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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is just Too Easy to be interesting!  

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Britain Day

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

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

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

  

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

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

Bespoke revelation and salvation - God goes beyond Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The symbol of Light for Goodness has become ineffectual

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

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

Light made good. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are many examples:

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

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

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

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

3. Human adrenal gland microscope slides.

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

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

4. The Birdemic of 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

Proving that everybody is susceptible, nobody is immune. 

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

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

"If you were God, the creator" How might you set-up a System of Revelation

If you were God the Creator, making this reality; and you wished to set-up a System for transmitting Revelations to humans, such as essential knowledge for proper living and salvation - consider how you might construct this?

There might be many ways - indeed having many routes of revelation would probably be more reliable than just a single System. 

Some possible ways include:

Built-in Revelation

God might ensure that at least some essential knowledge was built-into every human; was present at birth, innate. Each person would "know", within himself, some of the essential knowledge he required to live in-accord with divine intentions, and for salvation. 

Comment: This seems like the surest, most reliable and universal method of transmitting revelations; but is probably limited in terms of the specificity and precision of knowledge that can be transmitted thus; and it is largely "automatic" without scope for freedom.  

Transmitted by means of Prophets

God might transmit essential knowledge to a (relatively) few Prophets; particular Individuals through-which God revealed what the other-people needed to know. 

These Prophets would then communicate by the usual human means of speaking, making demonstrations, perhaps writing (e.g. scriptures) - each activity of which might be completely - or to some degree - taken-over by God and used directly. 

Each prophet might have all, or some, of the System of Revelation (i.e. great, and lesser, Prophets). 

Once the Revelations had been transmitted and recorded by Prophets; they would be preserved and disseminated by the usual human mechanisms - setting-up an organization, rituals, teaching, translating, texts (scriptures) and interpretation of writings etc. 

Comment: A System of Revelation based on Prophets seems among the least reliable and accurate methods of God communicating; since there are so many steps in the process; and these steps get more numerous and less secure with time.  

Transmitted directly to a Group

God might choose to inspire and sustain a group or institution, that exists through time; and to which God tramsits Revelations. This group is a Church.  

By this method, God works via a Church, consisting of human beings organized operating according to instructions that God also transmits, presumably continuously - necessary to deal with changes in the conditions of the world. 

Individual persons recieve Revealations via the Church; by the usual means of human communication - which might included symbol and ritual, and well as spoken and written words. 

Comment: Church seems a strangely indirect method of God transmitting Revelations: God to Group, Group to Individual; and one that is prone to the distortions and imprecisions of this world. 

Possible coherent reasons why God might work via a Church would seem to be if God-to-Church was less more accurate, less susceptible to going wrong. 

Another solid reason is when there is little or no possibility of effective direct God-to-Individual Revelation. If, for example, Individuals were not capable of receiving Individual Revelation; or Church might be a mechanism for overcoming Individual resistance to Revelations. 

 

Transmitted directly to all Individuals

God might set-up a System by which Revelations were transmitted (or made-available) directly to all Individual persons. 

In this System there need not be communication or preservation of Revelations between people, because each person would get Revelation direct from God, and as necessary. But on the other side; each person would not be expected or required to discuss his personal revelations, or teach hthem to other people. 

This could be done by normal "perceptual" communications; where God sends revelations through (for example) visions, or spoken words. Such revelations have the advantage that they might be detailed - but the disadvantage they they require interpretation. 

But most directly of all; God might also send (or more accurately share) Revelations "mind-to-mind" - i.e. without intermediary perceptions, neither speech nor visions - at least, to the limit of what is comprehensible and will be accepted-by that particular person. 

(My feeling is that everybody is mentally capable of receiving the revelations he personally needs; such that necessary revelations are always personally comprehensible.)  

Comment: The personal limit of what will be accepted and understood by each individual is probably the main limitation of direct transmission of Revelations. 

Especially; in a world where each individual uses his freedom to block Revelations, or whose attention is directed elsewhere all of the time - then Revelations can only "get through" when the conscious will is disabled, for example by illness, sleep, or intoxication. 

And in such situations; the memory tends to be affected, and the Revelations may be forgotten or explained-away as a mere consequence of the pathological and abnormal conditions that made them possible!

More Battle of Britain reflections

Brian Kingcome, and Geoffrey Wellum in front of a Spitfire - Wellum's First Light is one of the most inspiring and beautiful Battle of Britain accounts, and he himself an exemplar of the best spirit of those times. 

Like many British people, I am "a bit obsessed" with the Battle of Britain; in that I never tire of reading and viewing media about those months of 1940. 

Part of this is a boyish fascination with the aircraft, the pilots, the air services, the nation's mood and response etc. On any given day, I am more likely than not to be reading a pilot's memoir, or another historical study of this time. 

But, unlike most people, I am also prone to think about the spiritual or inner side of the BoB. This was, I believe, crucial to the success of the defence - in context esepcially of the counter-example of France and its stunningly fast capitulation, in which resistance was undermined by a national mood of confusion, incoherence, and despair. 

I regard the Battle of Britain as the last time that the group mind of the British people was powerfully and positively motivated. 

Since 1940, the group mind has sometimes been positive and feeble, sometimes powerful and negative - but never both good and strong in the way of the BoB. 

And I do not believe it ever shall be again - indeed the group mind has all-but disintegrated; as is inevitable when overwhelmingly-most people (including most religious people) are materialist by their fundamental assumptions. 

Even when people believe in God; God's role is relegated to materialist goals and methods (socio-politics); even when people believe in the spiritual, the spirit is seen in terms of its physical effects (this-worldly benefits and harms). 

Yet I do experience a good and positive group mind of Britain (or Britain's spiriual basis - Albion); and since this is not coming from the mass of people, from the mortal Men of the nation; my assumption is that instead this group mind is located in the resurrected Dead; and also in the non-human beings of the nation - in the consciousness of some of the animals, plants, and landscapes.  

So people here-and-now can be inspired, energized, and motivated by the group mind of Albion - even now; but on an individual level, and by means of direct contact with other minds that are not living mortal humans. 

This superficially seems weird, but it also seems experientially true. 

"Everybody is a Leftist Now": Leftist theory is cumulative, because there is no end to the possibility and process of accumulating contradictory oppositions

Leftism is oppositional in its fundamental nature, and over the centuries it has accumulated many oppositions. 

And, once an opposition has become a part of the loose-leaf binder that comprises Leftist "theory" it is never discarded. 

Even when in practice Leftism actively persecutes that which it once had championed. 

Thus; some of the main oppositional themes of Leftism, going back to the late 1700s and up into the 1970s include Abolition of Slavery, Pacifism, Socialism/ Communism, Anti-marriage, Antiracism, Feminism, Environmentalism. 

We can see that in the early phases of each "ism" there was sometimes a genuine net effort to reduce or abolish that to which Leftism was opposed. 

So that the campaign for abolition of slavery began in Britain, and actually abolished slavery (formally defined) starting in Britain and its Empire, and then in more and more places of the world. 

But here and now, Leftism has presided over the re-introduction of slavery to Britain (officially estimated to be in the tens of thousands of slaves, presumably more); as a consequence of Antiracism and the strategy of mass immigration having become more powerful than Abolition within Leftism. 

Yet Leftism has never abandoned theoretical Abolition; even as it actively imports and subsidizes slavers, and protects them from scrutiny and prosecution. 

Or, when Leftism was dominated by Socialism/ Communism, it valorized native working-class men; and probably did something to improve the conditions of this group - or, at least, the mass-unionized sector of this group. 

Nowadays, with the waxing of Antiracism and mass immigration, this group has become perhaps the most demonized in society. 

Yet Leftism still takes a pro-working class stance and advocates Socialist/ Communist policies... in a purely theoretical and rhetorical way. 

A similar plotline could be detected for feminism, environmentalism, and the other oppositional policies. 

Leftism always accumulates in its portfolio, and does not discard. 

Ultimately, everybody has found a place within the always-expanding Big Tent of Leftism, because everybody is opposed to something or another. 

And if individuals or groups can be induced to make that opposition (or a handful of such) central to their motivation, they are brought within Leftism.

Until now Leftism embraces the entirety of official politics (including all conservative, reactionary, republican groupings). 

Including that Leftism contains the would-be anti-Leftist movements (fascism, national-socialism, libertarianism etc); all of which are actually, by their fundamentally oppositional nature, thereby forms-of-Leftism. 

Therefore; Leftism, through time, develops a "rainbow" of incompatible and mutually hostile "concerns" without ever resolving the contradictions - but instead promoting all of them, all of the time. 

Thus Leftism depends absolutely upon permanent dishonesty, total-hypocrisy, and a continual "Orwellian" rhetoric inversion - by which destruction is called creation. 

And all this was made possible, and eventually inevitable, because in a world that denies and excludes the reality of God the creator; then there can be no positive Good. Instead morality itself becomes oppositional; and morality is discussed and measured in utilitarian and psychological terms of gratification versus suffering. 

By ignoring divine purpose and meaning; all discourse and policy will trend to become oppositional to divine creation; all discourse in such a world will therefore be Leftist; and every body (including self-described anti-Leftists) will be a species of Leftist. 

So - Here We Are!

Seeking for Inspiration - not for instruction, nor to find a "model" or blueprint

The kind of Christianity that I regard as necessary is one in which we approach the religious task of learning with a mind-set very different from that of the past. 

In the past; I think it's fair to say that a Christian would listen, read, discuss etc. with the aim of discovering a true source of instruction. 

Primary sources of authority were at one time unconsciously assimilated from the culture. 

In more recent centuries, the primary sources were decided-upon individually, but then treated as objective. But once the primary sources were established; the the Bible was read, sermons were listened-to, rituals were participated-in - asif an instruction manual, in search of a model for living. 

The manual or model was regarded as true, and true for everybody; because of the authority of the primary source from which it was derived - and it was assumed that the truth was in the form of a model and manual. 

Now, and for some decades, a different attitude is required. 

We should no longer be seeking an instruction manuaa or model for living; but instead be seeking for inspirations. 

Seeking not just in primary sources of authority - because we ourselves have in every instance decided the validity of these sources, they have always been personally-chosen from a wide range of possibilities; and therefore the sources are never really primary. 

Instead; we should seek more widely, and seek where we intuit (or from experience) possible value - or esle we simply seek among the materials that culture throws at us. 

And what do we seek? 

Not a template for behaviour, nor a strategy for life, nor a working-model of the universe nor any kind of plan...

We should seek for inspiration. Seek for insights, truths, instances of virtue or beauty - be ready to identify, discern and acknowledge these... 

Does it matter where we seek? 

Yes, because our time and effort are finite; and because although none are definitive, some sources are overall good-affiliated while others sources are evil. 

That is; some sources are doing-their-best - in at least some ways - and thereby have more value; while other sources are strategically-oriented towards our corruption and spiritual destruction*.

*(Obviously; this applies to all sources curated by government, financial institutions, mega-corps and their human functionaries - such as "AI".) 

What I am suggesting is that we need to stop aspiring to certain and true knowledge of something resembling a Blueprint for Christian Living; and instead seek for inspirations and insights from which we learn...

But learn not with a goal of generating an alternative blueprint! 

Instead we need something much more like learning the answer to "What next?" Or "Which of these alternatives"? 

Rather than demanding, and in practice self-manufacturing, a comprehensive and authoritative map into which we are inserted, and that applies to everybody forever. 

We should instead aspire to something analogous to a personally-located spiritual pointer.

The kind of guidance that is associated with the Holy Ghost - and also taking into account that we ourselves and the world are set-up such that we are supposed to work-out much of what we do. 

Life is not simply given us: true guidance is not given us, understanding is not given us. Activity is required of us. 

Correct intentions, choices, decisions don't "just happen"; and we usually lack the resolution and courage even to do what we know is right.  

From these facts of life; it seems evident that God's method is for us largely and primarily to work-out for ourselves what we need to do in the first place. 

Only then and secondarily do we seek for divine guidance between possibilities and options that we have worked-out; and we also need actively to seek for the encouragement to do what is right.

If you step back and consider the world as a whole, this seems obvious! The set-up is not one where people can passively be fully-obedient in following a universal instructional model; but instead a world in which people must be active and creative in continually discovering what is right, for each of them personally in the here and now - and then seeking divine guidance. 

Mussolini and wet-shaving

I am a practitioner of the ancient craft of wet shaving with a safety-razer; and have often noticed that I make a "Mussolini face" when shaving my neck - indeed it seems necessary in order to do a good job. 

That is, I lift the chin, and pull-up and push-forward my mouth into a sort-of pout, in order to stretch and smooth-out the skin of the neck. 

The face I make seems very ridiculous, and indeed laughter-inducing; but is only a slight exaggeration of M.'s favourite "heroic" pose.  

My theory is that this is how Musso got the idea for his strange, and unique, pose. Presumably, as a young and aspiring Dictator, he saw himself in the mirror every morning making this weird face. But (being Mussolini) he thought: 

"Hey, that looks cool! Maybe I should do it All The Time (whenever I remember), and people will be impressed!"

Apparently, some people were impressed. 

And then he was stuck with it: It was what everybody expected. 

A religion rooted in external reality does not prevent death of the soul - indeed, nowadays, it encourages this

Have you ever noticed that when a lot of people convert to Christianity, or convert to a different denomination or church within Christianity, they cease to become interesting or "real".

That person may have been interesting while he was seeking and exploring, because he was engaged in working to gratify the deep yearnings of his real-self. But after conversion and worsening with time; after he has sworn fealty to his church... then he incrementally becomes an obedient mouthpiece for... whatever he understands as the church's world-view. 

His inner self is now harnessed-to, self-subordinated-to, an outer church agenda. 

In converting to church-Christianity (of almost any church) such people voluntarily become human-parrots. They become utterly predictable in what they say and (apparently) think; because (like a corporate spokesman or Party commissar) they are saying and thinking whatever an institution has put-into them. 

You ask a question, ask for an eveluation, press a button - and if you know what their church says, you know exactly what will come-out. 

Such is, indeed, characteristic of "converts" in general. But those who are devout in their birth religion/ ideology may have always been like this - so we probably don't notice the difference in the "before and after" way that we do with converts. After all, maybe the cradle-communists or -religionists are not capable of anything else? 

I think that this chosen obedient parroting, is why so many devout or convert church-Christians have so spectacularly failed to see the existential threat of "AI" - they fail this easy spiritual "test" because they have out-sourced their fundamental religious thinking. 

And this failure is unfixable; there is no effective negative feedback, no tendency to a pendulum swing. 

One who has handed ultimate authority to anything outside cannot learn; he can only respond to what his chosen external authority instructs him. If the external source does not learn; then neither will he learn. 

This happens because such a person has made the choice and decision that ultimately external is better than internal. 

Such a person has made it a baseline assumption that his understanding and knowledge of goodness, of value - of truth, beauty, and virtue - ought to come from outside of himself.

He has chosen to place himself in a position of ultimate and existential inferiority to some-thing which is external to himself.  

**

My belief is that this fundamental choice is a matter of soul - and the choice is between a soul voluntarily tethered to the external world, and therefore lost...

And, on the other hand; a world experienced, known, understood... from the soul. 

Either we hand over our-selves to be assimilated into out-there; or else we root our ultimate understanding of out-there in our inner-souls. 

This situation is real and active for some decades; the task is a matter of escaping from what has happened, and is still happening and worsening. 

If Christians are to escape their current actuality of passively being swept-along in the stream of whatever current social mores and trends; clinging to a church which is also being swept-along by the same stream (and indeed the church is usually ahead of the individual, and leading the way, in terms of this-worldly corruption); then Christians must begin operating from some-thing that is outwith the stream.

For Christians, this escape ought to be straightforward (albeit not "easy") - if only they will allow it to be. Because Christians know that God is personal and loving of each individual person. We will therefore never be abandoned without divine help - whatever the surrounding level of societal and institutional evil.

To me this implies quite simply that there is (there "must be" - I see no effective alternative) a direct and unmediated - soul to soul - link between God and each individual person. 

In other words; Christians can escape the fate of soul-loss, if they choose - but they must choose. 

If individual persons do not so choose, then they will not escape. 

(There is no incentive, and many disincentives, for institutions to save individuals from institutional-doom, from corruption and evil; when the consequence would be that the individual becomes ultimately autonomous of that institution. It is foolish and irresponsible to wait for externally-led/ -instructed salvation.)  

So we individually must choose the inner over the outer, the sould over society; or else it will not happen. 

And what we discover will get its value from the fact that it is personally experienced and validated, for that person, and because that person has taken responsibility for endorsing it. 

Note: This inner guidance cannot then be handed-on to become secondhand guidance for other people or persons; because that would not then be an "inner", but merely a different kind of "outer". 

It depends on what we want from our existence, and how much we want it. 

Do we want what Jesus offered enough to experience and know, with- and from- our souls? 

Or shall we place our ultimate faith somewhere outside? 

Exactly where outside (church or corporation, religion or ideology) we place our ultimate arbitor will not, in the end, make much difference. 

Only that which lies within can save us.    

The omni-surveillance agenda rolls-on towards its own annihilation

Whenever I interact with the mainstream of institutional life, I am aware that the totalitarian omni-surveillance agenda continues, and continues... And seems even to have stepped-up in the past few years with the phenomenon self-described as "AI". 

Whenever "systems" or procedures are revised, whenever I purchase (or have forced upon me) some new equipment or software the surveillance agenda is ever more obvious. Everything from driving a car to using a computer is getting slower, more complicated, less effective. 

And yet - where is it all going? 

The original and explicit intention was a global totalitarian society of omni-surveillance, which would lead to micro-control of the masses. But nobody now believes believes that this is a goal worth pursuing; and nobody (except half-baked dystopian fantasists and those they terrorize) now believes that this will happen, or even could happen. 

Instead; the System and all its components collapse under accelerating levels of (substantially self-inflicted) personnell incompetence, disaffection, resource-consuming change - plus more and ever-more deliberately-induced chaos.  

The omni-surveillance agenda is not going anywhere but towards collapse; everything done to further the agenda actually contributes to its own destruction; because the omni-surveillance society is functionally incapable of sustaining omni-surveillance. 

And yet the agenda will not stop! It rolls-on and on; nobody is stepping back, abandoning, nor trying to reverse it!  

I see in this a near-total disconnection of cognition; between ideology and reason. 

It is literal insanity: psychosis, madness, delirium, dementia - disguised and denied only because its prevalence is near-universal . 

On one side there is a utterly vague and goalless gestural morality of official purposes - and on the other there is an absolute (and terrified) a refusal ever to step-back and seriously evaluate what has happened, is happening - and where it is going.

The refusal to think is absolute because people are subconsciously aware that there can be no purpose or point to their lives; because their fundamental assumptions is that there is no purpose or point to reality - and nothing to look-forward-to. 

Understanding all this explicitly would only make matters worse.  

As of now: the ideological agenda is never within-system but comes from... elsewhere and above; the agenda is always incoherent; and all dominating and powerful institutional agendas are constructed on false assumptions. 

Almost nobody has the slightest idea where things are going, they don't want to know, and will not try to find-out; ultoimately because they have no idea where they ought to be going. 

Ideologies such as omni-surveillance persist indefinately because: what else is there? 

What strong motivation is there to discard one lying incoherent strategy for some other that is no better?

And, after all; if people gave-up on omni-surveillance it would only be to pursue CO2 pseudo-environmenatlaism, or the latest iteration of the sexual revolution, or another of the evil-motivated strategies of totalitarianism; or else to joing the Agents of Chaos in engineering an endlessly escalating forever-war of each-againts-all. 

In an assumed not-alive universe and world that lacks all purpose, meaning, direction, or essential personal relevance: what else is there any better than what we now have? So: Roll-On Omni-Surveillance!

What is the purpose of this mortal life? Three things for a Christian

1. To know and desire resurrected eternal life in Heaven, after death. 

This, with pre-mortal spirit life, is the frame for purpose in mortal life.  

2. The quest or destined-task for our life - this typically varies with age and situation.  

This is the positive purpose of mortal life; what we are trying to do. 

3. What we need to learn from experience; what life is trying to teach us. 

Learning is the negative purpose of mortal life, our response to our situation. 

**

How do we discover the nature of Heaven, our quest, and life-lessons?

This has changed through human history:

1. We are told exactly what to do, by a missionary or church. Our job is to obey. 

2. We learn, read, reason what to do; selecting with discernment from church-approved sources (e.g. tradition, scripture, theology, church creed/ doctrines/ rules etc...). 

3. We do all of the above - using any or all of the above sources, and more; and our own imagination and creative endeavor; to infer what to believe and do: based ultimately on our deepest attainable intuition. 

 

The Goddess aspect of the dyad of God the Creator

I have often discussed God as a dyad - conceptualized as Father and Mother, or God and Goddess - which, for me, goes with my understanding of divine creation as the manifestation of love. In a nutshell, I regard creation as inextricably an aspect of love, and love as a dynamic relationship of beings. 

For me, this is reality, it is a fact; but I cannot claim to have properly taken account of it in my thinking and living. Like most Christians I tend, habitually, to think of God as a Father and as unitary - despite that this does not make coherent sense to me! Such is the nature of mortal life! 

But I currently feel impelled to try and "sort-out" my conceptual assumptions regarding The Goddess, triggered by the stimulus (if not example) of the role of Mary, Mother of Jesus, "Theotokos" - in the history of Christianity; and of her "veneration", the attention paid her - which has been (at times, in some places) the focus of actual Christian practice.  

I do not find any of the conceptualizations of The Goddess to be correct; mainly because I begin as a pluralist and animist - regarding many living "beings" as the ultimate units of reality. 

While almost-all philosophers have-been and are monists, believing reality is ultimately one; and usually believing that reality (including God, if believed-in) is ultimately impersonal, conceptual, abstract (often regarded as "static" and beyond "time"; conceptualized in terms of "properties" (or even negations) rather than an eternal, purposive, conscious, dynamic, living being.  

There has been much talk of The Goddess or Goddesses in recent decades, but I find almost all of this discussion to be retrograde, ineffectual, in error. 

1. Goddess talk is often linked to new forms and subjects of worship; whereas I don't believe that our God desires worship. 

2. Goddess talk is often - and very obviously - derivative-of and serving a left-materialist socio-political agenda (which agenda is primary and the bottom-line belief - and is ultimately evil, because a tool of totalitarianism). 

3. Because of the prevalent (nearly universal) monism; Goddess talk too often leads to an agenda of division - because people cannot even imagine how there came to be two, except by a division of some primal unity...

So, the idea of Goddess gets led-into a false activity of defining and distinguishing Divine Mother from Father, Goddess from God  - which soon becomes prescriptive and this-worldly; rather than descriptive of primal reality.  

Instead I am trying to understand the Goddess thus:

1. As reality, a fact, a fundamental assumption. 

2. God as creator is the consequence of love between two beings, whom we call God and Goddess.

3. Unless there were both, there would not have been creation, unless the relation was love there would have been no creation - so love is the nature, origin, and "driving force" of creation.   

What does this imply about our proper attitude to The Goddess? 

Put simply; I think it includes this: 

The Goddess is real, loves us each, is dyadic co-creator; and if we desire to affiliate with creation, then we do so by loving the Goddess and the God as divine parents of ourselves and of creation.

The Creator Goddess is a different being from the Creator God; as all beings are unique and distinct in their existence, and as all love is between unique beings. We get to know such differences by getting to know the "person". 

As with mortal life, knowing-about is qualitatively different-from and inferior-to actually knowing a person. 

That is one task: getting to know the Goddess - know directly, and for ourselves. 

Another reason why the mass media Always Lies about those people it witch-hunts

I have often been puzzled why it is that the mass media Always lies about the people it is witch-hunting. 

If you know anything of the reality of what lies behind these witch hunts, you will know that extra and lying accusations are Always smuggled into the charge-sheet, or even made central. 

This addition of false "crimes" is Always done, even when there are are sufficient reasons (from the evil totalitarian POV!) to "convict" the victim of wrong-doing. 

Such happened to me when subjected to an international mass media firestorm back in 2008. An article I published in the Times Higher Education Supplement was directed against the UK government's false assumption of identical average IQ in all social classes, and illustrated that the real differences had a much bigger than expected effect on the most IQ-selective universities. 

But some of the most impactful of global media added IQ "racism" - to the charge sheet; about which there was literally nothing mentioned in the article.  

Of course I knew, and had written elsewhere, about racial differences in average IQ - but the mass media did not know that I knew! Presumably because the journalists were too idle or busy to use a search engine. Apparently; making-up (what They believed were) lies it was quicker, easier - and just as effective for their purposes. 

I found this very interesting at the time, and since; and wondered why this happened. 

There are several reasons I came up with - all of which seem true. 

One is that that habitual liars habitually lie. Simple as that. 

But another is that it seems normal human nature to assume that somebody who is bad in one way is also bad in every other way - including the worst way.

This is, after all, what happens in novels, on TV, and in movies - any baddie is all-round bad - but especially in the way that the writer regards as most-bad. 

And therefore, when anyone is accused of badness, then you might as well accuse them of the worst possible badness - which, for the modern mainstream totalitarian-affiliate, is of course "racism". 

This is why all genuine baddies in nowadays-fiction are shown to be "racist". Whereas the antiheroes (which is the only kind of hero in the mainstream) is always "antiracist" even when a violent, thieving, arsonist, murderer.  

So, "racism" is semi-automatically added to the charge-sheet of all accused bad persons nowadays - and such is the definitional-usage of the term, that the accused can never prove himself innocent (even if he is foolish enough to try!).   

The problem of lying on the charge sheet goes even beyond that, however. There are also Always what might be termed gratuitous lies - random seeming made-up stuff. 

This, again, may be rooted in a natural human propensity to fantasize about enemies when in a position of power over them - because enemies don't matter, and we can say anything we like about them. So why not indulge - from sheer spitefulness.  

And the more false things we say about our enemies, the more time and energy they are tempted (or compelled) to waste in refuting random-nonsense. 

In other words; one aspect of the industrial-scale lying that goes on is our old adversary: top-down Project Chaos. 

Lying at every opportunity serves permanently to confuse (and thereby weaken) everybody on whom it is practiced, or who is drawn into the pointless and endless business of claim and counter-claim, evidence versus refutation. 

Carlisle Cathedral - East Window etc.

We had a very enjoyable visit to Carlisle Cathedral recently, not my first, or second - but I still feel there is a great deal more to discover about this marvellous building. 

There were only three cathedrals in the whole North of England in Medieval Times, after the Normans had wiped-out or impoverished most of the population - and of these Durham and York are by far the most famous architecturally, and indeed internationally. Nonetheless; Carlisle has all kinds of wonderful stuff, and a fascinating history - and should not be missed! 

Above is the East Window which is an enormous creation in the Decorated (middle-gothic, about 1350) style. It is perhaps the largest, most complex ancient stained glass window; and a great favourite among those who especially admire such things.  

More than any other similar window, this seems living and growing. 

Standing outside, we were fascinated by the extraordinarily organic - branching, curving, stone tracery - enclosing the stained glass; much of which is also medieval in its upper parts, having survived the iconoclastic eras of Edward VI and Cromwell - and misguided Victoria Restorers (albeit without the Victorian piety and energy, many of our oldest churches would have been lost altogether).  

There are many other delights such as (unrestored) Medieval wall paintings:

This is St Augustine and the devil, with some Middle English dialect doggerel verse:

One of the loveliest effects is produced by the Victorian barrel-vaulted Choir, with its starry painted ceiling. 

And in the choir stalls are many Chaucerian era, and Canterbury Tales-like themed, carved-oak misericord seats; such as a wife (of Bath?) beating her husband with a butter paddle:

And a mermaid with mirror, symbolic of Vanity:

 

The West end of the cathedral (which used to be the nave) is Norman, but got partially demolished by the Scots Presbytarians during the Civil war of the mid 1600s - but a fair bit survives. 

Many of the originally-semi-circular Romanesque arches are tremendously distorted by differential subsidence of adjacent pillars:

Here is a view through such a distorted Norman Arch of the 11th century; into the Early English, pointed-arches of the current aisles - from the 12th century:

Note: The photos aren't mine, but were pillaged from the interwebs. 

 

How much do you trust your church?

In the past it was natural and spontaneous for people to trust institutions more than themselves - including churches, and especially churches. 

People trusted their church more than any other authority - to the point of leaving home, moving house, losing livelihood - and even unto death. 

Nowadays this does not happen. People do not trust their churches any more than they structure other specific social institutions; and indeed people trust their churches less than they trust the consensus of high status secular institutions (when, which happens rarely, their church opposes the dominant ideology in some particular respect). 

Nowadays, traditionalist Christians (leaders and laity) are put into the position of arguing that people ought to trust their church more than themselves -- but in the past this did not seriously need to be argued. 

And nowadays? - well, it is easy for someone (whether a church leader, or devout lay member) to say that they trust their church above all other authority...

Yet in practice churches are never clear and unanimous when it comes to any serious matter; so the individual must (at least) discern within his trusted church...

Which means, in effect, choos-ing to trust... that-which he has chos-en to trust. 

At the same time most people are afraid to trust themselves when it comes to serious matters; or, at least, they are afraid to acknowledge that they are relying on their own best judgment. 

The disadvantage is that this means nearly everybody including devout Christians) is spiritually adrift and impotent...

But on the "positive" side, they never need to take responsibility for difficult decisions!

Since they can always (dishonestly) claim (even to themselves) that they are operating on the basis of trusting in the wisdom of a higher authority. 

The Bible is ultimately (just) a means to the end of understanding Jesus (and Christianity)

How should we read The Bible? 

All possible answers to that question are necessarily based upon non-Biblical (extra-Scriptural) assumptions - and yet how* we read the Bible tends to determine, or at least substantially shape, the nature of a person's Christianity. 

(*And there are many ways of reading The Bible - see the beginning of my Lazarus Writes - even currently among Christians; as well as among the much greater numbers of pseudo-Christians and not-Christians.) 

My conviction is that we ought to read The Bible as a means to an end; and that "end" ought primarily to be: to know and understand Jesus Christ, what he did for us - and what this implies for me. 

I say this in context of an overall belief that some of The Bible was written with the help of divine inspiration; and that this (by my judgment, and for people such as me) especially applies to the King James or Authorized Version (which is therefore significantly autonomous in relation to the versions from which the KJV was "translated"). Divine inspiration makes the source potentially more likely to be valuable to my personal quest - but is not an absolute; and cannot be.   

In other words; we should (and I do) read The Bible as a source of ideas, rather than a set of instructions; nor is The Bible an objective and imperative historical account that of itself is supposed to tell us who Jesus was and what he did - and what we ought to do about it.

The Bible does Not of-itself answer such fundamental questions - and clearly cannot, because communication entails interpretation. 

What reading it may (or may not!) do is provide us with some ideas, some accounts, possible descriptions, concepts etc; any of which we may personally use (or reject) as leading us towards a state of understanding and personal affiliation. 

The bottom-line is Not The Book, nor any particular translation of The Book, nor any particular set of theological expositions of how to read The Bible, and descriptions what it means... 

Instead the bottom-line is what we feel convinced about, what our deepest and most considered intuition tells us actually is the case, here-and-now, and what we personally want and need to do about it.    

Otherwise stated; we are personally responsible for whatever truth we get from reading The Bible; we therefore use The Bible as a means to the end of getting an understanding that we personally can take responsibility for. 

The obvious objection to this is that surely this is compatible with reading-into The Bible whatever we most want to find in it. 

Lots of people have done, and continue to do, this - indeed to anyone who disagrees with a Biblical interpretation, this seems very obviously to be whatever the other person is asserting. 

For instance: Conservative Evangelicals see Liberal Christians as reading-into The Bible modern left-wing political ideology; while the Liberals see the Evangelicals as using The Bible to justify conservative social attitudes. 

How can we avoid mere self-gratifying wishful thinking? 

The fact is that if we want to fool ourselves, if we want to discover that The Bible (in the way that we choose to read and understand it) merely confirms what we believe for other reasons and from other sources - then fool ourselves is what we will do. 

If we want The Bible to justify our primary allegiance to a social institution (such as a church or denomination), or a political ideology, or an academic specialism - then that is what we will do. The Bible will be read such as to accomplish this over-arching goal. 

Yet, anyone who fools himself thus, will have to contend with the fact that he is fooling himself. If that is all that is wanted, then he will get what he wants. 

And he will not be guided by The Bible, but instead by the primary allegiance that shapes his reading of The Bible. 

But if you are instead someone who wants to know the truth about reality and to live in accordance with it - then there would be no point in fooling oneself. 

Indeed, the reason for taking personal responsibility is precisely to escape the knowledge that other people are trying to foist their own (often self-interested) Biblical understandings upon us, for their own reasons. 

Perhaps for reasons of what they regard as a better society; or maybe they want to fool us, manipulate us - for their personal benefit. 

There are some matters upon which we do not want to trust anybody else - and this, for me, is one of them. 

This is my life, and I shall be the one to take the consequences of my decisions. Therefore, I will take responsibility for my understanding of Jesus, and for deciding how to read The Bible. 

Why on earth should I want to hand-over such matters to... somebody else, anybody else? 

To a church, or other institutions; to historians and linguists, to past "authorities" (whom I only vaguely know, and at second-hand or worse). 

No: I must myself be satisfied, ultimately. All else is a help, or a hindrance, to that goal.  

**

In particular, I regard it as unacceptable for my faith to be built upon the shifting (and mostly secular) sands of historical/ palaeographic/ linguistic/ cultural scholarship; theology and philosophy or the like. It is vital that I can reach behind such distortions and contingencies, to discover, devise, experience what I need to know - and that I do this ultimately for myself.  

It is my job to seek my salvation, and I read The Bible in that spirit; evaluating and selecting on that basis. 

In practice I have found great help from reading the (King James translation) Fourth Gospel, called "The Book of John" - but it has been a help, a source of ideas, a basis for further consideration - it has not been regarded as something that told me what to believe and do. 

It is not so much a matter of being selective about the IV Gospel; as that there are parts of it that I evaluate as untrue (for whatever reason, and there might be many reasons). 

Furthermore, there are many vital truths (as I regard them) unsaid in this Gospel, or anywhere in The Bible (or, indeed, anywhere in any of the Christian churches that I know of). 

On the other side; as for the rest of The Bible. I have found very little positive in the Old Testament; aside from phrases of wonderfully evocative poetry (in some of The Psalms, for example) and copious accounts of wrong-headed and mistaken things that I ought to avoid.  

In sum; The Bible is not essential to understanding or knowing Jesus - nor to salvation  - nor to living well in this mortal life. 

The Bible is "just" a potential source of information and ideas; that in principle might be found elsewhere or discovered for oneself.  

And the same applies to all other external sources: to the churches, traditions, theories and whatever. These are all sources to be used - not authorities to which it may be expected that I hand over responsibility for my life, my soul, and my eternal future. 

  

The question of how your mind is connected to a group mind

Is this the fundamental nature of inter-personal communication?

It seems evident that people in the past knew, or at least all assumed, that an individual person's mind was, or could be, connected with some larger group mind. 

The exact group mind to which an individual was connected seems to have varied between families, tribes, and clans; to larger groupings such as co-religionists, nations, or all of humanity. 

This assumption seems to lie behind, and justify, many Christian practices of the past and present; such as the phenomena of monasticism and hermits. These few were meant to be working on behalf of many others, in a way that seems to entail interconnectedness. 

Nowadays, there are group prayer meetings (to pray for some persons, outcomes, or general purpose). All of these assume a link between the individual and a larger human group. 

Furthermore, such a connection is a spontaneous assumption built-into young children; related to the belief that their thoughts are known to others, and may influence others - albeit this may mostly be related to fear of the discovery or harm, from guilty and "naughty" ideas or imaginations. 

Of course, nowadays and among adults; this kind of thing may be more of a social than spiritual activity; or it may be more like a "superstitious" observance than a genuinely spiritual activity. 

This practice is merely an enfeebled residue of earlier historical and childhood assumptions. Also, there is more conviction of the power of negative thoughts than of positive ones (which may be rooted in the intrinsic entropy of this mortal life where destruction is so much easier than creation). 

Nonetheless, I think there must also be positive potential in the connection between individual and group minds - in the right circumstances. 

One problem, as usual, is we tend to want other people to serve our interests, and not their own. Such that people are often praying (in effect) to control other people's attitudes, desires, decisions, actions... Such is the nature of many political intercessionary praying. 

Also we tend to become falsely focused in the supposed situation (as reported in mass media and by the leadership class) of people we know essentially nothing about, except what we are told by known liars and malign manipulators. 

So much so; that perhaps the most usual cause for group prayer nowadays is political: e.g. foreign wars, famines, natural disasters etc. - where the whole exercise is wholly framed by the information and moral-imperative of global media. 

In such situations; the group mind is highly politicized, with all the problems of insincerity and superficiality. 

And, in sum, such an exercise serves mainly to discredit the idea of an real and valuable connection between our mind and other minds; and to increase the already strong (and naturally despair-inducing) feelings of alienation and atomization that plague us.

Because if there really is no direct connection between our thinking minds and the minds of others, but instead it was true that we can only know people via perceptions and their interpretations; then we really would be isolated - ultimately "each on our own".

This is why I think we need to consider how, and in what situations, we are, and directly connected with a group mind. 

Because the alternatives are either the reality of your mind connected to a group mind; or else inescapable existential alienation.