The sunk cost fallacy in religion

This is: 

Because "we" (the group with whom I identify) have, over many past generations, sunk so much effort, resources, sufferings into such-and-such aspects of the religion;

"Therefore" I/Now cannot possibly conclude that such activities and actions are here-and-now now useless, or harmful. 

(Poor little me all alone; versus all-so-many, so great Them...) 

If I did; then I (little me, all by myself) would be saying that all-that effort/ resources/ suffering was a mistake. 

I would be rejecting and cutting-myself-off from the (justly great and venerable) ancestors who made and sustained my religion.

I would be putting my poor little self above all Them great and good... 

And thus people paint themselves into a corner of despair, hopelessness, and apostasy. 

Because the religion of the ancestors does not work anymore. 

Indeed, the poor-little "I" secretly (secret from itself, mostly) regards the religion of the ancestors and of the strong-majority as, in some important respects... well, flawed... Badly flawed. 

The secret heart cries-out against it, against some of the things some of my ancestors believed and did - so sincerely, so earnestly, for such sustained periods)...

But, anyway, whatever They thought/said/did - fact is: it doesn't work anymore.

It doesn't work they don't really believe it - but they are painted into a corner of That Or Nothing.  

Thus "Christianity" is weakened, and thus people reject "Christianity". 

It is their own fault. 

If we find ourselves painted into a corner, trapped by convictions into hope-less-ness - the first step towards escape is to recognize that we are actively doing this to ourselves.

By our own timidity: our fear, and lack of courage, and mental laziness...

And fundamental, ultimate, irresponsibility: The deep propensity (so common nowadays) to want to blame others for our predicament. 

Nobody can compel anyone else to give up this existential persecutory delusion; because it is consoling in the short-term; even as it is spiritually lethal in the longer-term. 

And vast swathes of people in the world (whole nations, races, ethnicities, ideologies) are in the grip of chosen-resentment and other-blame; including many powerful, rich and prestigious people (and groups) - people who we (poor little me!) would really like to have on our side! 

People think: "My life would be So Much easier and pleasanter and more secure; if I was part of a strong gang!

People are trapped by their own self-imposed and self-interested assumptions - and by their own fear, resentment, and despair. 

They reject any help that requires them to be courageous, active, and spiritually-autonomous. 

Which is why such people cannot be helped: if they do not help themselves first. 

The pain of childbirth: Can Christian hope alleviate the sufferings of mortal life?

Because being-a-Christian is essentially about resurrected eternal Heavenly life beyond mortal death; it may seem that - even if it were assumed to be a real and attainable possibility - this is not of any help in helping people deal with the sufferings of this mortal life.  

And, after all, it is this-life and its suffering that presses most strongly upon us; in a day by day (minute by minute) way. 

What most people most-want is: Help. Now!

It seems, on the surface, that another-life after this-life cannot be of any genuine assistance. 

We must still live-through all the miseries and pains, and perhaps for many years, before attaining the transformed state in a deathless and good situation. 

However, this understanding is mistaken; because resurrected eternal Heavenly life creates a larger context, that transforms what went before - both by expectation, as well as in retrospect. 

What I mean can be illustrated by the pains of childbirth. 

To generalize: giving birth (especially for the first time) is often extremely painful. It is often about as painful as anything can be: genuine agony, and this may continue for hours.

(Although, of course, medical technology nowadays provides methods for alleviating this pain.) 

And this is when things go well!

Unless you have experienced, or been present at, such a childbirth; you probably don't believe me - or think I am exaggerating ridiculously. 

You probably think: "If childbirth was really as painful as all that, then surely I would know about it? Surely people would go on about it more than they do?"

Well, the point is that - when childbirth is anticipated positively (the baby is wanted), and goes well, and a healthy baby ultimately arrives - then people more-or-less forget about how painful the process had been.

More exactly, they don't forget so much as put the pain into the context of having-a-baby; the pain happened by-the-way, almost as a means-to-that-end. 

The pain of having a baby - even while it is happening - happens as part-of, and en route to, a desired destination.  

In other words the occurrence of child-bearing pain is contextualized by its meaning and result; and this has a powerful influence both during, as well as after, the agonies of giving birth. 

To understand the power of such a context; consider that the same amount of pain which happens in childbirth would have a very different, and much worse - indeed traumatizing - significance; if it were deliberately inflicted in the course of torture.

The pain of torture would be worse both at the time, and also worse in recollection; than the same pain happening in a childbirth context.

(Again; assuming the baby was wanted, and was alright when born.)     

To close the analogy: this is like the effect of resurrected eternal life on the sufferings of mortal life. 

Having the destination of Heaven as a purpose, has a transformative effect on the meaning, hence the experience, of suffering during mortal life. 

Transformative both during suffering, and also when looking back from resurrected life on that suffering.

This does not make the pain of life go-away; any more that the childbirth context prevents the pain being very painful indeed.  

However the meaning of pain is part of the suffering; and when the meaning of pain changes, the nature of the suffering changes. 

The reason why the pains of life are worse for modern people than it was during the ages of faith - is that for modern people pain has no meaning, because an atheist-materialist life has no purpose. 

Pain without purpose is pain without meaning; so pain without purpose is experienced as "pure suffering".  

The pains and sufferings of mortal life are far too many and too various for there ever to be any possibility of preventing or curing them all - and some causes of suffering are innate and intractable to the Human Condition.

Therefore we should not consider Christianity as if it were a supposed-painkiller, nor as a preventive or therapy for the sufferings of mortal life. 

However; our mortal life - including its pains - is given purpose and therefore meaning by the desired destination; by personal positive transformation (resurrection) and the Heavenly life to come.

And this affects our experience of suffering in mortal life while it is happening, as well as in retrospect.    

The "Dark Gurus" of India...

William Wildblood is currently running a fascinating blog series based on a period in the early 1980s when he lived in India for several years, a period that included running a guesthouse in a "hill station". 

This most recent post tackles the subject of the "Dark Gurus" who were a culturally prominent feature in the Western counterculture (and, indeed mainstream) from the late 1960s (e.g. a branch of one of these multi-national spiritual corporations was located within a couple of hundred yards of my home).

And also the Dark Gurus located in India itself, who were frequented mainly (but not only) by Westerners. 

Western religious-motivated wars - Now? Ridiculous, nonsense, PSYOPS!

In the past - including in Western nations - there were religious wars, because religion was the primary motivator in many people's lives. 

For example in the 16th and 17th century in the British Isles there were religious inter-national and civil wars between Christians. It is very evident that - whatever other reasons there were to start and sustain wars - religion was primary. 

Back then and there; plenty of people - individually, as well as collectively, were strongly motivated, risked greatly, suffered greatly for their religion. 

But that was then; this is now. 

Things now are very different in modern, developed Western societies such as the USA and its vassal nations of UK, Europe etc. 

All Western and West-affiliated/ dominated states are secular - without any exceptions. 

And this secular perspective goes far deeper than constitutional factors: non-religious assumptions are fundamental and functional. Bureaucracy and mass media - which are everywhere in all modern states - are not just areligious, but are innately (and increasingly) anti-religious.   

Nowadays people are evidently-not primarily motivated by religion. Indeed (think of 2020) their religious practice almost invariably follows and reflects their atheist-materialist ideology.

The mainstream churches of all denominations and factions; are just "a lifestyle option" located within the all-pervading secular-leftism  

Ideology - not religion - drives motivation; and ideology is a product of the totalitarian state and its apparatus of bureaucracy, media, law, education, science, arts, military etc. 

This hegemonic Western ideology is negatively motivated (by sins such as fear, resentment, despair); the ideology is therefore both incoherent and destructive in its ultimate basis, as well as its proximate effects. 

This is reflected in the nature of modern drone and missile distance warfare; in which attack is much easier than defence - indeed, in which effective defence is all-but impossible to sustain.

By its technical nature, such warfare is primarily destructive; and the destructive effect is enormously amplified by the ultra-complex and unavoidable inter-dependencies of modern developed societies.  

In one word: modern warfare is primary spiteful in motivation. 

It is mainly concerned with the infliction of destruction of social and economic systems; with deliberate environmental destruction; with infliction of suffering and death on humans, animals, plants. 

Modern warfare is the material expression of our spiritual nihilism.  

Religions and churches in the West 2026 are almost-entirely assimilated as components of a top-down global totalitarian state; which for more than half a century has propagated a negative/ inverted ideology and morality of opposition. 

And this is so grossly obvious, so widely observed and measured, so wearisomely-often discussed and analysed; that it ought-to-be instantly obvious that the currently-circulating notion of the present war being religiously motivated is ridiculous nonsense.

Indeed, the idea that modern West-initiated wars are religiously-motivated - the idea that modern Americans would go to war for their religion is crazy! 

And that these fanatical "Christian" (or Judeo-Christian) religionists are actually imposing religious geopolitical priorities... 

Well... such beliefs are so utterly idiotic that they should be immediately be recognized as PSYOPS of those Agents of Chaos who increasingly dominate within the Global Establishment. 

But on the contrary - such tactics work... 

There are those not-Christians who simply accept the evil-nonsense because it confirms their own biases against Christians. 

There are those Christians who accept the evil-nonsense because it confirms their own biases against evangelicals.

There are those religionists who accept the evil-nonsense because it creates an excuse for indulging their spiteful and destructive biases against other religions, ethnicities, nations. 

(Religion is convenient excuse and religious motivation - although too feeble to overcome secualr ideology - is nonetheless  

There are those who expend thousands of words on analysing the extent to which the PSYOP is true, and the extent to which it is not; the extent to which all this is a product of deficits in theology; and then making complex, nuanced recommendations concerning what to do next about things (which will of course be ignored).  

This in itself is evidence of the way in which - in this innately entropic world, that is also in 2026 dominated and pervaded by the powers of purposive evil - destruction is much easier than creation. 

A small effort by intel-ops who (presumably) constructed and placed the concept of a modern Western religious war - has led to a very large socially destructive, psychologically negative, consequence. 

Things now are just all too easy for the powers of evil, because of the extent and consequences of spiritual corruption in the world mass populations.

"They" merely need to pull at a string; and en masse "we" reliably panic, rant, dance... and destroy. 

   

Saturday morning music: The legend behind "Sir John Fenwick's the flower amang them all"

Sir John Fenwick's the flower amang them (variously titled) is a lovely, yearning air in 3/4 time, which I often used to play to myself on the accordion, or other instruments. 

It is very simple; and it is easy to play the notes; although of course, it is never "easy" to play a great simple tune with lyricism and sincerity: phrasing is a product of innate musicality, more than technique. 

The song has a great story behind it - which has the virtue of being, probably, true. 

Sir John Fenwick was the third Baronet (an hereditary knighthood); but the title was extinguished when Sir John was executed for treason under a Bill of Attainder that confiscated all the land and property of the family.

Sir John Fenwick was executed because he was convicted of plotting to kill the King, who was William III; or William of Orange. 

William (a Dutch Protestant) was given the throne (by Parliament) to rule as co-monarch with Mary; who was daughter of James II (a Roman Catholic) - who had been deposed in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689. 

This led to various "Jacobite" plots and rebellions ("Jacobite" means followers of James) intended to restore at first James II, and later other Catholic Stuarts, to the throne.

Sir John Fenwick was a Jacobite by conviction; but he also had a personal grudge against William III; from the time William had been Prince of Orange and had publicly insulted Sir John in some fashion. 

However; although during life Sir John's plotting failed to achieve the assassination of William; he got his revenge post-mortally. 

Because among the confiscated possessions of Fenwick was a superb horse "Sorrell" that the King took for his own use. 

He was riding Sir John's steed when the beast stumbled on a molehill; the King fell, broke his collarbone, and subsequently died from the injury. 

Thus it was in honour of the mole who made that hill, that Jacobite sympathizers would (rather spitefully) murmer the encoded toast:

To the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat!

And thus it was that Sir John Fenwick became regarded - at least, by those who shared his convictions - as "a flower among men". 

What do you want from a religion/ ideology?

It strikes me that different people want very different things from their religion - or (more often nowadays) their ideology*. 

Many people now - and always, perhaps - understand their religion in terms of this-worldly benefit. 

In other words, they believe (or, at least, hope) that the practice of the religion makes this-mortal-life better: either positively good or less bad. 

What "better" means is various by times and places. Nowadays "better" usually means "feels better" - so that religion is seen as a kind of pastime or therapy. 

In the past - such as in the Old Testament - it meant having more power/ status/ wealth, avoiding catastrophe, winning a battle, escaping slavery and the like. 

Typically, such a religion of this-worldly benefit is at bottom fear-motivated, and propitiatory in nature. 

Such a religion broadly becomes a matter of contracts or deals made between the deity (and the mediator of deity) and the individual... 

"If I do this for you, you must do this for me" - or vice versa. 

"If you want this outcome, you need to follow these rules" 

"If you want to avoid this happening, you must refrain from that'. 

Again; you can see this in the Old Testament - and, of course, in many other religions; and, of course, this has been the nature of most of "Christianity" for most of history... 

Because, many people who regard themselves as Christians (from the highest levels of churches to the most ignorant of the laity) continue to want and practice exactly this kind of this-worldly religion while calling it Christian.

And they have-made, and continue to-make, Christianity into this kind of this-worldly religion - probably because that is what they most want from their religion.       

Then there are questions of purpose and meaning: A lot of people want a sense of meaning in life. 

They want to know that what they desire, think and do has a meaning beyond itself - that the bit and pieces of a life are connected into some kind of pattern or system.

And when people begin to suspect or believe that their lives are arbitrary, to suspect that it does not really matter what they do because each thing is disconnected from each other thing... Then this leads to despair. 

But despair is intolerable. 

If immediate suicide is not chosen; then such people (most people, apparently in Western Civiliaztion) seek escape from the despair of meaninglessness into hedonism; or at least into not-thinking distraction**. 

It turns-out that meaning requires purpose. 

So our lives need to have purpose. However, not all purposes suffice...

When the supposed purpose of life is confined within the boundaries of mortal life itself (i.e. that life between conception/ birth and biological death); then such purpose makes no ultimate difference to the question of meaning.

Meaning in life, restricted to mortal life only, is just a delayed form of despair. 

If purpose is just a matter of what happens to us during the period of mortal life; and then this is followed by annihilation - then the end result is just a modified version of trying to live a life of meaning without purpose. 

The difference of having a mortal purpose for life rather than no purpose at all; is merely that with mortal meaning our escape from despair into hedonism/ distraction just becomes longer-term... A matter of blocking awareness of despair over the time span of our expected mortal life (rather than here-and-now hedonism/ escape).

Meaning in mortal life merely leads to what might be termed "enlightened" hedonism: which is the main mortality in the world today.

(Sometimes called "Utilitarianism".) 

I conclude that we must have a purpose in our lives that extends beyond the boundaries of our mortal life. I further believe that for such a purpose to have meaning, entails that we each have a personal role to play in this purpose. 

Religions that explain everything in terms of the purposes of deity exclude any role for the individual, hence they offer purpose - but a purpose without individual meaning. 

Such "purpose without meaning" religions, include almost all the religions of the world in their official capacity - including almost all of the Christian denominations and churches***. 

Their most fundamental explanations of reality exclude any participation of individual persons in the divine purposes: therefore they offer purpose without meaning. 

This is why "off-the-peg" religions of the churches; and their mandatory metaphysical assumptions, their ready-made theologies, their compulsory philosophies - are of their nature insufficient. 

They do not - and more importantly they cannot - provide both purpose and meaning for our individual lives - when those lives are understood to encompass both this mortal life on earth, and personal life outwith those bounds. 

Since we cannot simply choose what we need from the mass produced corporate religions; if we want our life to have meaning as well as purpose; then we each must make our own "religion", from that which we personally regard as the fundamental realities of existence. 

And this is not an exercise in subjective wishful thinking - because its basis is that "the stakes" are of the highest we can experience: purpose and meaning in our own extra-mortal and well as mortal lives.

We need to deal with realities, therefore we need to identify these realities; and in the activity we cannot rely upon second-hand assertions. 

Unless we are content that our life be futile; the basis of such work needs to be that which we personally regard as the fundamentals, the truth of how-things-are. 

+++  

* "Ideology" is the system of bottom line evaluation, explanations and purposes of someone who is a materialist-atheist. Ideology therefore does not replace religion - because its ultimate metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality are already in-place - whereas these are part-of a religion.

** That despair is indeed intolerable can be regarded as a fact of "the way we are made", leaving aside why or how we are made that way. The effects of despair - can be seen in the self-hatred and strategic self-destruction of all the societies of the world that are conducted on the assumptions of atheistic materialism - which category includes (at least) all nations of the developed world, and all international groupings. Official churches and religions make only a quantitative, not qualitative, perceptible difference.  

*** It might be asked why this was not a problem in the past. My answer was that - before the modern era - human beings had a sense of meaning and purpose innately, spontaneously, and naturally. Much as young children do even nowadays. This was mostly unconscious and taken for granted - and people brought it with them to whatever religion they conscious adopted. The deficits of religion were therefore filled by this inbuilt sense of meaning-purpose - even when the explicit doctrines contradicted it. Presumably; a dwindling residue of this unconscious innate meaning-purpose has (diminishingly) sustained humanity through the explicitly atheist-materialist assumptions and teachings of modernity - and explains why few people wholly live-down to their expressed beliefs. Still residual, yet increasingly feeble: this is why modern motivation is radically insufficient. 

The vital importance of personal Creativity: God, Heaven, Resurrection

Virtue in traditional Christianity, indeed in traditional religion, is about obedience to external deity - service to the will of a deity.

Creativity is in fact the product of deity; and it may be regarded as the monopoly of deity.  

Traditional religion does not have a central place for creativity by Men...

Especially not by individual Men...

Especially not by all individual Men. 

Indeed, within ancient religions; creativity may regarded as be an impossibility, and the belief in the possibility of creativity as a delusion...

Given that everything has already been done (or conceived of) by the deity. There is simply no space for individual creativity to exist when God is regarded as omni-everything. 

Even when regarded as a genuine possibility; creativity is seen as, at best, an "optional extra". 

But more often it is at least a significant temptation to sin; and the impulse for creativity may even be itself regarded as a sin (e.g. by pretending to, usurping, displacing the divine prerogative). 

Yet, if is is acknowledged that creativity is an innate and inevitable fact of agency or "freedom" (properly understood as a positive phenomenon); then trivialization, denial, or demonization of creativity has a dreadful and distorting effect on religion.

At best this leads to a self-contradicting double-think; in which creativity is so framed as to deny its reality.

At worst it leads to a tyrannical attempt to thwart innate humanness and crush all individual people into becoming functional-parts of a social machine - a machine that is asserted to be dedicated to divine service.  

Then this crushing, and all which it entails, is labelled as Good! And insofar as the soul cries against it and yearns for more and better... Well, that is just more sin!

My interpretation is that there always was human creativity; because, for me, creativity is what each individual Being brings to divine creation, simply by virtue of his uniqueness participating in the ongoing work of creating. 

So, there always-was creativity; but it used to be unconscious, implicit - unidentified as such - hence deniable, hence relabelled as obedient service. 

What happened increasingly through the "modern" era, and by now is almost universal; is that individual creativity has become conscious, and therefore often deliberate and purposive. 

So that when creativity is trivialized, denigrated, thwarted, excluded, or suppressed nowadays by any religion - modern individuals are much more likely to realize, and be aware why, they feel crushed; why they feel fundamentally dissatisfied. 

Tis is one deep reason why any such religion feels... wrong. 

Traditional and Orthodox Christian theology does not take human creativity seriously enough to account for it; nor to recognize that creativity is absolutely central to the nature of Christian salvation. 

For example: an after-life without creation is not Heaven but something else. 

In a sense creativity is what resurrection is for: resurrection retains our individuality (hence agency) of self; whereas "the self" is explicitly discarded (and indeed vilified) by many other religious or spiritual afterlives. 

A self-styled Christianity that lacks a proper place for individual creativity, will likewise end up discarding - and demonizing - "the self". 

Resurrected eternal life in Heaven is for creation - when creation is understood as an intrinsic aspect of "Love".

Love is of and between individuals - and creativity is part of what we do about this! 

Put differently: creativity is each individual Being participating in the purposes and processes of divine creation, harmonized by a spirit of love.

    

Because traditional Christian theology was devised in a world where creativity was unconscious; the fact it has no place for personal creativity went unnoticed for many centuries.

But now it is evident that traditional Christian theology is wrong; exactly because it does not allow for the central necessity (and goodness) of individual creativity. 

We therefore need a new metaphysical understanding of Christianity; one in which creativity is explicitly recognized as occupying a central and vital place. 

ETs - the question of contact with Extra-Terrestrial humanoid life forms

Much as with UFOs; I have read a fair bit about ET contacts (and viewed documentaries or videos); and various of my penfriends have described their own ET contacts - so my attitude has been somewhat open to the reality of such things. 

But this openness-in-principle has been modified by an underlying lack of interest in the subject; which is itself a reaction against the enormous (sometimes cosmically vast and spiritual) claims of significance made by ET proponents; whether positive or negative. 

Furthermore, there is the problem that I don't believe most of the claims - or at least, I am not confident of their validity. 

Some reports seem to be lies, while other experiences seem to be self-deceptions due to illness or stupidity - while other people seem to reporting genuine spiritual or paranormal experiences, but may be misinterpreting other kinds of experiences as ET contacts. 

In particular, to believe ET reports requires for me a confidence in the discernment - including spiritual discernment - of the witness, and up-until-now I had not come across any ET reports that ticked all the necessary boxes. 

Anthony Duncan

This has changed since I read To Think Without Fear: the challenge of the extra-terrestrial (2015), by Anthony Duncan (1930-2003) - which has convinced me of the validity of his report of ET contacts happening to himself and family, in the middle 1990s in Northumberland, where he was an Anglican priest. 

Although, as a Church of England Vicar of several parishes; at times AD lived near to me and I walked past his churches frequently; I never met him and did know know about him (indeed, I did not become a Christian until after he had died). 

I came across Duncan rather vaguely at first through an interest in "Celtic Christianity" (a subject about which he wrote several books); but mainly through my reading of Gareth Knight. And esepcially Kiight's superb autobiography: I called it magic (2011).  

Duncan and Knight met when AD was curate at Tewksbury Abbey while GK lived in the town; and AD prepared Knight for confirmation into the CofE. They rapidly became friends and then complementary collaborators; ultimately leading AD to an interest in the Qabalah that eventually bore fruit in Duncan's The Christ, Psychotherapy and Magic (1969); which fed-into Knight's restoration of Christian ceremonial magic in Experience of the Inner Worlds (1975). 

Duncan was a natural, spontaneous, psychic and mystic - who had paranormal as well as supernatural experiences throughout his adult life' He was an officially-recognized exorcist in the Church of England - and became a Canon of Newcastle Cathedral. 

I read GK's memoir of AD (Christ and Qabalah - 2013) and then several of AD's books and a recorded lecture; before tackling To think without fear TTWF. So I already liked and respected Duncan, before reading the ET book. 

However, it needed two attempts to get-through TTWF; because of the rather unfortunate way it is structured. The key parts that actually convinced me of the validity of his interpretations of his experiences - the descriptions of his ET experiences; come at the very end of the volume, in the Appendices. 

...Before which I needed to wade through a great deal of complex, abstract, and (from my POV) theologically-unconvincing explanations and justifications of the reality of ETs from the context of mainstream-orthodox Anglican philosophy and doctrine (with various eclectic additions). 

There are, however, many important insights scattered throughout these rather turgid early parts - and the effort of penetrating these chapters surely prepared my receptivity for the simple and clear expositions that came at the end.   

Despite all its defects, what made this the only account to convince me of the reality of an ET experience was that background of already knowing and respecting Duncan; plus my confidence that he was able - from considerable experienced reflected-upon - to discern the provenance of strange experiences.  

In other words, Duncan, had throughout his adult Christian life, experienced many contacts and "communication" involving angels, demons, ghosts and the like - and therefore he was exceptionally well-placed and able to discern that these ETs were... what they "said" they were.

AD was also well-motivated, i.e. not trying to gain personal advantage from reporting ET contacts. Indeed he did not share the experiences described in this book outside the circles of his friends: and this book was not published until a decade after his death. 

In brief; the nature of the ET contacts (confirmed by two other people) was a non-visual but definite sense of presences (various numbers, and of various types of personage); and a direct, usually non-verbal, mind-to-mind telepathic (back-and-forth, Q&A type) understanding.

So, having been convinced - what then?

For me, nothing much more than an expansion of metaphysical possibility: I remain largely uninterested by such contacts - and have no significant desire to share them. 

The claims variously made in other books etc of a strategic importance of ETs for Mankind, material and or spiritual, seem to me to have been refuted by the passage of decades. Such discussion is contaminated by "geopolitical" forms of thinking about civilizational purposes, clashes, alliances and the like. 

I think the real significance (and this seems to be the opinion of AD) is interpersonal. The significant depends on the actual parties involved - the specific human and the specific ET (who seem to vary in kind and motivation) - and the quality of what happens between them. 

Contact with ETs is therefore as important, or as trivial, as contact with other kinds of living Beings - whether living or dead, material or spiritual. 

That is to say - genuinely loving contact between Beings (if this develops) is eternally-significant and of positive value to divine creation...

Whereas contacts that have an instrumental purpose (in which one or both parties are attempting to use the other for some benefit, or from mere curiosity, or operating under orders) are net-harmful interactions; but usually just insignificant, in the wider scheme.  

Which animals are magical?

There are individual exceptions either way; but for an animal to be magical or not, doesn't correlate with whether that beast is good or not. 

While magic (as such) is A Good Thing in the sense of being better than life lived at a mundane, everyday, non-experiential and alienated fashion - there is plenty of magic in the world that is malign in intent and/or effect. 

Nonetheless, some kinds of animal are magical, while others are not - and this helps explain people's attitudes to them. 

It can work positively or negatively, for some people like and seek magical experience; while others hate, fear, and avoid it. 

So we can start by stating that cats are magical creatures, but dogs are not - and this has much to do with the well-known pattern of human types that are often divided between cat or dog lovers. 

Sheep and especially goats are magical; but cows are not - and neither are pigs (despite that oracular pigs feature in The Mabinogion!). 

Owls are magical - and so are corvids (especially ravens and magpies), swallows and swifts; but pigeons are not, neither are most songbirds, nor are ducks. 

Bears are magical, and so are hares, badgers, red squirrels, and moles; but shrews, mice and rates are not magical. 

And so on. Discuss among yourselves. 

The cemetery surname-game

We have long had a family tradition of making a question or statement from peoples' names as with:

Does Melvyn Bragg? 

Is Anthony Strong?

Is Gareth Batty?

Does Charles Thomas Ogle?

Pete Burns. 

John Waters. 

James Rodgers.

Today we played the game in the cemetery - and the (feeble) best I had found was: 

Is Margaret Gray? 

But my wife got a special commendation for:

Does Ellie Teasdale? 

Romantic *and* Christian - Both are needed for sufficient motivation, requisite courage

Romantic and Christian - both are needed. 

Christianity comes first, because it is the structure of reality. But without Romanticism... well, "Christianity" does not involve us, each, personally, powerfully. 

Without the Romantic and personal involvement, then Christianity is just theory and/or just a social institutions. And, as of here-and-now - such a Not-Romantic Christianity Will Not motivate us sufficiently to resist the pervasive and otherwise-overwhelming evil of our civilization. 

On-paper, or legal, or social religion (including Christianity) has been demonstrated to be radically insufficient. Its adherents - no matter how strident! - are actually engaging in mainstream atheist-materialist cultural activities... 

Whatever they spout or assert (and no matter of what they have convinced themselves); they Actually Are doing nothing-more than socializing, doing politics, seeking status, or an economic niche, or survival - or pursuing some-other of those things that everybody does, and is encouraged to do, in the mainstream of ideology.  

Such theoretically/ legalistic/ institutional Not-Romantic Christianity is literally irrelevant; it is spiritually-indistinguishable from the atheism, agnosticism or anything-but-Christianity spirituality. 

Not-Romantic Christianity is no-better than the prevalent values of our society. 

And, what this means in practice; is that Non-Romantic Christians will not choose the actuality of salvation after their mortal lives; for the simple reason that there are other things they want more than salvation. 

And because they have assimilated the value-inversions and anti-creation values of the actual Western Civilization into-which their churches are thoroughly assimilated. 

To recognize this fact, we need to understand that things really were different in the past, because people were intrinsically different. 

Romanticism - the need for a personal and passionate engagement with Life; was not really "a thing" at all, until the late 1700s, and did not spread at all widely for another century. 

In the more remote past - especially in the Medieval era and before - all religion was "social" in nature; and for Men of that era it was potentially very powerfully motivating. Personal engagement, motivation... these things just-happened, spontaneously - or by passive-acceptance. 

Indeed; such religion with such people was for centuries (millennia) the single most powerful motivator in life, such that individuals were extremely courageous in loyalty to their church (in many religions) - men would risk and indeed sacrifice much in adherence to the Christian church. 

Even monarchs (certainly not the best of Men!) could be remarkably courageous! 

While Henry VIII was a monster of pride, lust and spite; his children (Mary, Elizabeth, Edward VI) all displayed tremendous individual courage and tenacity in pursuit of their religious convictions...

Even when (especially in the case of Mary and Elizabeth) they found themselves isolated, their lives in danger, and with all the powers of the state and institutional church ranged against them - each continued to be loyal to (and risked everything for) what he or she regarded as the true church.  

Such motivation is now gone, and long gone; such courage in loyalty to a religious vision is now a thing of the past. 

What was an automatic, passive, spontaneous involvement in Christianity - must now actively be sought as a personal necessity, a lifelong quest. 

This is necessary if a Christian is to find the motivation necessary to transcend the endemic evils of Western Civilization, 2026.

Tolkien's elves compared with those of Folklore

Faery by John T Kruse - 2020

Over at The Notion Club Papers blog; I discuss how very different were JRR Tolkien's elves from those of folklore, such as described by John T Kruse in his 2020 compendium Faery: a guide to the lore, magic and world of the Good Folk. 

Yet how, in late and unpublished writings; Tolkien endeavoured to bridge that gap; and to explain how the noble and virtuous elves of Lord of the Rings became transformed in nature and behaviour to those Beings which British people are recorded as having encountered in the past (and indeed, up to the present).  

Contrary to what I have long believed, the spring equinox is Not the time after which days become longer than nights

Sun rising due east: Note*

I have always supposed that on the day of the spring equinox (i.e. yesterday) the name and night both became 12 hours long - or, at least, it was the day in which they were most-equal; so that the next day was the first on which the day was longer than the night.

But this is not true; as I realized when I was checking the sunrise and sunset times. 

It turns-out that on 20 March, the day of the vernal equinox, there were 12 hours and 10 minutes of daylight; and the most equal date wrt. day-night was either the 17th (11:58 h day) or 18th (12:02 h day). 

So I was wrong about the definition of an equinox - which is actually when the sun rises in due-east and sets due-west.

(And also when the sun is positioned exactly above the equator, but that would never have been apparent to people up here at 55 degrees North.) 

When I think about it; I already knew about the east-west definition, but had assumed that this also meant that day and night were equal length - and the day-length aspect of it seemed to be more important. 

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure I have been told that the vernal equinox was the exact time of year when light began to overcome dark... A very poetic, not to say spiritual, conceit.

Well, I guess the timing is "close enough for government work"; but I am rather sad that it is not, after all, exact. 

And it emphasizes my cumulative recognition that exact astronomical measures are not humanly-valid segmentations of time - the reality is more like a phase or season; and we ought not to make as much of specific days as we typically do. 

*Stonehenge is Not aligned on the Spring Equinox 

The desperate appeal of deus ex machina

"Deus ex machina" is a term used to describe the plot device by which intervention from outside the action appears just before some catastrophic disaster, and solves an apparently impossible problem. 

In "real life" DEM has long formed the basis of optimism - the hope that something not-known (or known but previously inactive) will emerge unexpectedly to save us. 

Or to put it negatively, despair may be staved-off by hoping that "Something will turn-up". 

This may, of course, be true! 

Because we really do not know or understand much about how the world works; so there is never reason to give-up hope.

But hope is not the same as optimism - and it is a very different thing to hope for rescue, than it is to expect rescue by some unknown event.

In particular, it is foolish to construct a specific hope from a logical sequence of double-negative assertions. 

For example, that (for all we know) we cannot be sure that "leader"-X isn't really a genuine saviour, who is (despite superficial appearances) cleverly plotting behind the scenes towards some kind of decisive last-minute master stroke. 

Or, spiritually; the worse the world is apparently getting, and the weaker and more corrupt "my church" seems to be - nobody can disprove that this won't make it more likely that the Deity will (at last!) step-in, make a personal intervention, and save things in some unexpected fashion.

(Such a "saving might itself be negative - as in saving-from the default of Hell; or it might be positive in the sense of establishing a redeemed Church as dominant and pervasive across society.)

Such reflections were provoked by my again considering the (in retrospect) extraordinary optimism that was prevalent among spiritual people in the years approaching and just following the millennium. 

Among many or most such people existed a near-consensus that the whole world was shortly to be raised to a higher spiritual level (higher "frequency" or "vibrational" level); that would affect everybody and every-thing (like it or not).

...Although the more discerning in the New Age clearly acknowledged that for this external influx to be effective would also require a receptivity - or even some positive spiritual move - from each individual; in order to meet this incoming spiritual "energy" halfway. 

So an element of at least consent, and probably collaboration, was also required -- nonetheless the primary cause was a new, or greatly amplified, external influence. 

My interpretation of this apparently anachronistic millennial expectation is that it was the product of a kind of desperation; especially among those genuinely spiritual people who had rejected (or simply did not believe) Jesus's offer of reasserted eternal Heavenly life. 

And, mutatis mutandis, I think the same applies to the optimism (as contrasted with hope) of so-many of those Christians who are serious and motivated about their faith. 

The Christians who believe-in some kind of external saving of this mortal life and the earth; are guilty of conflating the true and sure hope of Heaven, with a false optimism concerning this-world. 

This false-optimism among Christians seems particularly pernicious, insofar as it entails God intervening to save (what seems to me) the most deeply evil civilization the world has yet known - I mean a civilization that is already, and increasingly, strategically and officially inverted in its values.  

The answer is simple, but difficult; and is to strive to be motivated primarily by next-worldly hope rather than this-worldly optimism - and to root this in the faith that God will (indeed, by Jesus, already-has) made it possible for anybody and everybody, in whatever situation, time, or place) to attain salvation.  

The next inference is more controversial among Christians, which is that this can only be attained by taking personal responsibility for salvation. 

In other words; I am assuming that there will be no worldwide, or even culture-wide, deus ex machina intervention; because everything has already been done; and "all" (!) that remains is for us as individuals is to recognize that reality - and to make our commitment, to choose to follow Jesus...

That is the essential starting-point. 

And then... we each need to discover what that actually means for us; for us specifically - here-and now.   

The disinformation is in the frame

The main source of mass media disinformation is in the frame.

No matter whether any specific claim is factual or a lie, we can be sure that all the facts, and interpretations of events, will always and without exception be falsely framed - because this has the effect of making the facts and interpretations irrelevant.

For example; most socio-political news is framed in terms of personalities, particularly of "leaders"; but there are no leaders in the sense being assumed. 

The "leaders" who feature in media reports are all puppets - some are docile middle-managers, others are psychopaths, some are demented and/or psychotic... Different puppets serve different purposes for those with real power.

A favourite frame is (of course) that important events arise from the motivations and interactions of an assortment of leader-puppets. The resulting pseudo-drama - apparently - magnetically-attracts, endlessly-fascinates, and powerfully-motivates motivates almost-everybody in the world; to the point that most people shape their convictions, structure their lives, and base their hopes around these marionette-dramas. 

Such leaders are never the source and implementing-force of real and important policies; indeed the real and important policies (and indeed events) are themselves outwith the media-mainstream frame - and must be inferred, and will probably never be known in detail. 

The advantage of false framing is obvious... Because the official-media frame is always false (and the false frames are, anyway, changed whenever this is expedient) - then all analysis of problems, and suggested/ rational solutions of problems, are thereby rendered false - because irrelevant to reality.   

False framing is therefore by far the most effective form of disinformation - and one that is literally impossible to combat within the mass media; since any true framing that happens to be featured (whether deliberately, or because or error or incompleteness of control) - is thereby itself framed as just-another theory... Itself to be discussed within the prevalent frame. 

So long as people attend to, and attempt to influence, the mass media - they cannot escape the consequences of false framing. 

Reality can be known (insofar as it is knowable) only by individual persons in person-to-person communication - and the "Alternative" media (no matter how genuinely outwith the Establishment) is nonetheless just another part of the System. 

We need to accept that - here and now - in public discourse there is never "a critical mass" of people who are honest and informed on any issue. 

Truth is only valued, hence pursued, by interpersonal groups of individuals; each one of whom is thinking intuitively and taking responsibility for his ultimate discernments and assumptions. 

Because of false framing; anything institutional (or functioning institutionally, or aspiring to institutional nature) is necessarily system-assimilated as of now. This should be accepted and worked-around; rather than the endless round resource-wasting, futile, and counter-productive attempts (or recommendations) to build/ rebuild honest functional institutions.  

"Monarchy" by David Starkey - TV Series

Monarchy was a TV series by historian David Starkey from twenty years ago, which I am re-watching for about the third time. 

The series runs from the Anglo Saxons up to Queen Elizabeth II; and treats this as a single narrative arc - albeit with major disruptions along the way (e.g. the Norman Conquest, Henry VIII). 

The series is very good, because it is genuinely informative and the presenter has a thesis throughout. Starkey's focus is on the balances of monarchy, between the needs (or, at least, benefits; especially military) of centralized authority, and "freedom" (or, at least, autonomy) as it applies mainly to the various institutional subdivisions of the nation such as the nobility (earls, lords etc), church/ religion, and the merchant/ professional class. 

The intellectual perspective is pre-millennial; and Starkey's national concerns and focus on specific persons are now obsolete; in our world of global totalitarianism, and waxing strategic chaos. 

However, for most of recorded history; monarchs were crucial, unavoidable, and their quality varied extremely widely - such that "a good King" became one of the most yearned-for, and urgently pressing, of human hopes for this world. 

Starkey helps us understand this, and how it worked in practice. 

 

People have not even begun to wake-up to the implications of subfertility

When I recently wrote about the severe and increasing subfertility of the populations of all developed societies in the world; I had not realized that this was becoming a topic in the mass media... 

Sort of. 

Because the discussions reveal that people have not even begun to consider the implications of subfertility.   

The implications of subfertility go way beyond the currently permissible discussions of human psychology, sociology, and economics - the true implications are biological, they affect people as functional and reproductive beings.  

Fertility is a big topic, much too big to summarize here; and it takes a fair while to think-through - but the subject has been (I think) well understood by some people for some decades; and some outcomes of differential- and sub-fertility are (I believe) baked-in and highly predictable. 

Differences in average fertility is natural selection of human beings; and such differentials Just Are evolution in action. 

Subfertility is extinction - but a subfertile population suffers massive declines in functionality, long before the actual extinction - although of course this will also accelerate the extinction. 

I don't talk much about all this stuff, because people don't like to talk about it - and are enmeshed in their own feelings and their need for optimism in order to escape what would otherwise be despair. 

Because those addicted to optimism do not want to know that the damage is largely done, and we are just awaiting for the implications to unfold. There is little that anybody can do about it - not least because nobody really wants to do anything about it. 

So much so, that the only reason to think about the subject at all, is if you really want to understand what is happening, and what will happen to human beings as biological creatures. 

And not may want to understand stuff, for its own sake. 

Dance Stance aka. "Burn it down" - Dexy's Midnight Runners

As a Northumbrian (by inheritance, conception, and residence - if not birth!) who yet has a better claim to pretend to be Irish than most of the show-biz people who make such a big thing of it...

[The Irish can do what they like to celebrate their patron; but I am referring to the international, US-derived and disseminated festival of lurid green and paralytic drunkenness et sequelae - that began here, today, in an adjacent suburban street (and major road artery) with literally thousands on the streets and queuing at bars from 10am.] 

Perhaps it is timely to remember this great single by Dexy's Midnight Runners * - as a response to this B.awful anti-Saints Day of shameless ignorance, embarrassing condescension, exploitive materialism, desperate hedonism, and cultural nihilism.  

Other than that, it's just good fun!

I'll only ask you once more 

You only want to believe 

This man is looking for someone to hold him down 

He doesn't quite ever understand the meaning 

Chorus:

I never heard about Oscar Wilde 

I don't talk about Brendan Behan 

I don't think about Sean O'Casey 

I don't care about George Bernard Shaw 

He doesn't care about Samuel Beckett 

He won't talk about Eugene O'Neill 

Edna O'Brien and Laurence Sterne 

Shut it! You don't understand it 

Shut it! That's not the way I planned it 

Shut it! Shut your mouth 'til you know the truth 

[Repeat, with extra names] 

Sean Kavanaugh and Sean McCann 

Benedict Keilly, Jimmy Hiney 

Frank O'Connor and Catherine Rhine

* Leaving aside authorial intent - my general impression of this song when it came out was a push back against stereotypical and derogatory Oirishness. Thus I don't think much of the choices for the list of authors in the lyrics! - I think a much better could be assembled, even while maintaining the rhythm.  

https://www.discogs.com/release/1185203-Dexys-Midnight-Runners-Dance-Stance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Stance

Christianity is Not, never truly was, about morality - except secondarily

Over the past eight years; my reading-of and brooding-on the Fourth Gospel (called "John") has had many and profound effects on my understanding of the differences between what Jesus said and did, and the Christian churches that came after. 

In particular, that the core of Jesus's work was to provide Men with the possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

This means that the primary concern of Jesus was to save mankind from entropy and death - therefore Jesus's primary concern was not to save us from evil. 

To repeat: For Jesus salvation means from death, not from evil. 

However, most of religion before, during and since the time of Jesus is about morality - about the behaviour (and attitudes) of people. 

Such religion is therefore therapeutic - it is "about" minimizing suffering and/or maximizing human happiness in this world and mortal life. 

That is what all those Laws and rules are about, the propitiations offered to divinity, the abasements and obedience - they are trying to make this world a better place, and ourselves to have a better place in it. 

And this is why all religions have considerable overlap in the approved behaviours. 

But this was Not what Jesus was about. 

Jesus came essentially to save us from death, not from moral sin.

Jesus was primarily against death, not evil - but his cure for death was also a cure for evil. 

For Jesus the problem of death (of entropy) was more profound than that of evil; because in this mortal life and world, death is absolutely universal and completely unavoidable; destructive change may be slowed, but is always at work...

Jesus was necessary and unique because he offered a solution to death; not because of his moral teaching, not because of his moral laws and principles, not because people could make a church from the moral laws and principles. 

This was and is very difficult to grasp; because most people (including most early Christians, including those who formed the Christian churches, apparently) - want morality.

Or else they want immortality Now in this world, and without dying first. 

People do not, therefore, usually want what Jesus actually offered... Or, at least, they think they don't want it; or they do not want it as strongly and urgently as they want other things - such as relief from suffering, or happiness now-or-soon.

But relief from suffering and positive happiness in this mortal life are not the core of Jesus's message - because these are promised for post-mortal resurrected life, not for this life. 

The error of making "Christianity" primarily moral distorted it from very early and has led to its current near-destruction. 

Those who made Christianity continuous with Judaism (including the authors of the Matthew and Luke Gospels, and Paul); tried to conflate the primacy of resurrection with their continued primacy of morality...

Leading eventually to the bizarre concoction of Original Sin - in order to pseudo-explain why Jesus was both unique and necessary. 

In other words, they made Jesus primarily "about" morality; and resurrection was made conditional upon the approved morality...

And morality was made to be why Jesus came, and curing morality was made to be what Jesus fundamentally did...

This-world morality was made of core importance to the Christian churches; and morality was made to come first - such that resurrection was relegated to a secondary status as reward for good-morality.  

But morality is about this-world, here-and-now and before death...

Whereas the advent of resurrection was of cosmic and eternal significance - it is a change in the nature of reality. 

Everybody everywhere has their ideas of proper morals; and this is continually contested. And morality does not require resurrection. 

So morality is both regarded as primary by almost-everybody; yet morality is detachable from the reality of Christianity...

And morality has, in fact, already-been detached-from Christianity! - even (or rather, especially) in those lands historically (or nominally still) Christian. 

As of here-and-now; Christianity is just one of many competing this-worldly moral systems; and gets evaluated in terms of its material "success" in producing good behaviour.  

But if we are talking about Jesus Christ, rather than social institutions and traditions; then this is wrong, a mistake, an ancient error. 

Jesus brought the possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven - and that fact should come first and foremost, and be kept at the core, of our Christian discussion and teaching. 

Colin Wilson podcast resource

An interesting and useful resource has appeared on the excellent Fourble website: a collection of 45 podcasts featuring or written by Colin Wilson. 

I have sampled a few - and enjoyed them all. 

I am not sure who is responsible for making this compilation, but Thanks, whoever you are!  

The Baron of Jesmond - for nearly thiry years!

I thought regular readers might be interested to see the official document by which I became Baron of Jesmond, some three decades ago. 

This entitles me to the hereditary title of Lord - or just "Jesmond" among my close friends and equals (if any) - and those to whom I have given permission to use this familiarity.  

Strange to say; some have, over the years, expressed doubts as to the validity of this peerage; and refuse to use the correct form of address... Indeed everybody I have ever known falls into this category. 

Nonetheless, I would point out that the distinction was properly purchased from a monarch - as is traditional with aristocratic privileges. 

And that monarch was the proper King of the nation: which is to say the King in Hay on Wye, His Majesty the late Richard Booth:

He is depicted above sitting in front of his palace, which is a real castle - and since he has a crown, sceptre, and orb - plus a fancy cloak - I don't think there can be any legitimate doubt of his authority to grant me the status of Baron. 

Crown jewels of Hay - publicly displayed in a glass box, with a caption; like all real crown jewels