Incipient Sharknado 1899 - by Winslow Homer

This famous painting by Winslow Homer from 1899, has commonly been mistitled "The Gulf Steam", when it is clearly intended to be the immediate precursor to the approaching water-spout (back, right) sucking-up the killer sharks (in the foreground), together with the boat and its oarsman - before spreading the giant carnivores liberally onshore, whence havoc ensues. 

I therefore propose Homer's picture should, correctly, be re-named Incipient Sharknado 1899.  

Laeth on the evolution of consciousness and the Final Participation of Jesus

Edited from this post and its comments: 

...‘wrt. the evolution of consciousness’ and "final participation"...  

The first bit that seems important to me is that [modern consciousness] is not a general state, by which I mean, it’s not defined by the age but it depends on the people. Not every human alive during the European middle ages had a medieval mindset, not every human alive during the axial age had an axial age mindset - but rather, specific places and specific peoples influenced by specific individuals varied greatly. 

And similarly, and more importantly, this is still the case, and is yet another challenge and part of the satanic plan to prevent modern consciousness from emerging from its womb: the majority of the world’s current population does not, in fact, have a modern mindset. 

As moderns we have to deal with this, in several different ways; though of course without the recognition of different types of consciousness, past or present, it is impossible to. 

Equally important, from my perspective, is this: I am very much convinced that the greats of the past and present, be they saints or prophets or artists, operated in a more evolved state of consciousness than their surroundings, and thus their work can help to bring our own consciousness forward. 

On the flip side, in every age there are those who, even though they have a more advanced consciousness, try to pull it back: in our case, the traditionalists are precisely that, and whether they are aware of it or not, and most are not, they are doing the bidding of hell. 

As a paramount and primary example of the positive side, I am convinced Jesus was, not only very well advanced in consciousness compared to his milieu, but really the only man to achieve Final Participation while in this life, and the raising of Lazarus is directly related to this. 

Final Participation will be a sort of synthesis of Original Participation, which was very much an embodied experience, and the disembodied experience of Mind that modernity achieved. so basically, we will have a body of flesh, but also the powers of 'the air', so to speak. 

The raising of Lazarus seems to me to be that: Full Mind raised in Full Flesh. that Jesus was able to do it before he himself resurrected tells me that he had already achieved Final Participation in life, but then went through death to open the door for the rest of us, otherwise he would have to do it personally for each one, like he did with Lazarus, which is definitely not the way. 

Why did he do it for Lazarus then? First because he was his friend and he loved him, and second because, speculating here, he had a specific mission for Lazarus.

**

I would only add, by way of explanation, that the evolution of consciousness can be understood as a development, analogous to the development of a human being from childhood through adolescence to maturity (with this scheme mapping onto human history, and the current "modern" consciousness as the adolescent phase". 

As with the development of a human being, such evolution is not a matter of improvement in goodness. Clearly, many (most?) people are "better" as children, especially as young children, than they are as adolescents. 

Yet we can, nonetheless, see that adolescence is a further ("higher" development than childhood, in terms of becoming more self-aware, which is a step towards higher agency and (however abused in practice) the possibility of greater freedom. 

We could say that a young child is immersed in his environment; and if this is a loving and "good" environment, then the child will spontaneously, passively (ie. by outer-influences) be substantially (but not completely) aligned with divine creation.

In other words, a young child originally "participates" in creation - hence this developmental stage of consciousness is called Original Participation. 

The adolescent, by his greater self-awareness, has the potential for greater independence from his environment; and this archetypally goes to the point of ceasing automatically to accept much of that which he absorbed as a child (good, as well as anti-good: that is, evil).

To become an adult in Final Participation of consciousness, the adolescent should voluntarily and consciously affirm the love, goodness, and truths which as a child he knew only unconsciously. He should, in ultimate terms, voluntarily and consciously choose to align himself - commit himself - to love of God, divine creation, following Jesus Christ to resurrection.

Clearly, this desirable state of affairs is not achieved by everybody, and those who achieve it do so only intermittently and partially - except for Jesus Christ, who achieved it completely and permanently (in the three years of ministry, after his baptism, at any rate).  

Unlike the earlier stages of the evolution of consciousness (i.e Original Participation, and "modern consciousness" - also called the Consciousness Soul); to be-achieving Final Participation is therefore understood as an intrinsically good state. 

Final Participation can be achieved in this mortal life only-when - and always-when - we are consciously and voluntarily motivated by Christian love. This happens permanently after death, by resurrection, for those who choose that path.   

Another way of thinking of Final Participation is therefore that it is the divine mode of consciousness; divine in its many and unique forms of each particular Being (unique because shaped and constrained by the attributes of that Being, at any particular point in time, and its development). 

This is a Much more spiritually-dangerous world than most Christians seem to suppose

Most Christians are aware that this is a spiritually dangerous world, but grossly underestimate the dangers. The dangers of this world are ubiquitous - everywhere and cannot be avoided. 

There are no safe guides and there is no safe path. 

It is impossible to avoid dangerous churches, dangerous religious practices, dangerous writers; and there is no teaching that cannot (easily!) be misinterpreted and turned to evil. 

Therefore we should not worry about trying to avoid exposure to dangers, and should not waste time and energy on trying to construct or pick out a dry, safe path through the swamp of corruption. 

The discernment must be in our-selves, both in our hearts and in our relationship to divine guidance. The path these will find and direct us towards, is not a path of safety - but path of learning. 

Even on the best possible track; there will be trial and there will be error; and the errors need to be detected, acknowledged, repented. 

It is our-selves that we should be working-on, an inner task, suitable for free agentic beings -- and not trying to build around-ourselves a safe world, that will shepherd us toward salvation; as if we were (and ought to be) externally-controlled entities. 

For instance; we will go too far along a path, and need to turn back - and/or we will fail to take a direction we we ought - and thereby fail to learn a valuable lesson.

This challenging never ends, so long as we are alive... Life is a journey that brings-along situations to which we must respond.  

It is natural to seek safety, yet that is a regressive route that saps our innate strength. 

(And fear is a sin.)

We should instead be existentially-confident that God (who is the loving creator, and our Father) has "placed" us each in a situation where salvation is possible, and where we may learn and develop spiritually. 

Know that success is always possible - as long as we live we shall be challenged, and given chances and choices. 

After which... it is up to us. 

 

Romanticism: ecstatic, intoxicating, magic, enchantment

When a tortured romantic relationship goes bad... Hermione and Birkin from the movie of Women in Love

Romanticism has a bad name among most Christians, probably because it is regarded as being emotional and sensuous rather than metaphysical. 

This is likely due to the fact that we are emotional Beings - indeed, it may be that incarnation is a way of intensifying emotion and making it more effectual. If we consider actual examples of human greatness, from the lives of Saints, through great creators, and the examples of good and loving human relationships - all are bound-up with emotions. 

It is therefore rather strange and sinister when Christians become anti-emotional; but on the other hand it is clearly dangerous, and sooner-or-later evil, if emotion becomes primary: if we become sensation-seekers.

This is a real danger in a godless and materialistic society such as ours - indeed intense emotionalism has been, and still is among the young, probably one of the most alluringly advocated ideologies of these times and this place.  

In my later teens and early twenties, I was very much a seeker of this kind of emotion-seeking romanticism - although mine was of a distinctly highbrow type, focused on music, literature, and drama; as much as upon intense human relationships. 

I was very much taken with the ecstasies of musicians like Glenn Gould or Michael Tippett, the intoxicated prose of DH Lawrence or James Joyce, the magical dramas and poetry of Shakespeare and much else. In life; I was very keen on deep conversation, intense friendships and tormented romances. I sought to live an enchanted life. 

This "worked" as a lifestyle for a while, so long as it was fuelled by the vitality of youth - although the mundane dullness of most "normal" life was a continual problem - and my own energies and motivations were never sufficient to fill long periods or to overcome subjective adversities. 

But as time went by, there was a habituation whereby the ecstasies-etc. (especially the epiphanic intoxications of living in the moment) diminished in strength, I became disillusioned by their incompleteness and brevity and the fact that they led nowhere in particular (nowhere better); and the mundane become oppressive and unavoidable. 

Yet, although materialistic romanticism is a dead-end - it cannot be ignored or suppressed, because our culture offers nothing better. Indeed Christianity offers nothing better - since the deeper into Christianity one goes, the stronger becomes the anti-romanticism: the crushing of ecstasy, and the fear of magical enchantment. 

The idea of Romantic Christianity includes a recognition that we are romantic creatures, because of our incarnation - and that this is a Good Thing, not just now, but forever. 

We ought never to accept, or regard as best, a Christianity that is mundane, disenchanted, dry, dull, anti-emotional - anti-the-physical. 

If we our wise, Christian practice ought to be romantic in its aims - and Christians need to beware of focusing on the supposedly-safe: the comfortable, the friendly, the "ethical", the political. Because (as of 2024) there is no safe way of being a Christian. 

Jesus was himself an intensely romantic, spontaneous, and emotional personage - who lived at a high level of engagement with reality (including spiritual reality) that our earthly attempts can only approach, and only briefly.

When God is depicted as is usual, as an abstract and philosophical entity, defined by attributes, and especially when God's "impassible" nature is insisted-upon (i.e. the assertion that God is incapable of "passions" or emotions) - then we are being dangerously misled (no matter how ancient and venerable such assertions may be!).  

If we accept, acknowledge, embrace our romanticism in a rigorous spirit; it leads towards theosis in this life, and resurrection in the life to come; and it is a partial guide to the deep nature of Christ's message and work.   

More on Miles Mathis

Ron Unz has done an analysis of the Miles Mathis phenomenon, which I considered in a previous post. 

Unz concludes that MM is not a man but a front organization, whose purpose is to discredit "conspiracy theorists" by making absurd claims, and that this organization was probably created, and is run by, the CHOAM secret services.   

I disagree with Unz's conclusions in several respects, which is why I felt stimulated to write this. 

While I completely agree that MM is wrong about most things, and (in particular) very slapdash and inaccurate in both facts and reasoning when it comes to supposed genealogies - 

I will stick my neck out concerning something of which I have no direct knowledge; and suggest that Mathis is not an agency but a real person, and a single person, and is pursuing his own agenda. 

This seems clear to me from the internal evidence of the writing, which has - throughout the vast volume - a very distinct and consistent personality. 

Furthermore; Mathis does say some important, interesting and original things; and demonstrates in the writing itself evidence of a creative and independent thinker - albeit with the kind of "self-absorbed" personality that often goes-with (and indeed generates) such motivated creativity.  

Mathis's basic perspective could be regarded as motivated by the true conviction that most of what we think we know, comes (very much) second-hand and via extremely corrupt (and indeed purposively evil) institutions and media. 

Therefore most of what we think we know (even at a very basic level of "facts") is either completely false and fabricated, or else so profoundly (and calculatingly) distorted by selectivity and suppression to be grossly misleading.    

This message is not just true, but extremely important yet very widely neglected. It amounts to the advocacy by Mathis of a far more autonomous and self-responsible way of relating to the world than nearly-always happens. 

To put forward such a perspective is indeed far more important than even multiple specific inaccuracies of factual assertion - which errors are in any case inevitable when dealing with events remote in time and place. 

One more thing. 

If it is true (and I expect it is true, but not of MM) that in some respects the intelligence organizations of the West are engaged in a strategy of trying to "discredit" conspiracy theories in-general by subsidizing and promoting "far out", false and/or absurd theories (Unz's example is "flat earth") -- then the intelligence services are (I am pleased to say!) making a Big Mistake!

Once somebody has learned Not to trust official and mainstream sources, and think for himself, he has learned something vital; and it does not much matter whether he "goes too far" and makes specific statements that most people regard as (or know to be) wrong. 

In other words, the important thing is Not to avoid being discredited by silly mistakes, but instead Not To Care about whether "other people" regard you as having been discredited*.

After all, it is by its control of public prestige that The System controls so much of intellectual discourse - we absolutely must escape this control, and that can only be done by ceasing to care about what They think of Us.  

There is a primary need for as many people as possible to escape the toils of The System and think things through for our-selves, taking personal responsibility for our understanding - on the basis of what we evaluate to be the most reliable sources of knowledge (and especially on the basis of personal experience from engaging with the world). 

This can be learned from Miles Mathis's example, if we choose to focus on this fundamental aspect of his work; rather than getting distracted by his many, and often wrong and bizarre, conclusions - only perhaps a few of which are genuinely correct. 

It is what he does in general, more than what he says in particular, that makes MM a potentially valuable writer. 

*By "not to care" I mean in your innermost self. The important thing nowadays is to be clear in one's own mind, and to inwardly take responsibility, about important matters. This does Not mean that we ought to be trying to enter the public domain, nor advertise our personal conclusions, nor argue "other people" into agreement with our conclusions. Maybe we should do this sometimes, for particular reasons, but surely not always. 

This is a faithless age: the Big Problem is the apostates, not the religious

However it may have been in earlier eras, nowadays and for several generations the problem of evil is one of apostates, not the religious. 

This seems so obvious that I am surprised it needs saying, let alone arguing - but it does. 

Both atheists and the traditionalist-orthodox Christians are very keen to pin the blame for "the world, now" on religion: 

The atheists blame religion-per-se - as when they say that the cause of most wars, or cruelty, is "religion". 

While among the religious the blame is fixed upon some-other-religion (usually one or both of the major monotheisms), or else on heretics of their own denomination (e.g. for Roman Catholics - Protestantism, and vice versa - or some particular variant such as Mormonism).  

But a little thought and attention would reveal that nearly always the grouping who support and promote evil are apostates - either those who have explicitly abandoned their religion, those en route to abandonment; or those whose religion is superficial and feeble, and whose affiliation is essentially non-religious (i.e. to race, ethnicity, nation etc).  

I am not-at-all saying that "religion" (in general or particular) is blameless for evil in the world today; but that this is a faithless age in which the religious conviction, hence impulse, is weaker than at any point in world history.   

Religious explanations of the present evil are therefore secondary and relatively superficial.  

NOTE: I do not regard Satanism as A Religion, since it is opposition to God and divine creation. To take the side of the devil and demons is very common, and near-universal among the Western/ Globalist ruling classes - but this is a negative definition. Evil is ultimately opposed to all religion, although evil will expediently use any religion - as it will use any ideology but especially that of Leftism - to oppose God and creation. 

What is "The West" for? From William Wildblood

Any civilisation worth that name must be organised around spiritual principles. 

From ancient Egypt to Greece to India, and even Rome when it began, God or the gods were at the centre of life, formed the culture and gave meaning to the civilisation. 

For the West that organising principle was Christianity which was the greatest expression of spiritual understanding there has been. In fact, all the other expressions might be said to be from the outside looking in. 

Only Christianity really comes from the inside. That, of course, is the meaning of revelation. Christianity or, better put, Christ is the greatest revelation of and from the spiritual world. 

There really is no doubt about this. Christ is the only religious personality utterly without flaw or limitation. 

The West existed for the expression of Christianity. 

That is what gave it its greatness. Not uniquely for there were many tributaries but the main river into which all these tributaries fed was Christianity. 

Some people think the West is defined by science and has reached its greatest state following that pursuit but even science arose in a Christian context with natural philosophers seeking to understand God's creation. And whether it has reached its apogee pursuing science or sunk to a spiritual nadir is a question worth pondering. 

When the West started to abandon Christianity it lost sight of itself.

From William Wildblood's blog - Read the whole thing.

**

In this post, William W encapsulates the nature of our current situation. The West has declined profoundly, and is dying before our eyes and in real time. 

And the West has become, overall and by motivation, the main force for evil in the world today. 

Why? In a nutshell; because the West exists for the expression of Christianity, and when the West started to abandon Christianity it lost sight of itself. 

Consequently, our rapid and comprehensive decline is both inevitable and necessary - necessary because without its reason for existence, the West has become a dreadful monster; destroying the world by striving to impose its suicidal "Western values" everywhere, even as it consumes itself through self-hatred. 

For the West now, as always and at root, it is all about Christianity. Only in Jesus Christ can there be valid and sufficient answers; and there can be no good excuses for avoiding this topic, no matter how un-promising it seems. 

The question is not whether or not Christianity, but yes Christianity and then to discover and create what Christianity truly means for us personally, here and now. 

Avoiding the catastrophic errors of the past: finding the means of an experienced living faith, a strong faith - the possibility of a Christian life among pervasive corruption. 

This is not idle speculation: we must have an answer - for our-selves if not for our society. 

Otherwise, the default continues to be willed-annihilation, on a global scale. 

Is it the duty of Christians to obey All authorities - evil as well as good? From Francis Berger

Among the most lethal of spiritual errors is the supposed Christian principle that Christians are not exempted from the duty of obeying authority even when the authority is glaringly bad or evil. 

The driving force behind this festering lump of spiritual nonsense is the supposedly noble belief that all authority comes from God. Yes, all authority, even the evil kind. 

Since all authority emanates from God, a good Christian should not overly concern himself about humbly submitting to evil authority because, you know, God’s in control, and there must be some mysterious reason why He chose to put evil in charge.

From Francis Berger's blog - read the whole thing. 

One of the stupidest, but commonest, assertions from self-identified Christians is that there is a duty of obedience to "authority". 

Oft-cited in support is the "render unto Caesar" passage in the Bible, and Romans 13:12 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

I really cannot take this type of proof-texting argument seriously; by which I mean that it is only ever deployed expediently; that is, it is never deployed to excuse someone whose obedience to authority leads to horrendous atrocities (e.g. prolonged and fatal torturing of children) or violates some ethical principle of importance to the arguer. 

As Frank also implies, I think the real issue here is a failure to repent those evils that we commit. 

The debate takes place in a situation in which Christians grossly underestimate the whole nature, hence prevalence, of sin - so much so, that they suppose that humans can and should avoid all sinning. 

Whereas the reality is that we Just Are Sinners - and sin nearly all the time, and it is utterly impossible that things could be otherwise.

I do not mean that we are thoroughly rotten at core; but that nobody (except Jesus Christ) has ever been wholly and lovingly aligned with God all of the time. Sin is any departure from this state of loving alignment - and for us, it is attainable only after death and resurrection, in Heaven. 

But those who regard sins legalistically, as a check list of prohibitions and duties, naturally must keep this list down to a manageable number - and therefore they must neglect all the innumerable ways of sinning that are intrinsic to living in the world-as-is. 

(My favourite example is dishonesty. Most people, especially middle and upper class people, are untruthful to a significant degree (including misrepresentation, misleading, selectivity and deliberate ignoring) with every paragraph they write, or whenever they speak for more than five minutes 

This entails pretending that when we obey authorities such as politicians, bureaucrats, employers, the police (in a suitable 'umble frame of mind) then this is not just intrinsically OK - but indeed much better ("more Christian") than would be using our innate discernment and the guidance of the Holy Ghost to recognize that much of the time we are being asked to commit sins.

Of course, we will probably often choose to commit these sins anyway since the consequences of disobedience are too many and too adverse to contemplate.

But that does not stop them being sins. 

This is why Jesus made repentance - acknowledgement of our endemic sinning, and the inner desire to live in full alignment with God - to be the requirement for salvation. 

It was Jesus's enemies among Pharisees and the like who claimed that not-sinning (wrt a finite list of transgressions) was possible, and the ticket to salvation; and who consequently were intrinsically what Jesus called hypocrites.      

Which is exactly the nature of those who assert that to obey authority is necessarily virtuous. 

Logic depends on assumptions, and assumptions are assumed

There are few more futile and frustrating activities than trying to discuss assumptions (i.e. metaphysics) with somebody who believes that all answers come from logic (i.e. "philosophy", or indeed theology, science, law, or any other rational discourse)! 

And such persons are legion - while those willing and (and capable?) of discussing assumptions seem to be rare. 

Which is unfortunate in a world where the main problems are at the level of assumptions. 

Logic therefore serves as an ultimate "defence mechanism" by which everybody (at least to his own satisfaction) refutes all conceivable challenges to... whatever he currently believes-in and lives-by. 

His assumptions form circular complexes, and each supports the others such that there seems no way out, and there is no way in. 

Hence all ideologies (and religions) may be robust to all possible (and actual) human experience and all conceivable world events* - not because they are true, but because they are true by assumption. 

I have been banging my head against this for at least a decade; but there is tremendous resistance to acknowledging what seems obvious (once pointed-out) - perhaps because people feel that to acknowledge it would be to adopt a nihilistic relativism. 

But this is not so. 

*For instance: The voluntary and celebratory self-closure and cessation of Christian Churches in 2020 has not even dented the assumptions of traditional mainstream Christians - whose answer to everything is "do the same as before, only do it harder". Any attempt to challenge the assumptions of that type of Christianity have been pre-empted by immunizing dogmas which are assumed to be definitive of "being a Christian". 

Photographic evidence of yesterday's Northern Lights is primary - while personal observation and experience is consequential

The aurora borealis was visible in the city Newcastle upon Tyne last night, as it was all over Britain and much of the hemisphere; but when I say "visible" - this means, essentially, visible to the camera, not to the human eye. "Evidence" that the event happened was then, and is now, essentially a matter of photography (including associated image-editing). 

There is a lot of light pollution in a modern city, and this largely prevents our eyes from getting adapted to darkness (which may take about ten minutes after looking at bright light) - and the the Northern Lights were rather faint and blurry colours of pale green and red against the dark blue of the night sky. 

I went into an upstairs room (to see closer to the horizon, and avoid exposure direct street lighting), and allowed several minutes of light adaptation; and (knowing which direction to look) I saw slight paling towards green in the north, a sense of (maybe?) vertical lines, with a reddish vertical ovoid fuzz to the east of this.

But I was not really sure I had seen anything, not really. My wife (whose vision is worse than mine) couldn't see anything abnormal. 

It was only after looking at photographs of the phenomenon online - pictures in which the colours and shapes were much brighter, more differentiated, and sharper - that I was "sure" I really had seen the Northern Lights.    

I would guess that, if it had not been for the fact that most people live secondary to their social media (doing and looking-at what is suggested on media); and that the aurora was depicted photographically with very vivid colours and in sharp detail - the Northern Lights would not have been noticed - at least not here. 

Those who did notice something unusual would not likely have been sure that they were watching a natural phenomenon, rather than reflections from outdoor man-made illuminations or various kinds (these occur all the time in a modern city). 

Indeed hardly anybody among modern people would have noticed anything at all, since people very seldom look at the skies - and are oblivious of much more obviously extraordinary phenomena.

Like almost everything, nowadays - the Northern Lights was a media event primarily, and was defined by the photographs - not by (un-shareable) personal observations.  

Yesterday's Northern Lights were therefore a microcosm of Life Today - in that personal experience is subordinated to media "evidence". 

The observations of my own eyes needed to be "validated" by online photographic depiction, before I was really confident that I had actually seen anything. 

This is how it works: The mass media tells us what to look-for and what we "will see", social media disseminates this framing perspective, and indeed shows us what we will see. 

Only then, after we know what we are supposed to observe, can we perceive it.

And if this works for physical phenomena like lights in the sky; how much more does it work for abstractions such as the birdemic, climate emergency, and specific racial injustice? 

Indeed, this is how things work in the most general sense: we perceive only what we conceptualize. 

"Reality" itself derives from metaphysical assumptions, many of which we are unaware of having. 

Our special problem - here and now - is that so many people perceive as directed by the globalist totalitarian system, which is evil.

**

The answer cannot be to suppose we can perceive reality unmediated and direct, without pre-conception; but to examine, reflect-upon, think-about that which frames our perceived-reality. If we desire to be personally-responsible rather than passively-obedient in our lives; we should strive to discover what are these conceptions, from-where and from-whom they derive. Only when these have become conscious, can we decide whether or not we wish to continue using these unconscious framing-sources - whether we choose to affirm making these particular assumptions.   

My God is bigger than your God?

It strikes me that - through history - there have always been a lot of people who want their God to be the biggest and strongest (and indeed meanest!) - because that is the kind of God that they want to worship. Such people love to brag about the power of their God, and what it can do. 

Indeed, the desire to worship is often (apparently) itself a manifestation of this desire. 

Worship is sometimes about boasting of membership of strongest gang, of wanting (for obvious reasons) to be on the winning side - eventually, if not now. 

So powerful is this desire that it has led to grossly absurd contradictions:

As when people assert that their God is so totally powerful that it is above all human considerations and does not need anybody or anything else for any reason... 

But why such a God would have the slightest need, or desire-for, or interest-in being-worshipped - it is utterly unclear...

This matter of what God wants depends on God's presumed nature; on what kind of a God it is... or what kind of a person. 

For Christians in particular, it seems strange (except for centuries of propaganda and habit!) to suppose that a parent-God, whose children we are, would desire worship.

Especially given that any human being who wanted the world (indeed the universe!) to be organized around his own worship, would probably be a despicable monster. 

And especially given that Jesus Christ did not (to put it mildly!) behave in that way, did not demand worship - at least not in the usually-accepted records of his life. 

For me, once the matter had been raised to consciousness (by reading William Arkle) it became obvious that God does not want to be worshipped, and never has - although God is (like any loving parents) tolerant of the follies of his young children... at least when these follies are innocent or inevitable.

If not worship, then what? Well, ultimately (and to simplify), I suppose God wants much as many human beings (God's children) want - in those moments they are at their best and most thoughtful...

That is: God wants love, creativity in living (that is, each individual bringing some of his own uniqueness to creation); a life of strongly loving mutual relationships among family and friends; in a world without death and evil. 

And for that to happen; God wants those Beings who want the same, to become immortal and Good (by resurrection) and dwell in Heaven. 

And worship simply doesn't come into it. 

Why think of the Holy Ghost as Jesus?

Don Camillo seeks guidance from "the Holy Ghost" (i.e. Jesus Christ)

I have suggested that the Fourth Gospel tells us that the Holy Ghost is the ascended Jesus Christ; so whenever we talk about the Holy Ghost we are actually talking about Jesus. 

Is this helpful? very, very much so - I would say. Instead of a nebulous (because bodiless, unpersonal) spirit-being; we are offered guidance and consolation from the actual person of Jesus - which fits with John 16:7 "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Why would it be expedient for the disciples (and everyone else, presumably) if Jesus goes away (that is dies, resurrects, ascends to Heaven) if the person of Jesus - someone we might love as one individual loves another - was replaced by a nebulous ghost spirit for whom love can only be an abstraction?  

As an example, we might consider the comic but Christian character of Don Camillo; a fictional Italian priest who has two-way conversations with Jesus on a crucifix in his Church - and this Jesus is a very distinct, humorous, character (and an exemplar of tough-love).

In these stories, it seems to me that Jesus is replacing, fusing-with, and thereby rendering unnecessary, the Holy Ghost as some kind of separate aspect of deity.  

Of course any such conversation as Camillo's with Christ is not a literal communion with Jesus, since it is subject to all our limitations of understanding and motivation, as well as the inevitable ambiguities of language. 

Nonetheless, insofar as it is underpinned by direct communion; then this is exactly how Jesus can be or become a real-reality in the lives of Christians: the apprehension of a real personage with who we have present contact.   

There is always something to do on the farm (of Life)

When I was writing my doctoral thesis, I came across the saying that "there is always something to do on the farm" - which turns out to apply to life in its most fundamental basis, as well as extended personal projects. 

The saying refers to the idea that - no matter what the season or weather - there are many jobs that could be done and which contribute positively to the running of a farm. 

If the farmer cannot always be ploughing, harrowing, planting, harvesting; then there are animals to feed and clean, building and fences that require maintenance, buying and selling, paperwork, learning and teaching relevant crafts... 

Some things on the farm are more important or urgent than the others, and the times and circumstances for their completion are more restricted. The Big Jobs ought to be attempted when the situation is optimal. One must make hay when the sun shines, else the animals will have nothing to eat in the winter. 

The application to my thesis was that there were days and times when I could not compose the text and organize the structure, times when I could not even edit and improve what I had done. But there was always something to do... There were diagrams and tables to make; information to comprehend; references to find, read and compile... In short, there was always something I could be doing towards getting the thesis.

But it strikes me that this general principle applies metaphorically to our personal lives, understood at the most fundamental level. We are here to learn; but what and how we learn is unique and also there are many and various possibilities. 

Our personal situation is unique, and there are a limitless number of things that "need" doing - but probably there are some spiritual things we ought to be doing that are more urgent and important; and these ought to be tackled when we are in the optimal state to tackle them. 

Negatively there are "repairs" than need doing, things broken are defective in us that are a threat to salvation or limit our spiritual learning. 

There are also positive potentials; such as creative and loving aptitudes, interests, vocations... which are ought to be developed. And these are best done - they should be done - whenever we are at our best, and whenever we can contrive or seize suitable situations. 

(Because if they aren't done then, they will not be done at all.) 

But most of the time we are not at our best and/or circumstances are adverse; and then it would be pointless or counter-productive to be aiming at the Big Stuff (...it is futile to harvest the corn before it is ripe, or during a thunderstorm).

And there are better or worse "farmers". 

Some worse farmers probably don't get further than the small stuff; they spend their whole lives making and mending fences but never get around to stocking the fields with cattle. These are the people who expend their entire efforts on non-urgent or peripheral things that ought to be fitted-in during some "rainy day" - they fail to do what is most needful. 

Others are lazy and do little; others work hard but spread themselves too thinly across too many tasks and do none of them well.  

Better farmers tackle those things that are most needful; and maybe they learn and develop some talent to a high level - are which there are no end of possibilities: ploughing, animal care or breeding, dry stone walling, cheese-making... 

But even these best farmers are not always, perhaps only seldom, at their best - and there are days when the weather is bad, or they themselves feel under the weather, and then they turn willingly to the innumerable small-but-useful jobs around the farm - tidying and cleaning a shed, perhaps.

Every farm is different, yet there is always something useful to do; as well as (not instead of) those biggest, most vital and crucial, jobs - the ones that we ought to be attempting whenever possible.   

If a strategy or policy is net-evil - like AI - then we should not be distracted by its partial (and personal) advantages

The world has been corrupted, over the past several/ many generations , by embracing policies, strategies, technologies, social arrangements that are decisively and predictably net-evil over the long term; because they offer upfront personal and specific advantages - or even just conveniences and fashionability.

Examples would include pretty much everything that has happened over the past few decades, from the internet to so-called AI. 

The bureaucratic and ideological changes that (in my experience) demolished science, education and medicine are all of this kind - but the generalization applies to global (especially Western) culture as a whole. 

I am not arguing this from a traditionalist perspective - that it would have been better for things not have have changed; because I know that people have changed and therefore culture and society will change. 

I am saying instead that the actual changes have made things worse and worse - until now we are so degraded (including in our own estimation) that there seems no basis for resisting anything. 

The reason that we invariably choose the wrong changes, the ones that destroy and demoralize, is that we have abandoned "religion" - and without religion our motivations are pathological and perverse. 

(The "morality" of mainstream young people is a prime instance: they almost invariably are "passionate" about one or several of the evil-motivated Litmus Test issues - climate "emergencies", some remote and never experienced foreign people, something about sex or sexuality, something about abstractions like inclusion and equity - or whatever crisis or scandal is fed them by the media.  

Such concerns are not just stupid and futile- but actively harmful overall and by strategic design. 

The only substitute is religion (and serious religions converge upon Romantic Christianity). 

This need for religion is not simple, because for known history religion has meant churches, and (because of the underlying changes in Men) the churches do not suffice and cannot be made to suffice - they are part of the problem in what they actually do, and the ways of thinking they encourage. 

This, in turn, means that there cannot be organized resistance to wrong changes, which means that resistance at the material level will be feeble. 

We must therefore do what we ought to do anyway, which is aim at spiritual reform of the world by spiritual reform in our-selves; which must be (by default, as well as because desirable) an individual activity. 

My observation is that hardly anybody puts any effort into this at all - certainly not compared with the vast effort they put into other (and net/ long-term destructive attitudes and activities. 

Neither can I see any way of persuading people to do this. Good cannot be done to those who do not desire Good. 

The best motivation is faith in the power of genuine spiritual endeavour, on the basis that God (who is creator) can (in mostly unknowable ways) amplify whatever individuals can do. Our job is simply to do what we can do. 

NOTE ADDED: I think this strategy of individual spiritual endeavour is an example of Gandalf's strategy in The Lord of the Rings, of sending Hobbits into Mordor to destroy the One Ring - as contrasted with the more short-term-expedient Boromir Strategy that cannot possibly succeed.  

Explore Tolkien's posthumously-published History of Middle Earth free online

Information is at my Notion Club Papers blog...

 

The importance of our-selves, as individual persons, for The World - is a plain fact

Modern metaphysical assumptions have made us very unsure about the value (even validity) of the individual person. 

All our explanations and schemes of value (including morality) are about people in general. There is intense interest in politics, nations, society, and group categories such the The Poor, Women, (some) Races, The Environment; or about abstractions such as Health, Equity, Sustainability...

This creates an insoluble problem about the individual person - according to our explanatory schemes, his value seems negligible, he seems to be valid only as a group member, or insofar as he contributes to some abstract goal.

When the individual takes an individual stance, regards himself as significant on a cosmic scale of things; this seems to be selfishness, pride, greed, or a pathological paranoia... 

We are culturally only comfortable when people assert and live-by their own insignificance. 

Yet Of Course the individual personal is significant - and all other significance is derivative of the importance of individual Beings and their relations.

Our difficulties with this are artefactual, self-created by false ideas: the difficulties are due to wrong and evil assumptions. 

Of Course the individual is significant in the Big Picture, indeed at the level of the Cosmos. 

To say this is not insane arrogance but plain Christianity!

If each individual person were not significant, then God would not have created individual persons.

The salvation of one person is clearly of the greatest importance to Jesus.  

To believe in the insignificance of the individual is not modesty, it is not humility; but it is instead an abandonment of responsibility. 

    

We are born-into this world (as babies, as young children) knowing that we are significant. That confidence is innate because God-given.

It is therefore a demonic snare to deny our significance to The World; just as it is another demonic snare to strive to impose our-selves upon The World. 

Our personal importance for The World is a fact that does not require any action to make real - what matters is what we do about the fact. 

The Legend of Lucifer

The legend has it that Lucifer* was the "brightest" of angels, and/yet the first to "fall"... What does this mean?

It might mean that - of the pre-mortal spiritual Beings - Lucifer was the "highest". But highest in what? I would say consciousness. And higher meaning most God-like, most like The Creator. 

The legend would then mean that the Being with most God-like consciousness (i.e. Lucifer) was the first Being to oppose God's creative plans. 

Consciousness, awareness, agency, freedom... These are divine attributes; but do not bring with them a commitment to Good - Good being a commitment to Love, to divine creation based upon love. 

Men of the modern world are on the one hand higher in consciousness than Men of the past - capable of greater agency and freedom; on the other hand Men are more evil Now than they were. 

An analogy is children and adults - adults are (on average) higher in consciousness than children, and also adults are (on average) more evil than children.  

Goodness is a choice, and those Beings higher in consciousness must choose evil - but the point is that they must choose; which is why they so often choose wrong. Children, on the other hand, are born with considerable innate goodness (spiritual connections, realism, common sense) and this makes them more spontaneously, passively, unconsciously good. 

So perhaps Lucifer was the first angel who was capable of conscious and active choice, and needed to decide whether to commit to love and join-with the divine plan of salvation - but as a matter of fact chose to reject and oppose it.  

Modern Men are similar to this primal situation in that (probably due to our pre-mortal natures) we seem to have been incarnated wit the tendency to attain higher (literally more God-lie) consciousness than Men of the past; and/but this brings with it the necessity of conscious, active and personal choice with respect to fundamental matters that less-conscious Men of the past simply accepted without awareness. 

The majority of Modern men seem to have replicated the basic choice of Lucifer; but they could have done otherwise, just as Lucifer could have done otherwise. 

Our world is full of Men who are "higher" in terms of awareness, agency, freedom and other divine attributes; yet choose to use these divine attributes to reject God's creative project. 

Higher consciousness is intrinsically Good - it is growing-up, it is God-like - it is a direction God desires than Men should move. 

We are more adult, grown-up in terms of consciousness; but like most adults this does not make us "better" morally (and in terms of values generally) than the less-conscious children we once were. 

Our situation is that (in essence) we need consciously and freely to choose what (less conscious, less free) young children are born with innately and "automatically". 

The adult is potentially better (i.e. more God-like) than a child, exactly because he is able to choose, indeed must choose - and is more responsible. 

This could be expressed that God wants "colleagues" in divine creation, co-creators, or grown-up brothers and sisters - because thus may creation best be expanded and enriched. And creation "works" by Love - it is Love that harmonizes creation, and Love that ensures the direction of creation is Good. 

So there is consciousness and there is Love - and the challenge (which seems most to have been failed) is for Men (as many Men as possible) to choose Love as the fundamental principle, to choose divine creation, to choose to ally with God. 

+++

*"Lucifer" was probably the original Devil, the first leader of the anti-God faction; but I suspect he no longer holds that position. That "job" is perpetually contested, and has perhaps had several or many occupants. 

War is graft, government aid for war victims is graft... All government expenditure is graft (considered at one level)

War is graft, government aid for war victims is graft, all government expenditure is graft.

Celebrity charities are graft - all charities are graft (from the top, by motivation).

Celebrity (and political) autobiographies, lectures, and public appearances are bribes.

Honours and prizes and awards are bribes. 

...These are some of the more-or-less legal ways that the demonically-controlled, destructively evil Beings control the bureaucratic, managerial and intellectual classes. 

Totalitarian control of attitudes, thinking and behaviour are mostly done by such positive incentives; because they work. 

Fear of negative sanctions such as destruction of status, sacking, fining, prison, violence, torment, and murder - are real and necessary, but are a back-stop. 

    

 

Western civilization swinging from the rafters - while lashing-out at its neighbours

Some thirteen years ago I wrote (in Thought Prison): 

"Take your eye off Western Civilization for just a moment and it will be swinging from the rafters with its own belt around its neck..."

But West Civ has now become much worse than "merely" killing itself. 

Going back - The West started from the later 1960s by "Not even trying" to sustain itself - it was profligate, neglectful, careless - addicted to conveniences, novelties, luxuries and distractions.

Then actively suicidal strategies emerged that spread throughout the entire bureaucracy, media and social institutions; until they are nowadays a universal propaganda sustained by many laws and many more regulations supported by significant societal pressure. 

Since the early new millennium - evident with the policy of funding chaos and facilitating genocide in the Middle East with the subversive violence of the self-styled "Arab Spring" - the dying West has become more and more gratuitously aggressive. 

The suicidal hanging man of Western Civilization is lashing-out in its death throes - trying to harm as many people as possible before it finally expires. 

The objects of Western aggression have spread from at first attacking old national enemies (seeding disorder, funding the ideologies of own more-rapid suicide). 

Then to through attacking national "allies" (by forcing them to adopt suicidal policies, sabotaging their economies and societies; and lately engineering them to fight to the death with old enemy nations). 

And just in the past days we have seen (with the recent Hurricane response in the US) Western nations beginning actively to destroy its own citizens. 

Thus: It began with it being dangerous to be an enemy of West Civ; developed into being more dangerous to be a friend of the West; and we are now entering the stage where it will be most dangerous actually to be the West.

(At this rate, the mass of Western people might actually begin to notice what is going-on!)

So, Western Civilization is now the prime enemy of The West. And, as with so many tyrannies of the past - the most dangerous situation of all will soon be to be a member of the Western ruling class. 

The higher the position someone has attained in the Western System (the closer to the centre of power), the more likely he will be singled-out for an early and nasty end. 

Because when The System is possessed by spiteful and destructive evil - "paranoia" is rational. 

In a society where "dog eats dog", everybody is playing the same destructive game: spitefulness is regarded as pre-emptive necessity.

The main personal threat to leadership class members comes from those nearest and with most power. 

Do unto others what they would otherwise do unto you - so make sure you do it first... 

 

I said dog eat dog; but the reality (at the level of Western leadership) is becoming more and more like a pack of mad dogs biting and tearing each other. Each dog feels fully justified, because - after all - each dog is in the middle of a pack of mad dogs!

The situation would be hopeless if the world really was as the mad dogs believe it. 

But, very fortunately, it is not; and there is a whole other unrecognized realm of reality...

Access to that world is not via any of the societal institutions that are complicit in Mad Dog World; but the entrance (which is not secret) may be found in the heart of every Man. 

***

NOTE: I have hidden comments and suspended commenting for the time being, since commenting has largely dried-up. They may return later. 

"I shall believe it when..."

Supposing somebody was thinking about what he should believe - rather than conforming to what he perceived to be his aspirant peer group - except when it was expedient (i.e. when it breaking the rules benefit him, and he thought could get away with it).  

Suppose such a person was thinking about what he should believe, and there was a genuine possibility that he would afterward believe what he had concluded as a result of thinking.

I think he has two basic options. 

The first and usual option is that he will believe a thing he has concluded when, and only when, he has been able to convince "other people" of it. 

He will try to convince someone else, and then he will believe it. 

By "other people" I mean, whoever he regards it as vital to convince. For a scientist, it might be the other scientists in his field, for a bureaucrat or priest it might be some sufficient number of other priests, or perhaps one or more who have authority over him. 

In other words, a thinking person's conclusions are, and can only ever be, tentative; and contingent upon the acceptance of his conclusions. 

His own belief is therefore fundamentally dependent upon the beliefs of others - in a way that is ultimately and essentially the same as the beliefs of someone who accepts his beliefs passively (often unconsciously) from his particular social milieu. 

And this is the great bulk of public discourse about fundamental matters - even of the better sort. It is conducted among people who are all trying to convince each other, and who are each waiting upon the outcome before making their own commitment. 

The alternative is to be someone who will believe a thing when he has convinced himself; even when nobody else in the world believes it.

Of course, it is usual that such a person can find someone else (somewhere, at some time and place) who also believes what he has convinced himself is true - or maybe he will be able to convince one of his peers or contemporaries. 

And this is reassuring, and encouraging for him - but the point is that the agreement of "other people" is not essential. "Other people" do not matter ultimately to what he believes. . 

This autonomy of belief covers a multitude of possibilities, because different people are differentially convinced by different kinds of thinking.

Some people are psychotically-delusional in their thinking - and their convictions arise from reasoning that is unique because pathological - some kind of delirium or dementia, perhaps; when the stream of thinking is dislocated. 

Others are very easily self-convinced, and very difficult to dislodge from conviction by subsequent experience - or, more exactly, such persons adhere unthinkingly and unswervingly to the conclusions reached in any brief moments during which they actually were thinking for themselves. 

But autonomy of belief is also the characteristic of genius; and indeed autonomy of belief is a necessary component of genius. 

And when the times and circumstances are so corrupted and so evil that all Men are called upon be a genius of their own most fundamental convictions - on pain of otherwise becoming assimilated to the general state of corruption and evil...

Well then it behoves all Men to ensure that the procedure by which they become personally convinced of some belief, is such as to satisfy his own best possible understanding of truth, beauty and virtue. 

(He must do this for himself, and from himself; because otherwise he is merely accepting somebody else's standards.  Even if he does accept somebody else's standards as fundamental for himself, then this needs to be done on exactly the same basis.) 

Bad life advice (and if not, then what?)

Social and mass media seem to consist largely of bad advice on how to think, behave, live... And the appetite for such advice seems insatiable.

Yet we must live! And negative advice (about what Not to do) is useless unless embedded in a positive stance.

It strikes me as facile, because true, to strike down any positive agenda. On the other hand; unconscious, unthinking, spontaneity is also impossible - and would-be mystics of that kind are essentially fraudulent.

Also... Any words (or images - or perceptions) that purport to be helpful, must be understood and interpreted - meaning they don't tell us anything specific.

Yet we Must live; and if Not, then What?

It seems, therefore, that we are compelled to seek Good life advice on what we can know directly (without perceptions or concepts) and for ourselves.

There is nowhere else to turn - if we are explicitly honest with ourselves.

For Christians this is not, or should not be, a problem.