics for the very good reason that they were intelligent and honest enough to perceive that the primacy of sex and race would tend to subvert the proper focus of socialism - which was primarily economic (i.e. concerned with the production and distribution of 'goods').
*
However, I do not think there were many on the Left who could ever have imagined a day when the Left would place its priority not with the working class, not with women, and not with race - but with 'gender equality'; yet that issue has emerged (in this late phase of extreme decadence) as the primary one on the Left - top of the pecking-order; such that implementation of the latest phase of the sexual revolution now justifies official, governmental threats of discipline by starvation, attacks on the proletariat, on women, and even (what would certainly have been called) 'racism'.
http://anglicanmainstream.org/confusion-worse-confounded
Even just a decade ago, who could ever have imagined that gender issues would trump racism? And do so so comprehensively that (apparently) nobody even notices? Amazing. This is a measure of the sheer overwhelming power of the sexual revolution in its current manifestation as gender rights - within the utterly Leftist Western political establishment; the issue of sexual equality now trumps race and feminism as well as the working class - all three of them thrown 'under the bus'.
*
This ought not to provide us with any comfort however. The orcs of the Left are always squabbling, infighting, and slaughtering each other - but they will unite in a trice to fight Christians and traditionalists.
It is a sign of the strength, the absolute domination of the Left among the power-holders of The West that such extreme foolishness, frivolity, selfishness, decadence and so great an extremity of corruption has now become unmasked and established: that whim, spite, envy, rage and hatred are now officially sanctioned principles; as is consistent with a world dominated by the Mass Media and where the population is addicted to the Mass Media - and will therefore necessarily embrace the trivial grasping fecklessness that is intrinsic to the modern Mass Media.
*
As someone who was raised as a socialist, who imbibed the history of the movement and the legends of Trades Unions struggle, I was appalled by what had become of Leftism in the 1970s in England. The Left (and especially the leadership) was dishonest, grasping, parasitic, short-termist, materialistic, hedonic, lazy... it was, in short, almost the opposite of how it had begun.
*
(Because there was much that was good in early socialism, and many good and even superior men were among its leaders - even though the atheism, envy and all-round potential for destruction was always there for those acute enough to perceive it: the Left was, in other words, a slippery-slope.)
*
The 1970s parody of Union-based socialism (rooted among the skilled working classes) became discredited; but this only opened the door to elite-led post-sixties New Leftism which was about 'identity politics' - especially sex and race.
The New Left poster victims were not the starving coal miners or agricultural workers; but upper class female professionals who suffered insidious slights and invisible barriers to their career success and status.
And then Britain imported a primary racial concern from the USA (although this had to wait until after the Left had imported sufficient suitable 'races' by de facto open door mass immigration, so that it could then place these groups at the centre of its focus).
*
For the original Old Left socialists in Britain, women's and racial issues - and the environment - had been subsumed within the egalitarianism of socialism; and the Labour movement was hostile to this kind of identity politics for the very good reason that they were intelligent and honest enough to perceive that the primacy of sex and race would tend to subvert the proper focus of socialism - which was primarily economic (i.e. concerned with the production and distribution of 'goods').
*
However, I do not think there were many on the Left who could ever have imagined a day when the Left would place its priority not with the working class, not with women, and not with race - but with 'gender equality'; yet that issue has emerged (in this late phase of extreme decadence) as the primary one on the Left - top of the pecking-order; such that implementation of the latest phase of the sexual revolution now justifies official, governmental threats of discipline by starvation, attacks on the proletariat, on women, and even (what would certainly have been called) 'racism'.
http://anglicanmainstream.org/confusion-worse-confounded
Even just a decade ago, who could ever have imagined that gender issues would trump racism? And do so so comprehensively that (apparently) nobody even notices? Amazing. This is a measure of the sheer overwhelming power of the sexual revolution in its current manifestation as gender rights - within the utterly Leftist Western political establishment; the issue of sexual equality now trumps race and feminism as well as the working class - all three of them thrown 'under the bus'.
*
This ought not to provide us with any comfort however. The orcs of the Left are always squabbling, infighting, and slaughtering each other - but they will unite in a trice to fight Christians and traditionalists.
It is a sign of the strength, the absolute domination of the Left among the power-holders of The West that such extreme foolishness, frivolity, selfishness, decadence and so great an extremity of corruption has now become unmasked and established: that whim, spite, envy, rage and hatred are now officially sanctioned principles; as is consistent with a world dominated by the Mass Media and where the population is addicted to the Mass Media - and will therefore necessarily embrace the trivial grasping fecklessness that is intrinsic to the modern Mass Media.
*
Sunday, 11 May 2014
Charlton's Second Law (to replace Conquest's Second Law)
*
Robert Conquest's Second Law states that:
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
http://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics
*
This is now refuted.
Charlton's Second Law therefore states that:
Any organization, ideology or social movement will sooner or later be corrupted by sex; unless an explicit (and strongly-enforced) sexual regulatory system is built-into it from the ground-up.
*
My modification is more fundamental than Conquest's Second Law; because it includes modern left-wing organizations, ideologies and social movements - which have all and without exception been corrupted away from their original political, economic and egalitarian purposes by the emergent sexual revolution/ liberation/ equality agenda.
In other words - the difference between the pre-1960s Old Left and the pre-60s New Left which has replaced it; is that sex, gender, sexuality and gender rights have now become the primary focus and method of Leftism (whether overtly, or covertly)
*
Why has this happened?
Because the sexual drive is so very strong - far stronger than most people's interest in politics, religion, law, business, arts, science, education, or anything else - that if it is not explicitly monitored and controlled, then sex will (whether covertly or openly, sooner or later) expand to displace any and every 'official' purpose or necessary social function.
*
Robert Conquest's Second Law states that:
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
http://www.isegoria.net/2008/07/robert-conquests-three-laws-of-politics
*
This is now refuted.
Charlton's Second Law therefore states that:
Any organization, ideology or social movement will sooner or later be corrupted by sex; unless an explicit (and strongly-enforced) sexual regulatory system is built-into it from the ground-up.
*
My modification is more fundamental than Conquest's Second Law; because it includes modern left-wing organizations, ideologies and social movements - which have all and without exception been corrupted away from their original political, economic and egalitarian purposes by the emergent sexual revolution/ liberation/ equality agenda.
In other words - the difference between the pre-1960s Old Left and the pre-60s New Left which has replaced it; is that sex, gender, sexuality and gender rights have now become the primary focus and method of Leftism (whether overtly, or covertly)
*
Why has this happened?
Because the sexual drive is so very strong - far stronger than most people's interest in politics, religion, law, business, arts, science, education, or anything else - that if it is not explicitly monitored and controlled, then sex will (whether covertly or openly, sooner or later) expand to displace any and every 'official' purpose or necessary social function.
*
Saturday, 10 May 2014
Is Hobbes really alive? Or is this 'just' a delusion of Calvin's? (Plus, is Father Christmas/ Santa Claus really real?)
*
Is Hobbes alive, or is the whole thing in Calvin's imagination - and therefore a delusion?
Does it matter?
Or, is there another alternative - another way of framing the problem?
*
In the whole of Calvin and Hobbes strips (except for the episode when Calvin is tied-up and yet has had his hair cut) everything is explicable on the basis that Hobbes is just a stuffed tiger; and that Calvin is believing a falsehood when he assumes Hobbes is alive and sentient - that is to say Calvin is deluded.
The pseudo-sophisticated modern says that it doesn't matter - that 'the important thing' is that Calvin believes. The claim is that if Calvin treats Hobbes 'as if' he is alive, then this amounts to the same thing as Hobbes 'really' being alive.
*
But that is dishonest, because to the modern spirit, 'as if' belief is in practice regarded as a falsehood - more specifically a delusion.
So, for decades, Liberal Christian theologians (and Jungians, for that matter - such as Joseph Campbell) asserted that the 'literal' truth of the Virgin birth of Christ, his having been resurrected, that he was the Son of God... all that stuff didn't really matter - we could keep the Christianity (believe the symbolism) on the basis that we simply treated this 'as if' it was true.
Indeed, 'as if' was put forward as more intelligent, more spiritual, morally better than the 'literalism' of 'fundamentalists'.
But that isn't what happened! 'As if' turned-out to be just a step onto a slippery slope leading to atheism and anti-Christianity.
*
Thus, if we try to say that it does not matter whether Hobbes is really alive; and all that matters is whether Calvin treats him 'as if' he is alive - then this is psychologically a lie. It does matter!
On this basis I think we either have to say that Hobbes is alive, and Calvin is therefore right to love (and hate) him; or else that all this is a just a 'projection' of Calvin's wishes - excusable in an immature child (whose brain is not fully developed), but not in itself admirable, and indeed a kind of psychopathology.
Or we accept that Hobbes is alive: I mean really alive.
*
This would mean that Hobbes is really alive, but alive in some way and form that is not generally recognized by the simple categories of modern thought.
And I think this is true - indeed I think it must be true; and to deny it involves denying very deep emotional intuitions - to violate which tends to make us inhuman and evil.
*
I will give an example.
Supposing that Calvin and Hobbes ended by Calvin 'realizing' that Hobbes was 'just' a stuffed toy - and decapitating and mutilating Hobbes. This is a really horrible idea - but if Calvin really was previously operating on the basis of a delusion and has now come to his senses, they why does it sicken us so much?
We can then ask whether we are right to be sickened by this scenario - and I think the answer is clearly - yes.
Therefore, in practice, and at a powerful gut-level, we regard it as more-Good for Calvin to regard Hobbes as really alive, and to treat him as really alive, than the alternative.
*
Why then do we abandon this conviction for adults?
Ah! - now that is the real question!
The modern adult world has, for some reason, decided that it is best for us to violate our natural and healthy and wholesome knowledge about the genuine aliveness of our loved stuffed tigers.
Is that reason a good one? Not that I can see - on the contrary, the modern adult world's insistence that Hobbes is 'nothing but' a stuffed tiger' does truly catastrophic damage to our souls - wounds us, makes us less human, alientates us and induces that unassuageable despair which shows itself in so many aspects of contemporary life (including much religious life).
Unless we have a world view which recognizes that Hobbes really is alive, and alive in a way and with a meaning which it is vital that we recognize, then we are lost - I mean literally lost.
**
So, I have argued - as a test case - that we must regard Hobbes as really alive, and that there is a profound violation by asserting the alternative.
Christians who deny the aliveness of other gods, or - say - an African Fetich (who assert that these are necessarily and certainly delusional) - are therefore stepping onto that slippery slope of alienation and despair which The West has descended over the past several generations.
Anthropologists who explain-away the spiritual events and entities of their subjects are likewise wounding themselves.
To regard other-people's spirits and gods as (necessarily and certainly) psychological (delusions, manipulations, wishful thinking and the like) is a self-inflicted wound.
*
For example, those who state that 'there is no Father Christmas' are doing perceptible violence to themselves. When I look at any such person, I see someone who is at least to that extent in a bad way, spiritually. And I mean a bad way spiritually.
And this applies even if the person is a devout Christian - to the extent that they can bring themselves to assert that Santa is just made-up, they are embracing an evil falsehood. They have revealed their souls as significantly-darkened - and they further darken their souls by their skeptical pronouncements; and by any attempts to argue or defend their denials.
This means that Father Christmas/ Santa Claus is really-real - and therefore that the problem is to understand the sense in which FC/ Santa is objectively, actually, independently real.
*
This sense in which Hobbes and Santa are really-real can be conceptualized in various ways - none completely satisfactory, but some of them going back to Socrates and Plato. Usually, the general idea is that earthly and mortal knowledge is necessarily partial, distorted and labile - and/but is more-or-less-closely linked to a complete, clear and permanent knowledge in some other place, realm, dimension or state of existence - or residing in gods or God.
(Without which there would be no possibility of knowledge at all - it is this underpinning which saves us from the nonsensical paradoxes and despair of nihilism.)
And that 'eternal' reality is real, but we cannot (cannot) fully understand it.
We know that this must be so, that reality must be real - but we cannot describe reality with precision or completeness.
*
Thus, we must not - for our own sakes - reject any specific piece of knowledge merely because it is partial, distorted, labile or because we cannot explain its causality or how it fits in with other stuff that (we think) we know. Because that rejection leads to the nonsensical nihilism of rejecting all earthly and imperfect knowledge by an irresistible and unstoppable slide down into to alienation.
***
Is Hobbes alive, or is the whole thing in Calvin's imagination - and therefore a delusion?
Does it matter?
Or, is there another alternative - another way of framing the problem?
*
In the whole of Calvin and Hobbes strips (except for the episode when Calvin is tied-up and yet has had his hair cut) everything is explicable on the basis that Hobbes is just a stuffed tiger; and that Calvin is believing a falsehood when he assumes Hobbes is alive and sentient - that is to say Calvin is deluded.
The pseudo-sophisticated modern says that it doesn't matter - that 'the important thing' is that Calvin believes. The claim is that if Calvin treats Hobbes 'as if' he is alive, then this amounts to the same thing as Hobbes 'really' being alive.
*
But that is dishonest, because to the modern spirit, 'as if' belief is in practice regarded as a falsehood - more specifically a delusion.
So, for decades, Liberal Christian theologians (and Jungians, for that matter - such as Joseph Campbell) asserted that the 'literal' truth of the Virgin birth of Christ, his having been resurrected, that he was the Son of God... all that stuff didn't really matter - we could keep the Christianity (believe the symbolism) on the basis that we simply treated this 'as if' it was true.
Indeed, 'as if' was put forward as more intelligent, more spiritual, morally better than the 'literalism' of 'fundamentalists'.
But that isn't what happened! 'As if' turned-out to be just a step onto a slippery slope leading to atheism and anti-Christianity.
*
Thus, if we try to say that it does not matter whether Hobbes is really alive; and all that matters is whether Calvin treats him 'as if' he is alive - then this is psychologically a lie. It does matter!
On this basis I think we either have to say that Hobbes is alive, and Calvin is therefore right to love (and hate) him; or else that all this is a just a 'projection' of Calvin's wishes - excusable in an immature child (whose brain is not fully developed), but not in itself admirable, and indeed a kind of psychopathology.
Or we accept that Hobbes is alive: I mean really alive.
*
This would mean that Hobbes is really alive, but alive in some way and form that is not generally recognized by the simple categories of modern thought.
And I think this is true - indeed I think it must be true; and to deny it involves denying very deep emotional intuitions - to violate which tends to make us inhuman and evil.
*
I will give an example.
Supposing that Calvin and Hobbes ended by Calvin 'realizing' that Hobbes was 'just' a stuffed toy - and decapitating and mutilating Hobbes. This is a really horrible idea - but if Calvin really was previously operating on the basis of a delusion and has now come to his senses, they why does it sicken us so much?
We can then ask whether we are right to be sickened by this scenario - and I think the answer is clearly - yes.
Therefore, in practice, and at a powerful gut-level, we regard it as more-Good for Calvin to regard Hobbes as really alive, and to treat him as really alive, than the alternative.
*
Why then do we abandon this conviction for adults?
Ah! - now that is the real question!
The modern adult world has, for some reason, decided that it is best for us to violate our natural and healthy and wholesome knowledge about the genuine aliveness of our loved stuffed tigers.
Is that reason a good one? Not that I can see - on the contrary, the modern adult world's insistence that Hobbes is 'nothing but' a stuffed tiger' does truly catastrophic damage to our souls - wounds us, makes us less human, alientates us and induces that unassuageable despair which shows itself in so many aspects of contemporary life (including much religious life).
Unless we have a world view which recognizes that Hobbes really is alive, and alive in a way and with a meaning which it is vital that we recognize, then we are lost - I mean literally lost.
**
Note added
So, I have argued - as a test case - that we must regard Hobbes as really alive, and that there is a profound violation by asserting the alternative.
Christians who deny the aliveness of other gods, or - say - an African Fetich (who assert that these are necessarily and certainly delusional) - are therefore stepping onto that slippery slope of alienation and despair which The West has descended over the past several generations.
Anthropologists who explain-away the spiritual events and entities of their subjects are likewise wounding themselves.
To regard other-people's spirits and gods as (necessarily and certainly) psychological (delusions, manipulations, wishful thinking and the like) is a self-inflicted wound.
*
For example, those who state that 'there is no Father Christmas' are doing perceptible violence to themselves. When I look at any such person, I see someone who is at least to that extent in a bad way, spiritually. And I mean a bad way spiritually.
And this applies even if the person is a devout Christian - to the extent that they can bring themselves to assert that Santa is just made-up, they are embracing an evil falsehood. They have revealed their souls as significantly-darkened - and they further darken their souls by their skeptical pronouncements; and by any attempts to argue or defend their denials.
This means that Father Christmas/ Santa Claus is really-real - and therefore that the problem is to understand the sense in which FC/ Santa is objectively, actually, independently real.
*
This sense in which Hobbes and Santa are really-real can be conceptualized in various ways - none completely satisfactory, but some of them going back to Socrates and Plato. Usually, the general idea is that earthly and mortal knowledge is necessarily partial, distorted and labile - and/but is more-or-less-closely linked to a complete, clear and permanent knowledge in some other place, realm, dimension or state of existence - or residing in gods or God.
(Without which there would be no possibility of knowledge at all - it is this underpinning which saves us from the nonsensical paradoxes and despair of nihilism.)
And that 'eternal' reality is real, but we cannot (cannot) fully understand it.
We know that this must be so, that reality must be real - but we cannot describe reality with precision or completeness.
*
Thus, we must not - for our own sakes - reject any specific piece of knowledge merely because it is partial, distorted, labile or because we cannot explain its causality or how it fits in with other stuff that (we think) we know. Because that rejection leads to the nonsensical nihilism of rejecting all earthly and imperfect knowledge by an irresistible and unstoppable slide down into to alienation.
***
The arbitrary "week"
*
Unlike the (solar) day and year and the (lunar) month - the week (of seven days) is a socio-cultural construct of arbitrary length - presumably derived from the Christian, and before that Jewish, religious cycle.
But nowadays when societies have become secular and abandoned the week-long cycle of most churches; and almost every vestige of the weekly cycle is obliterated for a substantial segment of the population (e.g. those who do not work, do not attend educational institutions or whose work timetable includes all weekdays) - the arbitrary nature of the week is becoming very obvious.
Of course, our modern non-lunar months are also arbitrary - and most people have no awareness of the lunar cycle (I mean literally no awareness - zero knowledge).
All this, I feel, adds to our alienation and dislocation from the world - I mean that our world is governed by (what are perceived) as meaningless - but strictly and universally enforced - divisions of time.
*
Note added - A correspondent writes with the plausible theory that the week is approximately a quarter lunar month - and that the quarter phases of the moon have long been of interest to humans.
Unlike the (solar) day and year and the (lunar) month - the week (of seven days) is a socio-cultural construct of arbitrary length - presumably derived from the Christian, and before that Jewish, religious cycle.
But nowadays when societies have become secular and abandoned the week-long cycle of most churches; and almost every vestige of the weekly cycle is obliterated for a substantial segment of the population (e.g. those who do not work, do not attend educational institutions or whose work timetable includes all weekdays) - the arbitrary nature of the week is becoming very obvious.
Of course, our modern non-lunar months are also arbitrary - and most people have no awareness of the lunar cycle (I mean literally no awareness - zero knowledge).
All this, I feel, adds to our alienation and dislocation from the world - I mean that our world is governed by (what are perceived) as meaningless - but strictly and universally enforced - divisions of time.
*
Note added - A correspondent writes with the plausible theory that the week is approximately a quarter lunar month - and that the quarter phases of the moon have long been of interest to humans.
Friday, 9 May 2014
Which is the best bass instrument?
*
Continuing from:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-bass-part-of-music.html
*
Double Bass
It has great, unmatched, flexibility - from the classical Orchestra to Jazz - it can be bowed or plucked - and has the ability to blend smoothly with other instruments while providing the bedrock of the overall sound. But this blending also means that it cannot articulate clearly - the sound is too fuzzy for that. Hopeless for solo work.
*
Bassoon
Great articulation - and when a bassoon is added to the double bass section the combination is able to reveal the 'corners' in (for example) the basso continuo part of baroque era music. Also makes a very good solo instrument, with a wide range of tonalities. But, on its own, the sound lacks the fullness of the double bass; and the good articulation comes at the price of rather poor blending ability. Also, the bassoon is intrinsically funny - somehow it cannot do tragedy.
*
Tuba
A strong, round, loud sound - and has the ability to do both smooth legato and to bounce-along as support for marching music and the like. Blends seamlessly with other brass instruments. But draws too much attention to itself when playing with strings and woodwinds - and in small groups tends to make the music sound samey.
*
Bass Guitar
Not much use for anything 'classical' outside of the pop/ jazz/ folk realm but marvellous and essential in that realm - great for rhythm, and has unexploited potential for supporting church and communal singing.
*
Bass Saxophone
Big, fat, powerful, well-articulated sound - but even more dominating than a tuba; and I must admit it is really a novelty instrument! When the bass sax is going, its hard to listen to anything else - but it can do terrific jazz solos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxP0cf1bpTM
*
The bass saxophone contrasted with the double bass shows that there is no best bass instrument overall - if you can do blending and sweetness, then you can't do articulation or make a good solo instrument; because a strength is also a weakness.
It's a case of horses for courses.
*
Continuing from:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-bass-part-of-music.html
*
Double Bass
It has great, unmatched, flexibility - from the classical Orchestra to Jazz - it can be bowed or plucked - and has the ability to blend smoothly with other instruments while providing the bedrock of the overall sound. But this blending also means that it cannot articulate clearly - the sound is too fuzzy for that. Hopeless for solo work.
*
Bassoon
Great articulation - and when a bassoon is added to the double bass section the combination is able to reveal the 'corners' in (for example) the basso continuo part of baroque era music. Also makes a very good solo instrument, with a wide range of tonalities. But, on its own, the sound lacks the fullness of the double bass; and the good articulation comes at the price of rather poor blending ability. Also, the bassoon is intrinsically funny - somehow it cannot do tragedy.
*
Tuba
A strong, round, loud sound - and has the ability to do both smooth legato and to bounce-along as support for marching music and the like. Blends seamlessly with other brass instruments. But draws too much attention to itself when playing with strings and woodwinds - and in small groups tends to make the music sound samey.
*
Bass Guitar
Not much use for anything 'classical' outside of the pop/ jazz/ folk realm but marvellous and essential in that realm - great for rhythm, and has unexploited potential for supporting church and communal singing.
*
Bass Saxophone
Big, fat, powerful, well-articulated sound - but even more dominating than a tuba; and I must admit it is really a novelty instrument! When the bass sax is going, its hard to listen to anything else - but it can do terrific jazz solos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxP0cf1bpTM
*
The bass saxophone contrasted with the double bass shows that there is no best bass instrument overall - if you can do blending and sweetness, then you can't do articulation or make a good solo instrument; because a strength is also a weakness.
It's a case of horses for courses.
*
The Christian promise
*
Francis Schaeffer used to say - I am casting stones into a pond and making ripples that go on forever...
I think about [my family] - every moment I spend with them, which is precious, God assures me that is going to be raised-up in the kingdom to come.
Everything that is worthwhile now will endure forever.
Every meal we serve to somebody - Jesus says every cup of cold water I give to somebody - every kind word, every act of service is going to last forever; it's going to be of eternal significance in other people's lives.
From Jerram Barrs
http://vimeo.com/61843151
*
That is the Christian promise. Could anything better be imagined? Not by me.
*
Francis Schaeffer used to say - I am casting stones into a pond and making ripples that go on forever...
I think about [my family] - every moment I spend with them, which is precious, God assures me that is going to be raised-up in the kingdom to come.
Everything that is worthwhile now will endure forever.
Every meal we serve to somebody - Jesus says every cup of cold water I give to somebody - every kind word, every act of service is going to last forever; it's going to be of eternal significance in other people's lives.
From Jerram Barrs
http://vimeo.com/61843151
*
That is the Christian promise. Could anything better be imagined? Not by me.
*
Thursday, 8 May 2014
Why The Cathedral is a false and misleading term for The Mandarinate
*
The use of the term The Cathedral to refer to the complex of modern upper class institutions (focused on elite universities, media, officials etc) is a bad one.
The proper term should be The Madarinate - The Mandarins (in a general form) are the middle class knowledge specialists who serve the Upper Classes - serve them as advisers and officials.
*
The modern Mandarinate is most visible in the leadership class of the large bureaucracies in government, civil administration (national and local), law, NGOs and powerful charities, and the linked bureaucracies which run all large and powerful modern institutions - schools, colleges, hospitals and health services, the military and the police - and so on.
Until modern times, the Mandarinate were social cohesion specialists - their job was to hold large societies together, because a large society which cohered, which held-together, was often de facto invulnerable and unconquerable (e.g. Ancient Egypt or China).
The modern situation is different because the modern equivalent of ancient rulers is the Mass Media system (rather than specific individual people), and the Mass Media is not promoting of social cohesion but is subversive and destructive of order. The Mandarinate serve their masters in the sense that modern officials and bureaucrats operate to destroy order.
*
The Cathedral is a bad name, because Chief Priests are not necessarily, usually or primarily Mandarins.
And because The Cathedral falsely conflates the servant middle class of officialdom - who implement the policies of the ruling class, with the actual ruling class equivalent that is the Mass Media: who set the policy, which is a long term strategy of self-destruction/ suicide.
(This strategically destructive ruling class has not existed before in history; because this is the first non-religious/ secular ruling class - who serve the anti-god/s of destruction rather than the god/s of cohesion.)
*
The use of the term The Cathedral to refer to the complex of modern upper class institutions (focused on elite universities, media, officials etc) is a bad one.
The proper term should be The Madarinate - The Mandarins (in a general form) are the middle class knowledge specialists who serve the Upper Classes - serve them as advisers and officials.
*
The modern Mandarinate is most visible in the leadership class of the large bureaucracies in government, civil administration (national and local), law, NGOs and powerful charities, and the linked bureaucracies which run all large and powerful modern institutions - schools, colleges, hospitals and health services, the military and the police - and so on.
Until modern times, the Mandarinate were social cohesion specialists - their job was to hold large societies together, because a large society which cohered, which held-together, was often de facto invulnerable and unconquerable (e.g. Ancient Egypt or China).
The modern situation is different because the modern equivalent of ancient rulers is the Mass Media system (rather than specific individual people), and the Mass Media is not promoting of social cohesion but is subversive and destructive of order. The Mandarinate serve their masters in the sense that modern officials and bureaucrats operate to destroy order.
*
The Cathedral is a bad name, because Chief Priests are not necessarily, usually or primarily Mandarins.
And because The Cathedral falsely conflates the servant middle class of officialdom - who implement the policies of the ruling class, with the actual ruling class equivalent that is the Mass Media: who set the policy, which is a long term strategy of self-destruction/ suicide.
(This strategically destructive ruling class has not existed before in history; because this is the first non-religious/ secular ruling class - who serve the anti-god/s of destruction rather than the god/s of cohesion.)
*
Advert = Subvert; Advertizing = Subverting
*
It is worth drawing-attention to the neglected fact that modern advertizing, as a Mass Media phenomenon, is evil in its overall motivation and tendency.
And because of this, whenever there is a lot of advertizing - such that this overall effect becomes apparent, and any exceptions to the overall are neutralized and averaged-away - then the average effect will always and inevitably be subversive of The Good.
I presume that the adversary gets great delight from the way in which Christian and traditionalist messages, perspectives and texts are framed by advertizing whenever they find their way into the mass media - including blogs and other social media - including those media which hope to, purport to, aim to disseminate Christian and traditional messages and perspectives.
God may get to paint the picture, but the devil gets to frame that picture; and when the frame is designed to distract from the picture, to grab and hold attention, and to propagandize against The Good - then, in general, Satan has the best of the deal.
*
It is worth drawing-attention to the neglected fact that modern advertizing, as a Mass Media phenomenon, is evil in its overall motivation and tendency.
And because of this, whenever there is a lot of advertizing - such that this overall effect becomes apparent, and any exceptions to the overall are neutralized and averaged-away - then the average effect will always and inevitably be subversive of The Good.
I presume that the adversary gets great delight from the way in which Christian and traditionalist messages, perspectives and texts are framed by advertizing whenever they find their way into the mass media - including blogs and other social media - including those media which hope to, purport to, aim to disseminate Christian and traditional messages and perspectives.
God may get to paint the picture, but the devil gets to frame that picture; and when the frame is designed to distract from the picture, to grab and hold attention, and to propagandize against The Good - then, in general, Satan has the best of the deal.
*
Disbelieving in 'the supernatural' (as a matter of principle) - psychological consequences of this disbelief
*
It is the mainstream, high status and ruling elite position nowadays to disbelieve in 'the supernatural' as a matter of prior conviction - that it, to disbelieve in principle every single claim of supernatural reality, action or whatever it may be.
And in this respect the supernatural includes the reality of all and every God or gods; personal revelations and guidance; the activities of spirits and souls and ghosts; miracles and prophecies and other divine interventions, telepathy; prophetic dreaming; the reality of non-human and non-animal intelligences; magic; the 'animistic' aliveness and awareness of non-animal entities; the objective power of curses and blessings; the effects of auras and influences... I mean everything of that kind is disbelieved.
*
My point here is that this disbelief - as a basic and immoveable assumption - is highly distinctive to the modern West: that is to modern times, and to cultures comprising a minority of the world, and within those cultures to a minority of people.
Therefore, anyone informed of the facts has to acknowledge that a comprehensive and a priori disbelief in supernatural phenomena - whether it is true or not certainly is unnatural, un-spontaneous, and culturally-specific to human beings.
*
How, then, are we supposed to know that this comprehensive disbelief in supernatural phenomena is true; and that the majority of other cultures and societies are and were completely wrong ?
*
If comprehensive dis-belief in the supernatural is to be regarded as true; then almost everybody who has ever lived has been either:
1. been the victim of some kind of major fraud - a deliberate falsehood has been successfully practised upon them; or else
2. humans must be regarded as intrinsically prone to this particular delusion: which means that humans must naturally and spontaneously believe in 'supernatural' phenomena of one kind or another.
*
Both 1. and 2. are commonly asserted by atheists - that past and most present humans believe in the supernatural only because they have been systematically hood-winked by other humans who are manipulating them (especially priests); and/or that humans have an inbuilt tendency falsely to jump to supernatural conclusions.
It is this second point which is interesting; because I think it is almost certainly true that humans naturally and spontaneously do indeed jump to conclusions and explanations of a supernatural kind - and over a wide range of topics.
*
Yet the mainstream modern high status elite view is that all such explanations and conclusions are false: all such - every single one of them - and this is known for sure and without any need for investigation or debate.
Now, the question is to what extent this specific disbelief of something natural and spontaneous and wide-ranging has distorted other natural and spontaneous beliefs and behaviours.
Because clearly there must be ramifications of 'supernatural' disbelief, there must be a 'price to pay' for suppressing or deleting such a major aspect of human nature.
*
I would venture to suggest that the price to be paid is very obvious to those who have retained the natural and spontaneous belief in 'supernatural' phenomena - the consequence is a wilful and wide-ranging blindness and inability to respond to things that seem to most people (throughout the world and history) major tendencies, causes, phenomena, events, situations and interpretations.
In other words, the modern secular elites cannot get away with simply blotting-out the validity of 'the supernatural' from their world view and expect to leave everything else unchanged - this dis-belief has multiple psychological consequences.
One consequence being arrogance due to a belief in one's own personal superiority to almost everybody else who lives and have ever lived - a believed-in personal superiority which is so deep, and so complete, and so foundational that it is all-but invisible to those who hold it.
*
It is the mainstream, high status and ruling elite position nowadays to disbelieve in 'the supernatural' as a matter of prior conviction - that it, to disbelieve in principle every single claim of supernatural reality, action or whatever it may be.
And in this respect the supernatural includes the reality of all and every God or gods; personal revelations and guidance; the activities of spirits and souls and ghosts; miracles and prophecies and other divine interventions, telepathy; prophetic dreaming; the reality of non-human and non-animal intelligences; magic; the 'animistic' aliveness and awareness of non-animal entities; the objective power of curses and blessings; the effects of auras and influences... I mean everything of that kind is disbelieved.
*
My point here is that this disbelief - as a basic and immoveable assumption - is highly distinctive to the modern West: that is to modern times, and to cultures comprising a minority of the world, and within those cultures to a minority of people.
Therefore, anyone informed of the facts has to acknowledge that a comprehensive and a priori disbelief in supernatural phenomena - whether it is true or not certainly is unnatural, un-spontaneous, and culturally-specific to human beings.
*
How, then, are we supposed to know that this comprehensive disbelief in supernatural phenomena is true; and that the majority of other cultures and societies are and were completely wrong ?
*
If comprehensive dis-belief in the supernatural is to be regarded as true; then almost everybody who has ever lived has been either:
1. been the victim of some kind of major fraud - a deliberate falsehood has been successfully practised upon them; or else
2. humans must be regarded as intrinsically prone to this particular delusion: which means that humans must naturally and spontaneously believe in 'supernatural' phenomena of one kind or another.
*
Both 1. and 2. are commonly asserted by atheists - that past and most present humans believe in the supernatural only because they have been systematically hood-winked by other humans who are manipulating them (especially priests); and/or that humans have an inbuilt tendency falsely to jump to supernatural conclusions.
It is this second point which is interesting; because I think it is almost certainly true that humans naturally and spontaneously do indeed jump to conclusions and explanations of a supernatural kind - and over a wide range of topics.
*
Yet the mainstream modern high status elite view is that all such explanations and conclusions are false: all such - every single one of them - and this is known for sure and without any need for investigation or debate.
Now, the question is to what extent this specific disbelief of something natural and spontaneous and wide-ranging has distorted other natural and spontaneous beliefs and behaviours.
Because clearly there must be ramifications of 'supernatural' disbelief, there must be a 'price to pay' for suppressing or deleting such a major aspect of human nature.
*
I would venture to suggest that the price to be paid is very obvious to those who have retained the natural and spontaneous belief in 'supernatural' phenomena - the consequence is a wilful and wide-ranging blindness and inability to respond to things that seem to most people (throughout the world and history) major tendencies, causes, phenomena, events, situations and interpretations.
In other words, the modern secular elites cannot get away with simply blotting-out the validity of 'the supernatural' from their world view and expect to leave everything else unchanged - this dis-belief has multiple psychological consequences.
One consequence being arrogance due to a belief in one's own personal superiority to almost everybody else who lives and have ever lived - a believed-in personal superiority which is so deep, and so complete, and so foundational that it is all-but invisible to those who hold it.
*
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
It is the casual, blandness of modern corruption which is so very disturbing...
*
A few days ago I watched the pilot episode of the TV comedy M*A*S*H - viewed now (in contrast with my atheist teenage impression) it was very crude, obvious, in-your-face propaganda for the sexual revolution, pacifism and Leftism-in-general.
But, in its favour was that it was indeed crude, obvious, in-your-face and knew exactly what it was doing and why.
It was demonic, knew it was demonic - and revelled in the opposition that its demonic nature would evoke.
*
Now we live in a world (I live in a world) where the attitude to historically-unprecedented, extreme and self-destructive behaviours is casual, bland - either indifference or mild-approval.
So, there is a decades-long epidemic of (among other things) extreme drunkenness, a cult of government-pushed gambling, incrementally expanding self-defacement (tattooing), self-mutilation (piercing of tongues, lips, faces etc), moralistic but astonishing triviality and small-minded spiteful vendettas or witch-hunts; and an active state policy of aggression towards marriage, parents, families, decency, subversion against once-valued and useful institutions - and all the rest of it...
And the general public response is... passivity, acceptance. A shrug or a wry-smile at most.
*
The freshness and aggression of the sixties counter-culture was part of a society which was culturally at war - and knew it was at war.
But modern corruption is one of surrender: we live in the soma-drugged Brave New World of Huxley, we are the Eloi of Well's Time Machine, Cowslip's warren from Watership Down - we dwell in the situation of dull, routine officially-sanctioned sin described in C.S Lewis's follow-up to the 'Letters' volume - Screwtape Proposes a Toast...
*
A few days ago I watched the pilot episode of the TV comedy M*A*S*H - viewed now (in contrast with my atheist teenage impression) it was very crude, obvious, in-your-face propaganda for the sexual revolution, pacifism and Leftism-in-general.
But, in its favour was that it was indeed crude, obvious, in-your-face and knew exactly what it was doing and why.
It was demonic, knew it was demonic - and revelled in the opposition that its demonic nature would evoke.
*
Now we live in a world (I live in a world) where the attitude to historically-unprecedented, extreme and self-destructive behaviours is casual, bland - either indifference or mild-approval.
So, there is a decades-long epidemic of (among other things) extreme drunkenness, a cult of government-pushed gambling, incrementally expanding self-defacement (tattooing), self-mutilation (piercing of tongues, lips, faces etc), moralistic but astonishing triviality and small-minded spiteful vendettas or witch-hunts; and an active state policy of aggression towards marriage, parents, families, decency, subversion against once-valued and useful institutions - and all the rest of it...
And the general public response is... passivity, acceptance. A shrug or a wry-smile at most.
*
The freshness and aggression of the sixties counter-culture was part of a society which was culturally at war - and knew it was at war.
But modern corruption is one of surrender: we live in the soma-drugged Brave New World of Huxley, we are the Eloi of Well's Time Machine, Cowslip's warren from Watership Down - we dwell in the situation of dull, routine officially-sanctioned sin described in C.S Lewis's follow-up to the 'Letters' volume - Screwtape Proposes a Toast...
*
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Probably the most syncopated pop song ever...
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ap9sNjz8L0
There are plenty of versions on YouTube which are better sung (or sung at all) but this version is very syncopated in the verses and (especially) chorus repeat after the first section of dance - I suppose as befits a performer who was really a dancer.
(Listen for the Bass Saxophone from 3:20 - at this era there must have been dozens of these monstrous instruments, since they feature on so many late-ragtime/ early jazz recordings - for instance Adrian Rollini playing on several of the best Bix Beiderbecke tracks - such as At the Jazz Band Ball - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arW5XjOdCvk .)
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ap9sNjz8L0
There are plenty of versions on YouTube which are better sung (or sung at all) but this version is very syncopated in the verses and (especially) chorus repeat after the first section of dance - I suppose as befits a performer who was really a dancer.
(Listen for the Bass Saxophone from 3:20 - at this era there must have been dozens of these monstrous instruments, since they feature on so many late-ragtime/ early jazz recordings - for instance Adrian Rollini playing on several of the best Bix Beiderbecke tracks - such as At the Jazz Band Ball - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arW5XjOdCvk .)
*
How to cure yourself of Mass Media addiction
*
An excerpt from my forthcoming book
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/excerpt-from-conclusions-withdrawal-and.html
**
Note - media addiction is also the theme of a recent LDS talk:
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2014/05?lang=eng
One important point in this was to state that, in modern conditions, quiet and solitary meditation has become a necessity.
*
An excerpt from my forthcoming book
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/excerpt-from-conclusions-withdrawal-and.html
**
Note - media addiction is also the theme of a recent LDS talk:
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2014/05?lang=eng
One important point in this was to state that, in modern conditions, quiet and solitary meditation has become a necessity.
*
Monday, 5 May 2014
Self-justification as a common basis of evil - the Right Man, the Victim.
*
We are such entities and we live in such a world that we will do wrong, over and again, in small things and in large.Life is a process of trail and error - and it very much looks as if that may be part of the point of being alive as earthly, incarnate mortals.
So, doing the wrong things cannot be regarded as fatal to human purpose.
But, but, but - on the many, many occasions that we err, we have to acknowledge error; we must acknowledge that when we do wrong we have done wrong.
We must not (must not) get into a habit of self-justification.
*
A rooted and inflexible attitude of self-justification is the basis of some of the morally-worst behaviour I have seen in men and women.
In men self-justification comes out at the Right Man, the man who is always right about Everything, who never acknowledges ignorance or error or bad motivations in himself - the man who is always been 'in the right' in every situation of his life. The man who believes that If Only everybody had always listened to him and always done what he said, then the world would be a much much better place.
The Right Man acts as if it would be a world-ending catastrophe is ever he admitted error; as if the two possibilities are to be a person who is always right about everything or always wrong about everything.
*
In women self-justification typically comes out as the Victim, the woman who is always being slighted - either deliberately or casually; offensively patronised or subject to negative discrimination; ignored or picked-on; treated as 'just a woman' or treated 'as if she was a man'.
The Victim acts as if it would be a world-ending catastrophe if she were not the centre of attention in all situations and at all times, yet she finds intolerable the psychological pressure of being the centre of attention - because then people always expect something of her.
*
Both the Right Man and the Victim are characteristic modern types, and both are encourages by mainstream modern culture as expressed in the Mass Media - which embodies the attitudes and evaluations of the Right Man and the Victim.
*
But if self-justification is something is a common evil - then its opposite is (of course!) also an evil: the inability to hold to any principle, because of unclarity, unsureness, uncertainty; the evils of nihilism and despair.
*
We are such entities and we live in such a world that we will do wrong, over and again, in small things and in large.Life is a process of trail and error - and it very much looks as if that may be part of the point of being alive as earthly, incarnate mortals.
So, doing the wrong things cannot be regarded as fatal to human purpose.
But, but, but - on the many, many occasions that we err, we have to acknowledge error; we must acknowledge that when we do wrong we have done wrong.
We must not (must not) get into a habit of self-justification.
*
A rooted and inflexible attitude of self-justification is the basis of some of the morally-worst behaviour I have seen in men and women.
In men self-justification comes out at the Right Man, the man who is always right about Everything, who never acknowledges ignorance or error or bad motivations in himself - the man who is always been 'in the right' in every situation of his life. The man who believes that If Only everybody had always listened to him and always done what he said, then the world would be a much much better place.
The Right Man acts as if it would be a world-ending catastrophe is ever he admitted error; as if the two possibilities are to be a person who is always right about everything or always wrong about everything.
*
In women self-justification typically comes out as the Victim, the woman who is always being slighted - either deliberately or casually; offensively patronised or subject to negative discrimination; ignored or picked-on; treated as 'just a woman' or treated 'as if she was a man'.
The Victim acts as if it would be a world-ending catastrophe if she were not the centre of attention in all situations and at all times, yet she finds intolerable the psychological pressure of being the centre of attention - because then people always expect something of her.
*
Both the Right Man and the Victim are characteristic modern types, and both are encourages by mainstream modern culture as expressed in the Mass Media - which embodies the attitudes and evaluations of the Right Man and the Victim.
*
But if self-justification is something is a common evil - then its opposite is (of course!) also an evil: the inability to hold to any principle, because of unclarity, unsureness, uncertainty; the evils of nihilism and despair.
*
Sunday, 4 May 2014
"He wants to join the Boss Class" - the main cause for aspostasy/ selling-out to Leftism among Christian leaders
*
There has been, for about 60 years, a constant and unidirectional falling into apostasy among Christian religious leaders - they become more and more 'liberal Christians' until they are either indistinguishable (to the outside world) from mainstream secular Leftists - or they abandon Christianity even in name.
*
Why?
Because Christian leaders want to join the Boss Class, and the Bosses are secular Leftists.
*
Of course, there is a plausible deniability here, because the Bosses in the West are located in the Mass Media - and are not (or not usually) running large corporations.
(Large corporations are run according to rules that are set and enforced by the Mass Media - any Chief Executive can easily be got rid of by the Mass Media in a matter of days; and whole corporations disposed of or reduced to insignificance in a few months.)
*
For the modern secular Left, what used to be called 'selling-out' is merely a more advanced point on the standard career path. A successful Christian in the mainstream churches sells-out to secular Leftism as a matter of course - it is both a sign-of, and necessary for, their success.
*
To sell-out is to be tolerated at least (rather than shunned, demonized, attacked) - but is most likely to be praised; the sell-out will be invited to the right social events, to be rewarded with fame (positive media coverage), honours, prizes, medals, government and academic jobs (thus money), and with power.
In a nutshell, the reward for selling out is high status - not least, an enhanced moral status, as defined and disseminated in the Mass Media.
*
There is no deep or interesting theological debate about why mainstream Christian leaders in the big churches nearly always become 'liberals' - and why ambitious (attention seeking, wealth seeking, power seeking) young intellectuals in the churches abandon tradition, orthodoxy and core Christianity - and move towards secular Leftism.
It is just plain old corruption - dull, obvious, as old as the hills.
*
But corruption used to be obvious for what it was.
The special achievement of the political New Left, since the mid 1960s, has been successfully to disguise the expedient decline into corruption as moral enlightenment.
Nowadays, careerism passes itself off as social idealism; doing what is expedient is praised as an act of principle.
*
There has been, for about 60 years, a constant and unidirectional falling into apostasy among Christian religious leaders - they become more and more 'liberal Christians' until they are either indistinguishable (to the outside world) from mainstream secular Leftists - or they abandon Christianity even in name.
*
Why?
Because Christian leaders want to join the Boss Class, and the Bosses are secular Leftists.
*
Of course, there is a plausible deniability here, because the Bosses in the West are located in the Mass Media - and are not (or not usually) running large corporations.
(Large corporations are run according to rules that are set and enforced by the Mass Media - any Chief Executive can easily be got rid of by the Mass Media in a matter of days; and whole corporations disposed of or reduced to insignificance in a few months.)
*
For the modern secular Left, what used to be called 'selling-out' is merely a more advanced point on the standard career path. A successful Christian in the mainstream churches sells-out to secular Leftism as a matter of course - it is both a sign-of, and necessary for, their success.
*
To sell-out is to be tolerated at least (rather than shunned, demonized, attacked) - but is most likely to be praised; the sell-out will be invited to the right social events, to be rewarded with fame (positive media coverage), honours, prizes, medals, government and academic jobs (thus money), and with power.
In a nutshell, the reward for selling out is high status - not least, an enhanced moral status, as defined and disseminated in the Mass Media.
*
There is no deep or interesting theological debate about why mainstream Christian leaders in the big churches nearly always become 'liberals' - and why ambitious (attention seeking, wealth seeking, power seeking) young intellectuals in the churches abandon tradition, orthodoxy and core Christianity - and move towards secular Leftism.
It is just plain old corruption - dull, obvious, as old as the hills.
*
But corruption used to be obvious for what it was.
The special achievement of the political New Left, since the mid 1960s, has been successfully to disguise the expedient decline into corruption as moral enlightenment.
Nowadays, careerism passes itself off as social idealism; doing what is expedient is praised as an act of principle.
*
Saturday, 3 May 2014
Pretty much everybody is unserious - that's why things must be kept simple
*
Atheists are unserious, but then so are Christians and so am I.
Face it: Human beings are not serious - or, at least, not for long and never consistently.
Therefore we should not treat people as if they were serious.
*
Our explanations are never serious - not wholly; and we always allow ourselves wiggle room somewhere (even if we hope that nobody notices; not even ourselves).
But this is not a gotcha.
When we are trying to get something right, we simply must keep it simple.
We must make sure the main things are clear and coherent - because, in the end, that is all we can do.
(And lucky if we do that.)
*
The alternative is to let things get complex, and inevitably this will mess up the main things.
Inevitably.
Complexity = errors about big things (because of our inability to get serious and stay serious)..
*
Atheists are unserious, but then so are Christians and so am I.
Face it: Human beings are not serious - or, at least, not for long and never consistently.
Therefore we should not treat people as if they were serious.
*
Our explanations are never serious - not wholly; and we always allow ourselves wiggle room somewhere (even if we hope that nobody notices; not even ourselves).
But this is not a gotcha.
When we are trying to get something right, we simply must keep it simple.
We must make sure the main things are clear and coherent - because, in the end, that is all we can do.
(And lucky if we do that.)
*
The alternative is to let things get complex, and inevitably this will mess up the main things.
Inevitably.
Complexity = errors about big things (because of our inability to get serious and stay serious)..
*
Are we really individuals? How come we explain behaviour by (only) heredity and environment?
*
It is interesting, and probably significant, that as a society we have a prominent rhetoric of the importance of the individual - and an ethic of personal growth and self-expression; yet individuality is regarded as being wholly-explicable by some combination of heredity and environment.
(And chance - such as disease or misfortune - although I have found, in practice, many people resistant to allowing for chance; crazy but true.)
*
So, differences between people are wholly explained on the basis of 1. some more-or-less unique combination of genes and other hereditary material, derived from their parents; and 2. some unique accumulation of environmental experiences from the womb, gestation and through development and maturity.
This explanatory model means that although we may, in practice, be unique and unprecedented; this individuality is wholly passive: our individuality is merely a mixture of pre-existing materials.
This explanation goes along with a sense of existential non-responsibility - we have been made from stuff that happened to be lying-around, as mixtures of heredity and environment - we are planted here (n the world) to make of it what we will - if, indeed, we can be bothered to make anything of it.
*
There is no space in this explanatory model for purpose, destiny or significance. There is nothing whatsoever to explain why individuality is valuable when it is simply a mixture.
Our much-vaunted individuality turns out to be just a bit of this and a bit of that.
*
So, it is hardly surprising that, when push comes to shove, individuality actually counts for nothing, because it has been explained-away as a contingent combination of already existing stuff - and our society does not in actuality value individual people at all: not in theory, and certainly not in practice.
*
For individuality to really mean something, our model of a person must contain some spark or flame or seed which is unique to them - some distinctive essence which lies behind and beyond and above all the many influences of heredity, environment and chance.
Only then can we think realistically and clearly and strongly about each individual's purpose, destiny and significance.
*
It is interesting, and probably significant, that as a society we have a prominent rhetoric of the importance of the individual - and an ethic of personal growth and self-expression; yet individuality is regarded as being wholly-explicable by some combination of heredity and environment.
(And chance - such as disease or misfortune - although I have found, in practice, many people resistant to allowing for chance; crazy but true.)
*
So, differences between people are wholly explained on the basis of 1. some more-or-less unique combination of genes and other hereditary material, derived from their parents; and 2. some unique accumulation of environmental experiences from the womb, gestation and through development and maturity.
This explanatory model means that although we may, in practice, be unique and unprecedented; this individuality is wholly passive: our individuality is merely a mixture of pre-existing materials.
This explanation goes along with a sense of existential non-responsibility - we have been made from stuff that happened to be lying-around, as mixtures of heredity and environment - we are planted here (n the world) to make of it what we will - if, indeed, we can be bothered to make anything of it.
*
There is no space in this explanatory model for purpose, destiny or significance. There is nothing whatsoever to explain why individuality is valuable when it is simply a mixture.
Our much-vaunted individuality turns out to be just a bit of this and a bit of that.
*
So, it is hardly surprising that, when push comes to shove, individuality actually counts for nothing, because it has been explained-away as a contingent combination of already existing stuff - and our society does not in actuality value individual people at all: not in theory, and certainly not in practice.
*
For individuality to really mean something, our model of a person must contain some spark or flame or seed which is unique to them - some distinctive essence which lies behind and beyond and above all the many influences of heredity, environment and chance.
Only then can we think realistically and clearly and strongly about each individual's purpose, destiny and significance.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)