There is no substantive difference between ortho-trad Christian monotheism, and Hindu-Buddhist pantheism

There is no substantive difference between, on the one hand, the theology of orthodox-traditional Christian monotheism - with its Omni-God who created every-thing from no-thing; and, on the other hand, the pantheism of Hindu-Buddhist philosophy - where God is the totality of everything.

Metaphysically-speaking: monotheism just-is pantheism - and the differences are matters of superstructure: of doctrines, dogmas, attitudes, practices etc.  

Because if one God made every-thing, then God is everything.  

This happened (probably) because Jesus Christ's actual work and teaching was swiftly embedded-into pre-existing, Greek-Roman-descended "Platonic" philosophy that itself had Indian-Hindu roots; and is the likely reason why so-many self-identified ortho-trad Christians, past and present, have so-easily slid into de facto pantheism. 

Orthodox-traditional Christian theology tried to distinguish its Omni-God from pantheism by emphasizing the Hebrew tradition of monotheism, with a personal creator God. But because this was a monotheism it left no space for a divine Jesus Christ - which is why Jesus the Son had to be conflated with God the Father in the paradoxes of Athanasian Trinity dogma.

(i.e. The historical Jesus of Nazareth could not be affirmed to be essential to salvation, except by assimilating Jesus into the Omni-God of the Father.) 

And, this assimilation of Jesus with the Father, restored Hebrew monotheism (and also metaphysically united ortho-trad Christianity with the yet-to-happen Islam) - and thereby pantheism... 

Orthodox-traditional theology is stuck with this metaphysical incoherence - of trying to assert the essential role of Jesus in context of a monotheistic-pantheistic reality; and there is no way out of it given the assumptions - except by deceptions of obfuscation through abstraction, complexity, and the declaration of incomprehensible "mystery". 

Understanding Boromir's funeral rites

At my Notion Club Papers blog; I discuss the question of why Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, spent so much time and effort on conducting Boromir's funeral; when it seems like a more urgent and vital necessity to pursue Merry and Pippin, and rescue them from captivity by the orcs. 

Note: I like the atmosphere of the above illustration - which captures the spirit of the occasion. But it looks rather as if Boromir had had most of his legs cut-off by the Uruk Hai; and surely Legolas would not wet his bowstring in the River Anduin. Also (contra Peter Jackson), according to Tolkien, Boromir did not have a beard, due to his Numenorean/ part-Elvish ancestry. 

Geopolitics and national interest: pervasive, seductive - but not a real thing

Geopolitics is everywhere, you can't get away from it, and it is nigh impossible to escape falling into engaging in it. 

People do geopolitical analyses and offer geopolitical explanations, every day many times a day; in politics, media, academia, and conversations; relating to all kinds of things from wars to other types of inter-national conflict. 

Yet, I have said elsewhere, geopolitics is intrinsically evil; but I would add here that it is gratuitously evil. It is not necessary: we don't need to do it. 

I have come to the conclusion that geopolitics isn't a real thing; and probably never has been a real thing.

Geopolitics is an artificial abstraction that treats nations as agents - as purposive "beings" that interact, inter-relate, cooperate or compete - and the like. 

But everything I have discovered on these subjects, or at least everything about which I am confident, goes against this way of reasoning.

To be more exact, I don't think that things ever happen because such a course of action is "good for the national interests" of a country. 

There may be a lot of other possible reasons why things happen - but not the "good for national interest" reason: this seems always to be a false (and usually incoherent) excuse for something much smaller scale and specific than the nation - something personal, clannish or tribal.

**

Furthermore, "promoting the national interest" is a positive motivation - something intended to improve. 

But I have come to believe that the real reasons of inter-national events and policies are nearly always negative. 

In other words; the real reason for actions, policies, and wars is not to promote positive benefit, but instead to cause negative harm. 

What I mean is that the primary motivation in geopolitics is almost-always something like hatred, disgust, or resentment, a desire to cause suffering, destruction, death - rather than any genuine and strong idea of "doing good".  

And these negative motivations are best understood as operating at a level much closer to the personal (e.g. individual, clan, tribe) than to the national. 

Such negative motivations seem to be almost invisible to analysis (certainly on "our side"), partly because positive motivations are much more positively regarded; but also because the possibility of primarily negative motivation is seldom entertained*. 

We deny the strength and dominance of negative motivations inter-nationally, ultimately because we deny this in our-selves.  

There is a genuine reluctance to interpret international affairs in terms of hatred, disgust, resentment, and the desire to harm - yet such motivations may be openly-acknowledged, or expressed frequently in casual speech and writing, inter-personally or inside groups, and off-the-official-record. 

We may do, we almost certainly do, exactly this ourselves! 

But furthermore, aside from open admissions; primarily negative motivations may easily be inferred from consistent long-term patterns - so long as we actually look at these.   

Of course; negative motivations are operative in many inter-personal and intra-national affairs as well  as globally - fuelling all sorts of conflicts and violence from that between sexes, classes, jobs, regions, races, religions, ideologies... 

Indeed, anything about which people have strong preferences and convictions is potential ground for the operation of negative motivations - the desire to harm; being masked by false explanations and excuses concerning an alleged desire to protect or promote some larger values and entities. 

In a nutshell; I am saying that spitefulness - which I regarded as the worst of all sins - is a much bigger influence on life in this mortal world than is commonly acknowledged. 

And furthermore; the frequency and strength of that extreme evil of the sin of spite needs first to be recognized in ourselves; before it can be recognized, and taken account of, in others.  

We need to be honest about the microcosm that we know from primary personal experience, before we can understand the macrocosm that we know by inference from secondhand reports and reasoning. 

*NOTE ADDED: Because of this reluctance to consider the primacy of negative motivations; the way that negations usually operate in current Western geopolitics, is by the most powerful people and groups successfully convincing the less powerful that policies and strategies which are in truth motivated by hatred, revenge and sheer spitefulness; are instead going to benefit those persons and groups whose cooperation is needed. This pattern of negative masquearding as positive is transparently evident in the current warmongering - if one can entertain the possibility: evident from the incoherence and inconsistency of positive "national interest" justifications. But it can also be observed in the oppositional nature of all modern politics. Since positive intent became inconceivable (due to the denial of God and cosmic personal purpose) and opposition by default became core to public discourse, negative evil has had open season.   

Purgatory? How Good do people need to be, in order to enter Heaven?

Purgatory is one of those concepts that I regard as false, but having some truth behind it. 

That truth is mortal Men differ greatly in goodness, and that none are good enough for Heaven - so something must be done to transform us first. 

Instead; my understanding is that all resurrection is into Heaven; and that resurrection is simple and fast and waits upon nothing - if the dead soul's decision is immediate. 

If the dead soul desires it (and will make the necessary "sacrifices") we die and then are resurrected into the Heavenly state of incarnated eternal life, straight away. 

Any delay to resurrection is a matter of uncertainty of choice, caused by a delay in the decision of the dead soul. 

Delay before resurrection is therefore not because of differences in goodness and evil between Men. 

My notion of resurrection is that what gets resurrected of a Man, and which moves-on to the state of Heaven; is that which is compatible with Love. 

All else, not compatible with Love, is not-included in the resurrected Man; is left-out and left-behind at resurrection. 

However; this process can conly happen with full consent of the dead soul. The deal soul must be willing to leave-behind (be "purged" of) all of himself that is incompatible with love. 

My belief is that anyone who makes a firm commitment to choose to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven after death, and to be transformed thus - will do so immediately; without any need for delay or further processing such as purgatory.  

However, I presume there are also people who are unsure whether or not they want resurrection into Heaven; and for them I assume there are various (probably many) temporary ways of delaying a commitment or choice - which ways may include (but not be restricted to) something functionally akin to purgatory. 

The necessity of philosophy, of understanding the needful

If we can all accept that being a (real) Christian entails making a personal commitment to the primacy of (real) Love as a value - while leaving the details and implications undefined at present - then what is the value of "truth", of seeking understanding of the world, and of people?

The question seems worth asking - because it seems that many people regard personal philosophical endeavor as optional in the Christian life, and the seeking of understanding as a distraction.   

The value of understanding is its necessity for living by Love. 

Truth and understanding ought to be directed at Love. 

And we need to understand enough to live in accordance with the primacy of Love. 

In other words; abstract and generic understanding is not of value. 

But it is necessary for each of us to understand reality sufficiently well that we can live properly. 

(Whether we actually do then live properly is not a matter of understanding, but instead a decision and personal commitment.) 

In practice, nowadays and in the West; people's actually-existing understanding is a severe obstacle to their living well. 

Indeed, the standard and mainstream understanding of most people constitutes an actual barrier to living well. 

I mean that if we live in accordance with standard mainstream modern Western understanding (atheist, materialist etc) - then we cannot live as we should, and we cannot live in accordance with the primacy of Love. 

So much for atheistic-materialism; however, understanding is a two-sided thing - which situation entails a particular person engaging with particular assumptions and values.  

On such a basis; it also seems evident to me that many of the assumptions and values of religions, including Christianity, also function as obstacles, barriers, even blockages - preventing people living in accordance with the primacy of Christian love. 

In other words; many religions, including many self-identified Christian religions (denominations, churches), here-and-now, constitute forms of understanding hostile to the reality of Christianity. 

Such are reasons why understanding is important, and often spiritually vital. 

Insofar as our actually-existing understanding is an obstacle, barrier or blockage to living in accordance with Love; then we must strive to understand that which it is necessary for us (me/ here/ now) to understand. 

Gaining understanding, doing-philosophy in the specific way described above, should be a major priority in the lives of most people.

In this ultimate and simple way; for most people here-and-now, seeking understanding is non-optional, doing-philosophy is necessary. 

NOTE: As I have often said here, what I mean here by understanding is grasping for-ourselves (not outsourced, not by trusting an authority), as a single "instantaneous" mental act of comprehension. And what needs understanding are things like the basic nature of reality - the universe and our-selves, and the relations between. Basic matters such as whether reality is alive or not, has purpose or not, the nature of freedom/ agency. In technical terms "metaphysics". In short: we must have a valid understanding of that metaphysics necessary to living by Love.  

Why So Many Kinds of intellectuals have been captured by "AI"

The vulnerability to "AI"-capture seems to run deepest among intellectuals - but this vulnerability extends across a very wide range of intellectual types - politicians, media executives, corporate managers, finance entrepreneurs, technocrats, academics, teachers, totalitarians, atheists and traditionally religious, New Age spiritual seekers... 

Indeed, no class or kind of intellectual persons seem to have much resistance to capture.

It seems that almost all have by now succumbed; and with those who have not succumbed... well, it seems like just a matter of "not yet"*.  

Why are intellectuals especially vulnerable?

My best guess is that intellectuals have always tended to engage with life via models; and models are abstract simplifications of the boundless complexity of reality. Such models include mathematics, sciences, politics, economics; and indeed all academic and bureaucratic subjects. 

This second-hand engagement via abstract simplifications is valuable insofar as the models are useful; albeit the usefulness of a model may not have been checked, and even if a model has been checked these checks are only retrospective (can only be retrospective). 

The prospective, future limitations of a model (which limitations are many and intrinsic exactly because it is an abstract simplification) are not knowable or predictable in advance; and indeed when the model has captured a person, the failures of a model will usually be denied, explained-away.  

The value of intellectuals is not that they understand Life, or The World, or The Universe, or God; but that they understand the model. 

Insofar as the model is useful or valued, so intellectuals are useful or valued. 

But the problem, the weakness, is that intellectuals (of all kinds) so-often depend for their position and self-esteem on maintaining the special value of second-hand understandings (of all kinds). 

One malign tendency among intellectuals is to assert the primacy of the model: that the model is itself The Thing being-modelled. 

And another tendency is to increase the abstraction and complexity of the model, partly to protect their own expertise - e.g. to keep the model difficult enough to elude external analysis and critique, and to impress/ bamboozle/ subordinate the layman. 

I mean that intellectuals are prone to elaborating or generating a complex model that covers ever-more ground. 

Indeed, intellectuals tend to press their models to such a degree of complexity and abstraction, that they themselves do not understand the model in which they claim expertise. 

Instead intellectuals may claim expertise in using the model.

So the situation arises that many intellectuals suffer the profound and existential disadvantages of a belief-in, a commitment to, the primacy of merely secondhand models of reality...

Yet these are models which the intellectuals themselves do not understand; instead these are models that the intellectual merely serves (or claims to serve).

This situation, although common, is wrong - is indeed evil; insofar as service to the un-understood, service to something whose nature is not known, is evil.  

So-called-AI is a cluster of abstract, highly complex, and un-understandable models of reality. 

There can be no expertise in understanding an "AI" model.  

As such; "AI" technologies suffer all the intrinsic disadvantages of all models; but "AI" also intrinsically lack the potential value (which is a pragmatic and retrospective value) of the most valid models.   

Therefore, the special vulnerability of intellectuals to capture by "AI" is in the first-place a consequence of the evil abuses of secondhand models as a way of relating to reality; secondly that "AI" models are of a model-type that cannot validly be used, since they are un-understandable. 

The answer to this situation is in striving to eschew un-understandable models of reality - and to reject their primacy; and to recognize that to be useful a model must genuinely be understood. 

Such a moral discipline will reject a great deal more than "AI" - but exactly that is necessary+. 

Because all abstract models of reality need to be simple enough that we genuinely understand them: and if we are to regard them as central to our lives, we need personally to understand them. 

It is not difficult, as a mental process. 

I believe that we all already-have a simple, innate and direct (because God-given) contact with primary Life and Reality. 

The intellectual deception is in demanding a more comprehensive, hence too-complex, typically too abstract, understanding - than that which is understandable and knowable.

In a nutshell; modern intellectuals of all stripes and types have become experts at self-validating, self-serving, self-deception; by pretending (for advantages of self-esteem, for claimed social expediency) to understand that which they do not understand...

Which is why intellectuals are so especially vulnerable to capture by the un-understandable models of "AI". 

_____

+ I mean that if someone tries to reject "AI" while retaining their commitment to some abstract, complex, un-understood model/s - then that person will end-up by embracing "AI". 

And this is exactly what has happened to so many intellectuals over the past four years. 

As they come to realize that "AI" is not qualitatively different from that-to-which-they-have-outsourced-their-thinking-and-judging; rather than rejecting their practice of outsourcing, such persons instead expand their outsourcing such as to include "AI". 

*NOTE: My concern here is spiritual. Of course; the effect of "AI" will be to hasten the destruction of Western Civilization. But in that resepct "AI" is just one of many, simultaneous and synergistic global strategies (e.g. everywhere war, financial parasitism, purposive economic and agricultural destruction, mass migration, the CO2 Climate agenda etc etc). And, after all, the West is by-now (and increasingly) the most extremely and unrepentantly evil civilization in world history - such that striving to "save" WC in the absence of a prior spiritual rebirth, entails a personal commitment to advance purposive evil. No: The most significant harm of "AI"-capture is spiritual: 1. spiritual outsourcing; and 2. spiritual outsourcing of almost the worst conceivable kind - its being evidently both addictive in the short-term, and purposively soul-destroying in a cumulative and self-stoking fashion. To observe more and ever-more once-respected persons, across the board of thinkers and intellectuals, so-willingly succumbing to AI-dolatry of one sort of another - is a spiritually-dismaying experience. I should add that although AI-capture is common across the board, and not confined to intellectuals; I believe that its spiritual damage is most severe and pervasive - and negatively transformative - among the intellectual class.  

Tree-surgeons versus the "topiary" school of tree-butchers

I live in a relatively leafy suburb containing many forest-sized trees such as oaks, beeches, horse chestnuts, limes - plus common sycamores that grow as weeds around here. 

Since the trees are large, and grow near to houses, paths and roads - they need to be pruned from time to time - either as treatment, prevention, or after storm damage. 

So, I know both from personal experience and a good deal of observation, that there are two distinct kinds of arboreal operative. 

There are real tree-surgeons; and there are tree-butchers - who nonetheless claim "surgical" status, and evidently get way too much employment in these parts. 

The difference is that real tree-surgeons know and love trees, and carefully enhance the appearance of the trees upon which they operate. 

They do this by maintaining complete branches, and cutting back to the joints of branches - aiming at a natural tree-shape. 

A year or two following tree-surgery; the tree usually looks better than before; as well as being healthier and safer. 

In total contrast; the tree-butchers are gloried hedge-trimmers; whose training is apparently restricted to the usage of power saws in difficult conditions - but utterly excludes botany. 

The tree-butcher's idea of a well-cut tree is one that has a geometrical outline. 

I have seen these intrepid characters at work. Their inspiration is of a forest tree that has been shaped as-if it were massed boxwood or yew plantations and rows; perhaps topographically decorating one of those abstractly-un-biological Louis XIV type French formal gardens. 

So they cut branches to fit a predetermined, usually more or less spherical, silhouette; such that all branches (large or small, trunk or twig) are sheared to end abruptly at whatever point they reach the predetermined circumference. 

After a year or two the bigger branch ends of these once-magnificent-mutants become covered in multiple sprouts, rather like the Whomping Willow in Harry Potter. A sinuous beech or gnarled oak becomes more like a basket-maker's pollard of the Somerset levels*. 

And the saddest thing is that the damage of tree-butchery is irreversible; except by starting-again with a new seed or sapling. 

+++

* Note: the pollarding method is deliberate, purposive; and quaintly-characteristic of my childhood landscape of water-meadows - the "summer lands" of legend and history. 

BTW - The photos are NOT of my locality, but representative images grabbed from the interwebs. 

The question of Life, versus the many questions of Living

One effect of modernity (and our atheist, materialist, utilitarian ideological assumptions) is that the question of Life has all-but disappeared from thought, to be replaced by the many questions of Living. 

The question of Life is concerned with this mortal Life between conception/birth and death; considered as a whole entity - asking what Life is about; its purpose, meaning. 

Whereas the questions of living are those innumerable matters of surviving, thriving, being happy, remaining functional, reducing suffering - getting-through and doing-well. 

The question of life is a matter of Why? 

But modern culture and its people have already decided that there is no answer to Why? - have already decided that there is not purpose, meaning - and that Life is "about" nothing. 

So this question of Life, which was so obvious as to be unavoidable for most of human history is ignored, suppressed; and replaced by the endless parade of questions of Living.

The Why? is replaced by a How?

Why think about Life when we already know (i.e. have already decided) that there is no answer? 

By far the best thing, the only sensible thing, is therefore Not to think about Life. 

...To stay focused on questions of living, and of how to live "well"; and to mock, or distract ourselves from, asking the question of Life. 

Such is Western culture, now: such is the nature of our civilization. 

There is never a necessary, nor even an appropriate, time or place for asking the question of Life.

Nor do people feel any need to answer it, and find ridiculous or contemptible any attempt to do so - and regard as idiotic or insane any claim to have done so. 

And is this not evil? And evil of a very advanced and un-repentable form: for so many people, with such determination, to be so sure of the futility of Life as to refuse even to formulate the most important question of all? 

My hardening perspective against the mass media and official information

"The official story" is always wrong, and also fundamentally misleading*. 

And it probably always has been - albeit getting worse and worse, more and more rapidly, about more and more things.

So that here-and-now the wrong and misleading nature of public knowledge must be kept in mind, much of the time.  

This is because the official story is currently generated and sustained by people whose net-motivations are always (increasingly) bad and whose nature is always dishonest: i.e. the people who run things, the ruling class, the leadership class of all the major institutions (including churches).

Therefore; I know what is Not true; but very seldom know what is true; and there is really no way of me finding-out what is true -- except in a few areas where I have personal knowledge or contacts; and except when it comes to knowledge in very general (not detailed) terms. 

However, this little is also sufficient for my purposes. 

What I do not know, is not essential (not least because I could not do anything constructive about it) - and what I need to know, it is possible for me to know. 

*Of course there are always some elements of true knowledge used in the construction of every effective deception, manipulation, and lie. We must not be misled by this: it is merely a rhetorical necessity. 

+++

(In theory I have known this for a long time; but in practice I always made exceptions where I was actually believing, and being-shaped-by, too-detailed-to-be-real knowledge that was in fact attained wholly secondhand. And I still do make such false exceptions, unfortunately; although eventually (sometimes) I catch myself; and realize I have been fooling-myself and/or been-manipulated yet again. This happens because nature abhors a vacuum, and on any given topic we must positively-believe some-thing - so we had better be clear about what it is that we are assuming, and our grounds for it.) 

How can we improve and strengthen our motivation?

So much depends on motivation; but can it be improved?  

Yes, I think so - but this is not easy or straightforward, and needs to be approached indirectly. 

(I mean, we cannot - because it does not work, and anyway is not what is required - simply decide on what is better, and then do-it by sheer will-power. A process of discovery is entailed.) 

First; we need to stop trying to fulfil somebody-else's agenda. 

This is, of course, merely negative and permissive: we then need to replace external motivation with an internal motivation that is both good, and sufficiently powerful to make a difference.

Secondly, therefore, we must discover our inner agenda - but that inner discernment needs to focus upon our eternal agenda. 

By "eternal" I particularly mean our post-mortal agenda: i.e. what do we want to happen to us on a timescale going beyond death*: an open-ended timescale.  

And this eternal agenda, in turn, depends on what we most value. 

We need, therefore, to discover/ decide what is is that we most want. 

For example (others will disagree); I personally most-value love, and from that creativity. In other words; what I most value and want on an open-ended basis, would be to live in a context of permanent inter-personal love, and to be active in creative (which includes procreative) ways. 

For me, therefore, having clarified my ultimate motivation; I am then in a position both to improve and strengthen my here-and-now and proximate motivation - so that current behaviour better fits the intended goal. 

How this can work is that - having made this choice and commitment - I can (and should) explore this imaginatively.

...Imagining that I am in the situation I believe that I want; and following-up its consequences and possibilities; to check that it really is what I want; and most want. 

If the initial choice of wanting survives that test; then my motivation is improved by being brought into-line with what I most want; and strengthened by my having explored and affirmed what this wanting actually implies.

+++

*Any this-worldly agenda is merely expedient; being temporary and destined to fail, because of unavoidable entropy and death - plus, of course, the presence of evil. 

The difference between truthfulness and (mere) honesty

People confuse honesty with truthfulness. 

Truthfulness implies a positive motivation to know reality - essentially for its own sake; because knowing reality is (for such people) among the highest of values. 

Honesty, by contrast; is in practice mostly negative; it is a commitment not to lie, or (much more rarely) not deliberately to mislead. 

In science - and indeed in scholarship more generally - negative honesty is necessary but insufficient: what is necessary is truth-full-ness - a positive commitment to know and describe reality, as best we may. 

Trying to make sense of something that does not make sense - the normal, official, imposed situation in life

In those days - now receding fast! - when real science was happening at a large scale, as a social system; its progress functioned by individuals trying and failing to understand, comprehend, make-sense-of existing theories - then coming-up with something better (or at least, something which solved the problems of the earlier theory). 

When we learn something like a scientific theory, we are supposed first to understand it - and this is what school and college education are about. 

But some theories are hard to understand, or cannot be understood. 

A failure to understand may be due to various deficiencies in the understander: e.g. lack of ability, lack of effort, lack of necessary knowledge...

However; some theories are hard to understand because they have errors, and are not coherent (with themselves, and with observations) - indeed this is a common, usual, situation. 

In other words; some theories cannot be understood, because they do not make sense. Yet these incoherent and un-understandable theories are nonetheless taught and propagated in many ways, built-into research programs, fund-raising, prestige and career structures, used to justify public policies and marketing etc. 

In such cases where incoherent and un-understandable theories are built-into The System - and these situations are very common! - then people do Not really understand them (because incoherence cannot be understood) - but nonetheless think that they do understand. 

The situation is harmful, potentially lethal; because people either do not understand but pretend to understand, or else they convince-themselves into supposing that they do understand something which they do not! 

Then, ignorance and delusion replace understanding, and on a large scale... 

Welcome To Our World!

Such a situation, in which a majority of people, usually the most influential and powerful people, falsely believe that they understand some theory that actually does not make sense - can be stable and resistant to change, lasting over long periods. 

Indeed, large-scale fake understanding of the incoherent is normal - which is why real science was only an influential social system for a relatively short time - about three or four hundred years, starting from the 1600s.  

To make progress entials people acknowledging that they do Not understand, that they have been propagating and enforcing error; that their theories are incoherent in ways that are significant and are causing some significant problems. 

Such an acknowledgement is apparently impossible to most  people - indeed it apparently needs people to be strongly motivated by the desire to seek and know truth; which is not usually a strong motivator in humans. So there never are many real scientists in any society or situation; and often there are none - in which case truth will not primarily be pursued, and other motivations will prevail. 

For this acknowledgement of error actually to lead to progress then requires replacing the old erroneous theory with another theory that is better... 

However, the new theory will also have errors! And some of these errors usually seem obvious to those who desire to stick to the old theory. 

Indeed, any proposed new theory, designed to solve particular problems of the old theory, may overall be worse - that is, the errors of the new may be more significant than the errors of the old!

Nonetheless; the "errors" pointed-out by critiques of the new theory may not be errors; but instead are simply false implications of the erroneous old theory. And this happens A Lot, when a critic does not really understand either the theory he is defending, nor that which he is attacking! 

How then can we know which theory is better? 

Only by understanding both old and new theories, including their errors - and making a comparison. 

And, as I said at the beginning: Understanding Is Difficult - requiring (at least) a combination of Motivation, Ability and Effort. 

Understanding can only be done by individual persons; and for any person it is a significant sacrifice to deploy motivation, ability, and effort to understand both the old theory and the proposed new theory ... 

And therefore most people will resist even trying to understand either the old or the new theory - yet most people will claim to understand both theories nonetheless!

Also; there may be good reasons to resist making this attempt at understanding, and wasting our finite and precious resources of time and energy. 

We may therefore resist evaluating a new theory for good reasons - because understanding is difficult and we judge the person proposing the new theory to be one who does not even understand the old theory! 

Or perhaps we regard them as someone who lacks the knowledge, experience, right-attitudes, motivations (etc) to devise and understand a new and better theory. 

(For instance; we may regard the propagator as too ignorant on the subject, indifferent to truth or even an habitual liar; or as someone pursing another agenda - ideological, careerist, or whatever. We may regard that person as evil - and "using" the discourse to pursue evil ends...) 

All this emphasizes that science is, and always has been, difficult! But also that its difficulties are only seldom and partially conceptual - and that it is often (usually?) difficult to understand a theory because of its errors: because that theory is incoherent. 

In other words; the amount of ability and knowledge required to recognize error, and devise something better; may be much less than commonly assumed - because when theories are badly wrong, then most of the knowledge is irrelevant, and much of a person's ability is confused and corrupted by attempting (and claiming) to understand the un-understandable!

The real difficultly of understanding is therefore in trying to make sense of something that does not make sense - and such is the nature of most of public discourse; and such situations of institutional error and incoherence are indeed normal, and usually impossible to remedy. 

But any individual person who is truth-motivated and has sufficient ability and knowledge (which may be much less than usually supposed), and who makes the effort to understand; can do better for himself.

An individual can know better than anyone else who has not made that effort; when, as so often, nobody else actually-has made that effort*. 

This is, I believe; an encouraging, as well as realistic, conclusion. 

*Note: Of course, to do better than everybody else around at knowing the best theory, entails that your motivation must be better than theirs! Perhaps not all that difficult nowadays - but nonetheless a vital factor. Furthermore, any theory has errors, so your theory will have errors. When science is functioning as a social system, there will be "other people" who are competent and motivated to discover the errors in your theory; in a honestly comparative spirit, understanding and evaluating with respect to rival theories. But when you are doing sicence for yourself; nobody else will make the effort to understand your theory; so you will need to do all the critique youself. And need means need - it must be done. This underlines why a strong and relevant truth-motivation is so vital - because self-critique is usually painful! 

The Synoptic Gospels are actually Apocryphal

If it is agreed that the Fourth Gospel is of primary validity; then the other three "Synoptic" Gospels (Mathhew, Mark, and Luke) should be categorized as Apocryphal scriptures - which is, indeed, the way I think of them. 

The Synoptics are also Apocryphal in the sense that they are later, non-eye-witness, collected and compiled accounts of Jesus's life and teachings. 

Added to which; Luke, and Matthew - especially, seem to be written with a distinct added-theme relating to the prophesied Messiah - to such an extent that Jesus is deemed to have failed in his ministry to such an extent that he must needs return (at some point) to complete his work of salvation (i.e. the Second Coming). 

So; the Fourth Gospel should really be regarded as the only "canonical" source about Jesus; and the other Books of the New Testament are Apocryphal to various degrees - Mark, probably the least apocryphal, and Revelation/ Apocalypse the most.  

Jesus was Not a "suicide by cop"

Note: In what follows; I take the Fourth Gospel ("John") as my eyewitness source for the life of Jesus final years. 

If we are to regard Jesus's life and behaviour as, in significant ways, exemplary; we should notice that he did not cling to his mortal life - did not try to delay his death. 

This has sometimes been taken to mean that Jesus did not value mortal life, and that we should not value it.... 

That because Heaven is eternal, and mortal life is finite; "therefore" mortal life has not ultimate value except insofar as it leads to Heaven. That "therefore" we should live now, as-much-as-possible, as if we were already resurrected, immortal, and in Heaven. That "therefore" the sooner we die, the better...

But it is equally important to recognize that Jesus did not court his death: that Jesus was not in any sense a "suicide by cop" - nor was Jesus (as-it-were) using the Jewish and Roman authorities in order to bring about, as speedily as possible, the kind of death that was prophesied, ordained, necessary. 

Instead; the way we should think about this; is that Jesus knew when it was "time to die". 

He knew when it was time to stop struggling against the dying of the light, and prepare for transformation and the next phase of our existence. 

And this is something that we can learn from his example; we also need to recognize when it is time for us to die, and when the time has arrived to choose and prepare-for what comes after.

And "what comes after" depends, substantially, on what we personally believe is possible; and of these possibilities - which one we personally most-want. 

Comp Lit versus Comp Mus: Literary genius versus the "language" of music

I don't think that we can really appreciate literary genius outwith out own - high level - language ability. The field of "comparative literature" is, in this sense, somewhat bogus. 

As an historical example; the greatness of Shakespeare was discovered by German critics of the 1700s, and the British learned from them; but I don't think the Germans were really appreciating Shakespeare, because they didn't "get" the poetry. 

At any rate, the main reason the German critics appreciated Shakespeare was that they regarded him as a kind of primitive natural genius - a high level sort of idiot savant who spontaneously expressed the folk soul of his race. 

This evaluation is essentially false; but it is exactly the kind of mistake made by people who go beyond their linguistic competence. It was the kind of error that made an extremely high European (and American) reputation for the Ossian writings of James Macpherson. 

In essence, Comp Lit entails a type of "projection" - of reading-into the author what is wanted to be found there. 

Of course this sort of misunderstanding can be valuable in various ways - it can even be fuel for the work of a genius (creative misreading is a real thing). 

Yet there is an ineradicable problem when people try to discuss and rank world historical greatness across languages and cultures; and pretend to be able objectively to compare (say) Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Tolstoy...

 A few people may have the linguistic ability genuinely to attempt this; but it is not likely that these same individuals also have the needful literary capacity. And yet there are reams of comparative writings on these authors. 

Translations are at best re-creations - especially when it comes to poetry; and that isn't the same thing as the original. 

The classical tradition of music does, within limits, seem to be more naturally and spontaneously international than this. 

It is, at least, possible genuinely to appreciate and validly to compare the European (and Russian) composers back into the Renaissance. So it is quite normal and effortless to appreciate and compare Monteverdi, Purcell, Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, Debussy, and Tchaikovsky. 

The limit of valid comparison is more at the level of musicality and experience/ knowledge - rather than a problem with the language of music. 

This is presumably why there has been no such thing as "comparative music" which is analogous to "comparative literature" - Comp Mus is too easy and obvious and valid to require an academic apparatus.

But if "the language of music" is far more international and cross-cultural, then it is also much less of a language - if indeed it is a language at all. 

We cannot really express what it is about music that it says - whereas we can (to a significant extent) summarize writing by other writing, words being the major medium of communication. 

But we cannot summarize music by other music (or by writing); we cannot "translate" a piece of music!  

So, to the degree that music is international it seems to achieve this by its being non-propositional - by music being "an aesthetic experience" (or, at least, an emotional manipulator) rather than a meaning-carrying medium.

Therefore; Comp Lit is a kind of semi-deliberate self-delusion! 

More a matter of reading-into, than of reading. 

But an activity that can be personally fruitful, a source of fuel and direction for personal development; and there is plenty of genuinely interesting stuff to think and say about such comparisons, and the process and quality of translation. 

However, Comp Mus is of interest only to specialized (mostly professional and paid!) musicologists and historians - most music lovers will go direct to the music, and appreciate it (or not), without any demand for an interpretative apparatus. 

It is just Too Easy to be interesting!  

A case of what you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts? 

Defending the indefensible: an unfortunate - and almost unavoidable - hazard of being a serious traditional-orthodox church-obedient Christian

What I am trying to explain in this post; is how it is that so many serious Christians end-up expending so much energy on defending and asserting the most "indefensible" aspects of Christianity (past and present) - to the point that their program of life and society becomes all-but indistinguishable from that of orthodox Judaism or traditional Islam. 

In other words; by a series of steps they come to advocate and double-down upon a very hard-line, top-down, hierarchical, patriarchal, law-and-practice based system of society - with little or no space for individuality, freedom, or creativity. 

I am also suggesting that - given their baseline assumptions - this convergence of Christianity is extremely difficult to avoid, no matter which particular church or denomination to which that person subscribes. 

**

Most self-identified Christians are church-obedient; by which I mean that they regard external authority to be primary when it comes to being a Christian; and they further believe that external authority to be rooted either in the structure and practice of an institutional church, and/ or in a church-mandated selection and interpretation of scripture.

Most church-obedient Christians are are a liberal or modern persuasion, that operates in conformity to the prime directives of Left-Liberal values as expressed in the leadership of current "Western" civilization. These are not "serious" Christians, because their primary values are indistinguishable - in practice - from those of atheism and materialism. 

A minority of church-obedient Christians are what I am calling traditional-orthodox ("trad-ortho") because they dissent from the mainstream values, and try to adhere to "pre-modern" (conservative, indeed "reactionary") core teachings and practices of their church or denomination. 

These trad-ortho Christians are a type of serious Christian. 

In effect, a trad-ortho, church-obedient Christian has done a comparison of two systems of belief/ values/ practices etc: one system being that of their favoured church, and the other system being that of the Modern West. 

From this historical perspective, and given the integrated and inter-dependent nature of both rival systems; they have (not unreasonably) concluded that the reality of the situation is a case of all-or-nothing.  

It is seen as an either-or choice; a choice of one or the other.  

And, having decided (quite reasonably) that given this forced-choice between the two alternatives; their evaluation is that the church-system is evidently overall superior to mainstream modern atheist-materialism Leftism. 

Consequently; they then feel compelled (from honesty) to affirm the entirety of their version of the trad-orthodox scheme. 

This is, I think, more-or-less how it is that the trad-orthodox position comes to converge on an obedience-dominant model; and their hard-line, top-down, hierarchical, patriarchal, law-and-practice based system of society. 

When coming into conflict with mainstream atheistic modernism; this way of thinking is pretty-much compelled to deny any value or virtues in the modern critique of trad-orthodox society. 

So that trad-orthodox position is compelled to confront modernity on its strongest ground; especially some of the ways in which most modern people spontaneously, and often with a strong conviction, experience and feel most strongly - I mean issues relating superficially to matters of sex and lifestyle; and much more fundamentally to individuality, freedom, and creativity. 

In effect; trad-orthodox often end-up expending much of their effort in first defending, then actually asserting, the faults, defects, limitations - and indeed evils - of the churches and denominations of the past.  

Because of the nature of modern society and modern people; this situation seems almost unavoidable - at any rate it seems to happen to serious and church-obedient Christians of all kinds: Eastern and Western Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Nonconformist Protestants, Mormons - and all other kinds and flavours. 

The more serious the church-obedient Christian, the more extremely this phenomenon is observable.

In practice, this situation seems to be unavoidable; at least so long as the real situation is regarded as one of a forced choice between two integrated and systematic options - both alternatives assuming that ultimate authority is located externally, and therefore that the highest personal virtue is obedience to that authority. 

Battle of Britain Day

The 15th September was chosen to commemorate the Battle of Britain, since it was this day in 1940 that was the turning-point. 

I have mislaid or lost my Spitfire pin-badge, so can provide only the above generic photo!

Not forgetting the most numerous of the RAF fighters: the Hawker Hurricane; here depicted shooting-down a Heinkel 111 bomber over the Thames:

  

It was Hugh Dowding and Keith Park who were most responsible for Britain's victory:

Dowding devised and implemented the integrated defence interception-system; of radar, spotters, WAAF plotters (standing at a big map table, moving tokens with croupier-poles - see below) etc; and Park was responsible for managing the pilot and fighter resources of the major South East sector, around London and the likely invasion beaches - which bore the brunt of the German assault.  

Bespoke revelation and salvation - God goes beyond Systems

I recently posted about some of the "Systems" which we might imagine God setting-up to provide humans with revelation; and something analogous could be said for salvation. 

In principle; a creator God might provide salvation built-into all who were suitable (i.e. a version of predestination), via schemata provided by scripture (as for some kinds of Evangelical Protestant), with the necessary intermediary of a church (perhaps a more Roman Catholic view); or to each person individually and directly.

If we go a step further; we could imagine that God could simultaneously provide all of the above (maybe an Anglican view) - and more.

And with that "and more"; we have then gone beyond System. 

And we are imagining a God whose basic method of communication and provision of eternal life is "bespoke" or tailor-made to fit a specific individual: i.e. bespoke mechanisms of revelation, bespoke provision of the possibility of salvation.  

So, do we envisage God as doing his spiritual work in a one-size-fits-all way - a single method of revelation, a single path of salvation?

Or is God more like an off-the-peg provider - offering a particular range of sizes and products; each of which approximately fits the commonest shapes and circumstances of the multitude of different persons?

Or is God like the most ideal bespoke tailor, who (as it were) takes our spiritual measurements, discovers our character and motivational requirements - and then offers us something uniquely built-around our nature and constraints?

Such a God would offer us our actual life; as it actually is here and today; as the medium for revelation and salvation.

If so, if that is how our God operates; then it would be a serious mistake to attempt to fit our actual life and aspirations into any standard form or system. 

At best, we would be rejecting the bespoke suit and instead be choosing something off the peg, that fitted only approximately. 

At worst we might be trying to wear and work-in a single-sized uni-purpose garment; grossly unsuited to our distinctive self and situation. 

Anglo-Saxon Cross dating from the 800s in Rothbury, Northumberland

Today we saw the base that remains from perhaps the oldest surviving decorated stone rood in England; now forming the base of the font in All Saint's church, Rothbury, Northumberland. 

It has been dated in the 800s AD -  but note that the wider part of the structure at the top, linking to the wooden cover; was carved in 1664.  

The quality of the carving seems to have been outstandingly good. 

The East Face seems to depict a (pre-Fall?) paradisal scene of a complex and interlacing tree with animals:

The North Face is of the Ascension - only the lower part of Jesus is visible, from the shoulders; and the Disciples faces are turned sideways, looking up. 

The West Face is a mostly symmetrical design of looping serpents or dragons, with people or beasts entangled - perhaps depicting Hell? 

Pictures from Megalithic Portal - upper parts of the cross - with ever crisper carving - were found in the churchyard, and are displayed in the Great North Museum in Newcastle upon Tyne. 

The symbol of Light for Goodness has become ineffectual

The ancient symbolisation of light (and white) for goodness used to be more than just symbolism. In the ancient past symbols were also realities, directly. 

There was then a necessity about goodness manifesting as white light, and about the power of white and light imagery to form and shape effective intention. 

Light made good. 

What I'm saying is that Light really used to more than "imagery" or a concept; and when light was used in religious imagery or architecture, scripture or ritual; or when light was the focus for prayer and meditation etc - doing-this actually had a positive effect on the world. 

I think that this effect of Light was still a factor in early twentieth century, and especially when deployed in a heightened form (for example, in The Lord of the Rings) - but the power of Light to have a positive effect on the world dwindled through the twentieth century to its current very low level. 

Light no longer works the way it once did; as a mode (or vehicle) of transforming for the better, of defeating evil, and making good. 

This is part of the generic phenomenon of losing the ability to to Do Good in any centralized and top-down or strategic fashion. 

Just as politics is now always allied with evil (at best, a lesser evil) - so the old "physics-like" ways of describing God and the divine (such as light, energy, force etc) are ineffectual and indeed actively misleading. 

From now goodness is, and ought to be recognized as, personal. 

Goodness is done not by shining a beam of good light onto the world, or anything at all like that; but instead person-to-person, being-to-being - including relationships between us and divine and spiritual beings, and the resurrected dead. 

We observe what we expect, and nobody is exempt: the Birdemic, Heinkel He 113, and Scarecrow Shells

An RAF spotters guide to identifying the He 113 - an aircraft that did not exist. 

The extent to which it is true that we see what we expect is much greater than usually believed, and few if any people are exempted. The most highly trained and expert observers are susceptible as much as, or perhaps even more, than the naive and inexperienced (as suggested by The Emperor's New Clothes fable). 

The way this works is mainly in terms of interpreting and explaining phenomena - in making sense of our sensory observations. 

After all, we cannot observe any-thing, without an interpretative framework, scheme, or built-in expectations; that draw a boundary around the "thing", to distinguish it from the boundless mass of visual and other stimuli. 

There are many examples:

1. The Heinkel He 113 fighter aircraft in the Battle of Britain, WW II. 

This was an invention of German propaganda, and did not exist as an operational aircraft; but was spotted, fought, shot-down in considerable numbers by RAF pilots, anti-aircraft gunners etc who had been taught about it in official British documentation. In other words, it was seen by highly-trained people who in most cases had almost superhumanly accurate eyesight - and whose lives depended on accurate observation.  

2. "Scarecrow" anti-aircraft shells, used against British night bombers in WWII. 

 British Intelligence services told the RAF bomber aircrew that the Germans had devised anti-aircraft artillery that simulated the appearance of an exploding bomber, and not to be fooled. This was false, and the appearance was actually caused by exploding aircraft; but many aircrew saw scarecrow shells. 

3. Human adrenal gland microscope slides.

When I was researching nerves in the human adrenal gland, with the help of a pathologist who was able to obtain tissue samples from people who had died suddenly; I learned that the gland would almost immediately, and even before death, begin to self-destruct when humans had a prolonged or painful death. 

It turned-out that the microscope slides in the anatomy department consisted of such badly damaged adrenal samples, that were full of pus (white blood cells) and with the original structure obliterated. Nonetheless, generations of microscopists - including many with very high levels of microscopic expertise - had seen on these slide what they expected (i.e. an adrenal with a structure like an egg - the "white" being glandular tissue and the inner "yolk" being neural tissue.

4. The Birdemic of 2020.

During the spring and early summer of the Birdemic, the world was saturated with (knowingly false) propaganda that provided a new system for interpretation of the vast filed of human illness. Whether the "real" Birdemic germ actually existed as "sequenced" is unsure; but what is certain is that a majority of the "cases" , including the fatal cases, had what would until a few months previously have been given other diagnoses such as influenza. 

But during the Birdemic, people saw the Birdemic wherever they looked for it - and especially as a cause of death. They used a very broad and inclusive "official" diagnostic template to diagnose Birdemic, a schema which scooped-up all other respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and pneumonia, and indeed all sorts of other diseases that had some respiratory symptoms - or even just pyrexia (raised temperature (a raised temperature was enough to exclude sick patients from even entering a UK hospital).   

It became very-nearly as if the Birdemic, which was a made-up and unvalidated diagnosis, had become the only genuine medical problem. Even acute and curable cancers were left untreated for many weeks, as all effort was directed at the Birdemic-entity.

It can be seen that essentially everybody is vulnerable to observing what they expect; indeed we can hardly help doing so - and errors are only corrected when an alternative template for interpretation can be provided, and prevails.  

It is therefore crucial to be aware of the source and motivation of those who provide the interpretative schemata by which we understand the world. 

Because when a wrong, distorted, and harmful set of expectations are created and accepted; then the error becomes self-perpetuating.  

***

Note: One major current and recent example relates to "AI" which term has become hyper-inclusively redefined; such as to include already long-standing computer techniques - such as CGI in movies, photo-shopping, speech to text, and text-to-speech. 

All such are swept-up to construct an "epidemic" of "AI" progress, wherever we look! Theories are officially presented a major media asif facts, scares as imminent threats, day-dreams as reality-around-the-corner. A process closely-analogous to the Birdemic. 

Vast numbers of people - especially those with the highest levels of training and expertise in computers, are currently (and increasingly) in thrall to the "AI" conceptualization - and interpret reality in that light. Yet some of these here-and-now AI-dolators saw-through the Birdemic scam... 

Proving that everybody is susceptible, nobody is immune. 

And reminding that our best clue concerning malign instances of manipulation; is to ask who is propagating the interpretative scheme, and what are their likely motivations. 

Then to seek and devise an alternative interpretation of phenomena, on that basis.