There is a Direction to reality - but what is its nature and cause, and the implications?

Before I became a Christian - and on the basis mainly of my academic work in biology - I was convinced that there was a long-term Direction to reality, at least to "reality" on earth since its presumed formation; and that the direction was towards increased "complexity". This led to a strong focus on complex systems theory. 

However; further work revealed that complexity cannot be detected or measured in any genuinely objective manner. Which means that - insofar as the above is true - the study-field of complex systems has smuggled-in human consciousness, unacknowledged. 

I was eventually more-or-less compelled to acknowledge that the Directionality came from a divine source, and that the long-term Direction was more of the nature of consciousness than complexity. 

Which insight I got mostly from Owen Barfield, and also some aspects of Rudolf Steiner.

So I am convinced there is a strategy to reality over the very long term, and that it is of divine origin - and has to do with working towards higher consciousness. 

Yet I still do not feel that I have a sure grasp of what is going on, nor how it works - except negatively; by which I mean that the direction does not come wholly from the top-down, but derives also from the nature of "things"; by which I mean that "things" are actually Beings - and there is a Direction (an irreversibility) intrinsic to the very nature of Beings.  

And because I understand Beings to be eternal, alive, purposive, conscious in origin, capable of self-sustenance - I am inclined to believe that the Direction of reality comes from the (in essence) divine nature of all Beings - rather than something entirely-externally-imposed on reality by God.  

This apparently helps clarify the nature and scope of divine creation; that it is (as Joseph Smith described it) a matter of organization of the pre-existent. 

It clarifies, also, how it is that increase in consciousness is not, of itself, Good. Increasing consciousness is intrinsic to Beings, and therefore it is something that God works-with. 

Increasing consciousness is Not something that leads towards increased fulfilment of God's creative. Thus a being with higher consciousness is Not thereby more-Good.  

(Consciousness is "orthogonal" to Goodness.) 

In terms of morality; increasing consciousness is a thing that happens, like it or not, over the long term, for any Being. 

Being Good, that is living in harmony with God's purposes (living in and from Love) is a separate thing. 

However there is an interaction between consciousness and Goodness, which arises when the reality of increasing of consciousness is denied, or when the attempt is made to reverse the state of consciousness. 

This falls under the category of an evil; because it is a false (untruthful) understanding of reality - and there cannot be harmony with God's plans, when there is dishonesty - or the attempt to distort or invert reality in conformity with the individual will of any Being. 

In sum: we (as individual Beings) have no obligation to seek higher consciousness, but we do have ano obligation to acknowledge that consciousness we actually are. 

Since divine creation incorporates the reality of Direction; it is Good to acknowledge reality and work-from the reality of divine creation; and evil to deny reality and work against divine creation. 

Package Deal Christianity is Too Much for a convert to swallow

It has long been recognized in some circles that, in a deep sense, nearly all serious- and real-Christians nowadays are converts. 

They have to be, because mainstream Christianity is so feeble, so shallow, so materialistic. 

What follows therefore references only real-serious Christian churches - not the "liberal" kind, which organizations are just variants on Christian-themed social-club charity fund-raisers - plus less or more left-activism. 

But the Christianity of the churches - all of the churches - is just too much for a convert to believe. 

By which I mean there is just So Much of it - such a complexity and range of stuff - that it would take years to learn, and even longer to assimilate (even assuming that you haven't forgotten the early things, before you get around to the later ones). 

Of course almost nobody takes the time, or makes that effort - and many (most) are simply not capable of it. 

So, what we get instead, is a commitment to believe and live-by (or try to live-by) whatever the religious authorities tell us is essential for us to believe. 

Converts do not know what it is they are supposed to believe. 

Also there is a lot of stuff that converts are meant to "believe" - but tacitly ignore; or nuance away into insignificance. This includes much - or most - of what converts are officially supposed to have sworn to. 

(For instance, priests of Episcopal Christian churches have been "sacked" when they insisted on acting upon everything that they have solemnly sworn to uphold, during their ordinations.)

What this amounts to is that (traditional, orthodox) church-Christianity is a package deal - and the deal is a very large package. 

A package deal to which converts sign-up, in ignorance of what they are signing. 

Church-Christians never read all the "small print" before they put their mark on the conversion-contract - neither do they understand the official, technical (legal and bureaucratic) meanings of all the major contractual terms. 

Nonetheless; the way church-Christianity works is that converts are expected to believe-in... whatever-the-terms-technically-mean, and obey even the small-print; as and when such matters become relevant to the church (but not necessarily otherwise). 

The convert signs-up for the package deal, and takes the charter flight to "another country"; but if, after arriving at the destination, he dislikes the accommodation or the food or the other travellers - well, he has already agreed to accept it, and it is now too late*.

It is all or nothing (where that "all" is almost wholly - in practice - a matter of obedience to church authority). 

Of course, nowadays, those converts who discover later that they don't like what they signed-up-for - and who are told it is "all or nothing"; simply leave the church.   

In droves. 

The convert to church-Christianity might join another church, but whatever their diversity, all serious Christian churches are united in declaring that their own particular understanding of Christianity is that it just-is a package-deal. 

The Christian seeker has a wide choice of churches, but wherever he look, the churches offer only package deals - and, 'tho' very different from each other, all the packages are so large and so complex that there is always something (many things) he does not know, or cannot honestly and rigorously endorse.

This is because traditional Christianity always has been conceptualized as a package deal. 

Indeed, it seems that almost all Men of the past necessarily conceptualized all possible religion in a social and institutional way. 

But people now do not feel this necessity; and indeed usually feel something almost the opposite: that a meaningful religion needs to be known, understood, and personally endorsed in all of its aspects. 

This is why I regard it as imperative that Christianity must be understood in brief and simple terms; as having an essence - and therefore not as a large and complex package . 

 

*An example of this is when early Christians discovered that the religions they had signed up to insisted that every person who was not (correctly) baptised into the (correct) church, would inevitably (by logical implication) be tormented unbearably forever in Hell; and that this applied to everyone born before Christ, or in not-Christian nations and places, and all the wisest and most virtuous pagans of antiquity (even Aristotle), and to new born babies and children. This seemingly stark necessity of the creation of a wholly-loving and omnipotent God and the Good News of Christ's salvation; was later nuanced-away or ameliorated in most churches and most places; nonetheless it has been a vital component of the Christian-church package deal for many people in several times and places.  

Saturday music: The Muck-spreader song - aka "Fling it 'ere!"

As sung by The Yetties

(And by me)

Way down on our farm we are right up to date, 

For mechanisation's the byword of late 

For every task, we've a gadget to match, 

But our new muck-spreader's the best of the batch 

 

Fling it here, Fling it there, If you're standing by then you'll all get your share 

Now young Walter Hodgkins, he brought back a load 

Of liquid manure from the farm up the road 

And he hummed to himself as he drove up the street, 

And his load also hummmmmmmmmmmed in the afternoon heat 

Now the muck-spreader had a mechanical fault, 

And a bump in the road turned it on with a jolt 

An odorous spray of manure it let fly 

Without fear or favour on all it passed by 

The cats and the dogs stank to high kingdom come, 

And the kiddies, browned off, ran home screaming to Mum 

The trail of sheer havoc were terrible grim, 

One open car were filled up to the brim 

The vicarage windows were all open wide 

When a generous helping descended inside 

The vicar, at table, intoned "Let usspray" 

When manure from heaven came flying his way 

 In her garden, Miss Pringle was quite scandalised 

"Good gracious!" she cried, "I've been fertilised" 

While the Methodist minister's teetotal wife 

Were plastered for the very first time in her life 

 And all of this time Walter trundled along, 

He was quite unaware there was anything wrong, 

Till a vision of woe flagged him down—what a sight! 

A policeman all covered in ... you've got it right.

I took up playing the piano accordion aged 15, at first borrowing a smallish instrument from school; after which my Dad got me a full-sized (120 bass) Italian instrument secondhand. 

After a few months I was playing in events at school alongside my (much more musically-gifted) friend Gareth who would sing, play flute, electric bass guitar, or tambourine-attached-to-thumbstick (to be thumped on the stage in time with the chorus) - according to repertoire.  

We named ourselves the Muck-spreaders - and as such did two main performances; because in both of them the climax and finale (of a very short set) was the Muck-spreader Song - stolen from a Yetties LP. 

For this we donned comedy Somerset Rustic garb - flat cap, open shirt with neckerchief, trousers held up with hairy string, short wellington boots; and a heavily-exaggerated local dialect. Gareth was the front man and lead singer; I provided the backing music and chorus. 

In my memory, our act was "crude but effective". Helped by the excellent lyrics and Gareth's way with an audience, "Fling it 'ere" went down a storm - first with Bristol Dental students folk club; then, time later, with the parents and pupils of the Backwell School Revue.   

Yeah - That'll work! Continuous progressive societal- and self-improvement, by Changing Names

It's a great plan! 

Let's spend ever more and yet more time/ energy/ resources on locating the sins of other-people, and then loudly and emphatically stating that these other-people were sinful! 

It will make us all better people, and make this a better world - for sure. 

Especially when these people lived generations ago; and someplace else. 

Let's do loads of research to discover more and novel examples of individuals or groups of sinners...

And then let's write books, make TV programmes and Movies about how they were sinful, very sinful; and then splash these across the media in a kind of saturation process.

Let's Change the Names of everything named for other-people who were sinners, especially from the olden days; while explaining over and again that doing this makes us better people...

But refusing to Change Names means - on the contrary - that we personally approve of all the sins of all the other-people who ever lived! 

Because people who don't want to Change Names of sinners, actually personally desire that everybody nowadays ought to be doing these sins, all the time!

(Bad Kitty!)  

We can be confident that by Changing more and more Names, we shall incrementally - a little bit at a time admittedly, but cumulatively - improve ourselves and human society. 

If only we could sustain and expand such a strategy of world-reform for decade after decade (i.e. for an additional forty-plus years) - it would be certain to reduce, maybe abolish, most of the most important kinds of badness that plague the planet earth. 

We would do what previous generations (who were all sinners) have all failed to do (because They were All sinners): which is to Make This World A Better Place. 

And if the Name has already been Changed - then let's just change it again...

Because after all the changed name celebrates sin, just as much as the original name used-to! 

Is the planet of Kolob (i.e. the Mormon Heaven planet) in principle discoverable in outer space?

Reading Laeth's latest aphorisms, he reminded me of a 2019 post from Wm Jas Tychonievich about whether or not the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was, in principle, correct to posit an actual planet (assumed to be orbiting a star that Mormons term Kolob) as the place of God's (usual) residence; thus the physical, material location of Heaven. 

I made a comment at WmJas at the time; and find I have further notions now that I have thought further about heaven in relation to entropy, creation, and love: 

I mean that I now understand resurrected (i.e. incarnate, physical, material) eternal life to be possible in a situation where all the Beings have committed eternally to be wholly motivated by love. 

It is this living from love that "abolishes entropy" (to express it as a double-negative!) - or, differently expressed; enables all of resurrected creation to be eternal, eternally developing, eternally living.

Heaven happened when this became possible (during Jesus's ministry, I assume); and began to be populated when humans (and other Beings) made the choice and eternal commitment to love, and began to be resurrected.   

Thinking about the possibility of something like the planet of Kolob, and whether it would be discoverable as a place in this universe - somewhere that might theoretically be travelable-to; I realized that it seems relevant that resurrected Human Beings are (apparently) to be able to visit and function on this earth and in mortal affairs - e.g. some of the Beings people call Angels are resurrected humans.  

This would mean that eternal Human Beings can exist on earth, and in an environment where nearly everything else (or, indeed everything else) is mortal and subject to entropy, decay, death. 

And it seems that Angels are not usually recognized as such; and indeed (at least in the modern West) Angels are regarded as impossible nonsense.

My notion is that even if mortal Human Beings were capable of travelling to a Heaven such as the planet of Kolob is supposed to be, and even if these people were allowed to "enter into" this Heaven (e.g. to investigate and study Kolob) -- then it is quite possible that these mortal Human Beings would not recognize or realise that they were in the place of Heaven. 

It is, in deed, easy to imagine that modern Western Men would even deny vehemently that Heaven was Heaven if told the fact, even if these people actually were living "in" Heaven! (i.e. were present as mortal-incarnates in the situation of Heaven, but were not resurrected-incarnates) 

This self-blinding to Heaven is, after all, no different from our mainstream and official on-principle/by-assumption/ and absolute denial of even the possibility of paranormal, supernatural, spiritual, and/or divine phenomena.

As Tolkien showed in literary form: evil cannot comprehend good; likewise those who reject and are unfit-for Heaven, cannot even perceive Heaven.  

Note: I should be clear that Kolob does Not play an active role in my own theological metaphysics - indeed I have not even considered the matter for some years. But I don't see why Heaven, or God the Father's dwelling place - should be one particular planet, or  The reason I write here is that those who reflexively reject the idea as absurd, insane, or stupid - could probably benefit from thinking more deeply about their reasons for doing so.  

Resurrection, not incarnation, is the most shocking and strange thing about Christianity

I have often heard it emphasised by Christians how remarkable, how shocking, it was that God was incarnated as a little baby, lived, suffered and died an ignominious and agonising death.

But is it really so shocking? All of these are familiar possibilities for a being that is an 'avatar' of a God - a spirit part of God that takes on human form and lives as a human, perhaps a super-powered human, maybe even breeds with humans etc.

(Jesus is not an avatar - but my point is that the general idea of a God taking on a human form is common enough.)

Neither is it all that shocking when the incarnated God comes back to life after being killed - since all societies seem to have believed in some kind of continuation of existence after biological death (so nothing really dies altogether), posited some kind of afterlife; and Gods in particular would be expected to be unkillable. 


What is really shocking is that when the divine Jesus came back to life it was not as a spirit. Instead God became a Man again, in a Man's body, and for eternity. Jesus was resurrected.

I think that this is so shocking that - as far as I can tell - most Christians still don't believe it, and have never really believed it; but instead have always tried to claim that Jesus's resurrected body was 'not really' what it seemed, but some kind-of embodied spirit.

It is, apparently, very difficult for people to accept that a creator God could have a body like ours, eternally; and still be God. 

To most intellectual Christians, at any rate, it seems intrinsically ridiculous that something solid and bounded might be superior to something unbounded of pure spirit; so they resort to various types of 'yes, but'... argument, that explain resurrection as retaining the appearance of an incarnate body while replacing its inner reality with spirit.

If this was so, the question is why?... Why did Jesus bother with resurrection, if the body was merely a kind of illusion? Why didn't he make eternal life explicitly a thing of pure spirit?

Why go to all the trouble of making it 'look like' Jesus had an absolutely humanish body, why the emphasis on how normal his body seemed?

(An emphasis, but not not exclusive; after all Jesus was hard to recognise, could apparently appear and disappear etc; but certainly the primary point being made is that this was in some essential way the same human body that Jesus had inhabited before he died, with the same appearance, wounds etc; and it was certainly solid to touch, and he ate food.)

If we take the Fourth Gospel as primary (and the other Gospels as partial confirmations) it is evident that the resurrection was into a 'normal', solid, material human body - and that was the main thing about it!

We should not allow secondary explanations to remove that major - and shocking - fact.

The distinctive thing about Christianity is therefore not 'eternal life' in Heaven; but eternal life in some version of our actual solid human body. 

There Must Be something very important about The Body, if it is to become eternal for us, in Heaven.


Note: On further reflection, the fact of resurrection has very wide-ranging implications for the nature of ultimate reality; including the nature of life in Heaven. In a nutshell, resurrection implies that the life eternal promised by Jesus to those who follow him is A Resurrected Life - a life certainly including resurrected entities, beings, things from this mortal life. Not, therefore, a life of pure spirit or thought; but a life of everlasting solid beings and objects of many kinds - thought consisting-of/ interacting-with solid things. Perhaps CS Lewis intuited this, in his fantasy of The Great Divorce? 

Further Note added today: This is an edited repost of what strikes me as a significant insight (i.e. significant for me) which made near zero impact at the time of first publication seven years ago (except on WmJas Tychonievich) - and indeed, I did not properly grasp it myself. So here 'tis again. 

May 1st 1942: A German bomb lands in Bolam church, deep in rural Northumberland

Today's Northumbrian Church Project visit was St Andrew's Bolam; which is magicfully atmospheric. 

It includes a Saxon tower, mostly Norman-style otherwise (round arches), with some rebuilding (pointed arches) done in the 1200s, and some more later. 

The church is located in a gorgeous and secluded churchyard; we spent well over an hour looking around and picnicking, and had the place entirely to ourselves. 

However, the ancient church was very nearly blown-up late on on 1st May 1942, when a Dornier 217, being chased by fighters, ejected its four bombs - one of which burst through the wall of the church. 

The small rectangular window and surrounding oblong stones, slightly to the right of the middle of the picture, constitutes the repaired section, where the bomb penetrated the church wall.  

What happened next, and the happy conclusion some fifty years later, is described in a video interview with an eye witness. 

It may be of interest to foreigners that this lady speaks with a North Northumbrian dialect - which is spoken by only perhaps a few thousand inhabitants of this least-densely populated part of England. 

It is surely one of the gentlest, most soothing and entrancing, of English accents.

The Medical School analogy for mortal life lived for salvation and theosis - Something More is needed!

I have previously made an analogy between our situation in this mortal life in relation to Heaven, and that of a student at Medical School training to be a doctor. 

Mortal Life = Medical School; Heaven = Being a doctor. 

I have found this analogy helpful in trying to articulate the difference to this mortal life made by the expectation of Heaven. 

When mortal life is lived primarily to achieve salvation.  

To live this mortal life as much as possible with the sole aim of working towards salvation into Heaven, is actually the highest aspiration of many Christian denominations. 

This corresponds to attending Medical School with the sole aim of passing the exams and qualifying as a doctor. 

Some students approximate to this idea - their horizon is bounded by the goal of attaining a pass grade in final exams. 

They work hard attending official classes, revising material over and again, practising exam techniques... all focused on reaching the minimum standard. 

They strive to master the exam curriculum but nothing more, because that would be a misdirection of effort away from the essential aim. The aim is to pass the exams safely, rather than well. 

But if such people can safely and without sanctions attain the aimed-at medical qualification without working or exams - e.g. by bribery - they will do so. 

All they want is that degree certificate!

Medical School is nothing-but a way of qualifying as a doctor. 

This suggests how and why salvation is a fundamentally insufficient basis for life.

When Medical School is nothing-but a means to an end, then it has no value of itself. Likewise, if salvation is all that matters, then this mortal life is devalued - and (like achieving a qualification by bribery) it would be better if it could be dispensed-with. 

The salvation-focused Christian will often yearn to have this mortal life over and done; or that it never had been. 

He thinks: "If only God had created reality such that I had been incarnated directing into Heaven, instead of being compelled to endure this mortal rigmarole - how much better things would have been!"

At the end of this perspective lurks the suspicion that God messed-up; or maybe exhibits traits of ruthless cruelty, in compelling us to endure the futile miseries of mortal life. 

In sum: A mortal life lived wholly to attain salvation would even if successful be a meaningless life. 

When the aim of mortal life is theosis, as well as salvation 

By theosis (which I regard as being broadly the same as concepts such as sanctification, exaltation, deification) I mean the idea that a purpose of this mortal life is to "fit us for Heaven". 

The idea that we should, through our lives, strive to make ourselves more holy, more divine in character; more like Jesus Christ; purer, less sinful and more virtuous; more fully-orientated to the life of Heaven. 

In the analogy; this corresponds to the student whose goal at Medical School looks beyond the examinations and the degree certificate; and who strives to prepare himself for working as a doctor. 

Such a student would seek out extra, and more specialized, teaching; might attend research seminars as well as didactic lectures, would perhaps visit other Medical Schools and explore other models of medical services. 

He might go beyond just "picking the brains" of his medical teachers for essential facts and useful exam tips; and try to understand what "makes doctors tick", engaging in deeper conversations about the "whys", as well as the "hows". 

Theosis therefore entails orientating beyond salvation, and has potential to add considerably to the function of mortal life; somewhat as orientating beyond qualification adds to the interest and enjoyment of being a Medical Student.

Yet! Even a mortal life that combines theosis with salvation is deficient; because it accords no value to the actual here-and-now mortal life. 

Even with theosis; mortal life is still nothing more a means to an end. 

Although the "end" is enlarged by theosis; this actual present life is still utterly subordinated to the necessity and needs of post-mortal life. 

The intrinsic value of mortal life

For mortal life to be valid in itself requires that mortal life have intrinsic value, and is not merely a means to an end - no matter how glorious and eternal that end.

In the analogy; this imperative corresponds to the value to the potential "extra-curricular" activities at Medical School of a student who is already committed to salvation and theosis. 

Those many other possible ways that make the life of the student richer, more social, more creative. 

Participating in sports, music, societies. Reading widely in literature. Making strong friendship. Romantic relationships. 

Self-discovery and -development. Thinking about "life"; and understanding the essentials as deeply as possible. Choosing an aim, a path, a quest...

These extra-curricular, non-medical, activities of an imaged student - recognize that he is not just "a student"; they are rooted in a recognition that he is (or rather "I" am, from the POV of the student) a here-and-now human being with all the requirements of such. 

This is analogous to the necessity that these our mortal lives, be valued for themselves. 

That this mortal life is not only "for" something; it is of value intrinsically. 

In other words; we are not supposed to live only in conformity to external demands; we are not supposed to live only to qualify for Heaven and serve its purposes; because we have our own unique nature and potentials that demand to be gratified - and ought to be gratified... 

Of course, our spontaneous nature and potentials - just considered in and of themselves, and without salvation and theosis - might well include much that would be selfish or destructive - evil. 

This would correspond to the old (mostly upper class) Medical Students who would attend college but do as little as possible towards qualifying or equipping themselves for medical practice. They would do as little as possible except (for example) playing sports, socializing, wenching, hunting, boozing, and lazing. 

To be an "ideal" Medical Student, there must be as a basis the genuine motivation both to qualify as a doctor, and also to look beyond qualification to aim at being a good doctor. This is the essential framework. 

This is why I emphasize the necessity of a "framework" for mortal life; corresponding to salvation and theosis. 

However, we ought to recognize that, although necessary, salvation and theosis are not sufficient. 

Something more is also needed, is indeed essential - and that "something" has to do with that which is unique to each of us.     

"AI" and the propaganda of abstracting-isolation: how to explain away evil purposes

A post by Francis Berger brought into focus a common propaganda tactic to which I must invent a term "abstracting isolation". 

The basic idea is that some-Thing harmful being introduced, some new and bad policy, or some strategic plan of evil... is explained-away...

Is talked into neutrality or insignificance - and this is achieved by the tactic of drawing a line around it: thereby abstracting it from the actual situation and process in which it is encountered.

I have repeatedly seen this at every level of life. 

In the University workplace, management (on instruction from government) would introduce some bureaucratic change that Always took power from academics and transferred it to management. yet another in the unending stream of schemes for monitoring and control of academics and students...

The latest step in a successful strategy pursued over many years, a strategy of of incremental managerial bureaucratic takeover. 

But; this latest change was always abstracted from the strategy and from the big picture. In effect, a line was drawn around the new task or policy. We were made to consider the change as if it was an isolated entity - coming from nowhere except the earnest desire for functional improvement that we all know characterizes management; and going nowhere in particular - and especially not any kind of power-grab! 

(Only a delusional nut-job could imagine such a ludicrous notion as a planned government-management take-over.)

As such the New Thing always seemed neutral, trivial - nothing to get "upset" about, nothing to make a fuss about (unless you are neurotic, or paranoid?)... 

And yet at the same time this neutral, trivial, nothing was also - somehow - essential, important, and (bottom line) mandatory: we had to do it... or else. 

And because we had to do it or else; then we "might as well" make the best of it: indeed, we might as well pretend that this is A Good Thing...

Or, at least, a Thing with great potential for Good, if only people would stop wasting their time complaining about the inevitable; and instead take a positive and constructive attitude about using The Thing (whatever it happened to be) in the best possible way. 

At the end of this line of rhetoric; the trivial, isolated, neutral policy or technology, has become a boon - with the help of well-motivated staff who (instead of moaning and dragging their feet) will rise to the challenge of this new opportunity...

Who will, by their optimistic attitudes and hard work, ensure that the best possible outcomes will happen, and any problems will be solved. 

If only people would give This Thing the benefit of the doubt; then it could become a great gift, a tool with vast potential for those with goodwill to use in generating all kinds of positive possibilities.

Whew! 

All this from an abstractly-isolated neutral technological tool! All this "merely" from its being implemented by people of goodwill and positive intent to do good - as we can, of course, assume it will be implemented - the leadership positions of the world being almost exclusively inhabited by such Saints. 

Luckily, we almost never see technologies actually, in the real world, mega-exploited almost exclusively for their worst capabilities - so we needn't concern ourselves with that sort of difficulty! 

This with "AI"; what is actually emanating as an incremental change from a top-down, tera-dollar-funded, decades-long globalist totalitarian strategy; aiming at bureaucratic omni-surveillance and micro-control of mass thought and behaviour; aiming at the imposition of a materialist perspective and assuming the irrelevance and insignificance of God, Jesus Christ and the spiritual...

By a simple act of abstracting-isolation "AI" has been transformed into a vital tool that shall be used (mostly) for the betterment of humankind and this world - to stand in the path of which outcome, is both futile and misguided (if not worse). 

The spiritual harm of "AI" is this pretending, and convincing oneself, that purposive evil is good, and indeed ought-to-be regarded as good simply because we cannot (or will not) resist it... 

If you really Think About It: Evil can be Good!... If only we regard it with a calm, reasonable, properly-informed, and nuanced attitude. 

Such is one of the greatest and most effective Big Lies of our era. And, like all effective lies, it contains an element of truth...

Which is that within a vast strategy for generic-evil, there is indeed potential to go against the current (to some extent, and for a while but not permanently) - and do some particular-Good.  

True. But that truth does not affect the purposively evil nature of the general strategy. 

Discernment is vital for Christians; to know evil in order that we may affiliate to Good. 

It is all quite simple to know, difficult/impossible to do in the material world, but always possible to hold-fast-onto as our spiritual intention:

Our possibilities for doing Good despite evil, should never lead us to choosing allegiance with the strategies of evil. 

Seeking spiritual contacts - the advantages of deceased persons over the still-living

As a spiritual goal and method, seeking spiritual contacts with individual people* is the best strategy - and superior to the use of abstract models. 

The difference is that the division of reality into persons (into "beings") is the primary division of reality - reality actually is divided into beings; whereas any other scheme of analysis (eg by symbolism) is, ultimately, an artificial and simplified-scheme, imposed-upon real-reality.  

Much of this mortal life is about our relationships with the people familiarly-related to us, and typically around us in the material environment; and especially those whom we love. That is with "material" contacts, among people whom we know "physically". 

But our relationship with the wider world and universe; ideally includes "spiritual contacts" - by which I mean relationships with those whom we know spiritually rather than physically.

(Of course there is a much wider range of possible spiritual contacts, than physically-present people.)  

Spiritual contacts can be with people who are still alive, in this mortal life; and they can also be with those who are deceased - and especially those who have died and resurrected to eternal life. 

It might be supposed that material relationships are always the best, and spiritual relationships are secondary or even optional. This ranking is probably usually true - our family, spouse, best friends are usually the most significant relationships. 

But physical relationships are not the most important for everybody, and they are not necessarily most important at all phases and stages of a human's life. 

Even for those who are most deeply engaged by physical relationships; a better, fuller, more creative and integrative life may be possible if there are important spiritual as-well-as physical relationships. 

In my own life, the most profound and enduring relationships have often been spiritual in nature; examples include JRR Tolkien (the first such), Glenn Gould, and William Arkle. 

What is interesting is that these people were alive when I first knew of them, and I even met Arkle face to face (once, very briefly - he lived in the same village as me). But in all cases; the spiritual relationships became much more important after the person had died; and I think this may be significant.

To explain: I had a more powerful sense of spiritual contact with these people after they had died, than while they were alive. 

I think it possible that spiritual contacts may be stronger and more significant than physical relationships; and spiritual relationships may potentially be stronger with the deceased, than with the still living.  

One plausible reason (i.e. plausible to me) is that the resurrected dead are wholly good, wholly loving beings in a way that is impossible during mortal life; therefore the relationship has potential to be wholly-beneficial to us (in so far as we ourselves are able to respond to this goodness, which is inevitably only-partly). 

Another reason (reciprocally related to this) is that the still-living are often more or less dominated by this-world. They may be dominated (at any particular moment) by the corrupt, selfish, misguided, evil, or otherwise negative aspects of their natures. 

Such factors may make spiritual contact with the living both more difficult to achieve, and less beneficial - less-Good - if it does happen. 

Furthermore, living mortals often (to a greater or lesser degree) close their minds to spiritual contact (whether consciously, compulsively, or unconsciously); such that there can be little or no spiritual contact with them. 

This mind-closing may be for good reasons as well as bad ones - e.g. a need to conserve energy and attention for what seem like (and may be) important spiritual tasks, or to exclude potential spiritual subversions and other attacks. 

Nonetheless, it seems to be a fact (in my experience) that I am usually unable to feel any sense of spiritual contact with even those among the living whose works (e.g. writings) have benefitted me greatly, and therefore for whom I sometimes feel drawn to establish some kind of spiritual contact.

It just doesn't happen.  

However, many or most of all those who have died are not resurrected Heaven-dwellers - and some are "evil spirits" or one sort or another. 

It is possible, indeed perhaps easier, to achieve spiritual contact with these than with the resurrected - and such contacts will most likely be harmful to the still-living. 

IMO this especially applies when spiritual contact is being sought for present and selfish gain - to impose one's will upon the world. This motive surely tends to attract the more mischievous, pitiful, and even demonic type of discarnate spirits - those spirits who aim to manipulate and exploit the still-living for their own benefit. 

It also may well apply when spirit contact is being sought for less obviously selfish motives such as to be taught knowledge or provided with life-guidance. 

The kind of discarnate spirits who are likely to respond to a "demand" for knowledge include include those spirits who are foolishly conceited about their own knowledge and capabilities, and seek disciples. Those among the living who seek life-guidance from the dead, will presumably attract discarnate spirits who delusionally regard themselves as experts in what is best for other people.

(Spiritually analogous to the many professional counsellors, life coaches, "influencers", psychoanalysts, and psychotherapists in this mortal world - each convinced by his or her own superior wisdom and expertise.) 

I conclude that when it comes to developing profound and beneficial spiritual contacts, "dead" people are (usually) superior to the still-living. 

And that the main motive for such contacts should be a kind of personal love, or the sense that real and mutual friendship may be possible. 

After all; the truest physical friends in our mortal life are not those from whom we hope to get the most benefit; nor even those with whom we set-up some kind of a mutually-beneficial exchange. 

The best physical friends are those with whom we feel an affinity, and for whom we have lasting affection; and when this feeling is mutual. 

When we seek spiritual contacts much the same applies as to mortal physical life. Initially we feel drawn to the person (often for no known reason, but spontaneously, from the heart). We feel that he or she is perhaps the kind of person with whom we may have a friendship. So we strike up an acquaintance, and begin interaction. 

Friendship (whether physical or spiritual) may, or may not, develop as each discovers more about the other - and the friendship may develop to varying degrees and depths (not every true friend is also a best friend). 

But there can be no one-sided compulsion; because all real friendship is mutual and - at root - exists for its own sake, for mutual joy.

The benefits we get from true friendship flow from its love, and the joy and creative stimulus that brings.

*Or other kinds of Being. 

The tragedy of human life? Akenfield... again

From the movie Akenfield (1977) - a horse-drawn reaper binder - in action, from a distance; surely one of the most poetic of Mankind's machines (although very hard work for the horses). 

I am re-reading Ronald Blythe's Akenfield again, this time as an audiobook, and am again finding it a deeply moving experience. 

This applies especially to the earliest section, that has the old farm workers and their wives "speaking" about the span of their lives - memories and experiences which go back to the end of the 1800s, but which especially focus on the early years of the 20th century. The two World Wars loom large, but also the Agricultural Depression of the 1920s and 30s. 

The village is composite, and the people in the book are anonymised - their raw words have been selected and arranged by the poetic-pen of Blythe. It was published in 1968, and stories are from interviews in the preceding years. 

I first read this book when it was recently published and I was 14 or 15 - it was recommended by my favourite history teacher; and it had a lasting effect on me. 

I was made starkly aware of the qualitative transformation in the comfort and convenience of ordinary rural people's lives over the middle decades of the twentieth century. 

Listening again; I can see that my own reflections went beyond those of the author himself, who talked with the people and gave them each a voice and perspective  - and I think they still do, but differently. I suspect that Blythe himself drew rather different conclusions from his own work than I get from it - then and now. 

Fifty years ago; I saw the vast improvement in the security and abundance as having solved the age-long problem of material - or Biblical - poverty reported by the older Akenfield residents - the chronic hunger, insufficient and worn clothes, wet and cold, severe overcrowding; the serious lack of time, drainage of energy, cultural impoverishment, and infrequent fun.

My youthful conclusion from the contrasting interviews with younger people of the village - confirmed by my own experiences and observations - was that the recent abundance, the all-but universal comfort and convenience, was being dissipated in the quest for ever more of the material "goods" that had been had been in such short supply. 

Instead of saying "we have enough", people were saying "we want (even) more".  

Instead, my idea was that we should be striving in the direction of creative achievement - arts, and sciences - and building a world with wholesome (folkish) communal activities such as singing and dancing and crafts. 

I ignored the book's story of the decline of religion - by which Blythe mainly means serious and frequent church or chapel participation - because at that time religions seemed obviously untrue; and the descriptions of the olden-days life of church and chapel were without any appeal to my young self. 

Nowadays, I am more intrigued by the way that people regard their lives, taken as a whole - what they seem to think their lives were "about". 

For many of the villagers, "life" seems to have been about some aspect of the village. Even the religious ones seem to think of it in terms of communally recognized activities. 

I see this now, with a different generation of the oldest - and in my own, now-old, generation - a tendency to look back and seek, bring-forward, various achievements; usually from earlier life, or recently, or perhaps those of family - and to regard these as justification. 

The younger or fitter elderly seem nowadays to be justifying their lives in terms of continuing activities - the "I am busier than ever since I retired" sort of thing. 

In Blythe's 1979 book about old-age - The View in Winter, based on interviews with the elderly (a book which I did not much like) he concluded similarly that the things to strive for in old-age was continued activity and engagement for as long as could be managed. 

Blythe himself lived to the age of 100 and was writing - and writing well - into his nineties; but (as so often happens nowadays) he was apparently afflicted with dementia for the last decade-plus, and dis-engaged from reality. He continued living in his own house and alone (he never married), but with a great deal of essential outside help - as he had advocated as best for the elderly several decades earlier. 

Yet I find this kind of advice about old-age - staying active and engaged, living in one's own home etc - to be better than most alternatives, but merely a temporary and very partial palliative, when it comes to understanding and justifying "what my life is about". 

Such reflections always lead to the solid insight that human life, as such, is tragic. If life is about what happens during life - it cannot help but be sad, one way or another. 

Because real or supposed achievements in the past, or by the now-deceased, do not really mean anything of themselves - no matter how often or vehemently we may repeat or pretend they do. 

But some things that happen in our lives go much deeper than others, and are experienced as much "better". 

Nostalgia for being-active, working-hard, social engagement, or for the fun (of various kinds, including the obvious...); are simply not very profound - no matter how we spin it with words, pictures, or stories. 

Or, if such things genuinely are regarded as the most profound experiences of our lives - as so often seems to be the case (by self-report); then that does seem ineradicably, and finally, tragic.   

Can Christianity escape from the authority of "History"?

The question of "History" - that there is an objectively-true, evidenced account of the past: of how things came to be the way they are now - is one that has been very strong since the subject of History began to emerge as a distinctive discipline, detached (supposedly!) from religious (later ideological) justifications and dishonesties. 

But the idea that true history emerges from "the evidence" turns-out to be as false as the analogous argument for the natural sciences; in both cases coherence and proof is provided by theory, and theory must come prior to evidence.

...Because without a prior theory; how would anyone decide what (from infinite perceptions etc) counted as evidence, its relative value compared with other evidence, or what a piece or collection of evidence meant? 

In mainstream culture this has left us with two false and incoherent alternatives. 

On the one hand, multiple rival blustering and categorical assertions* that This is The Truth about history - assertions that ignore the dependence on prior theory. 

And on the other side the supposedly radical "relativist" subversion that states "everything is ideology" so that objective truth has no meaning, so that truth cannot be known and is just a consequence of power - assertions that ignore their blatant self-subversion. 

For these folk; History is just a story made-up by the winners, and the discipline of History something created to reach the conclusions they have already-decided - and any other story can have equal validity.  

And that is pretty much how things stand. 

The traditionalist, orthodox, religious reactionary side wrongly assert that the evidence for their assertions is objective; and the radical, liberal, "reforming" side of religion asserts that their own take on the world is better than that of the conservatives; despite that they have previously asserted that "better" has no objective meaning and is merely a consequence of power.

Usually, people "pick a side" because they can see no alternative, and in order to join a gang; and stoutly continue to ignore the fatal weakness, the non-objectivity of their own position, its dependence on theoretical assumptions; by relentlessly focusing on the fatal weakness and non-objectivity of their opponents position. 

The choice that culture forces upon us is between "truth is what I say" and "there is no truth" - both based on circular and incoherent arguments!

What should we do when faced with two false alternatives? 

Should we do what most people do when confronted by mainstream electoral politics, or rival sports teams located in your home city: just pick a side then support it fanatically - while demonizing the opposition.

Is that really the best we can do when confronted by the most fundamental problems of our human existence? 

  

People need to recognize that the dilemma is one of our own creation, and rooted in an unexamined assumption that the truth about reality is and must-be a public consensus.

The false modern dilemma of choosing between two falsehoods, arises from our own built-in assumption that truth is either a consensus located externally and communally and with nothing to do with me - my job being only to choose to submit to it or deny it... 

Or else "truth" is nothing-but inside my head... whatever my brain happens to be telling me at this instant. 

What we need is obvious enough - we need to understand how truth both depends on me and my assumptions and thinking; and truth also is about reality, about things (entities) other than myself.

I think the distinction we need is between things existing, and knowledge about them. We must assume - and indeed are born assuming - that other entities exist. 

Doubts about the existence of reality emerge later, and indeed are large distinctive to relatively modern times (the past few centuries). 

These doubts are reinforced by the impossibility of finding "evidence" that other entities exist outside of our own thoughts about them. 

Solipsism (the belief that nothing exists outside myself) cannot be refuted in its own terms, cannot be refuted by "evidence". Solipsism is thus a pathology caused by the choice to deny what we innately know; a choice to explain everything by constructing and entering a circle of subjectivity.  

On the other side; the blustering assertions of the reality of reality, are nearly-always actually assertions about our knowledge of reality. 

For instance, religious people are not content to assume the innate understanding in the objective reality of God as another entity from "me"; but combine the innate with asserting the objectivity of their own claim for knowledge of God's (many and complex!) attributes. 

They conflate the innately understood reality of God, with knowledge of the "theological-God". Thereby re-entering the false-dilemma debate that undermines all such claims...

After which the conservative religious will usually bluster and shout his knowledge-assertions while pouring scorn on those who do not share them...

While the radical-liberal religious will usually adopt a passive aggressive strategy of undermining the possibility of any objective and universal knowledge about reality - to distract from the fact he is making his own assertions concerning reality, and is assuming these assertions are more-true than the conservative's. 

To loop back - how can we take account of History in such a situation; when we assume that there was a real history that led up to the present, but all our specific knowledge of that history is undermined by the subjective-objective distinction!

When History has become Impossible!

Especially this is a problem; in that Christianity is located in History; and happened at a particular past time and place. 

When History has become impossible in the mainstream of public discourse - this must (and does) have a profoundly subversive effect on Christianity.     

Christians can neither depend on "objective History" nor can they allow History to be wholly personal and subjective. 

When it comes to History; there is the choice of two sides for the Christian, yet both sides are lethal to Christianity. 

The answer? Well; because the insoluble problem is located in the domain of public discourse, and the phenomenon of consensus; then the Christian cannot root his religion in public discourse. 

And "cannot" means cannot - because insofar as a Christian does root religion in public discourse, his religion Will Be subverted - as we see all around us**. 

And "public discourse" includes all churches. 

My conclusion is that the historical religion of Christianity now cannot be rooted-in churches, cannot derive-from churches, cannot be "what a church says". 

And that "cannot" means cannot. 

Notes: 

*The blustering and aggressive tone characteristic of many trads is not universal; but the attempt to avoid it with an attitude of personal humility directed at the authority of the chosen-church is undermined by the fact that the church has been personally chosen, as has the attitude adopted to that church. The much more proximate bribes and threats of (for example) mainstream political, bureaucratic and media institutions will easily overcome the scruples of a would-be humble-trad Christian; by interpreting his stance of obedience as instead a personal choice - which indeed it is. The self-identified humbly-obedient therefore gets depicted as an arrogantly individual wilfully-rejecting the consensus of decent people: the social-psychological pressure from such a framing is typically way too much for a self-identified humble-trad to resist, without ceasing to be humble! The choice to obey a chosen church rather than to obey the law or corporate rules, genuinely is ultimately a personal choice - no matter how humbly chosen.   

**There is a strong and chronic and continuing tendency of Christians (as well as other religions and grouping) to assimilate-into the core agenda of atheist-materialist-totalitarianism. And the direction of this tendency - although not the speed by which it operates - applies across the board, to Christians of all denominations and churches, to traditionalists as well as liberals. Liberal Christians have no compelling reason to resist the authority of the secular Western leadership class, and typically embrace all the major totalitarian strategies - since they explicitly share a core ideology. Traditionalists also converge with mainstream atheism over time, having the role of "controlled opposition". This assimilation happens because they strive for socio-political institutional Establishment in actual context of The System; and this project intrinsically entails working-within System constraints, -from System assumptions, and -with System evidence/ facts/ procedures.  

Hell - Where did it come from, where did it go?

I was reading a biography of Stevie Smith by Frances Spalding, and a chapter concerning her relationship to Christianity - by which was largely meant the Church of England. 

At one point it quoted a passage to the effect that the one thing SS found most repellent was the idea of Hell. In particular, to summarize, Stevie rejected:

Hell regarded as a place of eternal torment, to which people were sent by default, on the basis of divine judgment. 

In rejecting this idea of Hell, as well in her response to this rejection - i.e. ceasing to be what she regarded as a Christian - I suppose Stevie Smith was representative of her era.

Certainly I have often seen or heard the same kind of thing said by others. 

It seems that (in some broad sense) Hell came-in with "Christianity" around or after the time of Jesus - and disappeared with Christianity through the 19th and 20th centuries. 

And, at about the same time as Hell was disappearing - people began finding the idea repellent; because those who rejected Hell also assumed that Hell was not true: assumed that the Hell concept is ,and always had been, false. 

And therefore the Hell-rejecters infer that the primary nature of the Hell concept was as a psychological manipulation used to terrorize people into joining and obeying the Christian church. 

In other words, the Stevie-Smith-esque moral critique of Hell, already rejects the reality of Hell: it already assumed that Hell is not and never was real. 

The question I address about Hell is: Where did it come from, where did it go*? 

What has apparently happened; is that the modern human mind has become unreceptive to the reality of Hell. What once seemed real, possible, almost inevitable - has come to seem an obvious deception. A cruel, because manufactured, mass manipulation. 

To summarize: Hell used-to "work" very effectively as a mechanism of population control; but it does not work anymore. 

This historical change towards Hell-incredulity is usually interpreted sociologically; meaning in essence that the change in Men's minds was caused by changes in society. 

If the sociological explanation is true this would imply that if modern society was changed then Hell could again become an effective motivator; and this change would happen whether Hell is regarded as a reality that is now being denied, or if Hell is regarded as a not-real tool of social control.  

But I believe that sociological change to restore Hell could not and therefore would not happen. 

I suggest instead that Hell first came, and then went, because of changes in human consciousness. 

In other words; I am saying that Hell arose because Men's minds became receptive to the idea; and this change led to sociological change; and then Hell dwindled because Men's minds changed further - and then society changed to reflect this. 

The idea is that Hell is a product of a particular phase of Mankind's consciousness - and that phase has now passed. 

On this view; because Hell is primarily a product of Man's consciousness; then it would not be possible to restore the ancient idea of Hell. 

And if Hell is a product of consciousness at a particular phase of development; then a modern-day religious society could not motivate people with such an idea of Hell, even if it is true; and for the same reason; a tyranny could no longer effectively control society with the false-but-believed threat of Hell. 

What was this phase of consciousness that was so receptive to Hell? I would term it a semi-alienated state of partial group-mind. 

My idea is that in ancient (pre-Christian) times; Men were not alienated but were (mostly) immersed in their society, and actually lived as a part of the group-mind. The after-death experience was then regarded in a groupish way - whatever happened beyond death, happened to the members of the group. 

Men were not then afraid of becoming an "existential outcast" in the manner of Hell. 

Hell emerged when Men each began to separate their personal consciousness from the group-mind; and Hell was (I suggest) a consequence of this state of being semi-alienated. 

Man's hope was to retain the state of being in this group-mind after death; but Hell came from the terror that - after death - the group may choose to cast-out the individual because of that individual's transgression of the group-norms, and consign him to the eternal torment of being existentially-alone. 

The sociological phenomenon of Hell was therefore a consequence of Men's innate angst concerning emergent alienation from the group mind; which is why Men became receptive to the idea of Hell. 

But in the development of human consciousness, Men continued to detach from the group-mind; until for recent generations Men have ceased to experience the primacy of the group-mind - to the point of being unaware of it, and even denying its reality. 

Modern Men regard themselves as almost-wholly alienated; and therefore tend spontaneously to regard death as an inevitable and universal annihilation. 

In the officially (and inwardly-perceived) modern secular-mainstream understanding of each Man dwelling in a purposeless and meaningless universe - there can be no divine judgment. 

And the idea that mortal life death might lead to a default-inevitable state of being tormented cannot for a modern Man) be true - because for modern Men, after death there is nothing.    

For modern Christians (with the alienated consciousness we share with other modern Men); Salvation and Hell are alike consequences of personal choice in relation to the divine; not a judgment. 

And as this alienated consciousness continues to develop; these personal choices of post-mortal situation become more individual, bespoke, unique - and reciprocally less and less group-defined, less and less categorical in nature. 

Modern Christians now understand Hell (insofar as they have thought about it seriously) more as a positive choice - Hell is a choice made by those who have decisively-rejected (for whatever reason) the desirability and chance of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Hence, for the consciousness of modern Christians; "Hell" is real but differently-understood than 1-2000 years ago. 

The modern concept of Hell is nowadays negatively-defined as "everything but" Heaven. 

For modern consciousness; Hell is therefore an open-ended variety of possibilities - and insofar as Hell is for some individuals experienced as a situation of eternal torment - then this is what has been asked-for, and from-which they do not repent.  

*NOTE: The title of this post references an amusing and enjoyable novelty song that my kids used to dance-to; mainly from a Wii Just Dance compilation. 

Untranslated-foreign is a defect

I have just finished reading Stevie Smith's "The Novel on Yellow Paper" - which ended badly in a narrative sense - but also because she kept inserting chunks of untranslated German. 

A couple of weeks ago I was reading Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances" and he peppered the text with bits of untranslated Latin, and even several passages in Classical Greek (with the Greek letters, and all).

Both books were mid-20th Century, by authors born around 1900; and both authors will have known perfectly well that very few (and a tiny percentage) of their readers will have been able to understand these foreign bits - so what good reason could they have for including them?  

The answer is (to quote Nigel Tufnel in Spinal Tap) none good reason. 

There are plenty of bad reasons for deliberately using language that you know most other people will-not and (esp. before Google translate) can-not understand, but none are good. 

Back in the day when I wrote in the mass media for a general audience, I knew better than to include sheets of technical language from psychiatry, biochemistry, or statistics - even if incomprehensible jargon might impress some people. 

Plus; it's not as if knowing one or a few foreign languages out of the thousands of them, is even intelligence correlated - there are shoals of fluent tri-lingual people (even in Britain, in this city, here and now) of significantly below-average IQ and without educational attainments. 

I'm afraid usage of untranslated-foreign is an unintentionally-revealing personality flaw; so I suppose I ought to try and be sympathetic; instead of becoming overwhelmed with irritation and hurling the book across the room.

Warning: Proceed With Caution. Joining a Christian church is joining The Totalitarian System

Someone who is on the side of God the Creator, and who desires to attain the salvation of Jesus Christ, must Proceed With Caution when it comes to joining any formal organization. 

This is because we inhabit a totalitarian system; meaning that all formal institutions in our society are connected by a multitude of bureaucratic linkages - as was evident in 2020. 

Both totalitarianism and bureaucracy are intrinsically evil - which means that all formal institutions (politics, government service, law, medicine, corporations, charities, mass media, police, military, science, the arts, teaching etc... all of the social institutions) are (and must be) overall-aligned with the purposes of evil. 

  

This situation is a real and present danger: a spiritual hazard. 

The unwary shall be led-astray. 

And the warning applies as much to religions, churches, and specifically-Christian churches - as to all the other institutions; so that a Christian who joins a church is in spiritual Danger, and needs to Proceed With Caution. 

This does not mean that a Christian ought to avoid all churches - far from it*. 

For many people, a church is necessary; and for others a particular church (when available and accessible) is positively beneficial to sustaining faith.  

But it does mean that - just as a Christian chooses his church with discernment; he must not set-aside that discernment after joining that church. 

In a totalitarian world, no institution should be trusted; because none are worthy of trust. 

"Christian" must not, therefore, be striving to serve and obey any actually-existing church, nor even that particular sub-section of a church which Christian has chosen from the contending factions. 

(Service and obedience to any totalitarian-aligned organization will lead the individual towards evil - later if not sooner.) 

Instead; he ought to be ready and willing to continue evaluating all aspects of the church; including whatever the church teaches, instructs, or demands.  And proceeding (to the best of his ability) on the basis of these evaluations. 

It is a matter not so much of every Christian "taking responsibility" for selecting and implementing his faith - everybody already does that - but of acknowledging the fact that he is responsible: like it, or like it not.  

*After all, many people must work therefore have a job, and will mostly work for an organization or several; everyone will have multiple dealings with government and large corporations; indeed people must join all sorts of institutions. We must join the totalitarian system. Opting-out of The System is not an option. You may try to ignore The Matrix, but The Matrix will not ignore you. 

So what's the special problem with a church? None unless you forget that the church is a part of The System, and think of it as something qualitatively apart. 

Yes, I know about the "Spiritual Church" within the "institutional church", and the SC is - of course - what you want, as a Christian. 

The trouble is that the church will try to insist upon the institution, while leaving the spiritual stuff as... well, nice but optional. Spiritual disobedience is tolerated, even encouraged (plenty of bishops and archbishops who don't believe that Jesus was divine, or don't believe in Satan or hell) - but institutional disobedience? That is what gets priests defrocked and laity excommunicated.   

Romantic mass manipulation

Romanticism is A Fact of modern Man; such a powerful factor in the makeup of modern Man, that those who exclude or ignore the romantic in their ideology (whether that be Christian or Secular Right, or anything else) consign themselves to feeble motivation, feeble courage; and the inevitability of their own corruption by selfish or worldly pressures. 

Romanticism in public discourse has been (over a span of a couple of centuries and more) almost monopolized by The Left - who have made "idealism" and "hope" this-worldly, dishonest, and incoherent. 

The situation is that people cannot live, cannot avoid despondent despair, without hope - and their hopes are channelled into delusions that are manipulated for the agendas of the Establishment. 

Our Romanticism is deliberately stirred-up and encouraged from all directions and in many manifestations - especially via the mass media and in the arts and entertainments: evoked and amplified... then re-directed into channels that benefit the agendas of those with most influence, wealth and power. 

This is normal and routine: some idealistic aspiration, some enchanted daydream - gets colonized, politicized, materialized - and looped-back to feed-into The System. 

 

So, "revolution", the "counter-culture", "radical dissent" and the rest of that species of this-worldly romanticism - all the famous and influential, mainstream or alternative personnel and communication/ institutional manifestations -- are just competing factions among the Establishment: office politics among the rulers. 

We are all Romantics, by nature - don't fight it: use it!

Romanticism is non-optional, at least if we are to avoid futile passivity; and the ultimate challenge is to own our romanticism - make it fully-spiritual not partial and material; and to locate our romantic ideals in a timespan that is eternal in both directions.  

Any questions? Readers are invited to ask

Despite that this is a selfish blog, consisting of me thinking-in-writing some of the notions I get in the early morning; from time to time I do invite questions from readers, and this is one of those times. 

The Northumbrian church project: Anglo-Saxon churches

St Andrew's Church*, Bywell

We have recently begun a project to visit old churches in Northumbria; starting by getting suggestions from a little book by the legend that was Stan Beckesall ; backed-up by a copy of "Pevsner" for Northumberland; plus whatever booklets or leaflets we find in the churches we visit.  

Several of these churches, I have visited before; but they are well worth seeing again! This time we are spending about an hour per church on locating - and trying to understand - the architectural features. 

We began with several churches that contain Anglo-Saxon features; and Bywell St Andrew's (illustrated above) has an exceptionally well preserved tower from that era. 

I am, for the first time, beginning to learn and recognize the distinctions - and gradations - between Anglo-Saxon, Norman (c1066 to middle-late 1100s) and Early English (late 1100s to late 1200s). 

Naturally, there is a technological trajectory; with older churches being simpler in construction, visibly cruder in shaping and selection of the stones, and later churches having innovations such as buttresses to stop the walls bulging/ collapsing, multi-stone round arches instead of single stone lintels over doors; then (with Early English) pointed arches (enabling greater height for the same width of supports). 

The evil Normans must be acknowledged as great builders; and their rapid impact on architecture is very evident. I now recognize at a glance the typical EE "lancet" windows - tall and narrow, often paired, usually deep set on the inside.

However, there is always a special excitement of finding Anglo-Saxon features, maybe a font for baptisms - chiselled from a single block, a lintel shaped into a slight arch, or even just a few irregular stones at the corners ("long and short" quoins):

* My new knowledge of church architecture would lead me to recognize that the lowest window in the tower - the long thin, "lancet" with a pointed top - was inserted later. This is because such windows were not done in A-S times, and are usually a feature of the Early English style; also the disturbance to the horizontal lines of the stonework can be seen. However, the window is not genuine Early English, but a later pastiche.

+++

Today we visited St Mary's, Corbridge which is mostly Early English, filled (it seems) with aisles of pointed arches; 

...and with an actual Roman (not Roman-esque) arch, later inserted into the A-S tower; having been scavenged by the medieval masons from the nearby Roman town of Corstopitum/ Coria.  

  

Two reasons why evil is so difficult to explain - the primacy of perspective and motivation

Considering that our life and world - and much of our social interaction - is underpinned and permeated with moral evaluations; we have a terrible problem about discussing the nature and presence of evil!

The difficulty about discussing evil is so lasting and intractable that there are plenty of people, including plenty of rich, powerful, famous and influential people - who will deny the reality of evil, in many and various ways! 

But even those insightful and honest enough to admit that they regard evil as real, have a terrible problem with explaining themselves - at least, they seldom succeed in explaining the nature and presence of evil. 

There are multiple reasons, many psychological and some spiritual, for the difficulty of explaining evil; here I am focusing on two important reasons: perspective and motivation. 

Both problems arise because people are trying to find a way of explaining the reality of evil, and they do this by seeking a way of generating an objective consensus about what is evil. 

In other words, they try to frame evil such that what-is-evil is defined in a way that "everyone" can agree upon (i.e. consensus) - and they seek criteria for evil that are, in principle, externally detectable and measurable (i.e. objective).  

They want evil to be something like a "scientific fact"; as they imagine science actually to be! Or perhaps something more like an engineering principle - something that elicits general agreement among the competent, and that reliably works when properly comprehended and executed. Something pragmatically-true.  

People therefore nearly-always try to explain evil in term of evil actions; and evil actions that are acknowledged to be evil by "everybody" - indifferent to the person's "perspective" . 

This immediately means that the examples of evil up-for-discussion are going to be second-hand and remote - often historical, and concerning other-people, elsewhere. Things like a particular group killing done on the basis of an ethnic or religious identity. Such are what people usually try to understand and explain. 

But in real life we find that we never actually do eliminate the effect of perspective! This is seen in evaluating current events. We find that from one perspective; perhaps a great and historical evil has been, or is actively being perpetrated, yet from another perspective this is not so. 

What appears as an objective and massive evil is denied, explained away, or regarded as compelled. One perspectives great evil is seen by its perpetrators and defenders as merely a lesser and necessary evil, the sort of practical action that is needed to survive in this world. 

I conclude that perspective never can, in practice be eliminated. To put it bluntly, evil people will have Good reasons for performing their "evil" acts. 

Perspective changes everything! And this is one of the arguments used to argue (what nobody truly believes) that evil is "relative" and therefore not really real. 

There are philosophical (or theological) arguments by which an objective model of reality is posited, within-which evil is objective; but these arguments are never universally accepted or believed. 

All philosophical arguments require assumptions, and these assumptions are not universal - so that philosophical analysis does not solve the difficulty of explaining evil, but merely leads to the difficulty being shifted to another arena. 

The other difficulty is that while evil is explained in terms of acts, or events, or phenomena - of a kind that can be defined, isolated and measured. 

For instance murder is first assumed necessarily to be evil; then the discussion moves onto a definition of murder, the detections of particular murders, the number of people murdered...

Yet the whole process is undercut by the fact that "murder" is an abstraction intended to cover a wide range of very specific events; and when it gets down to specifics we find that - in order to accord with innate and general morality - the action itself needs to be evaluated in terms of its motivation. 

In other words the objective aspect of murder turns-out to be underpinned by personal motivation which must be inferred.  

In short, when it comes to explaining evil; we cannot escape the importance of perceptive and motivation; and both of these are substantially subjective, inner-states.  

This is one reason why so many modern people in leadership roles try to assert that evil is unreal: i.e. because they do not wish to acknowledge the primacy of subjective, inner states; when it comes to the most important aspects of life. 

Or else they claim to be able objectively to infer inner and subjective states, using objective criteria...

Given the primacy of morality in so much of life; and that authority will therefore always justify itself in moral terms (even if that morality is an inversion of common sense or intuition) - one can see the necessity of somehow excluding the necessity of perspective and motivation in explaining evil. 

The outcome of which is that evil is not - cannot be - satisfactorily explained - which is where we came-in! 

Since morality is inescapable and permeates our world; it seems obviously important that the nature of evil, and its presence and degrees, be explainable, and that these explanations be understandable. 

The current state of incoherent confusion about evil is surely - and for reasons that I would suppose are obvious - an undesirable state of affairs. 

Therefore, I suggest that when we ourselves find it necessary to discuss or explain evil in this world; we start with an acknowledgment that, for such discussion to proceed with any chance of being useful; it requires achieving mutual clarity about perspective and motivation. 

Presumably (if the discussion is honest and sincere) - an up-front and two-sided declaration of where we personally stand on these matters.

In most instances; these will be found to differ - in which case there is no point in proceeding in the direction of arguing about whether such and such is evil. Instead, the discussion ought to go deeper, to consider the whys-and-hows of our assumed-perspective, and our assumptions concerning inferred motivations.