The Heat Death of the Universe?

Even as a kid I heard about the Heat Death of the Universe, and I later learned more during my studies of physics up to A-Level. 

The cap was put upon Heat Death by the general adoption of the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe - not just in professional physics, but also as a Western cultural dogma.  

But really, the idea is not derived from physics, as a consequence of our society's fundamental operating assumptions; our whole way of reasoning in public discourse.

The basic idea as I grasped it in childhood was that the end point of everything would be when every-thing that existed had cooled down to reach the same degree of (extreme) coldness. Or that there was a finite amount of hot material in an infinite empty-cold universe, and therefore that all the warmth would be diluted-out. Or that energy came from heat differences, and these differences would diminish until no more energy remained to keep anything moving. 

Another way of thinking about Heat Death is that it is the inevitable outcome in reality as it is described by Science (ie: with a capital letter, the discourse and mode of thinking that is "science") - because Science regards "entropy" as the fundamental and ultimate source of all energy, heat, and life. 

In other words, for Science everything is fuelled by "entropy" in a parasitic fashion. The universe began with a source of heat and energy; and ever since, that is being used-up.

Or; for Science there is just so-much "Life", and life necessarily feeds on life - so that at some point all life shall be consumed. 

When I was a kid this all seemed compelling, but I was troubled by the thought that in a universe that was eternal going backwards, a universe that had always existed; then the Heat Death could not be true (or, at least, not inevitable), or else it would already have happened. 

Nowadays, I regard the Heat Death idea as a reductio ad absurdum of the assumptions of Science; in other words, I think Heat Death is a correct inference from the basic and bottom-line way that Science as a mode of discourse was set-up in the 17th century. 

To refute Heat Death entails revising the basic assumption of Science; which is that in Science God, and especially divine creation, are excluded from permissible explanations. 

In other words; a valid refutation of the Heat Death idea entails assuming the reality of Divine Creation. 

Divine Creation might be assumed explicitly, or implicitly; it might posit a personal God or posit an abstract deity - but one way or another a purpose and genuinely creative creation must be introduced; and that creation must also be assumed to constitute an inexhaustible, eternally-self-renewing source of "energy". 

This, for example, is assumed by the last rival to the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory (of Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold) - which posited an everlasting "creation" of the expanding-universe in the centre, that compensated for the everlasting "dilution" of that universe at the edges. 

The Steady State theory was (whether probably consciously, as with Hoyle, or apparently unconsciously as with Gold and Bondi)  "smuggling" deism back into Science, which was why it had a bad reputation among the mainstream scientists even when it was performing very well as a predictive model.  

My conclusion is that if Science is regarded as a true and complete description of reality, then the Heat Death is indeed inevitable. 

But in reality Heat Death is not inevitable; and the reason is that the basic assumptions of Science leave-out divine creation. 

Since divine creation is real, then Heat Death need not happen. 

Lancet windows and the Early English gothic style

Relatively tall, thin, pointed "lancet" windows are characteristic of the Early English style of gothic church architecture, built roughly in the 1200s. 

Here are examples from Holy Cross church in Haltwhistle, Northumberland. 

It can be seen that this earliest gothic (pointed-arch) style emphasizes height, and saves on glass; but does not allow very much light into the church. 

Then again many of the earliest churches were modelled on caves - and it was only later in the gothic era that church architects decided that light was godly, and exploited advances in building techniques and cheaper glass to make walls that were mostly window (relying upon buttresses to support the weight of the roof). 

In Northumberland, Early English is well represented; and was also often emulated by Victorian church restorers and new church/ chapel builders (sometimes with a round, instead of pointed, arches).

Although Norman-style architecture is closest to my heart (round arches, massive pillars, zig-zag decorated - Durham Cathedral is my favourite-ever building); I am very fond of the austere and simple EE style. 

I find EE induces a distinctive mood of spiritual yearning that feels somewhat "holier" than the effect of being stunned and overwhelmed by the more in-your-face and obvious charms of the later gothic styles.  

Early English was indeed that last major pre-Victorian period of church building, or at least church survival, around here. 

Because after Edward I ("Hammer of the Scots") there were frequent wars with Scotland that triggered the breakdown of large scale society, and the rise of the violent Border Reiver clans occupying a broad swathe of disputed territory. 

The ensuing poverty and disorder meant that from approximately 1300-1600 (England and Scotland were "united" under James I in 1603) few Northumbrian churches were built. 

So we have only a few examples of the later Decorated (1300s), and Perpendicular (1400s) styles of medieval church architecture.  

After the dissolution of the monasteries and Reformation (mid 1500s) there was a surplus of eccestiastical buildings, so there was relatively not much church building nationally, until after the Industrial Revolution and ensuing population growth of the 1800s. 

So around here (and with notable exceptions) "the old stuff" is Norman (mostly 1100s) and Early English - then we jump into Victorian. 

 

Agatha Christie

Hugh Fraser as the loyal and intrepid Hastings, David Suchet as Poirot in the TV adaptations

I was almost completely uninterested in "whodunnit" mysteries until just a few years ago. 

Apart from devouring Sherlock Holmes as a teenager, I think I had only read a volume of Simenon's Inspector Maigret, and a few of Dorothy L Sayers's Peter Wimsey novels (of which The Nine Tailors is much my favourite).

Then, as a family, we watched all of the Agatha Christie Poirot TV series starring David Suchet, and also the Miss Marple series starring Joan Hickman. These are both superb light entertainment, and I began to become curious as to the books themselves. 

Lately I have read (or listened as audiobooks*) quite a few (albeit less than half) of the Christie volumes featuring Poirot and Marple; and some of the one-off books such as The Pale Horse, The Seven Dials, and Ordeal by Innocence. 

Despite remembering from the TV adaptations who was the killer in most of these novels, I found them to be extremely enjoyable for their deft, varied and clearly-differentiated characterizations; and for the insight, wisdom, and goodness that lies behind them - and therefore apparently emanates from the author herself: Agatha Christie. 

This goodness deserves comment, because few authors are able to depict good, interesting, and likeable characters - presumably because not many authors have enough such traits, or else they are too feeble!

My only significant criticism is understandable and indeed unavoidable; which is that many of the murders are unbelievably (to me) complicated. 

This, I presume, arises because the simple plots with straightforward methods of killing were rapidly used-up by earlier Murder Mystery writers. 

But while the methods are sometimes convoluted, the plots have a very sastifying economy and progression. 

In a book like Ordeal by Innocence (and there are many others) Christie rapidly sets-up a "closed" situation with a finite number of characters; the implications of which then get unfolded step-by-step; exploring (what feels like) all possible personal permutations of the characters in terms of their interactions. 

With the denouement, the intricate structure locks into place with a very satisfying sense of completeness.

Since Christie was so prolific, and kept a generally high standard of quality throughout, I anticipate a good deal of enjoyment yet to come. 

 

*Hugh Fraser, as in the above picture; is a superb, indeed exemplary, audiobook reader of Christie.

Magical thinking under the veil of materialist mechanisms

One of the theses I have harped-upon here is that metaphysics is primary, and all "evidence" and reasoning happens within metaphysical assumptions (despite that these assumptions may be unconscious, or even denied). 

An example come from my earlier life, especially in my late twenties and thirties - during which I developed strong interests in all kinds of transcendental, religious, and Christian matters... But I remained metaphysically a materialist-atheist. 

For example; I believed that the thinking and aspirations of individuals and small groups could have a large and positive social influence, even when these were operating in obscurity. 

That intense study or conversations on a particular theme, or themed formal and ritual activity, might nonetheless affect "the world" in a very general way. Even when these conversations and rituals took place privately, in an unworldly or cut-off context. 

On the face of it, this was a magical way of regarding the world; in that it acknowledged that individuals, groups, symbols, ritual activities and the like had power that extended beyond their particular situation.

Yet when it came to the question of how such activities exerted their power; I would have resisted strongly any explanation of a spiritual kind. 

Instead my explanations were all of a material nature. 

In other words; I would explain all general effects in terms of observable communications, and their effect on psychology. 

For instance; a man thinking would, as a consequence of his thinking, communicate with other people by word, sounds, images - and these images would conceivably be registered and interpreted by at least one other person. 

And from there the communication might, potentially, be spread by other such channels of communication; maybe resonate with other people such that one person informs two others, in a geometric increase. 2,4,8, 16, 32 people would thus be informed - and soon enough there would be thousands, then millions who had been affected! 

Or perhaps inter-personal communications would be taken-up and even more rapidly amplified by mass media interacting with human wishes and motivations.

Plus the communications could be stored - perhaps in a magazine of book, or on an audio or video medium - and much later experienced and "activated" to start the above kind of geometric increase to exert general power. 

The point I would emphasize is that by such explanations, all past, present and possible spiritual phenomena could be and were explained on a material basis. 

And this will always be the case; because the metaphysical assumptions - in this case that there was no God, and no spiritual reality - will always be able to explain everything that happens and is real and needs explaining. 

Metaphysics can explain everything that happens that matters; because metaphysical assumptions are about the fundamental nature of reality: and thereby metaphysics dictates what counts as an observation, a fact, a valid mechanism, a conceivable or possible explanation. 

I think this way of materialistic thinking is very common - indeed almost universal, since we are all socialized into the metaphysics of aspiritual-atheist-materialism; and these are the assumptions that lie behind all public discourse of a significant, socially-functional, broadly-acceptable type. 

So we absorb this - mostly unconsciously - through childhood, and it is daily sustained and reinforced by the bureaucratic "System" the world of institutions such as government, law, media, corporations, education, medicine, science, police, military etc - and most of what churches actually do for nearly all of the time.  

And I repeat that this metaphysics cannot be refuted by any observation, by anything that happens. 

The only way we can break free from it is to have different metaphysical assumptions. 

In my case, this required that I become aware of my own assumptions, and aware that they were indeed assumptions - they were Not "facts of life".

They were prior assumptions; not inferences derived-from my knowledge and experience; nor derived-from the knowledge and experience of my society or institutions.   

This is why evidence or logical proofs of the existence of God, or of the validity of a particular religion or church, are ineffectual. 

This is why not even the LEGO Minas Tirith can compel an atheist materialist to acknowledge a personal deity and a providential universe! 

Bounded consumerism and the 1970s ideal of Voluntary Simplicity

In my late teens and twenties, I was an advocate and practitioner of what could be termed Voluntary Simplicity (VS) - with "simplicity" interpreted in a relative but not total sense. 

The idealistic and extreme advocates of VS were proposing a return to an essentially medieval feudal agrarian system; but medieval minus the Lord of the Manor and the Catholic church. In other words; pretty much the kind of society of many small farmers and craftsmen that was envisaged by William Morris in News From Nowhere. 

However, my less radical idea was to (more or less) stop overall economic growth, except for benefits due to improvements in (simple) technology* and methods - on the basis that by 1975 we had "enough" stuff; and indeed we should reduce our material needs in order to allow more discretionary time ad space for individual freedom. 

Thus; consumerism would not altogether be abolished, but would be "bounded". 

This also applied at the level of individual persons; whereby paid work was understood in terms of a "deal" whereby so much in the way of resources was traded for so much time and effort in labour; and the individual could - and I would have said should - reduce his wants in order to allow more time for discretionary activities. 

This is, of course, the attitude advocated by HD Thoreau in the Economy chapter of Walden. 

The activities to be pursued during the time and with the energies liberated by restricting material-wants were high-minded: things such as contemplating the natural world, reading and writing, doing arts and crafts, communal social participation in music and dancing - and the like. 

In short; a somewhat "Merrie England" sort of existence! 

When I eventually became a paid worker, this was exactly what I did in my own life. I had qualified as a doctor, and therefore could command a much higher-than-average pay-per-hour; but I chose not to maximize income by doing the full allocation of medical hours; but instead to trade-off about half the potential salary in order to get about double the free time. 

Such an attitude was actually fairly mainstream, or at least not unusual and fairly influential, in leftish (as I was) Britain of the 1970s - and (I later discovered) had a fairly well-known international advocate in the French economist Andre Gorz. 

It went with a tendency to eschew fashion, and the accumpulation of possessions; and expenditure on things like lavish cars and holidays.  

But through the middle 1980s, there was instead an almost society-wide return of aggressive consumerism; with a desire and expectation for participation in frequent rounds of fashion, technological novelties, and complexification of life - all of which was linked to higher social status. 

This has continued up to the present; and has transformed what is now called the "Green" movement from one based on "back to the land" deliberately simple agrarianism; to the current state-/multinational-/ multibillionnaire-/ bureaucratic-managerial-dominated compulsory-subsidized waves of techno-fashion. 

These technologies are by intent anti-nature, anti-farming; and in-practice focused entirely on pseudo-scientific and officially-mandated concepts such as CO2 climate, or the levels of other chemicals - the individual person is regarded as unable to make such evaluations; and is supposed to accept and obey these diktats without questioning.  

In terms of individual aspirations; the social ideal is very far from Morrisite, Thoreauvian, Voluntary Simplicity; but instead success is to work long hours for an ever-increasing salary to sustain ever-increasing and publicly-advertised consumption. 

"Leisure" is focused on the purchase and display of ever-changing fashions; and expensive pastimes such as owning high status cars and boats; participating in expensive sports; and travel to exotic locations. 

Even gardening has become ever more fashion-driven, expensive, and technological! 

And farming is aggressively demonized rather than idealized.

The whole area of food-production and consumption has been shaped by top-down media, NGO and government campaigns emanating from mega-corporations and using PSYOPS. 

So that farm animals are painted as an evil and destructive indulgence; meat-eating is wicked and to be abolished (for the masses) in favour of factory-made protein matter; and veganism is prescribed as spiritually virtuous - and has been orientated towards eating ever-more artificial and imported substances.  

A very far cry from the hopes and dreams of the neo-medievalists of the 1970s!

Such have been, over the past half-century, the dominant trend of choices and decisions made by Western Society and by most of the individual persons in these societies. 

While there was much that was unfounded and incoherent about the ideals of Voluntary Simplicity - and the whole notion lacked a basis in the strong motivations that only an active and spiritual religion can provide; what has replaced the seventies idealisations of nature and society has been a good deal worse! 

*My ideas of simple technology were influenced by EF Schumacher's "Intermediate Technology" as described in his book Small is Beautiful. 

Note: Some readers will notice that in my descriptions of neo-medievalism I did not mention Distributism, or the names of Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton. This is because I was not significantly aware of this 1920-30s movement during the 1970s, mostly because my perspective was coming out from atheism and the Left. However, I had read of Distributism in EF Schumacher's A Guide for the Perplexed, which I read on publication in 1977. Nonetheless; I had apparently more-or-less filtered-out this information, as being of little interest to me at the time - although I became very keen on it later when I had developed a more positive attitude to Christianity. 

Dying and agency: What happens to our "self" in the transition from mortal life to death?

Based on an understanding of the benefits of incarnation (embodiment) in this mortal life; it is possible to discern what happens during the transitional process of dying, and the situation of post-mortal existence (i.e. death).  

In dying we begin to lose consciousness, lose the ability to concentrate at the command of our will - we are losing our capacity to exercise freedom: losing agency. 

Dying can be understood as a process by which we are losing some of that agency we have (probably) gained in developing from a foetus and baby, through childhood and adolescence, to mature adulthood.

A young child is "in" the world of his experience; "diffusely aware" in contrast to the more detached and focused/ concentrated awareness of a (normal) mature adult. 

In dying and losing the effect of our functional body; we become more passive and reactive, more immersed in our spiritual environment, more accepting, more "childlike". 

It is because we are more passively a part-of things, more inclined to float-along responding to external influences, that we have less capacity to exercise agency. 

  

Dying can also be understood as a going-to-sleep into a world of dreaming; and also into a bewildering world of "psychosis" - through which we wander in a partial delirium. 

This harmonizes with the similar Ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew conceptualizations of the state of the dead as (more-or-less) witless, will-less, demented ghosts; inhabiting Hades/ Sheol. 

Again the picture is one of the post-mortal self passively reacting-to the situation, rather than exerting agency and making choices. 

What does this change mean for salvation? In particular; how do these changes affect our capacity to choose Jesus Christ's offer of resurrected eternal life in Heaven?

It seems certain that dying - the dissolution of our body, and the loss of that enhanced agency which comes with incarnation - does have an effect on changing, and reducing, our agency...

If we further assume that dying is a process rather than an instantaneous event, then we can suppose that this decline of agency is a progressive dwindling.   

In the end our agency is reduced but not eliminated; since we know that the insane, children, and dreamers do have some independent capacity to evaluate, to choose.

If we recall the extreme Protestant idea that "the tree lies as it falls" - i.e. that salvation is completely determined by the state of the soul at the "moment" of death, and by our choice at that "moment" - we could perceive that there is some truth in the notion - insofar as our dwindling agency during dying will reduce agency and thereby affect our capacity positively to choose salvation... 

However; the above scheme also clarifies that after death is completed; our agency is diminished but not eliminated. 

This fits with the Catholic understanding that the fate of the soul after death (i.e. when the process of dying is completed) can be affected - and that the dead soul can in principle benefit from spiritual assistance, such as the prayers of the saved-and-resurrected dead and the prayers of still-living mortal s such as ourselves. 

Indeed, the greater sensitivity of the discarnate dead soul to "externals" - as seen in early childhood, or in the dreaming self, or in some states of psychosis/ delirium/ dementia - would mean that the dead soul may be especially able to benefit from the love of others - assuming that the dead soul is capable of love, and values love. 

On the other hand; a dead soul without capacity for love, or one who gives love a low priority, or who is dominated by non-loving motivations - would probably be more susceptible to evil temptations than during mortal life. 

This implies that it is a significant benefit to have chosen salvation - i.e. have made a commitment to follow Jesus to Heaven - during our mortal life. 

Choosing salvation during mortal life will enable us to make the choice in favour of resurrection while we retain the maximum agency, before the process of dying is complete, and before our consciousness and freedom have been reduced to the level of a fully discarnate post-mortal soul. 

What is the advantage for an essentially spiritual being, of temporary incarnation into this world, followed by the permanent incarnation of resurrection?

For those of us to who regard spirit as primary, as having existed first, with material incarnation as secondary and later and derivative - and especially if we believe there is a continued existence after mortal death - there is a need to explain why we are temporarily incarnated as mortal beings, here on earth. 

I suppose the "why?" comes from our belief that God the Creator is Good and loves us each individually; so that the answer must include that this mortal incarnation fits God's plans for creation and is also good for each of us an individuals. 

The problem is made even more difficult to answer by the uniqueness and varieties of individual persons, and the unique situation into which each individual is born. It is difficult to come up with both a true, and also a particular, general explanation. 

Yet the common feature is incarnation: although ultimately spiritual beings, we ourselves and this world have large material/ physical elements - despite the obvious limitations of this. 

So the question boils down to: what are the positive advantages of being material/ physically incarnated beings - living in a world with many other such beings? Including that this advantage is temporary, in the sense that we shall die, and our materialness with undergo dissolution. 

Further; for Christians, we need to explain why Jesus emphasised that after death (if we follow Jesus) we shall be resurrected...

Each individual person shall stay himself, and shall be reborn, yet not as a spirit, but instead as a "solid" physical/ material being - but this time an eternal and everlasting being that does not age, decay, or die.  

I think we must assume that it is better for us to remain an incarnate after death, that there are therefore significant advantages in being incarnated as compared with being and remaining a spirit. 

However, this matter is very poorly understood; and those who believe in the reality of spirits find it difficult to comprehend why it is better to be bounded and solid and to have a single perspective, than to be everywhere equally as a "pure" spirit presumably is. 

These may seem like strange reflections! Yet I think Christians need clear and comprehensible answers if we are to defend and explain our preference for and choice of resurrection post-mortally; over the alternatives such as becoming pure spirits, or having serial reincarnations. 

For myself, I assume that incarnation is the spiritual mechanism by which increased consciousness and freedom are manifested as the purpose and direction of divine creation. 

That the two go-together: that it is by incarnation that we become more free, more self-aware, more ourselves. 

Further; that these are also attributes of God the Creator, and of Divine Creation - such that Creation is directional - away from pure spirit and towards incarnation; and that this is the intention of God.

I assume that at first there can only be the kind of temporary and mortal incarnation which we experience here-and-now; but that the ultimate goal of God via divine creation is the eternal incarnation of resurrection - which was and is possible by the work and gift of Jesus Christ. 

Thus the answer to "what is the advantage" of mortal incarnation; is that it is a necessary step towards Gods purpose of a creation characterized by increasing consciousness and freedom.

A wrong and bad script = Wasted effort... Service to evil

Some things in life take tremendous effort: resources, planning and organizing - assembling many people with many skills in a particular place and time...

Consider performing a play in a theatre, when all this must be accompanied by the business of attracting and assembling a paying audience, seating them in comfort and according to regulations about fire and safety. We might add the mass transport system, electrical grid, water and sewage!

My point is that this is all futile, wasted effort, if the script of the play being performed is Bad, of low quality.

And when the play being performed is purposively Wicked in some fashion; all this colossal effort is not just wasted - but harnessed to service of an agenda of evil.

Indeed, the more impressive and compelling the performance, the more harm is done.

Vast resources and efforts in service to agenda items of the strategy of evil is a summary of The West, Now.

Such thoughts came to mind when attending an elaborate choral Evensong service in one of the most beautiful buildings in Britain: York Minster Cathedral; attended by a large gathering of (mostly) tourists.

And when the actual music being performed by the choir was Rubbish (with the exception of a short anthem by Victoria).

Consider all the human effort and skill involved, and the vast resources of beautiful church music available - and the choice instead to perform a low quality and actively unpleasant musical "script" to the large "audience".

But this is just a microcosm of how our culture is, and has been for many decades.

While it is a-good-thing for individuals to make efforts, learn skills, cooperate towards a difficult goal etc...

This is vitiated when these people are Not Even Trying to do Good scripts; when they instead actively prefer and choose Bad Scripts.

So ultimately, strategically; all this human endeavour contributes towards the subversion, destruction and inversion of What Is Good.

Ambivalence about The Beatles

It is not really possible for later generations to understand the central and dominating place that The Beatles had in British cultural life through the middle and late 1960s. And this can never be replicated because it was due to a particular and transient phase in society and technology. 

So, in this sense The Beatles are (for Brits, anyway) so much the number one pop group, that whoever is number two (and that is not at all obvious) is so far behind as for there to be no competition. 

And by my evaluation, The Beatles released a large number of very good singles, in many styles, across several years - as well as a fair bit of dire and dreary, pretentious stuff - especially in their later years. 

But also by my evaluation, Not One of The Beatles singles was what I would regard as first rate*. 

Which is an interesting combination!

Here we have what I regard as the number one band of all time, yet a band that never (IMO) released a first rate track!

A few examples of my first rate singles for that general era include Gimme Some Lovin by the Spencer Davies Group, Silence is Golden by the Tremeloes, Knock on Wood by Eddie Floyd, Daydream Believer by The Monkees, Long Shot Kick de Bucket by The Pioneers, Liquidator by the Harry J All Stars... 

Many of these groups were, more or less, "one hit wonders" - never again attaining the same heights. 

This provides a clue. 

Pop music is - at its best - an almost accidental, but at any rate irreproducible-to-order, product of an ephemeral combination of youth, talent, and inspiration - attuned with a cultural moment. 

Most of the long-lived and culturally significant bands and artists - no matter how musically talented and productive of good quality - never released what I would evaluate to be a genuinely first rate single: Elton John is a clear instance.  

Also; despite The Beatles, the 1960s was Not the peak of pop music in Britain: that came afterwards, in the late 70s and early 80s. 

Why is the current Left so dominant and powerful?

Why is the current Left (i.e. the post mid-1960s New Left) so dominant and powerful? 

Since the mid-1960s the mainstream Left has transformed from its Old Left roots in communism and socialism, based on transformations of economic and social structures; to the new Left rooted in multiple, additive and fluid oppositions - anti-racism, feminism (anti-men), environmentalism (anti-CO2). 

And throughout by the many-faceted sexual revolution evolving through anti-family, anti-monogamy, anti-marriage, anti biological sex and sexuality, and now pan-societal chosen subfertility and extinction.   

How and why did this New Leftism swiftly so universally dominant that it overcame more than a century of Old Left socialism/ communism; and the New Left now includes and embraces all its mainstream would-be opposition ideologies such as Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Nationalist* - even theocratic etc? 

This is an important question because so many who oppose the Left try to emulate and exceed the Left's power by studying and copying its methods. 

The reason for the pervasive, continuing, and (so far) unstoppable domination of the New Left is very simple. 

1. New Left is essentially oppositional. 

2. New Left is therefore essentially destructive, not constructive. 

3. It is much, much easier to destroy than to construct.

The weakness of the Old Left was that it was partially constructive, indeed utopian - the communists and socialists all had a (more or less detailed) picture of some kind of future and stable ideal society towards which they purported to be working. 

For example, a core ideology of the Old Left was economic equality - aiming therefore at a very highly equal "distribution" of income (especially), and also wealth (to vary degrees). 

(But not power! The Old Left invariably centralized power, so that the revolutionary class could control everybody else for their own good!) 

Another core objective of the Old Left was the imposition of public ownership of the means of production, usually by some version of nationalization or worker-control.  

The New Left has long-since abandoned any such constructive notions: there is no ideal future society being aimed-at, no utopia.

Because it has all-but abandoned even the intent, even the pretence, of construction; it is therefore very easy for the New Left to change society by opposing and destroying whatever it currently deems to be bad. 

Destructive change is vastly easier than constructive change, and when New Left is aimed-at a wide (and expanding) range of destructive changes; then destructive change of any thing the Lefts deems bad is perceived as an effective exercise of Left power. 

*There is no such thing as The Right in modern mainstream politics. All parties and organizations are now of-the-Left. This includes churches. 

In conclusion; the New Left is so powerful and has come to dominate the entirety of high-level institutional life in the West because it seeks and achieves destructive change; and destruction is quick and facile compared with construction. 

And this is, of course, why those who desire to oppose the Left cannot use the methods of the Left

...Because using the methods of the New Left is necessarily to pursue the agenda of the New Left. 

Contemplative bliss, or creative participation? An infinite perfect creation, or expanding creating?

Traditional religions and spiritual philosophies have "all" saddled themselves with underlying metaphysical assumptions that render significant-human-aspiration a delusion. 

When the power of God is infinite there is literally nothing for us to do. 

The offer is (perhaps) one of blissful contemplation of the perfection of an infinite creation. But because creation is perfect and infinite there is nothing for us to do about it. We cannot add to it in any way At All. 

Indeed even our obedience, adoration, and worship adds nothing since it is already a part of the whole. 

There is nowhere for an infinite perfect creation to go, nothing can really happen - indeed the only "sand in the gearbox", the irrational and inexplicable "fly in the ointment", is the apparently persistent human delusion that we matter at all! 

And that we even exist, as separate beings with a significant role to play.

Far too many Christians, and nearly-all other religions and philosophies, have painted themselves into a corner of personal futility. 

All possible human thought, action, achievement is pointless; because creation is already infinite and perfect. 

(And always was and always shall be infinite and perfect - some will add; diminishing our utter significance even further - if that were possible!)  

While I fully acknowledge that contemplative bliss is a very pleasant thing to feel for a while, it is negative and just does not constitute a purpose. 

Beyond contemplation is creation, and creative joy in a spirit of love is the greatest thing we can know - and far greater than a contemplative bliss that is (by its own definitions) irrelevant to reality. 

Surely we know this?

We know it, but our fundamental assumptions about the nature of infinite perfect creation far-too-often render our hope of creating into a mere delusion, of which we are supposed to rid ourselves.  

Yet we want to make a difference; and it feels as if this is possible! 

And those of us who have chosen to affiliate with the creator want to make a positive difference, we want to add to ongoing-divine-creation; such that "creation" needs to be replaced by something like "create-ing" to recognize it is continuous, open-ended, always expanding. 

Divine creating is always expanding, and we want to join with God and be part of that expanding. 

So: Divine creating must be expanding, potentially forever. 

Also, that expansion must all be Good - anything we and others add to creating it must all be in harmony with God's purposes...

Which means it must all be done from love. 

Which is where Jesus Christ comes in. 

On the one side ideas about God and Creation; on the other side Jesus and Salvation. 

Individual, serious, Christians must Make Sure that their assumptions about God and Creation do not logically-block their highest aspirations concerning Jesus and Salvation and our ultimate hopes for eternal life; because at present official Christian theologies of God nearly always do logically-block Jesus, Resurrection, Heaven. 

An experience of Original Participation: Thoreau's interactions with the Penobscot Indian Joe Polis in The Maine Woods

Henry David Thoreau's The Maine Woods is a posthumously-collected set of three essays about travels in that region in the middle 1800s. All are worth reading; but for me the best is the last: The Allegash and East Branch. 

Thoreau describes a river trip with a friend, for which they hired a Penobscot Indian called Joe Polis as their guide. Polis was reputed to be, and Thoreau confirmed this, an exceptional man; highly-regarded both among the Indians and the Whites for his wisdom and personal integrity, as well as his skill as a woodsman and river man. 

Thoreau knew a great deal about Indians; both from reading widely, interviewing experts, and by attentive and respectful personal interactions. 

His particular interest was the ways in which Indians thought and experienced differently from himself, and how this was the basis for their unequalled abilities described throughout The Maine Woods.  

From my theoretical perspective (influenced by Owen Barfield, and some aspects of Rudolf Steiner); I interpret Thoreau's fascination as with the different consciousness of Indians; especially the distinct residue of Original Participation (OP) that these woodland guides had as the basis underlying their crafts. 

Original Participation is a different way of experiencing oneself and the rest of reality (other people, the nature), of understanding and interacting with the world - although we may remember something of this from early childhood, dreams, or states of altered consciousness. 

OP is mostly spontaneous and un-conscious, due to the individual being immersed-in the rest-of-the-world, living as part of the world ("participation"). 

And from this OP basis came the Indian's remarkable navigating, surviving, and hunting abilities; for which the White Men would typically hire him.  

But in the case of Thoreau; Joe Polis was hired more or less on the excuse of being a forest guide; Thoreau really wanted to get to know Polis, and get to know how he thought. 

Polis was very suitable because although he retained the OP stance as required, he was also unusually accomplished in his interactions with the modern world: was literate, a devout Protestant, an effective leader, well-travelled. 

This was a basis for the collegial friendship that developed between Thoreau and Polis; and in addition there was evidently a natural liking each for the other - a recognition of some basic similarity.  

There is much else to enjoy about The Maine Woods, especially for those (like me) who have a romantic feeling for such places, and for the Indians who originally inhabited them. 

In actuality, living in the Maine Woods, or even going on a trip like Thoreau's, would be a horrible experience for me - not least because of the swarms of mosquitos and biting-flies. 

Yet; as a place to think about, to imagine; those Hiawatha forests, lakes, rivers are potent and positive stimuli; especially to the extent I can appreciate the distinctive consciousness of an Indian like Joe Polis.   

Hiawatha fishing for the sturgeon - an ahistorical but spiritually-true illustration that captures the atmosphere I recall from reading Longfellow's wonderful poem when I was aged about nine.  

A little Spanish chap...

In our organization we have a little Spanish chap who attends to all our training needs. 

We call him "Instruction Manuel". 

Music (like books, or medicines) can do harm, as well as good. The example of Mahler

Following-up on my post of a couple of days ago, where I described authors who did me some harm by being the wrong books at the worst time for me; the same can apply to music. 

This is all-too-obvious with respect to pop music - especially because it is most targeted at youth, and adolescence is the time of greatest vulnerability. 

From 1967 onwards, a great deal of pop music was calculated to manipulate youth into amplifying the spiritual harm of culture generally. This can clearly be seen in the lyrics, and even the music itself, of the most culturally significant group of that era in the UK, i.e. The Beatles. 

But just as some people regard books as A Good Thing, so people regard Classical music as necessarily beneficial - yet this is absurdly untrue - at least for those who are engaged-with and sensitive to music. 

The classical music culture in the UK is one in which it is regarded as high status to be able to appreciate all the great composers of all eras; and as a late teen and early adult I went along with this, such as always to be trying to appreciate all the high status composers - even when their music seemed to work on me like a poison, or made me (more or less) feel spiritually ill.  

This was the case for Gustav Mahler. In the 1970s, he was being rediscovered as a composer (during his life he had been famous mainly as a conductor) - and promoted to the status of Great, as Wagner's premier successor. 

But for all its musical excellences and strong effects; Mahler's music seemed to me then, as it still does when I occasionally hear it, toxic and cloying. Nonetheless I persevered, attentively working through his symphonies (especially) on LP, and attending a couple of live concerts. 

This stopped after I had bought a recording of Mahler's Tenth Symphony (completed by Deryck Cook) and fell asleep while listening to the slow movement; waking with a profound and powerful mixture of revulsion and misery. 

After this, I was forced to acknowledge that Mahler was bad for me. And that by persisting with listening I was pushing myself towards a feeling of hopelessness and despair. 

This was a realization that all Great Composers were not good - some were harmful by my intuitive estimation! 

More generally; this fits with the observation that anything which has a powerful enough effect that it might do good, for the same reason may do harm. 

This applies to drugs (and other treatments) in medicine; which is why there is no qualitative distinction between therapeutic effects and "side effects" - to be of possible benefit, a drug must have an effects on the body, much change physiology; and because it has an effect, it will do harm to some people nearly-all the time, and other people some of the time.   

It is only because Mahler is a powerful and effective composer, that his music was able to do me harm. 

To generalize again; it is talented artists, authors, musicians; who can do us the most harm. So, for our own good; we need to be able to distinguish between matters of virtue, and matters of ability and effectiveness.   

NOTE: There are so few Real scientists and medics, that the "debates" You hear about are fake

Considering that I spent my working life deeply engaged with science (especially evolutionary biology and human intelligence and creativity) and medicine (especially psychiatry and psychopharmacology); it may be surprising to some readers that I do not notice or comment on the debates about medical therapies or scientific theories that are spread across the internet. 

The reason is that I believe there are extremely few scientists and medical researchers who are real: that is who are strongly motivated by truth wrt the matter under consideration; which motivation (in a subsidiary way) means they become and are sufficiently knowledgeable and competent in the relevant matters being debated. 

There are still very few people who realize both that much more science used to be real; but now extremely little of what is called science is real while there is a truly vast amount of fake science - which is either generic careerist bureaucracy, or generic mass media manipulation. 

Indeed the public debates are themselves typically based on mistaken and false premises; such that they are fundamentally worthless, or indeed actively harmful. 

Unless you are yourself real with respect to that specific matter under discussion, then you cannot genuinely evaluate such debates - you are merely experiencing them as a gladatorial display, and one that is probably being staged with the aim of manipulating you, one way or another. 

And the unreal debaters may themselves convinced that they themselves are real scientists, and outraged by any suggestion otherwise - despite that their motivations are so obviously not-real!  

Real science and medicine is difficult, slow, and rare, especially here and now; and is not a public affair. 

For instance, it is nearly always very difficult to know whether or not a treatment is effective in a general way. 

Science never really has been a public affair; but happens between those few people who are real; and happens largely inter-personally. Same with its sub-type medical research, with added diffiulties of an inter-personal kind. 

**

(Although sometimes in the past the public "overheard" a real debate; and that may be genuinely interesting and enlightening! But now? The odds are overwhelmingly high you are overhearing a fake debate.) 

NOTE ADDED. Quite a lot of the "scientific" debates (and indeed many academic and scholarly debates as well) are in reality failures to clarify and acknowledge metaphysical assumptions. Examples include some of the debates of high-level physics theories (cosmology, particles, forces etc), the nature and origins of Life, and the validity of evolution by Natural Selection. Discussions of such matters need to grasp that science only operates within metaphysical assumptions; such that evidence and reason are secondary to these assumptions. Which means (inter alia) that debates of evidence and reasoning cannot in principle overthrow the metaphysical assumptions that govern a type of science. 

Which is the more Pathetic - to live for this Life only, or a future Life of Heaven?

To live towards a future life, an after-life: to orientate our mortal lives in the expectation of immortality in Heaven - is this good, or just pathetic? 

It is, in the West, is mainstream and normal for powerful, wealthy, high status, vigorous people to regard future-life orientation as dumb, crazy, dishonest, manipulative - but even at best it is pathetic, a behaviour which moves a compassionate Man to pity. 

The idea is that only someone who is Fundamentally A Loser ("retarded") in this world would have a Heavenly orientation. 

Yet the mainstream, normal attitude of living for this mortal Life is equally pathetic, pitiable, in that among those who regard-themselves as Winners, Life is seen optimistically. 

"This Lifers" believe that good times are just around the corner, seeds of improvement are sprouting, the pendulum is about to swing in the desired direction... that History is on the side of Progress. 

"This Lifers" may look at the sad fate, and desperate situations, of so many people around them; yet optimistically (as a matter of faith) believe that they-themselves will somehow be exempt from such a pathetic life. 

Is there anything sadder, more ignorant and insane - or more deviously manipulative - than constantly to be harping on a better future in this mortal life; and absolutely to need to believe in such improvement? 

If both can be seen as pathetic, according to perspective; who is the most pathetic: a this-Lifer or the next-Lifer? 

The answer (like all answers) depends on fundamental assumptions. 

If we assume that resurrected eternal Life in Heaven is real and possible - and from this perspective look back on human history and the experience of our own lives; then mainstream ideological optimism is just ridiculous, and to live by optimism for this-life and this-world is truly the most pitiable state. 

If instead we assume with materialistic-atheism, that this this world is the only world; that mortal Life - between conception and death - is everything; that Heaven is false, a day-dream or a manipulative lie... Well then; to believe in Heaven, and live for Heaven, is indeed pathetic: foolish or childish at best.

Because (such people still argue) by living in light of a false Heaven, we will presumably fail to make the best (or at least make-the-most) of this mortal life; and also by focusing on a fake afterlife we will fail to focus on improving the real world around us... 

Consequently; to live for Heaven is not merely regarded as the pathetic belief of a pathetic loser; but actually a belief that will materially-harm other people, and tend to sabotage the optimistic hope of a better life for me, and a better this-world for everyone*. 

The Heaven believer is then worse than pathetic: subversive, a saboteur, a public menace.  

*(Or, if future life is not better for everyone, then better for everyone that matters to me.) 

Yet materialistic atheism has zero basis for judging value objectively, interpersonally! 

So for mainstream modernity truth is ultimately no better than delusions, happiness no worse than suffering, success and failure are subjective distinctions without meaning. 

Subjectivity is all that is left; and personal preferences and emotions are transient, and externally influenced - hence ultimately meaningless.

And the terrible history of the twentieth century worldwide, and the ongoing artistic/ scientific/ cultural/ spiritual collapse of the West; demonstrates that a this-life atheist-materialist perspective actually does not lead people to focus on make the best and most of their mortal life and of human society. 

What, then, can be more arbitrary than the "confident" assertion that this mortal Life is all-there-is, and anyone who believes otherwise is pathetic?  

Mainstream modern materialistic atheism is a choice; and a choice that, rigorously pursued is itself a recipe for frenzied and psychopathic hedonism in the short term, and for despair and suicide in the long term. 

...As we see especially evident among the more powerful, wealthy, high status, vigorous people of the West - here-and-now. 

And if They think that We are pathetic compared with Them?

Well, I for one don't care what They think - except to avoid it!

 

Elevenses, anyone?

I haven't heard anyone talk about elevenses for quite a while, some decades; but the expression was at one time used almost daily. 

As far back as I remember in the 1960s, and continuing into the 80s; there was a mid-morning break situated roughly half-way between breakfast and lunch - during which people would also eat a snack. That snack was almost always biscuits. 

This applied whether at work - when it was either formally timed programmed in mass employment situations. Or informally a matter of convention in professional situations (such as laboratories). There was a mid-morning break for drinking tea or coffee, eating a biscuit or two - and conversation. 

A treasured memory of my mid-childhood and early teens was attending elevenses at the Bristol Dental School with my father; mainly on those Saturday mornings when I accompanied him to work to visit the nearby public library or bookshops. The event had a delightful atmosphere.  

Among my mother's circle there were "coffee mornings" for women neighbours, especially those with housewives with children, which went from house to house in an approximate rotation. As a pre-schooler, or duing school holidays; I was taken-along to these - but found them terribly boring, except for the biscuits (I was always hungry, and could never eat enough biscuits to satify this!). But for the housewives, coffee mornings were the main frequent form of social interaction. 

In those days in England; coffee was consumed almost entirely in people's homes - either instant coffee at elevenses, or ground coffee (invariably in tiny cups) after dinner in the late evening. The rest of the time, multiple cups of tea were normal. 

But coffee incrementally displaced, and sometimes replaced, tea; and was consumed more often in cafes; rather than at home or in "works" canteens. 

Later still, ground coffee replaced instant; and espresso displaced all other methods of brewing. 

During my working years, this practice of elevenses began as universal and much-valued, but diminished greatly - indeed it had altogether disappeared by the time of retirement.

This decline went hand-in-hand with reduced biscuit consumption; and a feeling that it was weak or wrong to eat anything - but especially anything sweet - between breakfast and lunch.  

The managerial-bureaucratic takeover also suppressed elevenses at work, when it suddenly and somehow became too expensive and/or inefficient to set aside a room for communal drinking and eating. 

Two authors I used to like, but did me harm

I deplore the nonsensical trope that "books" are A Good Thing: only some books are Good - and a small minority. 

Others books are Bad, in the sense that they are actually intended (whether consciously or not) negatively to affect the reader. Indeed; nowadays this applies to a large majority of contemporary and famous books: fiction and non-fiction.

In particular reading the wrong books at certain times in our lives can do us spiritual harm. 

Perhaps this only applies to people like me who seriously engage-with, and are thus influenced-by the books they read. In my experience, to do significant spiritual harm we must like, or at least admire, a book at the time of reading (for whatever reason - and the reason for liking/ admiring may itself be a bad one). 

The first author to have a significantly bad influence on me was probably Michael Moorcock; whose Jerry Cornelius books I began reading aged 21 at a time when I was somewhat depressed, or at least frustrated. I also read quite a few other Moorcock books, but the Jerry Cornelius series were the ones that did the job. 

I got onto Moorcok via another writer called Jack Trevor Story, who was a friend of Moorcock and said that M was one of the major living writers, an excellent writer. 

So I read Moorcock with that expectation and belief; although I could not actually experience Moorcock's excellence. His prose seemed flat and drab, and I had great difficulty following what was happening. 

This difficulty (deliberate, in these "experimental" novels) had the effect of making me engage more intensely on the basis that I "must be missing something"; and as a result Moorcock's calculatedly "hip" hedonistic nihilism synergized with my mood of the time to produce its bad effects.  

A similar phenomenon came a couple of years later, when I read a good deal of Kurt Vonnegut, starting with Slaughterhouse 5 - which was actually recommended and lent to me by Alasdair Gray, at our first meeting. 

Vonnegut is a far better writer than Moorcock; being extremely skilful at construction, highly inventive, and deeply witty in his early books (up to Breakfast of Champions). 

But underneath this is an aggressively bleak, hope-less, and immiserating ideology; rooted in ultra-materialist assumptions; a trait that got worse and worse as V grew older. 

Vonnegut apparently sets-out to generate the belief that despair is the only outcome of honest realism - and he did a pretty good job on me - again at a point in my life when I was tending that way myself. 

In sum; at a couple of periods of my life in which - for whatever other reasons that were primarily causal - reading Moorcock and Vonnegut made bad things significantly worse; and tended to make me "get stuck" in a bad place. 

My interpretation nowadays is that M and V were both people who had chosen the dark side in the spiritual war of this world; and who chose further to propagate and infect others with their negative world-view by means of their writing. 

Moorcock - a lesser writer - did this in an obvious and in-your-face way; the brilliant Vonnegut sugared his bitter pill with wit and skill. 

Consequently, I have no desire to re-read anything by either of them*, and on-the-whole regret the attention I once gave them.

*Except for Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut, which is such a well-written, ideas-packed, and clever black comedy, that it is worth the temporary net-depression of spirits induced by reading.  

The heartless laughter of (some) elves in Tolkien

Discussed over at my Notion Club Papers blog.

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.