*
Many, most, people do not notice that Leftism is primarily and intrinsically anti-Christian - and one reason they don't notice is that in the early decades of English Leftism, and even extending into a few people still alive today, there were real Christians who were Leftists - Christian Socialists.
In the Nineteenth century into the twentieth there was FD Maurice, HH Kelly, Charles Gore (great and Holy Anglicans), there was the Anglo-Catholic movement - and there was an economist called RH Tawney who led to a school of 'ethical socialism' which included some people I know as friends, including the late Norman Dennis.
Does Christian Socialism refute the idea that the Left is intrinsically anti-Christian?
*
No it doesn't.
English Socialism is based upon an error, indeed multiple errors - the primary error being that the industrial revolution - while creating a minority of extremely wealthy individuals, led to an economic decline for the working class.
In other words, the error was that the industrial revolution led to increased economic inequality, and that therefore the solution was greater equality.
In reality, the opposite was the case. The industrial revolution involved population growth and productivity growth - so per capita wealth increased, and the greatest share went to the poor.
For perhaps the first time in human history, from the time of the industrial revolution, the poor had more surviving children than the rich.
*
English socialism was an error simply because the new urban poverty was concentrated and public in its squalor hence impossible to overlook, while the much more severe rural poverty was dispersed, private, invisible.
Upper class people of a type disposed towards socialism simply did not notice poverty when it was most severe - when the children of peasants (no matter how many were born) pretty much all died of starvation or disease, and only those born to wealthier parents had a realistic chance of surviving to adulthood.
*
So English socialism had a twin basis in economic error, and a misplaced rural nostalgia.
The economics was a plain error, since if it is economics that you are worried about, it is capitalism which has improved the condition of the poor - not socialism.
The rural nostalgia (most notably of William Morris) was misplaced in so far as its focus was economic - urban conditions were indeed hellish, but they were considerably more prosperous overall.
If economics is to be the focus, the bottom line was that the urban poor had more to eat. The benefits of rural living are not economic.
*
Of course, even though Leftism in its English socialist form was based on error - many of its motivations were good.
But the stubborn refusal to admit the foundational economic error, decade after decade, utterly corrupted socialism.
The focus on alleviating poverty shifted as the poverty was progressively abolished by the continued operations of the industrial revolution - instead of the ancient definition of poverty as (primarily) starvation and lack of clothes and shelter; poverty was redefined as relative, as a matter of inequality - and inequality, difference, was newly defined as intrinsically unjust.
*
The least-wealthy were the new poor - among a population living among universal luxury, those with fewest, or lowest status, luxuries became 'the poor'.
Yet socialism contrived to retain, by educational propaganda and the mass media, the same angry zeal and impatience concerning relative poverty as has driven it when the concern was with death by starvation.
Instewad of being angry about actual poverty; Leftists were now angry, very angry, about injustice - which could be detected wherever needed; defined and re-defined at convenience.
*
In the early 20th century, Socialism became an economic theory (the 'command economy' in communism, or the 'planned economy' in Britain), in rivalry to 'capitalism', for improving economic growth and for a 'fairer' distribution (failing to recognise that the distribution of economic benefits of the industrial revolution was from its very origin already strongly egalitarian).
*
What has all this to do with Christianity?
What indeed.
*
Certainly socialism does not come from Christianity - since there were some 1800 years of Christianity before socialism.
Certainly socialism was not a legitimate Christian response to the new spiritual problems of the industrial revolution - since socialism is an economic theory, and the industrial revolution improved the economic conditions of the poor. The idea that socialism would help was based on a mistake.
Christianity does not legitimately come from socialism, not even in the new and specific conditions since the industrial revolution - since an economic focus for life is an intrinsically anti-Christian stance.
*
The vast majority of devout Christians have not of course been Leftists (were indeed opposed to Leftist ideas); and the vast majority of committed Leftists have not of course been Christian (were indeed opposed to Christian ideals).
So the Christian Socialists are a tiny minority, where these two separate systems overlap...
Are they correct or deluded?
They are deluded, Christian Socialism is not a novel and coherent synthesis - but is merely (at best) two separate systems in the same mind: unintegrated, unintegrable.
Most often, Christian Socialism is a consequence of error, or a consequence of dishonesty.
*
But humans are error prone creatures - our information is incomplete and biased, and our reasoning is defective, and we are easily influenced.
Yet error - honest error - typically becomes obvious within a few decades.
"By their fruits shall ye know them" - and the fruits of Leftism are rapidly and reliably anti-Christian, as can be seen within one or at most two generations.
That Christian Socialism was a heresy was apparent within a few decades, the intrinsically anti-Christian nature of Leftism obvious in all Leftist controlled states within a few decades (sometimes even faster).
*
Therefore, the only Christian Socialism which is good, is that which is based upon an honest economic mistake due to ignorance - but the error of Leftist economics soon became dishonest, and in order to preserve Leftism the error had to be preserved - which led to systematic lying, and then (and now) to systematic and coercive imposition of lies.
So Leftism is now objectively evil - indeed by far the major source of societal evil in the world (by societal evil I mean added to the irreducible minimum from original sin).
Indeed it now looks as if Leftism was the greatest triumph of evil in the history of the world.
So Christian Socialism is (and always was) an oxymoron, self-contradictory, self-refuting - intrinsically destructive to the Christian element of the compound name.
*
Friday, 17 August 2012
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Mormon Fertility blog
*
I have created a blog to archive the three studies of British Mormon Fertility I have done with supervised undergraduate students over the past three years.
http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/
The main purpose of these studies was:
1. To see whether British Mormon fertility was similar to US patterns (it is, so far as I can tell) - and therefore to determine whether the critical factor is the religion or instead something specifically to do with the circumstances of US Mormons.
(The characteristic fertility pattern seems to be characteristic of Mormons as such, rather than of US Mormons specifically.)
2. To try and understand the factors which affect Mormon fertility - and whether these are religious factors, or some other factor.
(Not yet clear, but results are consistent with the idea that fertility is mostly a consequence of one or more aspects (or in combination) characteristic of Mormon Christianity.)
Two are listed - another to come, plus some reflections on the implications.
*
I have created a blog to archive the three studies of British Mormon Fertility I have done with supervised undergraduate students over the past three years.
http://mormonfertility.blogspot.co.uk/
The main purpose of these studies was:
1. To see whether British Mormon fertility was similar to US patterns (it is, so far as I can tell) - and therefore to determine whether the critical factor is the religion or instead something specifically to do with the circumstances of US Mormons.
(The characteristic fertility pattern seems to be characteristic of Mormons as such, rather than of US Mormons specifically.)
2. To try and understand the factors which affect Mormon fertility - and whether these are religious factors, or some other factor.
(Not yet clear, but results are consistent with the idea that fertility is mostly a consequence of one or more aspects (or in combination) characteristic of Mormon Christianity.)
Two are listed - another to come, plus some reflections on the implications.
*
Two possible bleak futures for Christianity - protestant and catholic
*
If present trends continue the future of Christianity is bleak (at least in the West).
*
If secular Leftism triumphs, then I would foresee all church hierarchies being completely subverted to Leftism - or else crushed.
Therefore Christianity will survive but only in an extreme protestant form, dispersed in small and secret groups (such as 'home churches'); without the aid of sacraments and priests, based on scripture (perhaps memorized? if printed copies are suppressed) and prayer.
*
If another religion triumphs, then Christianity will survive but only by submission, and by acceptance of permanent second class (and exploited) political status.
This would require that Christians be cohesive, and they would necessarily be coerced into a single (small 'c') catholic denominational unit - and the Christianity would therefore be episcopal and sacramentally based (the church controlling the sacraments).
*
But Christianity will survive, that we have been promised, by the prophecies - however these also say Christianity will, by the end, be small - Christians will be few.
What 'few' means in terms of actual numbers is unknown - but certainly implies a small minority of Men.
Will those few be few and scattered? Or few and a single cohesive unit? Who knows...
*
If present trends continue the future of Christianity is bleak (at least in the West).
*
If secular Leftism triumphs, then I would foresee all church hierarchies being completely subverted to Leftism - or else crushed.
Therefore Christianity will survive but only in an extreme protestant form, dispersed in small and secret groups (such as 'home churches'); without the aid of sacraments and priests, based on scripture (perhaps memorized? if printed copies are suppressed) and prayer.
*
If another religion triumphs, then Christianity will survive but only by submission, and by acceptance of permanent second class (and exploited) political status.
This would require that Christians be cohesive, and they would necessarily be coerced into a single (small 'c') catholic denominational unit - and the Christianity would therefore be episcopal and sacramentally based (the church controlling the sacraments).
*
But Christianity will survive, that we have been promised, by the prophecies - however these also say Christianity will, by the end, be small - Christians will be few.
What 'few' means in terms of actual numbers is unknown - but certainly implies a small minority of Men.
Will those few be few and scattered? Or few and a single cohesive unit? Who knows...
*
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
“To remove God is to eliminate the final restraint on human brutality” - Alister McGrath
*
This quotation from the theologian Alister McGrath is a variant of the Dostoevsky quote translated as "Without God all things are permitted".
McGrath focuses on the effect of atheism on morality or Virtue, Dostoevsky's applicability would embrace the othe transcendental Goods of Beauty and Truth - in the sense that without God then there is no final restraint on either dishonesty (lies, hype, spin, propaganda) or beauty (ugliness, horror, banality).
*
The evidence that McGrath and Dostoevsky are correct is quite simple:
The Twentieth Century.
The 20th century witnessed several enormous atheist political regimes in The Soviet Union, Germany and China - where the implementations of evil were of a scale and thoroughness and of a duration never before seen in human history.
In other words, the removal of God can be seen to have eliminated the final restraint on human brutality.
Of course this is not sufficient 'proof' for those who deeply wish to deny the link; but that is the case for all forms of evidence for anything and without any exceptions.
*
But to focus exclusively upon ethical aspects of religiously-unrestrained immorality is to miss the fullness of catastrophe which atheism has visited upon humanity - by removal of final restraint because these societies were equally societies of unprecedented institutional dishonesty and ugliness.
In sum, atheism enables the denial of natural law - of all spontaneous ('natural') human acknowledgments of truth, beauty and virtue - and denial implies inversion.
Atheism enables denial of natural law - it does not compel this denial, but it enables the denial to happen when this is expedient.
*
Because humans always take sides, always exhibit a prefernce, are unable to be neutral.
So when natural law is denied primacy, it is not merely ignored, but reversed.
So we get societies - such as our own - that celebrate the destruction of good, for its own sake; societies that actively will evil - and this is the particular horror of the twentieth century into the twenty-first.
*
The particular horror of the twenty-first century is that because we are still atheists (indeed, even more so) we have learned nothing from the twentieth century (or, mislearned irrelevant lessons), and have gone a long way towards replicating its specifically modern evils; 'restrained' from doing so only by what appears to atheist modernity as irrational, unenlightened residual conditioning from the bad-old-days.
So the only things keeping modern societies from un-restrained evil are precisely those things which modernity regards as most dangerously evil; and which it is striving so zealously to eliminate.
And it is clear that elimination of 'restraint' is not the worst of things; the worst is that, without God, restraint inverts into its opposite: coercive advocacy of that which was previously restrained.
*
This quotation from the theologian Alister McGrath is a variant of the Dostoevsky quote translated as "Without God all things are permitted".
McGrath focuses on the effect of atheism on morality or Virtue, Dostoevsky's applicability would embrace the othe transcendental Goods of Beauty and Truth - in the sense that without God then there is no final restraint on either dishonesty (lies, hype, spin, propaganda) or beauty (ugliness, horror, banality).
*
The evidence that McGrath and Dostoevsky are correct is quite simple:
The Twentieth Century.
The 20th century witnessed several enormous atheist political regimes in The Soviet Union, Germany and China - where the implementations of evil were of a scale and thoroughness and of a duration never before seen in human history.
In other words, the removal of God can be seen to have eliminated the final restraint on human brutality.
Of course this is not sufficient 'proof' for those who deeply wish to deny the link; but that is the case for all forms of evidence for anything and without any exceptions.
*
But to focus exclusively upon ethical aspects of religiously-unrestrained immorality is to miss the fullness of catastrophe which atheism has visited upon humanity - by removal of final restraint because these societies were equally societies of unprecedented institutional dishonesty and ugliness.
In sum, atheism enables the denial of natural law - of all spontaneous ('natural') human acknowledgments of truth, beauty and virtue - and denial implies inversion.
Atheism enables denial of natural law - it does not compel this denial, but it enables the denial to happen when this is expedient.
*
Because humans always take sides, always exhibit a prefernce, are unable to be neutral.
So when natural law is denied primacy, it is not merely ignored, but reversed.
So we get societies - such as our own - that celebrate the destruction of good, for its own sake; societies that actively will evil - and this is the particular horror of the twentieth century into the twenty-first.
*
The particular horror of the twenty-first century is that because we are still atheists (indeed, even more so) we have learned nothing from the twentieth century (or, mislearned irrelevant lessons), and have gone a long way towards replicating its specifically modern evils; 'restrained' from doing so only by what appears to atheist modernity as irrational, unenlightened residual conditioning from the bad-old-days.
So the only things keeping modern societies from un-restrained evil are precisely those things which modernity regards as most dangerously evil; and which it is striving so zealously to eliminate.
And it is clear that elimination of 'restraint' is not the worst of things; the worst is that, without God, restraint inverts into its opposite: coercive advocacy of that which was previously restrained.
*
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Reading Pascal's Pensees
*
It was only two years ago I bought the Penguin translation of Pascal's Pensees in a secondhand bookshop in Cheltenham.
I was already a Christian and had been so for a more than a year; but it was reading Pascal that make Christianity 'click into place' for me.
If I had read Pascal before I became a Christian, I probably would not have understood enough about it to understand that Pascal proves that Christianity is the only religion which answers to Man's need.
*
Pascal is talking to modern man - which is in itself a miracle, considering he wrote nearly four centuries ago. He describes the human condition, the predicament - and he shows how Christianity 'fits' the need.
He also clarifies that only Christianity fits the need - this was, for me, perhaps the most amazing insight. All the other religions of the world, and secularism, fail to meet the need even in theory.
This is a remarkable thing. Christianity seems to atheists like wish fulfilment, insofar as atheists know enough about Christianity to know what it is, and this is substantially accurate.
*
But it raises the question of why other religions are not like wish fulfilment - if religions are merely opiates of the masses, or mechanisms of social control, or projected fantasies of happiness etc - then why is it only Christianity that actually does the job of offering a believer so much - indeed everything!
As Pascal clarifies, Christianity is what we would want to be true; and the main question is whether it is true - if it is true, and you understand what Christianity is, then you would be irrational to reject it.
*
But why do other religions offer so little and that little either grossly inadequate to human need or utterly irrelevant?
Why is it that - even in their ideal outcomes - no other religion gives what humans want?
Why is it that the the paradise or ideal outcome for all other religions is either horrible, obviously inadequate or meaningless?
*
Is it because other religions are honest and only Christianity is 'pie in the sky'?
Or is it because only Christianity is true and real, and other religions are not aimed at truth, are deceptions - not least in deceiving humans that they want, or ought to want, the paltry 'rewards' which other religions offer.
*
Pascal seems to me just about the most intelligent person I have encountered (or can appreciate) - qualitatively far above my own mind in terms of his ability to analyse and comprehend.
And having acknowledged this - it was astonishing to me to find that Pascal focused on prophecy and miracles as the major evidence for the truth of Christianity specifically - and I found myself convinced, and recognising that of course these were necessary in order that Christianity be specifically (uniquely) true.
*
But what I got from Pascal as from nobody else, was this sense of him having sketched-out the ultimate nature of reality for Man - almost as if he sketched it in the air - and then showing the essence of Christianity and how it answered to the state of Man - so that either Christianity had been cobbled-together specifically to fit the exact needs of Man; or else it was true.
Then the shock of recognising that it was true.
And that this truth becomes obvious to those all who seek it, but remains hidden from those who do not seek it; and that it was necessary that this be so...
*
The universe clicked-into place.
*
It was only two years ago I bought the Penguin translation of Pascal's Pensees in a secondhand bookshop in Cheltenham.
I was already a Christian and had been so for a more than a year; but it was reading Pascal that make Christianity 'click into place' for me.
If I had read Pascal before I became a Christian, I probably would not have understood enough about it to understand that Pascal proves that Christianity is the only religion which answers to Man's need.
*
Pascal is talking to modern man - which is in itself a miracle, considering he wrote nearly four centuries ago. He describes the human condition, the predicament - and he shows how Christianity 'fits' the need.
He also clarifies that only Christianity fits the need - this was, for me, perhaps the most amazing insight. All the other religions of the world, and secularism, fail to meet the need even in theory.
This is a remarkable thing. Christianity seems to atheists like wish fulfilment, insofar as atheists know enough about Christianity to know what it is, and this is substantially accurate.
*
But it raises the question of why other religions are not like wish fulfilment - if religions are merely opiates of the masses, or mechanisms of social control, or projected fantasies of happiness etc - then why is it only Christianity that actually does the job of offering a believer so much - indeed everything!
As Pascal clarifies, Christianity is what we would want to be true; and the main question is whether it is true - if it is true, and you understand what Christianity is, then you would be irrational to reject it.
*
But why do other religions offer so little and that little either grossly inadequate to human need or utterly irrelevant?
Why is it that - even in their ideal outcomes - no other religion gives what humans want?
Why is it that the the paradise or ideal outcome for all other religions is either horrible, obviously inadequate or meaningless?
*
Is it because other religions are honest and only Christianity is 'pie in the sky'?
Or is it because only Christianity is true and real, and other religions are not aimed at truth, are deceptions - not least in deceiving humans that they want, or ought to want, the paltry 'rewards' which other religions offer.
*
Pascal seems to me just about the most intelligent person I have encountered (or can appreciate) - qualitatively far above my own mind in terms of his ability to analyse and comprehend.
And having acknowledged this - it was astonishing to me to find that Pascal focused on prophecy and miracles as the major evidence for the truth of Christianity specifically - and I found myself convinced, and recognising that of course these were necessary in order that Christianity be specifically (uniquely) true.
*
But what I got from Pascal as from nobody else, was this sense of him having sketched-out the ultimate nature of reality for Man - almost as if he sketched it in the air - and then showing the essence of Christianity and how it answered to the state of Man - so that either Christianity had been cobbled-together specifically to fit the exact needs of Man; or else it was true.
Then the shock of recognising that it was true.
And that this truth becomes obvious to those all who seek it, but remains hidden from those who do not seek it; and that it was necessary that this be so...
*
The universe clicked-into place.
*
Monday, 13 August 2012
A perfect picnic lunch
*
I have been having a lot of picnic lunches since I was 12; and this has been our major family activity.
I love the independence of of carrying lunch with me, so I can sit down anywhere to eat at anytime I fancy (usually earlier than other people).
The minimum basic requirements can be reduced to a few elements, numbered in order of importance - elements can be added, in sequence, from lower in the list as time and need allow.
The following is what I personally like - naturally, when other people come along, their preferences also need taking into account.
*
1. A drink. A bottle of tap water is probably as good as anything when you are out and about.
2. Sandwiches (plenty of). Four slices (min) of normal bread, or (better) a couple of doorstep slices (each about an inch thick). Filling - (i) Peanut butter, (ii) Cheese and chutney.
3. Crisps.
4. Fruits: washed and in a polythene bag: e.g. grapes, small tomatoes, an apple.
5. Something sweet, preferably with chocolate or chocolate, or buy an ice cream when you return to civilisation.
*
And, of course, a book - always carried (but not necessarily read).
*
So the minimum picnic lunch would be water and peanut butter sandwiches - although some could include a bit of jam as well, for variety.
*
I have been having a lot of picnic lunches since I was 12; and this has been our major family activity.
I love the independence of of carrying lunch with me, so I can sit down anywhere to eat at anytime I fancy (usually earlier than other people).
The minimum basic requirements can be reduced to a few elements, numbered in order of importance - elements can be added, in sequence, from lower in the list as time and need allow.
The following is what I personally like - naturally, when other people come along, their preferences also need taking into account.
*
1. A drink. A bottle of tap water is probably as good as anything when you are out and about.
2. Sandwiches (plenty of). Four slices (min) of normal bread, or (better) a couple of doorstep slices (each about an inch thick). Filling - (i) Peanut butter, (ii) Cheese and chutney.
3. Crisps.
4. Fruits: washed and in a polythene bag: e.g. grapes, small tomatoes, an apple.
5. Something sweet, preferably with chocolate or chocolate, or buy an ice cream when you return to civilisation.
*
And, of course, a book - always carried (but not necessarily read).
*
So the minimum picnic lunch would be water and peanut butter sandwiches - although some could include a bit of jam as well, for variety.
*
Three reasons to be hopeful
*
That so many people buy, read, re-read and love Lord of the Rings.
That so many people will expend their own time and money to visit beautiful countryside, view old architecture and listen to old music.
That there are still loving marriages and families.
*
That so many people buy, read, re-read and love Lord of the Rings.
That so many people will expend their own time and money to visit beautiful countryside, view old architecture and listen to old music.
That there are still loving marriages and families.
*
Sunday, 12 August 2012
What is fascism?
*
The definition must be reasonably close to popular usage, yet precise enough to distinguish fascism as a twentieth century phenomenon.
Here is my suggestion - alternatives are invited:
Fascism is a form of government characterized by explicit anti-egalitarian ideals, and with a non-monarchical head of state.
or
A fascist state is an anti-egalitarian republic.
(Where republic denotes that the head of state is not a monarch, and that the state is not intrinsically religious.)
Thus fascism is a reaction - defined more by what it is not, than what it is - a reaction 1. against the egalitarianism of the mainstream left; and a reaction 2. against the divinely-ordained monarchy and/or 'theocracy' (rule by priests) of the traditional (religious) Right.
The Nationalism, which has been a very obvious feature of some fascisms, is therefore regarded as a second-order phenomenon - essentially a means for creating social cohesion: replacing on the one hand religious cohesion, and on the other hand the egalitarian ideology of Leftism.
*
The definition must be reasonably close to popular usage, yet precise enough to distinguish fascism as a twentieth century phenomenon.
Here is my suggestion - alternatives are invited:
Fascism is a form of government characterized by explicit anti-egalitarian ideals, and with a non-monarchical head of state.
or
A fascist state is an anti-egalitarian republic.
(Where republic denotes that the head of state is not a monarch, and that the state is not intrinsically religious.)
Thus fascism is a reaction - defined more by what it is not, than what it is - a reaction 1. against the egalitarianism of the mainstream left; and a reaction 2. against the divinely-ordained monarchy and/or 'theocracy' (rule by priests) of the traditional (religious) Right.
The Nationalism, which has been a very obvious feature of some fascisms, is therefore regarded as a second-order phenomenon - essentially a means for creating social cohesion: replacing on the one hand religious cohesion, and on the other hand the egalitarian ideology of Leftism.
*
Why is Christianity so complicated?
*
As I tried to understand it, and when I try to explain it, it often strikes me that Christianity is a bit complicated. The essence cannot be explained in a sentence, not even in a paragraph.
At one time in my life I thought that this complexity was because Christianity was not true, therefore it lacked the concise precision of science and was forced to create a model of reality which I found difficult to hold in my head all at once.
Now I recognize that Christianity is complicated because of The Fall, because of Original Sin.
*
The 'original plan' for humans was a simple one, but the complexities introduced by the fact of free will of angles (i.e. the fall of angels, Satan and the demons) and the fall of man (shortly described in Genesis, but its consequences everywhere) then made the Christian plan of salvation considerably more difficult to summarize.
Christianity as we have it is God's Plan B - therefore to understand it requires that we know Plan A, how it went wrong, and how it was set right.
That, I think, is the main reason why Christian salvation is somewhat slow to be explained.
*
As I tried to understand it, and when I try to explain it, it often strikes me that Christianity is a bit complicated. The essence cannot be explained in a sentence, not even in a paragraph.
At one time in my life I thought that this complexity was because Christianity was not true, therefore it lacked the concise precision of science and was forced to create a model of reality which I found difficult to hold in my head all at once.
Now I recognize that Christianity is complicated because of The Fall, because of Original Sin.
*
The 'original plan' for humans was a simple one, but the complexities introduced by the fact of free will of angles (i.e. the fall of angels, Satan and the demons) and the fall of man (shortly described in Genesis, but its consequences everywhere) then made the Christian plan of salvation considerably more difficult to summarize.
Christianity as we have it is God's Plan B - therefore to understand it requires that we know Plan A, how it went wrong, and how it was set right.
That, I think, is the main reason why Christian salvation is somewhat slow to be explained.
*
Saturday, 11 August 2012
Steve Jobs - a genius? Probably... but what kind of genius?
*
Having read this thoughtful review of the biography of Steve Jobs
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/34440
provokes further thought on the nature of genius.
*
Jobs certainly had the kind of psychology characteristic of a potential genius
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-potential-genius-is-intrinsically.html
and his personal contribution seems clear, so the answer is yes - Jobs was a genius...
*
And Jobs was a genius of something difficult - the fusion of revived modernist design with user-friendliness, and convenience, and snobbery...
But a genius of something that did not need to be done, and indeed something about which it could be said, it would have been better if it had not been done.
Insofar as Apple Macintosh has done net harm to the world, by its amplification of novelty-seeking distraction to a anti-art form (modernist 'art' being anti-art), then Jobs was an evil genius.
(Apple-mania is a defining trait of the ruling elite, is utterly characteristic of the ruling elite, and amplifies the typical traits of the ruling elite - so the evaluation of Apple is an evaluation of the validity of the ruling elite; its characteristic motivations, beliefs, behaviours and methods.)
But yeah - Jobs was a genius, has all the hallmarks.
*
Having read this thoughtful review of the biography of Steve Jobs
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/34440
provokes further thought on the nature of genius.
*
Jobs certainly had the kind of psychology characteristic of a potential genius
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-potential-genius-is-intrinsically.html
and his personal contribution seems clear, so the answer is yes - Jobs was a genius...
*
And Jobs was a genius of something difficult - the fusion of revived modernist design with user-friendliness, and convenience, and snobbery...
But a genius of something that did not need to be done, and indeed something about which it could be said, it would have been better if it had not been done.
Insofar as Apple Macintosh has done net harm to the world, by its amplification of novelty-seeking distraction to a anti-art form (modernist 'art' being anti-art), then Jobs was an evil genius.
(Apple-mania is a defining trait of the ruling elite, is utterly characteristic of the ruling elite, and amplifies the typical traits of the ruling elite - so the evaluation of Apple is an evaluation of the validity of the ruling elite; its characteristic motivations, beliefs, behaviours and methods.)
But yeah - Jobs was a genius, has all the hallmarks.
*
Conceptualizing free will
*
To understand free will, it must be distinguished from choice.
Will is always free, but choices are constrained.
Our will, therefore, is conceptualised precisely as that which is free. The will is that which is under our control.
*
For Christianity, it is the will that is primary - to be a Christian involves willed faith, willing that Christ is accepted as Lord, willing love of Christ and neighbour - and so on.
Indeed, it may be clearest to suppose that this is the full scope of will - it is that which constitutes a person's primary orientation - and perhaps that is all that it does.
*
Will is therefore dichotomous: for Christ or for oneself, for Love or for Pride.
All the rest is choices, and constrained by circumstances - but the will is free to point ourselves in one direction, or its opposite.
We may label the directions variously, but perhaps that is on the one hand all that will does, but what it necessarily does.
*
Will thus is free, and points in one direction, or the other.
Determining which direction is our primary task, upon which all else depends.
*
*
To understand free will, it must be distinguished from choice.
Will is always free, but choices are constrained.
Our will, therefore, is conceptualised precisely as that which is free. The will is that which is under our control.
*
For Christianity, it is the will that is primary - to be a Christian involves willed faith, willing that Christ is accepted as Lord, willing love of Christ and neighbour - and so on.
Indeed, it may be clearest to suppose that this is the full scope of will - it is that which constitutes a person's primary orientation - and perhaps that is all that it does.
*
Will is therefore dichotomous: for Christ or for oneself, for Love or for Pride.
All the rest is choices, and constrained by circumstances - but the will is free to point ourselves in one direction, or its opposite.
We may label the directions variously, but perhaps that is on the one hand all that will does, but what it necessarily does.
*
Will thus is free, and points in one direction, or the other.
Determining which direction is our primary task, upon which all else depends.
*
*
Become a Christian first: stop sinning later (if you can)
*
I suspect that there are some people who do not become Christians because they (quite honestly) believe that they cannot stop sinning. (Most likely the sin they have in mind is sexual.)
They suppose that if they tried to become a Christian, but found that could not stop doing this particular sin, then they would be chucked-out of Christianity anyway, so why bother even trying...
In sum, they imagine that their inability to stop sinning prevents them becoming Christians - and that they must first stop sinning, then become a Christian: but they are as wrong about this is it is possible to be.
*
Christ came to save sinners, save people who are sinners, the Christian Church is for sinners.
You do not have to stop sinning before you become a Christian - the proper sequence is you become a Christian first, and then (try to) stop sinning.
*
But the fact is that nobody can stop sinning, they may defeat one sin (the one that most worries them) but always there will arise another or many more sins, and they will discover (after becoming a Christian) that they always have been sinning in ways they had not previously considered or noticed.
If people had to wait until after they were good before becoming a Christian: 1. There would be no Christians and 2. There would have been no need for Christ.
*
After becoming Christian, some have found the help to stop a particular type of sin which plagued them (for example alcoholism) - but many others have not been able to change.
But they are still Christians, indeed fully Christians, normal Christians; so long as they recognise the reality of their sin (that is, they do not pretend it is not a sin) and sincerely repent, and try again, and again.
So long, that is, as they recognize Christ as Lord. Everything else, the fruits of conversion, can follow afterwards, but even if they don't follow afterwards, you can still be Christian so long as that is your will.
*
(Anyone who imagines he is free of sin is not a Christian and is indeed in profound spiritual danger.)
*
All this is just a plain fact about Christianity, absolutely clear for 2000 years - and yet somehow modern people have been deceived into thinking that to be a Christians you must first be nice.
You may be a very bad sinner, you very probably are; and/but you can become a Christian now, at this very moment, without waiting, without preliminary preparations or purifications. Straight away.
There is nothing to stop you, and nothing in your past that would be able to prevent you.
*
Will to become a Christian because you believe it is true - be clear about that fact: and only then consider the difficult, indeed torturing matter, of 'joining a church', choosing a denomination, getting baptized or confirmed...
(All this can be a prolonged, difficult and dismaying business in a world where the Christian church, all denominations, have been so extensively corrupted and infiltrated by secular values, primarily Leftism. Still, we must will to become a Christian first, hold to that fact, and regard these institutional complications as necessary but secondary and subordinate challenges.)
You will not know, until you are a Christian, what the implications of Christanity may be, so you must become a Christian as a first step; just the first step - but it is the single most important step, a step into a new world which you can only begin to know only after you are in it.
*
I suspect that there are some people who do not become Christians because they (quite honestly) believe that they cannot stop sinning. (Most likely the sin they have in mind is sexual.)
They suppose that if they tried to become a Christian, but found that could not stop doing this particular sin, then they would be chucked-out of Christianity anyway, so why bother even trying...
In sum, they imagine that their inability to stop sinning prevents them becoming Christians - and that they must first stop sinning, then become a Christian: but they are as wrong about this is it is possible to be.
*
Christ came to save sinners, save people who are sinners, the Christian Church is for sinners.
You do not have to stop sinning before you become a Christian - the proper sequence is you become a Christian first, and then (try to) stop sinning.
*
But the fact is that nobody can stop sinning, they may defeat one sin (the one that most worries them) but always there will arise another or many more sins, and they will discover (after becoming a Christian) that they always have been sinning in ways they had not previously considered or noticed.
If people had to wait until after they were good before becoming a Christian: 1. There would be no Christians and 2. There would have been no need for Christ.
*
After becoming Christian, some have found the help to stop a particular type of sin which plagued them (for example alcoholism) - but many others have not been able to change.
But they are still Christians, indeed fully Christians, normal Christians; so long as they recognise the reality of their sin (that is, they do not pretend it is not a sin) and sincerely repent, and try again, and again.
So long, that is, as they recognize Christ as Lord. Everything else, the fruits of conversion, can follow afterwards, but even if they don't follow afterwards, you can still be Christian so long as that is your will.
*
(Anyone who imagines he is free of sin is not a Christian and is indeed in profound spiritual danger.)
*
All this is just a plain fact about Christianity, absolutely clear for 2000 years - and yet somehow modern people have been deceived into thinking that to be a Christians you must first be nice.
You may be a very bad sinner, you very probably are; and/but you can become a Christian now, at this very moment, without waiting, without preliminary preparations or purifications. Straight away.
There is nothing to stop you, and nothing in your past that would be able to prevent you.
*
Will to become a Christian because you believe it is true - be clear about that fact: and only then consider the difficult, indeed torturing matter, of 'joining a church', choosing a denomination, getting baptized or confirmed...
(All this can be a prolonged, difficult and dismaying business in a world where the Christian church, all denominations, have been so extensively corrupted and infiltrated by secular values, primarily Leftism. Still, we must will to become a Christian first, hold to that fact, and regard these institutional complications as necessary but secondary and subordinate challenges.)
You will not know, until you are a Christian, what the implications of Christanity may be, so you must become a Christian as a first step; just the first step - but it is the single most important step, a step into a new world which you can only begin to know only after you are in it.
*
Friday, 10 August 2012
Best comic classics in English
*
A comic classic must be re-readable, must be read spontaneously (and not prescribed in courses), and must be not only enjoyable but also funny on re-reading.
The best comic work generates a kind of 'depth' from the world it creates - this world must be delightful.
Farce is not comic - because it is heartless.
But in the lists below this category excludes 'great' literature which is also comic - to get onto the list the work must primarily be comic (although almost never exclusively comic).
*
Best comic novel: Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis.
Best comic travelogue: Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K Jerome
Best comic novelist: PG Wodehouse, especially Jeeves stories
Best writer of comic verse: Lewis Carroll
Best writer of comic poetry: John Betjeman
Best comic playwright: Tom Stoppard (early)
Best comic 'diary': Diary of a Nobody by George and Wheedon Grossmith
*
A comic classic must be re-readable, must be read spontaneously (and not prescribed in courses), and must be not only enjoyable but also funny on re-reading.
The best comic work generates a kind of 'depth' from the world it creates - this world must be delightful.
Farce is not comic - because it is heartless.
But in the lists below this category excludes 'great' literature which is also comic - to get onto the list the work must primarily be comic (although almost never exclusively comic).
*
Best comic novel: Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis.
Best comic travelogue: Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K Jerome
Best comic novelist: PG Wodehouse, especially Jeeves stories
Best writer of comic verse: Lewis Carroll
Best writer of comic poetry: John Betjeman
Best comic playwright: Tom Stoppard (early)
Best comic 'diary': Diary of a Nobody by George and Wheedon Grossmith
*
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Thought Prison - complete text version now online
*
Now it's a year post-publication, I've posted a text version of my book Thought Prison, online at
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/
If anyone notices any typos or other errors, I would be grateful if you could leave a comment here or e-mail me at hklaxnessatyahoodotcom.
*
Now it's a year post-publication, I've posted a text version of my book Thought Prison, online at
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/
If anyone notices any typos or other errors, I would be grateful if you could leave a comment here or e-mail me at hklaxnessatyahoodotcom.
*
Christianity for the 'not-nice'
*
Too often Christianity is portrayed as a matter of being nice - of emulating a 'gentle Jesus meek-and-mild'; the idea that real Christians are hardworking, good-tempered, friendly, placid, sensible, empathic, conscientious... Good Citizens.
But what about people whose personalities are not-nice; who are the opposite in one or more respects: aggressive, dominant, lazy, solitary, crazy, irritable, inconsistent, unfriendly, impulsive - can the not-nice be Christians?
To ask the question is to answer it: of course!
*
Yet there is perhaps an expectation that becoming a Christian will also 'convert' the not-nice person into a nice person: will make an inconsistent and moody and wild guy, into the meek-and-mild, regular stereotype.
And if this does not happen, if the convert is not remade into the agreeable, empathic, sociable, conscientious ideal - than maybe the conversion was not real...
*
Yet personality is mostly inherited and mostly stable throughout life - so people seldom change much in their personality type - although they may change in response to different circumstances.
In terms of personality theory - when I refer to 'not nice' I am talking about people (most often men, but a smaller proportion of women) who are high in Eysenck's Psychoticism, low in the Big Five traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, low in Baron Cohen's trait of Empathizing.
*
What would a Christianity for the not-nice type look like?
In the first place, there would be a major role for repentance and no possibility of hypocrisy since the not-nice Christian would very obviously not live-up-to the law, would not live by the rules - and so would be characterized by sinning and repenting rather than by not-sinning.
The vital thing would be that the not-nice Christian must acknowledge their failure to live by true and good standards of behaviour, and never try to re-define sin in terms of what they themselves can accomplish.
*
They must say - this is right; but I can't do it.
I keep trying but I keep failing, and I must repent and ask forgiveness.
But this is right.
*
Yet in a crisis, when something heroic needs to be done, and done now and reckless of consequence.
A single, profound, extreme, symbolic act - an insistence a refusal to comply... then the not-nice Christian is your man.
Such are numbered among the Sainted martyrs.
*
Christianity for the not-nice might have regular elements - indeed it might be highly-supervised and regimented as the life of a monk of the life of a soldier for Christ (eg a Knight Templar).
By such means of external discipline, by obedience by fasting, heroic prayer vigils and so forth - sustained over years and perhaps decades - the inconstant and wilful personality; the ego, the pride; was subdued and dissolved into communion with God.
*
But in terms of self-discipline the rule would be: if frequent then brief, if prolonged then structured.
So the practice of regular, daily, low mass in the Roman Catholic church was a good way for the not-nice to maintain the faith - the practice of attending a very short mass first thing in the morning, every morning as a skeletal structure for life.
Long services and the like would need to be structured and would need to deploy all possible aids to attention and absorption: uniforms and vestments, solemn architecture, traditional ritual, formal and serious words and music.
This was the major devotional activity of JRR Tolkien who was - in many respects - a classic not-nice type of Christian, in that although he was empathic and sociable (a nice man), he was also irritable and impulsive and had great difficulty in sticking at jobs and seeing them through to completion.
*
Another model is the Eastern Orthodox idea of a Fool for Christ - a person whose apparently crazy, impulsive and seemingly-'random' acts are perceived to carry a Holy meaning; and to serve as a form of instruction for the community.
(A similar type was seen in the Ancient Greek characters of Socrates, to some extent, and Diogenes, as an extreme instance. And some of Shakespeare's 'fools' seem to be intended in this fashion.)
Such Holy Fools may indeed come to be regarded as Saints.
*
So here we have at least three ideal patterns or odels for the not-nice Christian: the supervised monastic or quasi-military life, where impulsive irregularity is coercively tamed by asceticism and routine; the use of regular, structured short religious practices; and the full-blown crazy Saint whose apparent indifference to the comunity, to status and standards, to social values is in fact divinely-inspired critique of the worldliness of the Good Citizens.
*
Too often Christianity is portrayed as a matter of being nice - of emulating a 'gentle Jesus meek-and-mild'; the idea that real Christians are hardworking, good-tempered, friendly, placid, sensible, empathic, conscientious... Good Citizens.
But what about people whose personalities are not-nice; who are the opposite in one or more respects: aggressive, dominant, lazy, solitary, crazy, irritable, inconsistent, unfriendly, impulsive - can the not-nice be Christians?
To ask the question is to answer it: of course!
*
Yet there is perhaps an expectation that becoming a Christian will also 'convert' the not-nice person into a nice person: will make an inconsistent and moody and wild guy, into the meek-and-mild, regular stereotype.
And if this does not happen, if the convert is not remade into the agreeable, empathic, sociable, conscientious ideal - than maybe the conversion was not real...
*
Yet personality is mostly inherited and mostly stable throughout life - so people seldom change much in their personality type - although they may change in response to different circumstances.
In terms of personality theory - when I refer to 'not nice' I am talking about people (most often men, but a smaller proportion of women) who are high in Eysenck's Psychoticism, low in the Big Five traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, low in Baron Cohen's trait of Empathizing.
*
What would a Christianity for the not-nice type look like?
In the first place, there would be a major role for repentance and no possibility of hypocrisy since the not-nice Christian would very obviously not live-up-to the law, would not live by the rules - and so would be characterized by sinning and repenting rather than by not-sinning.
The vital thing would be that the not-nice Christian must acknowledge their failure to live by true and good standards of behaviour, and never try to re-define sin in terms of what they themselves can accomplish.
*
They must say - this is right; but I can't do it.
I keep trying but I keep failing, and I must repent and ask forgiveness.
But this is right.
*
Yet in a crisis, when something heroic needs to be done, and done now and reckless of consequence.
A single, profound, extreme, symbolic act - an insistence a refusal to comply... then the not-nice Christian is your man.
Such are numbered among the Sainted martyrs.
*
Christianity for the not-nice might have regular elements - indeed it might be highly-supervised and regimented as the life of a monk of the life of a soldier for Christ (eg a Knight Templar).
By such means of external discipline, by obedience by fasting, heroic prayer vigils and so forth - sustained over years and perhaps decades - the inconstant and wilful personality; the ego, the pride; was subdued and dissolved into communion with God.
*
But in terms of self-discipline the rule would be: if frequent then brief, if prolonged then structured.
So the practice of regular, daily, low mass in the Roman Catholic church was a good way for the not-nice to maintain the faith - the practice of attending a very short mass first thing in the morning, every morning as a skeletal structure for life.
Long services and the like would need to be structured and would need to deploy all possible aids to attention and absorption: uniforms and vestments, solemn architecture, traditional ritual, formal and serious words and music.
This was the major devotional activity of JRR Tolkien who was - in many respects - a classic not-nice type of Christian, in that although he was empathic and sociable (a nice man), he was also irritable and impulsive and had great difficulty in sticking at jobs and seeing them through to completion.
*
Another model is the Eastern Orthodox idea of a Fool for Christ - a person whose apparently crazy, impulsive and seemingly-'random' acts are perceived to carry a Holy meaning; and to serve as a form of instruction for the community.
(A similar type was seen in the Ancient Greek characters of Socrates, to some extent, and Diogenes, as an extreme instance. And some of Shakespeare's 'fools' seem to be intended in this fashion.)
Such Holy Fools may indeed come to be regarded as Saints.
*
So here we have at least three ideal patterns or odels for the not-nice Christian: the supervised monastic or quasi-military life, where impulsive irregularity is coercively tamed by asceticism and routine; the use of regular, structured short religious practices; and the full-blown crazy Saint whose apparent indifference to the comunity, to status and standards, to social values is in fact divinely-inspired critique of the worldliness of the Good Citizens.
*
Re-readers and once-readers
*
C.S Lewis often emphasized that it was re-reading that made a classic; and a book - no matter how good - which only invited a single reading, was comparatively deficient.
Also that the relatively small group of re-readers formed the most important literary audience. Lewis himself did not feel he had read a book until he had read it more than once, and would often reserve judgement.
*
JRR Tolkien, on the other hand, claimed seldom to re-read - and that he always enjoyed the first reading the most, when the 'bloom' was on the (and therefore that a book could be diminished by being read too young - as when Lord of the Rings was first-read by ten year olds).
*
I myself am a re-reader, and tend to feel that if a book is not worth reading more than once it is not worth reading once; yet I recognize Tolkien's point.
I also know people who have read books once and been transformed by them, and never gone back to re-read.
Indeed I know several (extremely well-read) people who essentially never re-read novels - and of course thereby end up with a much wider experience of literature.
(The greatness of Lord of the Rings is that it is often the only book which some voracious once-only readers will go back and re-read - and the same may apply to the Harry Potter series.)
*
A re-reader like myself might go on holiday with half a dozen 'old favourites' while a once-reader will take a set of newly purchased (or borrowed) books, looking-forward to the freshness of repeating that first (and only) experience of reading.
*
C.S Lewis often emphasized that it was re-reading that made a classic; and a book - no matter how good - which only invited a single reading, was comparatively deficient.
Also that the relatively small group of re-readers formed the most important literary audience. Lewis himself did not feel he had read a book until he had read it more than once, and would often reserve judgement.
*
JRR Tolkien, on the other hand, claimed seldom to re-read - and that he always enjoyed the first reading the most, when the 'bloom' was on the (and therefore that a book could be diminished by being read too young - as when Lord of the Rings was first-read by ten year olds).
*
I myself am a re-reader, and tend to feel that if a book is not worth reading more than once it is not worth reading once; yet I recognize Tolkien's point.
I also know people who have read books once and been transformed by them, and never gone back to re-read.
Indeed I know several (extremely well-read) people who essentially never re-read novels - and of course thereby end up with a much wider experience of literature.
(The greatness of Lord of the Rings is that it is often the only book which some voracious once-only readers will go back and re-read - and the same may apply to the Harry Potter series.)
*
A re-reader like myself might go on holiday with half a dozen 'old favourites' while a once-reader will take a set of newly purchased (or borrowed) books, looking-forward to the freshness of repeating that first (and only) experience of reading.
*
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Who is second to Shakespeare: Prose and Drama
In a recent post:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/whats-so-good-about-shakespeare.html
the discussion established that in English poetry the authors which comes after Shakespeare are Chaucer, (+/- Spenser), Milton and Wordsworth.
I'd like to do the same now for prose and drama.
1. English Prose: This is easy - there are only two books of prose with comparable impact to Shakespeare: the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version of the Bible (King James Bible).
So, the second-best prose writers to Shakespeare in English Prose are Thomas Cranmer, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale and various other collaborators.
But if the fact that the second greatest writers of English prose are translators and a (kind-of) committee (albeit divinely inspired) is hard to stomach, then it gets much harder to identify a second placed writer.
I would put forward Samuel Johnson.
2. English Drama: This is easy - aside from Shakespeare there is only one dramatist in the English language who is productive and quotable enough to stand near him: George Bernard Shaw.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/whats-so-good-about-shakespeare.html
the discussion established that in English poetry the authors which comes after Shakespeare are Chaucer, (+/- Spenser), Milton and Wordsworth.
I'd like to do the same now for prose and drama.
1. English Prose: This is easy - there are only two books of prose with comparable impact to Shakespeare: the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version of the Bible (King James Bible).
So, the second-best prose writers to Shakespeare in English Prose are Thomas Cranmer, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale and various other collaborators.
But if the fact that the second greatest writers of English prose are translators and a (kind-of) committee (albeit divinely inspired) is hard to stomach, then it gets much harder to identify a second placed writer.
I would put forward Samuel Johnson.
2. English Drama: This is easy - aside from Shakespeare there is only one dramatist in the English language who is productive and quotable enough to stand near him: George Bernard Shaw.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
The therapy of sin
*
Sin induces guilt, and guilt craves therapy.
The physical problem is the guilt, but the metaphysical problem is sin.
*
Guilt can be induced in the absence of sin, guilt can be amplified to manipulate.
And therapy for guilt can be split off from sin - guilt can be removed by psychotherapy, which can be individual or social, and consists in denying the sin, or the reality of sin-as-such.
And therapy for guilt can be pharmacological (drugs - prescribed or not, such as alcohol).
And therapy for guilt can be to distract from guilt and displace it with another emotion (the mass media approach to therapy).
*
Do any of these affect the reality of sin? No - they affect the awareness of sin as a possibility and a state, they affect the awareness of sin as an emotion.
It is as if pain was abolished but not the pathological causes of pain - a person might be torn and mutilated or feverish and prostrated, but feel no pain and deny the reality of pathology.
Deny the need for a cure, reject even an effective cure if offered.
*
But this would be a delusion, a denial of reality - the denial of pathology being itself a pathology.
But how if the reality of reality was denied?
How if single, objective, eternal truth was regarded as a nonsense concept?
How if what someone felt (here and now) was all that was regarded as valid - and reality, pathology and sin were alike discredited as meaningless (indeed manipulative) concepts...
*
Once somebody was in that situation, once a society was in that situation - how could they ever get out from it - I mean escape logically, by argument?
*
Why would such a person, such a society, be interested by a savior, when they feel they have nothing to be saved-from except bad feelings induced by the idea that they might need saving?
*
Sin induces guilt, and guilt craves therapy.
The physical problem is the guilt, but the metaphysical problem is sin.
*
Guilt can be induced in the absence of sin, guilt can be amplified to manipulate.
And therapy for guilt can be split off from sin - guilt can be removed by psychotherapy, which can be individual or social, and consists in denying the sin, or the reality of sin-as-such.
And therapy for guilt can be pharmacological (drugs - prescribed or not, such as alcohol).
And therapy for guilt can be to distract from guilt and displace it with another emotion (the mass media approach to therapy).
*
Do any of these affect the reality of sin? No - they affect the awareness of sin as a possibility and a state, they affect the awareness of sin as an emotion.
It is as if pain was abolished but not the pathological causes of pain - a person might be torn and mutilated or feverish and prostrated, but feel no pain and deny the reality of pathology.
Deny the need for a cure, reject even an effective cure if offered.
*
But this would be a delusion, a denial of reality - the denial of pathology being itself a pathology.
But how if the reality of reality was denied?
How if single, objective, eternal truth was regarded as a nonsense concept?
How if what someone felt (here and now) was all that was regarded as valid - and reality, pathology and sin were alike discredited as meaningless (indeed manipulative) concepts...
*
Once somebody was in that situation, once a society was in that situation - how could they ever get out from it - I mean escape logically, by argument?
*
Why would such a person, such a society, be interested by a savior, when they feel they have nothing to be saved-from except bad feelings induced by the idea that they might need saving?
*
Monday, 6 August 2012
Intelligence, personality and genius
*
I have collected most of my blog postings and publications on the topics of Intelligence, Personality and Genius on an archival blog of that name
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/
These constitute by far the most popular topic on which I blog - in terms of page views - so I thought that it might be convenient to have them lodged in one place.
If I have any more ideas on these themes, I will post here and archive a copy there.
*
I have collected most of my blog postings and publications on the topics of Intelligence, Personality and Genius on an archival blog of that name
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/
These constitute by far the most popular topic on which I blog - in terms of page views - so I thought that it might be convenient to have them lodged in one place.
If I have any more ideas on these themes, I will post here and archive a copy there.
*
What is the most urgent priority for the West? A litmus test
*
The Left (which is intrinsically, primarily secular) would answer something like... equality, social justice, an end to oppression... (yawn) or whatever...
The secular Right might answer something like law and order, an end to mass immigration, the restoration of patriarchy...
But the Christian Right would say mass conversion, a Great Awakening, a re-birth and growth of Christianity in the West (first repentance, then faith - in that order).
*
For the Christian Right, good can only come via Christianity - and to attempt to attain the good before Christianity is simply a direct route to Antichrist - that is, to evil in the guise of good, evil in Christ's name.
*
Thus the answer to the question of the most urgent priority for the West is a litmus test of basic political allegiance; and marks a cleavage line between Christian and secular politics.
A cleavage line where real Christians are on one side; and the seculars of various types and stripes are on the other side - fighting each other, but synergistically working-against Christianity (whether deliberately, directly and explicitly; or unconsciously, indirectly and implicitly).
*
For Christians (and all real Christians are on the Right - however confused they may be on this matter, whether they acknowledge this fact, or not) Christianity must come first immediately, cannot wait for anything, must not be put-off until after whatever: it is the priority now and forever.
*
The Left (which is intrinsically, primarily secular) would answer something like... equality, social justice, an end to oppression... (yawn) or whatever...
The secular Right might answer something like law and order, an end to mass immigration, the restoration of patriarchy...
But the Christian Right would say mass conversion, a Great Awakening, a re-birth and growth of Christianity in the West (first repentance, then faith - in that order).
*
For the Christian Right, good can only come via Christianity - and to attempt to attain the good before Christianity is simply a direct route to Antichrist - that is, to evil in the guise of good, evil in Christ's name.
*
Thus the answer to the question of the most urgent priority for the West is a litmus test of basic political allegiance; and marks a cleavage line between Christian and secular politics.
A cleavage line where real Christians are on one side; and the seculars of various types and stripes are on the other side - fighting each other, but synergistically working-against Christianity (whether deliberately, directly and explicitly; or unconsciously, indirectly and implicitly).
*
For Christians (and all real Christians are on the Right - however confused they may be on this matter, whether they acknowledge this fact, or not) Christianity must come first immediately, cannot wait for anything, must not be put-off until after whatever: it is the priority now and forever.
*
How should we measure general intelligence using IQ tests?
*
General intelligence (g) is a construct used to explain that (in group studies) each and all cognitive abilities are co-correlated - being good at one implies being good at all the others. The hypothesis is that this co-correlation of abilities is due to a single underlying ability of general intelligence or g, with specific abilities (having various levels) on top of g.
Since g cannot be measured directly, IQ is derived from measuring cognitive abilities and putting people into rank order for ability - for instance, measuring one, several or a lot of cognitive abilities in 100 people, marking the test, then putting the 100 people into rank order (best to worst marks) - highest to lowest IQ.
(The validity of IQ testing comes from the fact (and it is a fact) that the rank order on the IQ test is statistically highly significantly correlated with a wide range of outcomes including exam performance, job performance, health and life expectancy.)
*
So IQ is ultimately a matter of rank order in tests.
The actual IQ score a person gets comes from a statistical manipulation of the rank order data, to make the distribution into a 'normal' or Gaussian curve, and the average score of a 'representative' population into 100 with (usually) a standard deviation of 15.
This is the 'standard curve' of IQ, since it is the standard against which individuals are measured.
The standard curve is constructed such that it describes the proportion of people that would get a particular IQ score - for example, an IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above the average and therefore about 16 percent of the population would have an IQ of 115 or above.
*
But there are difficulties in generating an IQ score for individual people, and in moving between the rank order data generated in a group study (used to generate the 'standard curve') and the score of an individual person doing an IQ test.
*
The individual score in an IQ test ought to be measuring a fundamental property of human ability (a property of the brain, roughly speaking).
Yet many or most IQ tests in practice require non-g abilities such as good eyesight, the ability to read, ability to move hands and fingers quickly and accurately; they require concentration (that a person not be distracted by pain or other interferences), many tests require stamina, a degree of motivation and conscientiousness in completing it... and so on.
In other words there are a range of non-g related factors which might reduce the test score for non-g reasons.
This means that the most valid measurement of intelligence is the highest measure of intelligence in a person.
So the best way to measure intelligence is for a person to do a series of IQ tests on different occasions and to take the highest score as the true-est score.
*
BUT this must also apply to the standard curve used to generate the IQ score.
The standard curve must be constructed from the highest IQ score of (say) 100 randomly chosen people - and these highest scores put into rank order and made into a normally distributed curve with the correct properties.
*
Yet this is not what happens.
The standard curve is typically generated using a one-off test on the representative sample, but the individual IQ is derived from the best performance in an IQ test - this systematically biases individual IQ scores towards being higher than they really are.
*
Of course, there are great logistical difficulties in using multiple tests (on several occasions) and best performances to generate a standard curve - much easier to get a representative group together just once for testing.
But this emphasizes the imprecision of individual measures of IQ.
If an individual gets their IQ score from a single test, it is likely to underestimate their real g, if the test is done in a way or at a time when their performance is impaired.
Yet if the individual has several tries at IQ test on different occasions, in order that their best possible level of performance be used to generate their real, underlying g, then this will overestimate their IQ.
(Doing several tests and taking an average does not work, because the bad performances drag-down the average.)
*
So, in practice and as things are - I do not feel that individual, one-off personal IQ measurements can be regarded as precise.
Probably individual IQ should be banded into roughly half-standard deviations.
Something like average as 96-104, above average as 105-114, high as 115-124, (above this 'g' begins to break-down as the component tests lose co-correlation) very high as 125-140, and above that we have the super-high and strange world of potential geniuses.
(Below average would probably be a mirror of this - but the meaning of low IQ is a bit more variable, and the levels may be very low.)
But IQ differences between individuals of less than half an SD (less than about 7 or 8) are uninterpretable - even around the average.
*
General intelligence (g) is a construct used to explain that (in group studies) each and all cognitive abilities are co-correlated - being good at one implies being good at all the others. The hypothesis is that this co-correlation of abilities is due to a single underlying ability of general intelligence or g, with specific abilities (having various levels) on top of g.
Since g cannot be measured directly, IQ is derived from measuring cognitive abilities and putting people into rank order for ability - for instance, measuring one, several or a lot of cognitive abilities in 100 people, marking the test, then putting the 100 people into rank order (best to worst marks) - highest to lowest IQ.
(The validity of IQ testing comes from the fact (and it is a fact) that the rank order on the IQ test is statistically highly significantly correlated with a wide range of outcomes including exam performance, job performance, health and life expectancy.)
*
So IQ is ultimately a matter of rank order in tests.
The actual IQ score a person gets comes from a statistical manipulation of the rank order data, to make the distribution into a 'normal' or Gaussian curve, and the average score of a 'representative' population into 100 with (usually) a standard deviation of 15.
This is the 'standard curve' of IQ, since it is the standard against which individuals are measured.
The standard curve is constructed such that it describes the proportion of people that would get a particular IQ score - for example, an IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above the average and therefore about 16 percent of the population would have an IQ of 115 or above.
*
But there are difficulties in generating an IQ score for individual people, and in moving between the rank order data generated in a group study (used to generate the 'standard curve') and the score of an individual person doing an IQ test.
*
The individual score in an IQ test ought to be measuring a fundamental property of human ability (a property of the brain, roughly speaking).
Yet many or most IQ tests in practice require non-g abilities such as good eyesight, the ability to read, ability to move hands and fingers quickly and accurately; they require concentration (that a person not be distracted by pain or other interferences), many tests require stamina, a degree of motivation and conscientiousness in completing it... and so on.
In other words there are a range of non-g related factors which might reduce the test score for non-g reasons.
This means that the most valid measurement of intelligence is the highest measure of intelligence in a person.
So the best way to measure intelligence is for a person to do a series of IQ tests on different occasions and to take the highest score as the true-est score.
*
BUT this must also apply to the standard curve used to generate the IQ score.
The standard curve must be constructed from the highest IQ score of (say) 100 randomly chosen people - and these highest scores put into rank order and made into a normally distributed curve with the correct properties.
*
Yet this is not what happens.
The standard curve is typically generated using a one-off test on the representative sample, but the individual IQ is derived from the best performance in an IQ test - this systematically biases individual IQ scores towards being higher than they really are.
*
Of course, there are great logistical difficulties in using multiple tests (on several occasions) and best performances to generate a standard curve - much easier to get a representative group together just once for testing.
But this emphasizes the imprecision of individual measures of IQ.
If an individual gets their IQ score from a single test, it is likely to underestimate their real g, if the test is done in a way or at a time when their performance is impaired.
Yet if the individual has several tries at IQ test on different occasions, in order that their best possible level of performance be used to generate their real, underlying g, then this will overestimate their IQ.
(Doing several tests and taking an average does not work, because the bad performances drag-down the average.)
*
So, in practice and as things are - I do not feel that individual, one-off personal IQ measurements can be regarded as precise.
Probably individual IQ should be banded into roughly half-standard deviations.
Something like average as 96-104, above average as 105-114, high as 115-124, (above this 'g' begins to break-down as the component tests lose co-correlation) very high as 125-140, and above that we have the super-high and strange world of potential geniuses.
(Below average would probably be a mirror of this - but the meaning of low IQ is a bit more variable, and the levels may be very low.)
But IQ differences between individuals of less than half an SD (less than about 7 or 8) are uninterpretable - even around the average.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)