William Wildblood on The Modern Experiment

An important post in which William suggests an almost 'god's eye view' of the modern era; what it was intended to achieve and how - and what we should do about it now:

...There was a great purpose behind what we loosely call the modern world but it was a risk that could either advance the human race and take it to new heights or else take it back to a primitive level from where it would have to effectively start again. Or even destroy it completely.

The experiment was in consciousness. Human consciousness became more focused on itself, more individual, so that it could be more creative and, once realigned to a spiritual sensibility, more godlike. From being largely passive children of God we could become gods ourselves, able to wield divine powers for the creative enlargement of the universe. 

This was always intended as the evolutionary path that humanity should follow but I believe that in the West a few hundred years ago the process was stimulated and accelerated. A gradual evolution was boosted. 

This was done by the incarnation of certain highly evolved souls who could act like leaven in flour, obvious examples Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare and Beethoven* but there were many others at various levels and in various fields, and also, I would conjecture, by angelic forces acting on human consciousness from within. This double process has brought about the world today.

However, sound as the principles involved were, everything depended on the reception of human beings to their new powers, as powers is what they were. Would they use them to become more aware of God or would it be to pursue their own individual ends in their immediate environment? 

We know the answer to that. Does this mean the experiment has failed? Not necessarily...

Read the whole thing...

Making an Irish sandwich

Just for your Saturday enjoyment...

What's good about this is somebody airing his private eccentricities - these are (if honest) always interesting to me: self-justifying.

It may help (in explaining some references) to know that this chap was a Gaelic Football journalist and commentator by profession.

What will be the political system of the future? A prophecy

A great deal of political commentary over the past couple of hundred years (and continuing) is directed at the question of what kind of political system we ought to have; what we could (in principle) have, and what we should be striving for. I have certainly spent a good deal of my life pondering and researching such matters.

My current understanding is not welcome to me, but it is something I can't shake. The conclusion is that I can see no future; or, at least, none that is significantly better than what we have now.

The present System is actively destroying itself, and is anyway unsustainable for multiple reasons. None of the past systems are viable from here forward; and anyway none will happen because they are not wanted/ opposed.

And knowing what we now know, I think we can see that no conceivable political system is going to be better. But more than this, I don't see any kind of System at all surviving - at least nothing on the scale of any current nations.


The ultimate reason behind this is the change in 'human consciousness'. This is not something that can be proved with evidence (indeed, nothing can ever be proved by evidence); but there is plenty of evidence compatible with my belief (coming via Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield, mostly) that human beings have changed through history; so that past possibilities are left behind.

We can see this in so many ways. The death of real leaders, and the absence of real and good leaders. On the other side, the lack of desire among the masses for real or good leaders. The short-termism, the petty selfishness - making survival in the long term impossible. The (really astonishing) lack of courage means that no plans get followed-through; indeed so cowardly are people that they seldom even get as far as formulating an idea of resistance.

And, most decisive of all, the lack of motivation - which underpins most of the above; and which stems from the denial of God, the denial that we live in a creation, the denial of ultimate meaning and purpose and relatedness in the world.


All of this might not be sufficient to destroy the hope of something better if it was not for the utter inability of people (both the leadership, but also en masse) to be able to acknowledge the real problems; the habitual and denied dishonesty, the inability to stick to a line of thinking for more than a single step, the absence of even the most basic discernment.

All of these stem from the denial of God; yet the denial is itself denied; and the basic consequences of the denial of God are denied... so that this situation itself seems extremely unlikely to be remedied. 

But even if all-of-the-above was remedied; and we had brave and honest Christians looking ahead; I see no conceivable way in which any kind of politics, any social organisation, can be imagined that would allow the kind of Christian world that we know we ought to have.

The Christian societies of the past are all (in their different ways) so obviously and so deeply flawed to the modern mind, so not-truly-Christian; that we cannot honestly regard them as anything other than a merely quantitative and partial improvement on what exists now.

And we know that all were riven with contradiction, and unstoppable change and decay; so even if they could be recreated (which they can't) they would begin to collapse as soon as (or before) they were remade.


So this is my best guess, my foretelling, my prophecy. That the experiment of human civilisation will come to an end.

There will be no future politics in the same sense that (as far as we know) there is no such thing as politics in small scale, nomadic, tribal societies. That whole level of things will cease to exist.

If my understanding is accurate, then this is something we cannot prevent, cannot stop, should not stop; but it is something we will each need to acknowledge and learn from. We will be severely challenged by it, each in multiple and different ways; and these challenges are an opportunity to discover things we personally need to know - for eternal life in Heaven.


Perhaps it is worth clarifying that I am not in any kind of despair about this, above and beyond the usual worrying to which we are prone. It is not a projection of some kind of inner nihilism.

I see this a just a matter of fact; which it is my duty to confront. The future of the world really is in God's hands; and I trust God.

That is to say I trust God not to make this world 'more perfect' (more comfortable, prosperous, peaceful, cheerful or whatever); but I trust God (as my loving parents) to arrange things such that my personal experience in this world will be for my ultimate eternal benefit - if I make the choice For love; For God, Goodness and Creation. If I join the side of right.


But for those who decline Jesus's offer of Life Everlasting in Heaven and adhere to the mainstream materialistic this-worldly atheism; there will be zero meaning or value in this collapse.

Presumably they will carry on living in terms directed by their aspirations - such as grabbing for more immediate pleasure, and eluding current suffering; or perpetuating their biological life for just a bit longer.

It's a choice - and we each make our own choice. 


Note added: The inevitability of collapse raises the question of whether it could have been averted. My view, expressed throughout this blog over the past few years is: yes, probably. The original (Christian) Romantic era - beginning in the late 1700s with the likes of Coleridge, Wordsworth, Blake and (in Germany) Novalis - and extending from then, with several revivals - showed clearly (and explained) the way it should have been; although, since Men's minds were Not so-transformed, we cannot Now, retrospectively, reconstruct how this would have worked-out. Instead, Christianity did not change and the residual mainstream of Romanticism became anti-Christian. Instead of Christianity being transformed and retained, retained and subjected to the best efforts of the best minds; Christianity was either un-transformed and shrank, or (more often) rejected. If the West had followed what I regard as its divine destiny; all kinds of things might have been possible. Yet as things stand, we are something between one and two centuries too-late; and have accumulated a truly colossal level of spiritual damage; such that value inversion is now mainstream, mandatory and - broadly - accepted as 'common sense'. For a few generations it might have been possible to re-grow The West from a minority of  Romantic Christians, but now the minority is minuscule and there is near zero in the way of shared assumptions. The units at issue have shrunk - over the decades - from civilisation, to nation, to denomination to the individual and his family. Well, so it goes. That is the situation. We know what we each need to do.

Three first rate novels since 2000

Although genius is almost extinct in The West, this is not yet wholly the case; and in some fields there are still first rate works emerging. One is novels (by contrast with poetry and drama). I don't read many modern novels, but have discovered three that seem to me first rate of their kind.

1. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke, 2005.

I've gone-on about this wonderful book considerably on this blog already; but it is both original in concept and superb in its execution.  It is my favourite among these three, by far; and one of the very best books I have ever read.

2. Look Who's Back by Timur Vermes (translated by Jamie Bulloch), 2012.

This is a novel concerning Hitler coming back to life in modern Germany. The novel, and a film version, had immense success/ caused immense scandal in Germany. Again, the basic idea is very original, the execution masterly; and the book achieves an un-classifiable, un-pigeon-hole-able blend of humour, and several kinds of seriousness - that I have never seen adequately summarised. An unique flavour.

3. The Martian by Andy Weir, 2015.

You will all know about this one. It is the hardest of hard SciFi - so 'hard' that the science is barely fiction; and also a very enjoyable and exciting story - an instant classic of its genre.


Looking at the three books, all were first novels by unknowns, coming somewhat 'out of the blue' - and confirming that our official Western culture is moribund while life remains around the edges.

But it is very encouraging to see confirmed that the scope for creativity remains wide-open; and real originality (that is not merely novelty, subversion or inversion) remains achievable in practice... so long as there are people who have ability, motivation and character to do honest and genuine work.

In an expanding divine creation; there will always be more things to say and do; things worth saying and doing.

 

Blood-curdling screams in the night

Here in the remote wilderness of central Newcastle (less than a mile from the city centre), this can be a disturbing time of year; since the night is often shattered, and I am started from sleep, by blood-curdling howls that sound exactly as if somebody (or some-thing) was being painfully murdered - except that it goes on and on...

It is, of course, the urban fox; and this is the mating season.

To get some idea of the sound, try these videos... But I have to say, our foxes sound a lot scarier than any of these examples.

It truly is 'the call of the wild' - and to hear this in the early hours of the morning through the open window, sounding near and loud, is suddenly to be projected mentally into a primal situation; as if I was alone in the middle of nowhere.

The benefits of creeping totalitarianism (in My life)

It is a general insight (and one that I have accepted) of Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield and William Arkle; that evil in the world can be understood as having an educative purpose. In essence this mortal life is 'for' theosis (becoming more divine); meaning for experiencing and learning aiming at an eternal resurrected life in Heaven.

Evil is tolerated because it may be necessary for this purpose. But such a general explanatory 'model' is Not understanding; understanding can only come from learning the role of evil in our own life (or, perhaps, the life of someone loved by us).

Thus it is a foolish and arrogant error to try and explain what specific role some named evil has-played or is-playing in another-person's life, or in the lives of groups of people who are strangers or known only at secondhand (from hearsay, the mass media or history books; or even from fictions and lies) - families, tribes, races, nations, or mankind as a whole.


What I will do here is simply to explain ways in which the creeping totalitarianism of the modern West has had a positive and educational role in my own life. This can be summarised briefly: the fact that totalitarianism has been increasing throughout my life has prevented me from living-out a worldly life; has prevented me from living a life dedicated to mortal life.

In different words; the ratchet of totalitarianism disrupted every accommodation and adjustment I made with The World, continually preventing me 'settling' into contentment; and thereby it pointed me in the direction of realising that my life was ultimately not 'about' my happiness in this world.


I am, by nature, someone who finds totalitarian bureaucracy extremely unpleasant. I am a natural romantic and individualist. I have no desire to be a leader, but I hate to be a cog in a machine. I am not a 'joiner' and tended to fall-out, or become disaffected, with almost any group; sooner or later (apart from my family).

Yet I began life with an idealism directed at certain institutions such as the profession of medicine (being 'a doctor') and the universities. I loved the arts of literature and music. I was a proud member of my schools, and medical school; and did well at both.

I was also dedicated to the ideals of these institutions: education, science, medicine etc. My dreams were substantially of fulfilment through success in these institutions - envisaged as as these institutions had been during the period of my youth, and earlier as I knew them through reading and the older generation. I craved the special status that comes from recognition by the peer group of those I admired.

But as I moved forward and upward through these institutions, they were always changing - getting worse overall, always in the direction of more bureaucracy, greater surveillance, tighter and more detailed control. They became more hostile to the individual, to the eccentric, to the ideals - and more merely instances of the generic bureaucracy (the Iron Cage of Weber, the Black Iron Prison of Philip K Dick).

As soon as I achieved a position to which I had aspired (and this did happen, several times); that situation would begin to collapse, would begin to be corrupted by the (universal) forces of totalitarian bureaucracy.

No sooner did I plant my feet on some ledge of firm and pleasant ground, than that ground would begin to crumble under my weight. I would very soon feel a need to seek some other niche.  


My early and immediate response to recognising the creeping evil was political. To try and 'change the world'.

My implicit assumption was that there was no other existence than this mortal world, and that the solution to The System of bureaucracy was (must be) a better system. Therefore I thought (as most people do) in terms of a political solution. I would fight the changes - on the confident assumption that something significantly better was possible.

I went through one after another 'possible' political solution, and pursued my political goals as most intellectuals do: through joining a 'party' or pressure group, conversation, writing, lecturing, and a bit of 'organising'.

My covert assumption was that institutions - society itself - could (in principle at least) be improved to the point that the major problems would be eradicated sufficiently for a worthwhile life; and that the positive rewards would be sufficiently great that life (my mortal life in particular) would be justified.

In sum: that a meaningful and purposive life would be attainable.


I can now perceive that this was a foolish, vain aspiration - that the reality, the bottom-line, the existential nature of mortal life (with its intrinsic change, decay, disease, and death understood as annihilation) does not, cannot - therefore will not - suffice.

But so long as there was some (albeit dwindling, as the years went by) worldly, political-social avenue left unexplored; so long as it looked theoretically-possible that the totalitarian bureaucracy might be halted and compelled into reverse - for so long did I fail to understand the nature of life and the perspective of real-reality.

It actually, in practice, I needed the ever-worsening, ever-greater unreality and evil of The System, The Matrix, The Establishment - to exhaust one after another and all of my false and feeble daydreams, wishful thinkings, simplified models and half-insights - before I eventually learned the necessary lessons concerning the true nature of reality and hope.


Therefore, this is an actual example of how the long-term personal effect of something evil - indeed the long-term triumph of purposive evil across the world - actually led to learning something vital; and a thing that a more gratifying, easier, more-successful life in a better world would Not have taught me.

If things had gone 'according to plan' - if I had had the kind and degree of worldly success and gratification that I envisaged for myself as a youth, and if I had found my tastes of such things to be as subjectively and sustainedly-gratifying as I expected - then I would almost certainly have lived my life in a delusory dream, and died without ever noticing that I was engaged in a demonic project of self-centred, hedonistic, short-termist, manipulative and (ultimately) nihilistic evil.


Thus if I had achieved something-like my dreams -and if these dreams had really worked; then I would have wasted my mortal life.

I would have been 'taken' by sudden death directly from a euphoric state of pleasurable self-congratulation and confronted with a Jesus to whom I regarded myself as greatly superior; and whose offer of Heavenly life everlasting would have had little attraction (involving as it does, a loving embrace of the divine project of creation).

I might well have rejected Heaven on the basis that I was existentially satisfied by living conceived as here-and-now self-gratification as the highest ideal; all I would have wanted was that this be continued until... nothingness. 


In sum, without the sustained and adverse environment of creeping totalitarianism to sabotage my tin-pot schemes of immediately pleasurable indulgence; I would very likely have stayed on the broad and pleasant road to Hell - which I had sketched-out in my youth.

And this - it seems to me, is a specific and exact instance of why (and how) we need evil in order to reach good.

Of course this instance does not in any way justify the evil in your life; let alone some other person's life (known or unknown) - nor any great masses of people who might be envisaged. That is for you to discover for yourself - each and individually.

But you can be sure that your actual life is trying to tell you what you most need to know; year-by-year, day-by-day, hour-by-hour trying to break-down your resistance to such knowledge. Even so obtuse a person as myself eventually crumbled under this pressure - but it took a great deal of such pressure, and for a long time, before I did.

For me - this is one reason why my world was adverse; and why there needed to be so much adversity and of that particular type.

17th century harmony - Thomas Ravenscroft's Three Country dances in One

First of all listen to the piece sung by a favourite group - The City Waites (I've posted this before)

 

This is a kind of 'round' (like Three Blind Mice, a version of which was also published by Ravenscroft ). This one is much longer and more sophisticated than our usual children's ones - having four separate 32 bar melodies that can be sung separately or together.

What I like very much about this piece is the harmony of the second half of the verses - bars 17-32 - perhaps especially 22-24, which is gorgeous and very 17th century; the kind of harmony that you don't get before or after this time, which which is just delightful.

(BTW I don't understand why this is three, rather than four, country dances in one...) 

If anyone can explain - musically - how this kind of effect is obtained, I'd be pleased to hear; because I can't work it out. (There is loads of it here by Thomas Tomkins; one of the greatest pieces ever written IMO.)

I've always assumed it was an harmonic 'movement', produced by contrapuntal voices, that was later ruled-out as insufficiently smooth and homogeneous (it jumps-out of the texture) - rather like the ban on parallel-moving, open-fifths, despite that these were the first foundation of Western harmony. 

If you want to see what is going on, here is a version that shows a musical score of the separate vocal lines.

Note: The synchronicity fairies have been at work, since Frank Berger has also today published some 17th century music - although his example is pretty Scheidt.

Alasdair Gray (subject of my MA thesis) has died

This year's characteristic, home-drawn and printed Christmas-/ post-card from Alasdair

The Scottish writer and painter Alasdair Gray - who was the subject of my 1988 MA thesis at Durham University, and my friend for a decade around that time - died about a week ago. He lived to the age of 85, which was considerably more than would have been expected when he was an unhealthy child (hospitalised and nearly dying from asthma several times) - or indeed a wheezy, overweight adult who too-often drank too-much.

Alasdair is regarded as one of the major Scottish writers of the past century - mainly for his first novel Lanark (1981); which is in the modernist/ post-modernist genre - a hybrid work: realistic semi-autobiography sandwiched by the two parts of a SciFi dystopian fiction, both sharing an indirectly related main character. And an embedded 'Epilogue' where the author comes on-stage to exchange banter with his protagonist (and confess to the multiple stolen ideas or 'plagiarisms' deployed through the novel). The whole embellished by the author's very impressive illustrations (which often look like parody/ pastiche ancient engravings).

 From Thos. Hobbes Leviathan on the left, Gray's version from Lanark on the right

I bought a copy of Lanark in 1982, during perhaps the most 'miserable' year of my life, and went to Glasgow to buy a print of some of the artwork; and met Alasdair for the first time. Alasdair turned out to be the most eccentric person I had ever met, very genuine and kind, very funny, extremely interesting, and enjoyable to talk with.

His books' subject matter, his general artistic stance, his (socialistic Scottish nationalist) politics, all suited me at that point in my life.

And five years later, when I decided to do a one year research thesis - he allowed me to work from the collection of his diaries and journals in the National Library of Scotland; which meant that much of my work was published in The Arts of Alasdair Gray (1991) for which I also provided a short biography. So, for a while I was The expert on this author.

When I went to live in Glasgow in 1989 I saw a lot more of Alasdair and helped out with a couple of his later books - Poor Things and the Book of Prefaces - for which I was duly credited in the detailed acknowledgements (and 'plagiarisms') which had become something of a trademark.

I am top centre, having helped research the Malthus and Darwin prefaces - (Professor) Robert 'RAD' Grant and poet-novelist Frank Kuppner were both very good friends during my Glasgow years

After moving away from Glasgow, I only saw Alasdair once - when the above portrait was done. But we kept in touch - Alasdair especially being a very loyal correspondent. Rather sadly I "went-off" the books that had once meant so much to me;  and found - after that intense immersion of the late 1980s - I did not wish to re-read Lanark, or the books that followed. Perhaps because my infatuation coincided with that dark and depressing decade of my early adult-working life (aged 23-33) which I did not especially want to have revived in memory.

Also, Alasdair's best work is pretty gruelling to read - if there is a happy or hopeful resolution, this only comes after a very dark, dark night of the soul; and en route there is typically more pervy-ness and sordidness than I will willingly submit to nowadays.

For most would be readers it might therefore be best to go for the hardback, lavishly embellished edition of his first collection of short pieces - Unlikely Stories, Mostly (1983); which is a sheer delight of wit and erudition throughout; and also packs a powerful punch - here and there.

Greta and Extinction Rebellion - analysed by Terry Boardman

Two of the prominent phenomena of 2019 – the teenage ‘climate change’ campaigner Greta Thunberg and the “climate change” campaigning movement Extinction Rebellion – share the striking characteristic that, unlike virtually all great radical causes of past decades and centuries, their cause is almost entirely supported by the Establishment and by many, though not all, of its usual propaganda instruments in the media. 

From the global business elite at their annual jamboree in Davos, Switzerland in February this year – where Ms Thunberg told them she wanted them “to panic” because “our house is on fire”, but did not tell them to change the fundamental nature of western capitalism – to the Pope in Rome, to the leaders of the EU and of the British political class, Ms Thunberg has been welcomed and feted by the rich and powerful everywhere she has been, by the leadership class in religious, political and business circles. 

This salient fact seems to escape Ms Thunberg’s younger supporters and also many of her older ones.

Read the whole thing at Terry Boardman's website...

Note: Terry Boardman is the deepest and most convincing analyst of socio-political trends that I know of; I have learned a lot from him.

The fact that he is an anthroposophist applying the insights of Rudolf Steiner is more evidence that we ignore RS at our peril - despite all the necessary reservations.

Yet, when Terry Boardman's article moves from analyses to policy - and he puts forward Steiner's century old idea of a 'threefold society' - I am compelled to remember my recent post stating that,when it comes to large scale plans and general schemes, Everybody Is Always Wrong.

Not that I have anything much better to suggest; but I know for sure that Threefolding is not going to happen, and would not make enough of a positive difference even if it did (somehow) happen.


The best I can suggest that is we each 'quarry-out' our own personal policy, plans and schemes as a part of what William Arkle termed 'quarrying-out our own uniqueness in our own way' - this being what God intends us to do in mortal life; so that we may ultimately each express to the fullest (within the context, meaning and purpose of loving creation in Heaven) our eternally-individual nature.

Churches have neglected that dishonesty is a sin

The real Christian churches have been pretty solid concerning the reality (and identity) of sexual sins; but have neglected dishonesty - which is surely the most pervasive sin of modernity among the middle, professional and leadership classes.

Consequently, churches have become strategically dishonest - without awareness, hence without repentance - and this is a factor in their continuing corruption: their absorption-into The System. 


This has happened because The West has become dominated by bureaucracy; management has  become the most frequent job and activity of the upper classes - and management is intrinsically dishonest in its nature and operations.

I have seen this happen through my adult life in science, academia, education and medicine - but most strikingly in science. From 1985-2000 British science went from being almost wholly honest to being almost wholly dishonest. The corruption was earlier in other systems.

And when the leadership have become habitually, pervasively, calculatedly dishonest - then everything will fall apart; because in a system permeated by lies and distortions, nobody knows anything about anything.


Dishonesty in langaue is analogous to inflation of a currency. When dishonesty reaches a certain level then communications lose their meaning; indeed become counter-productive; because we only know that language does not mean what it claims or seems to mean - but we do not know what language does mean.

We cannot even be sure that language is untrue, since sometimes (in specific places) it will be true - but truth in one place does not any more imply truth in another place.

And the pervasiveness of untruth degrades real truth from honest people - since liars can easily 'disprove' truth by lying about it (which we see all the time and everyday in the mass media).


Thus the problem: Not only is dishonesty a sin; but it is (like cowardice) a sin that undermines all virtues and enables all other sins - both in public discourse and (even more lethally) in our own minds.

It is a sin which is engaged in by almost all middle class people, on a daily - hourly - basis for their jobs, upon which their livelihoods depend. So, all the churches are jam-packed with professionally dishonest people; people who are paid to be dishonest and who would be punished for truthfulness. And since managers are the most dishonest group - the sin is worst among those who administer the system.

In effect, truth has been replaced by status; as happened in science where a peer review cartel nowadays (and for several decades) controls appointments, promotions, publications, funding and prizes - hence the consensus of science-managers defines what counts-as 'truth'.

Yet there is near zero awareness of this fact. Consequently, evil is pursued under cover of lies, with impunity.


All this will - I believe - become obvious very soon; when the totalitarian power grab begins - probably under the excuse of the 'climate emergency'.

When the demonic global Establishment (try to) take-over the nations; and impose a centralised system of omni-surveillance and micro-control - I do Not expect many Christian churches to refuse to cooperate. indeed, I don't expect them to notice what is happening.

Indeed, I expect Christian church leadership to regard World Government (in a 'good cause', naturally) as 'a good thing', overall and potentially*.

When that happens, the only spiritual alternative for Christians will be in their own consciousness; their own personal commitment to follow Jesus rather than corrupt institutions. Either individuals will opt-out of the System of Evil, or everybody will be opting-in, passively, by default - while lying about the fact.  


Note: As commenter 'Epimetheus' said yesterday: "Everybody's solutions revolve around somehow getting the world's most powerful and wicked people to bring about Utopia. But the joke's on us - this is their Utopia."

Everybody is always wrong

And I mean that literally - so far as I know.

I'm talking about the world and what ought to happen. It is a strange situation - to know for sure that everybody is wrong and yet not to know what is right.

I spend a fair bit of time (far too much time) reading analyses of the current spiritual (and materialist) malaise; how we got where we are, and the main features and problems. There are plenty such analyses - many I find broadly convincing, and some seem very astute.

But when it comes to the matter of what we should do, everybody is always wrong. This seems very obvious to me. It is not a subtle matter. When it comes to making suggestions about how to make a better future, when it comes to policies and plans - everybody is always wrong. 

Of course, some/ most people are not just wrong - but are the opposite of right: they advocate stuff that will make things much more, much more quickly. Some are incompetent and uninformed; but many of these, indeed, want to make things worse - they are evil people, with inverted values - and they want to make this mortal life as much like hell as possible.

But even the well motivated people, even Christians, even Christians who really understand things - are always wrong about what we should do.


It suddenly struck me that this is an exact description of our situation. It isn't going to change. We know what is wrong, but we don't know how to fix it - we don't even know approximately. We haven't a clue.

And this is rather strange.How is it that I know for sure that everybody is always wrong when I myself do not know what is right, when I myself am always wrong?

It doesn't seem to make much sense - how can wrong plans and policies be known without right to compare it with? Yet wrong obviously can be and is knowable, even without knowing right.

Where does this leave us; where does it leave me, specifically? The situation is that I know for sure that all these plans and policies are wrong, and will make things worse; yet I cannot suggest what ought to be done instead. Even if I could, nobody would take any notice - but in fact I can't and never will be able to say what ought to be done.


I don't think things always have been like this; I think this is something new. I think it is a characteristic of the End Times.

What it tells me is that the whole System and set-up of world civilisation has come to the point when it is unavoidably finished - when it makes no sense of any kind, and cannot be made to make sense.

We live in an insane and incoherent world of purposive lies, deliberate ugliness and the inversion of virtue. We know enough to recognise the fact, and not to go along with it - but there is nothing we can do about it.

There is no way out - in this mortal world. Of course there is a way out through the portal of death and (by following Jesus) to Heaven, if we choose it.


In a sense this is a great relief! I can - and should - stop worrying, have faith, and get on with my actual life. Time spent on plans and policy aiming at a better future would merely be making matters worse (because inevitably wrong).

So, everybody is always wrong... This is good news! What a liberation!

The Play of William Arkle

The Seeker by William Arkle

Foreword by William Arkle for his web site billarkle.co.uk

(These web pages were created by Michael Perry in consultation with Arkle, about twenty years ago shortly before Arkle died; and for many years this was the only significant web presence of William Arkle - and it was the source of my own informed engagement with Arkle from 2008. Sadly the site is now gone.)

**

I very nearly called this web site 'The Play of William Arkle', and then I felt that it would sound rather too casual for most people and even an insult to the endeavour that is brought to the resolving of the mysteries of life.

The reason that the word 'play' suggested itself is that the journey of understanding seems to lead from the level of human survival as a personality in this world, through to a spiritual view that takes survival of our spiritual self for granted; and then on again into the appreciation of the all-encompassing smile of our Divine Creator.

This Divine Smile says a very simple thing, which is that the everlasting nature of its Spirit can have only two options: either it remains in its Absolute condition of Blissful non-action; or it can engage in action through the creation of play-grounds. This means creating theatres of time, space and lots of things - from a condition of no action or time or space or things.

Our Creator felt that the first choice of 'no action' could becoming boring because there was no adventure, surprise or growth involved. The livingness of The Spirit felt itself to be in need of such adventure as an expression of joyful love and fun. So the second choice came about purely for the exercise of joy and love and fun.

The only word I could find to cover the activity of joy and love and fun was the word play, but unless it is approached in the right way the word does not carry the correct significance. And thus the whole of this web site is a journey into the understanding of The Creator's view of the word play.

You will find that my own earlier understandings moved gradually into this way of talking about our reality. It seemed to become more and more light-hearted while being able to sympathise with all the conditions of growth which can feel to be the conditions of fear and anxiety. Thus the big game of life at play has conditions within it which can descend to the very opposites of its initial intention.

These opposite conditions are the result of our Creator deciding to give us the Gift of being able to become real players in our own right at this adventure which is being undertaken. This is why the picture book was called The Great Gift and why the writings in it referred to God as being our friend in this one life endeavour. Later on this was changed to the expression God, The Player Friend.

As for me, I have kept the name William Arkle. I like the name because it implies that my Will is doing its best to be a small expression of the Ark of Life, The Heart of the Creator Friend.

However my close associates now find me calling myself Billy The Kid.

**

Here Arkle is saying that the first and deepest question about divine creation is why did God do it? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there action rather than stasis?

And Arkle is saying that this is to do with the nature of God, the kind of person that God is. Like a young child; God has an enjoyment of play.

(With 'play' Arkle, very typically, chooses a simple and 'childish' word for the most profound of his metaphysical beliefs - 'friend' would be another example.) 

As a child's favourite activity is to-play - rather than do-nothing; so with God.


So God made things happen. For a while, perhaps, God 'entertained himself'; and thus will presumably soon have discovered that solo make-believe does not satisfy for long (too predictable) - and soon one craves 'playmates', people like oneself to play with.

Play needs other-people. In this instance, other gods. Thus the whole purpose of creation.  


Of course a child does not want to play always; and wants to eat, rest and sleep from time to time - but these are mainly in order to prepare for more play.

The same with our reality, this creation. There are some persons (and some religions or ideologies) that focus upon 'eating' (sensual gratification - e.g. sexual gratification, euphoria), and others that focus on the hope for rest/ peace/ sleep (Nirvana).

But for most people, most of the time; play is the primary thing - if, by play, we ultimately mean the only endlessly rewarding 'play' which is the divine work of loving-creation in heaven: the Great Gift of Jesus.

(Which we sample and approximate in mortality in the life of loving families; and in the life of human creativity (experiencing, learning, doing, making) in its multitude of individual types - games, sports, pastimes, hobbies, arts and crafts...)


Arkle - shortly before he died, tells us here that called himself Billy the Kid. Why?

My guess: because a free, conscious, chosen return to the basic situation of the child is the purpose of life. Life is a cycle, but not a recapitulation.

To become again As a child (which Jesus is said to have commanded us); 'as' a child means not to be a child, but to live as grown-ups, as a child live (and as we ourselves once did).

For instance: a child cannot plan - adolescents plan with obsessive self-consciousness - the spiritually mature human adult chooses Not to plan; but again to live spontaneously and as improvisation.

And in perfect love (which casteth out fear).


(And, thereby, at the last moment - unpredictably, unstoppably - to thwart all plans and schemes of evil! Evil is beaten by Not plotting-against evil, but by doing Good; as a child.)

What is spirituality?

We may agree that materialism is false, evil and self-destroying. But it is hard to say - positively - what is meant by 'spiritual'. Indeed, I once participated in a research project where the literature was reviewed and people were interviewed about what they understood 'spiritual to mean' - and no conclusion emerged about any shared meaning.

The usual definitions (such as they are) tend towards excessive abstraction (in terms of the properties or classes of spiritual entities), or gestures towards a world beyond the material (reality is 'more than' just that which is perceived or measured) - which are true, in their way, but hardly adequate.

Clearly, too, spirituality does not equate with religion. Some religions, including some practices of Christianity, are barely spiritual - for instance religious life that is almost wholly ethical, rule-following, or focused on ritual participation. Indeed, many people claim to be 'spiritual but not religious' - however, strictly there is no such thing. To be coherent, to make sense; spirituality depends on metaphysical assumptions of a religious kind.


When someone tries to be spiritual but not religious - for example by merely believing-in and communicating-with spirits, or the dead - then this simply reduces to a type of materialism - spirits are, in effect, being brought into the definition of material and treated as mundane.

People who say they are Not spiritual seem to be those who regard life as being wholly on the 'level' of the everyday - so that the entirety of life (including personal and leisure time) is of the same quality as the normal, shared, public world of work, officialdom, the media. 

By contrast, when a spiritual dimension of life is desired - this is a wish for a larger life, beyond the mundane - with a different and 'higher' quality. In practice, nowadays, with the current pressures; this seems to entail according 'the spiritual' the highest priority; above (in particular) the political - and this is where so many would-be spiritual people and organisations fall-down.    


It is probably best to think of materialism as the assumption that the world is made of Things, and spiritual as the contrary assumption it is 'made of' Beings. 'Beings' meaning living-entities, conscious and motivated. Thus, to be spiritual means to assume that this universe and reality consists of Beings. 

We could further say that the materialistic perspective says that the universe arose by means of 'physics' processes - it just-happened for deterministic reasons and/ or perhaps randomly. In other words, in materialism there are Things interacting by physical processes.

By contrast, a spiritual perspective assumes that we live in A Creation - that is, a universe made by a Being. Furthermore, the Beings interact by 'relationships'. For the spiritual person; the ultimate reality of interaction is not the forces, particles, processes of physics, but the attributes of relationships - such as motivations, emotions, beliefs...


What prevents a spiritual world view (among those who want it) is many things. Habit, of course, plus that The World requires us to operate on materialist assumptions - to treat everything (including people) as Things.

It can be seen that this is a source of confusion. in that plenty of people assert a living universe, a purposive creation - but then explain it in abstract, geometric, mathematical, and physics terms. This is, indeed, difficult to avoid - for it is seen in Rudolf Steiner, Rupert Sheldrake and a staple of 'New Age' spirituality. I am saying that this is an error, and leads to an unstable hybrid that default-reverts from failed-spirituality back to materialism-in-practice.

This drive to abstraction based on the idea that abstractions are the primary reality - for example the view that ultimate reality is mathematical, or that physics provides the deepest explanation of the origin of the universe.


All this is a version of the ancient Greek metaphysical practice of explain reality in terms of abstractions; which was taken up by Christian theologians who (to varying degrees, but always to some extent) made Christianity fit-into this pre-existing materialistic framework (whereas most of scripture is describes a world of beings and relationships).

In a strange paradox; much Christian theology over the past many centuries represents a continued attempt at maintaining materialist assumptions as foundational for Christianity. Any whiff of anthropomorphism, animism, a world of beings - all such are regarded as childish errors.

In terms of the evolutionary-development of human consciousness, this was an early and necessary step in the direction of increasing human agency, freedom, choice; until the point (reached within the past 200 years in the West) that belief in God became active and voluntary rather than unconscious and passive.


Men began living in a world of Beings - but passively and unconsciously. This was Man's childhood.  The abstraction was part of detaching us from that immersive world and allowing us to think independently - Man's adolescence. The future is to return consciously and by active choice to the deepest truth of the spiritual world view - and again acknowledge reality as created by a Being, and consisting of Beings.

(From which perspective the abstractions - mathematics, sciences, Classical metaphysics, traditional Christian theology - are seen as ultimately tools: pragmatic approximations for particular purposes.)

But it is this vast inherited inertial legacy of abstract materialistic theology - mistakenly regarded as definitive of being-a-Christian - that has made mainstream institutional Christianity fall-into materialism (including bureaucracy); and which makes it so surprisingly difficult to be a Christian and to be spiritual.


Spirituality entails creation having a purpose, and materialism - with its physics universe - has none.

So, I would say that the spiritual world-view - which I want, and which is sought by many - is one in which we inhabit a universe of Beings that was itself created by a Being.

'Spirituality' is therefore thinking and living in such a way that we interact with 'the world' on the assumption that it is a purposeful creation and consists of Beings.

William Wildblood on the decade when the Western world finally went insane.

I wonder if future historians will look back at the last decade and conclude that this was the time when the Western world finally went insane? 

I can only hope so as it will mean that some form of sanity has been recovered. 

Will they note that the condition had been building up for more than a century but in this period the evil seeds planted in, for the sake of argument (because actually the real seeds go much further back), the 18th century when faith began to be lost, finally flowered? 

It is the loss of faith that is the root cause of the insanity...

Read the whole thing... 

When it is worse Not to be mocked...

Note: The above photo is Not me. Why would I?

Back in the day, twentysomething years ago, during a cold winter; I developed arthritis in both my big toe joints; such that I could not bear the pressure of shoes.

The only solution I could think of, was to wear sandals; and because it was winter - to keep my feet warmer - I wore them with my bright coloured loop-stitched walking socks - red, bright blue, purple and other high visibility shades. It looked stupid, I felt stupid - but it was either that, or stop walking, stay at home all day.

I was a university lecturer at the time; and so I was going into work, teaching classes, and spending long coffee breaks with colleagues, wearing this unignorably grotesque outfit. I sheepishly padded into college. And yet...

And yet, Nobody Ever Mentioned It. Nobody asked why I was wearing sandals in the middle of winter, with such garish socks; none of the students, my co-workers nor even friends poked fun at my footwear.

At first I was relieved to escape the merciless ribbing and ridicule, to which I expected to be subjected. Then the horrible truth dawned on me.

The horrible truth was that everybody assumed that this - wearing sandals and bright-thick socks in the middle of the winter - was just the kind of thing that they expected me to do. Nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing worth commenting on...

It was a chilling insight, and I am chilled now just thinking about it. But by then it was too late to explain; my toes got better; and I returned to the usual shoes or boots.

But chastened.

Some generic self-reminders for the Apocalyptic year ahead

It is important to seek Final Participation - living in conscious and chosen awareness of the world as consisting of Beings - who are alive, conscious, motivated...

And yet to keep in mind that this mortal life is one of change; so what is sought is not a permanence (that being mortally impossible) but is primarily for learning. Life is primarily for learning not achieving. Learning from experience.

But while any experience may be learned-from; some experiences reduce further capacity for learning, while other choices increase them - so some choices are better than others.


What choices? My actual life is what I should learn from.

Further - learning is a spiritual and permanent transformation of my eternal spirit...

When we have learned, we move on to new and different experiences: the lessons and lectures that creation (God's loving creation) teaches us.


The Apocalypse is here, we are in it already and have been for a while. First step is to recognise the fact. We live in a materialist world where spirit is denied, mocked, suppressed. An inverted world where the material is declared to be the spirit.

Yet without the spirit we will not just die, but will turn upon ourselves, kill ourselves - and that is happening. Value-inversion is rife.

Why else the abolition of sexuality, marriage and family?  Medicine as a cult of disease, impairment and death? Over all: the ratcheting global totalitarian bureaucracy: The System - calling itself freedom and hope.

Materialism is death, self-willed self-death; we must have the spirit - the spirit of Jesus, the Holy Ghost - and recognition of universal aliveness, and Being-ness.


We need to live 2020 in the light of our knowledge and love of the Good Shepherd; and that he (and only he, albeit vitally helped by others who love us and whom we love) will lead us (if we choose to follow) through biological death to resurrected life eternal in Heaven.

There to live in love, and participate in divine creation.

(That is what I want - how about you?)

That is the true perspective of our specific lives, here and now, today, this moment; as moving towards Heaven.

Far from being a materialistic world, this is a world in which such a spiritual knowledge - and the objectivity of love - is the prime reality into-which all material and mundane matters require to be fitted.

The Apocalypse is spiritual.

Chinese whispers by multiple cumulative translations into and out-of English

Wm Jas Tychonievich has given us what deserves to become a classic of literary wit by performing the following procedure of cumulative translation:

"I put the 103 languages in random order, and started with a short poem by Yeats. I translated it into the first language, then back into English; translated the result into the second languages, then back into English, and so on. Below are the results, showing every tenth translation so that you can follow the progressive degradation of the text. (I've added line breaks and capitalization to imitate the poetic form of the original; everything else is reproduced verbatim from Google Translate.)"

For the highly amusing and confusing result - go to his From the Narrow Desert blog.

Why modern materialism was necessary, despite its demonic possibilities; and how the 'thinking of the heart' is the way forward: Stanley Messenger gives Rudolf Steiner's teachings

Unless we reach the point where we believe nothing except what comes to us through our senses and the intellect, we will be ruled by a compelled belief in some kind of divine source. We have to reach a situation of total materialism order to free ourselves from a belief in the divine that we cannot avoid. 

The whole process of human evolution has been geared towards producing a species of conscious entity that can approach the divine but is not compelled to do so. We can either believe in God or we needn't believe in God - it is a matter of our freedom. 

That was impossible until we had reached such a point in human evolution that we could actually come to the conclusion that there was no God. If you can't come to the conclusion that there is no divine world, you are not free to choose. 

The huge evolutionary step that has been taken over thousands of years in Man's history is that a conscious being now exists in the universe which can arrogate to its own consciousness freedom to decide what is true - to create universes. And this is a perilous and devilish capacity; and is at the same time a capacity that can raise mankind to the level of the gods. 

What is the difference between those two possibilities? The difference is whether, in this growth of self-awareness, mankind comes to the realisation that the perceptions of the heart are more fundamental than the perceptions of the brain. That our capacity to know through the heart reaches a more profound and truth-filled level than can be reached by perception, hypothesis and analysis.

**

Transcribed from a lecture by Stanley Messenger to the Wessex Research Group, probably in the middle 1990s. (For more on Stanley Messenger, see this memorial website.) 

The above passage is a very lucid summary of the evolutionary views of Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield; including the way that the necessary materialism of modernity brings us to a fork in the road.

A divergence where one path (which is the one historically and currently taken by The West) leads to a 'perilous and devilish' world (as described by both Steiner and Barfield); and the other path (the 'road not - yet - taken') would leads us towards experiences of higher stages of divinity.

This is our spiritual actuality contrasted with our potential: the actuality is demonic materialism and the inversion of values; the potential is (sometimes) to think and be at the level of 'the gods' (which I take to mean resurrected Men - post-mortal angels) while still in mortal life on earth.

The Good and Loving path is thus necessarily a matter of conscious choice and entails effort, will, work...

By contrast, the devilish path is the default; we take it when we fail to choose; when we are unconscious, passive and absorptive of culture - when we reject freedom and remain unfree. 

The Good and Loving path leads to what Barfield termed Final Participation.

A review of John Howe's sketches and illustrations from Tolkien's world

A review of John Howe's A Middle Earth Traveller: sketches from Bag End to Middle earth (2018) - can be found at my Notion Club Papers blog.

A world where all 'sides' are evil-motivated (but a world where Good is easily discerned)

We are moving towards (indeed we are already in, all-but) a world where all the sides are evil-motivated - that is they are overall, in net effect, operating against God/ Good and the continuing divine creation.

When we look at any large, significant, powerful, wealthy, mainstream institutions/ organisations/ corporations - we find that All Of Them are (overall, n net effect) on the side of evil. Political parties and government agancies and charities, law and medicine, hospitals, schools and colleges, artistic and scientific, military and police, journalstic and media, churches... all significant institutions are on teh side of evil.

We maybe grew-up supposing that there were some Good and some evil institutions, and our job was to discern and support the Good against the wicked - but now they are all wicked. Whoever we support, we are supporting evil; whenever we oppose, we oppose attributes shared by those we support.


Look within these institutions - there are inner groups and divisions; there is hierarchy and functional specialisation. We are used to a world when some of these inner divisions are Good and others not; when (say) doctors and nurses groups are Good and managers and public relations are wicked; when scientists and teachers are Good but administrators not...

Nowadays, all the significant internal groups are on the side of evil - overall, and usually by a large predominance. What may have been good sub-groups are by now long-since subverted.

Therefore, when we work-with, deal-with any significant institution, all significant institutions - we need to assume that every hierarchical and functional subdivision has by now, long since, been corrupted into the service of evil.

In sum: We Are On Our Own... It is us-against-the-world.


Fortunately, thought is free - if we choose to be free.

But of course, that is the exact problem - that most people, most of the time, choose not to be free. That is their decision, for which they only are responsible, ultimately.

Bu the fact is that we are free in our thought, and while discernment of good from evil was often difficult in the past, it is now very easy!

This World is devoted to value inversion - hence every institution and group is obviously evil in its intent, and obviously incoherent in its labile, tactical opposition to God/ Good/ Creation.

Why obvious? Well, we have built-in, natural spontaneous values - and these are contradicted by mainstream modernity. We have access to divine revelations from the Holy Ghost, and these are contradicted by all of the 'sides' offered to us in our lives.

Comparing the built-in and revelatory true values with those inverted values of The World, everyone can know for themselves (from themselves) what is evil.


It is a matter of compensation. As the world becomes more-wholly and more-extremely evil, that evil becomes obvious to the meanest individual. And, in a world where Jesus has offered salvation to all who love and follow him; simply to know Good from evil and to take the side of Good is sufficient.
 

This is not about what we Do but what we Know.

What we do may be coerced, what we know is our own business - unless we choose otherwise.

In the end we have no-one to blame but our-selves.

The trans agenda as a metaphysical challenge to Christians ('things coming to a point', again)

Regular readers will know that I have embraced CS Lewis's term and concept of 'things coming to a point' as characteristic of these times in The West. In general terms, this means that the challenges of the mainstream, dominant mandatory atheistic Leftism have created a situation in which good and evil are separated further apart and with clear water between them.

Discernment is, in a sense, easier than ever before; nonetheless the majority have already embraced evil, and this time in a situation where evil entails value inversion - the reversal of good and evil.

One way this happens, is that the corrosive scepticism of modern thinking (sooner or later) strips all issues down to the level of fundamental metaphysical assumptions; and ruthlessly reveals any incoherence or lack a full conscious endorsement of the assumptions upon which we base our living.

In practice this means that most people are deeply uncertain about their convictions, such that they lack the motivation and will to resist the corruption that is imposed upon them as carrots and sticks, as inducements and punishments, as feel-good attitudes and harsh coercion.


The trans agenda is perhaps the major current example. The situation now (and this developed rapidly over just a few years) is that adherence to the trans orthodoxies about sexual identity has become a litmus test of social status, and enforced by the weight of government, the law, the media and a licensed mob sustained by these.

Now, the claims of the trans agenda fly in the face of both common sense and personal experience (of the overwhelming majority of human beings throughout history and across the world) - but that makes no difference. The trans agenda wins.

The claims of the trans agenda are refuted by a vast mass of biological, medical and psychological science, over many decades - but that makes no difference. The trans agenda wins.


The issue of the difference between a man and a woman has therefore been driven all the way down to the level of fundamental conviction - that is of metaphysics. And, at this level, most people, including most Christians, find themselves confused and uncertain - or else in agreement with the trans agenda. At the metaphysical level, most people are weak, unsure, malleable when it comes to men and women being different.

This arises mostly because metaphysical assumptions are unconscious, denied or misunderstood by nearly everyone. Therefore most people are helpless in the face of false metaphysics when it is backed-up by overwhelming social pressure; by propaganda and force.

Most people in this situation reach for 'evidence' only to find that any and all possible evidence falls to pieces in face of assumptions that deny the validity of evidence as such. This happens because it is the metaphysical assumptions that determine what counts as evidence and shape what strength evidence is allowed - so that when assumptions are contradicted by evidence, it is the evidence which gives way.


Yet even among Christians who are aware of their own metaphysical assumptions, and endorse them - the discovery is often that the trans agenda is consistent with the ultimate beliefs derived from their theological understanding of the human condition.

Because mainstream Christians do not really regard sexual differentiation into men and women as a fundamental aspect of reality. It is of mortal significance only; and in the infinity of time after mortal life, as resurrected Men in Heaven - for the mainstream Christian sex has essential no role or significance - it is mostly a matter of memories of our mortal life.


In my opinion, the trans agenda strips reality down and back to the dichotomy where sex (the distinction between man and woman) is either regarded as 1. a fundamental attribute of ultimate reality - or else 2. sexual identity is ultimately unfounded.


Among churches, I think only the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) have a theology that takes the position that the distinction between men and women goes all the way down; begins with an eternity before mortal life and continues through the etermity of post-mortal life.

(Roughly) We began as primordial intelligences of two kinds, and this continues through becoming children of God, incarnation, death and resurrection (or whatever comes instead for those who cannot or will not love, or otherwise reject Heaven).

Sexuality - the division between man and woman - is an ultimate fact of existence.


For Mormons, Man is dyadic - the unit of full-personhood is a man and women - potentially (among those with highest spiritual development) bound for eternity in celestial marriage by love, but always as a two - never separated and never fused - like a binary star.

If not in detail, then in essence something like this Mormon view is - I infer - the only alternative to an ultimate and eventual spiritual capitulation to the trans agenda in all its incoherent and evil extremity.


And as such, here we have an example of the way that modernity is acting upon Christians like a refiners fire, burning away all that used to be fudged or held on superficial grounds (such as 'evidence' from science or common sense, or by obedience to external authority).

We are forced into a situation in which we either make a self-aware statement of fundamental belief - or else (by our lack of conviction, our confusion, our cognitive dissonance) we get swept along by the modern agenda - which is the agenda of satanic evil.

We are her in this mortal life to learn from our experiences; and this is one of many ways in which God has used evil triumphant to provide experiences that may - if people are honest and chose well - lead to growth towards a higher divinity.