Is Catholic Monarchy the answer to the unsustainability and decline of The West?

Given that the modern West is evidently both collapsing and being actively destroyed; it is natural to seek for another political-social-cultural form that is known to be sustainable. And the only known Western society that actually was sustained over centuries was Catholic monarchy (whether Western-Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Catholic). 

(Several types of agrarian religious monarchy - not just Christian - seemed to be stable enough to be sustainable across multiple generations; but I am talking here about "Christendom".)  

Those who have read my 2011 book Thought Prison (linked in the sidebar) will know that this was my conclusion some fifteen years ago: that either the West went back to a (more or less) zero growth (minimal innovation) society based on agriculture on the model of Catholic Monarchy, or else civilizational extinction loomed (by collapse, or takeover by another religious monarchy).  

At the time, I regarded Catholic Monarchy as a genuine possibility, but something that could not happen unless there was first a spiritual and religious awakening. 

In other words, we could not "use" religion as a means to the end of Catholic monarchy - the "Catholic" must come first, and for its own sake; and then monarchy would naturally evolve.   

And I regarded this as very, very unlikely - but possible; and therefore it was what I worked and hoped for. 

However; I have since come to believe that Catholic Monarchy is not just very unlikely, but actually impossible. 

It will not happen because it cannot happen. 

The reason that I believe it cannot happen is that I have come to believe that the cultural change by which Catholic Monarchy disappeared everywhere, was caused by changes in human consciousness. 

(The change in Men drove the changed culture, not the other way around.) 

In general terms; by species-wide (although with different rates among different peoples) one-way changes in the way that Men perceive, understand, think, reason, relate to the world etc - including changes in instincts and intuitions. 

And because modern Men are so very different, no society of the past can be recreated. 

In the first place, modern Men don't want it, and cannot be made to want it - at least not want it enough to create and sustain it. 

(Idealistic Daydreams don't suffice.) 

And, even if (for the sake of argument) the formal structure of Catholic Monarchy was (somehow) fully re-imposed on a Western nation; because the "ingredients" (individual Men) have changed, the societal-"recipe" would yield a different outcome - a different final product: not a Catholic Monarchy of the classical-medieval type. 

If you ask me: If not, then what? When I say that Catholic Monarchy cannot happen, then what do I suggest instead as a way of saving the West?

To which my answer is simply that the West cannot be saved: firstly because it does not want to be saved, indeed wants to kill itself... 

But secondly because - as far as I can see - the number and severity of interacting problems make an end inevitable. 

These are indeed the End Times. 

Therefore; I regard the question of how to save the West as rooted in false assumptions; the proper question is individual not societal; how to save our-selves and those we love - and I mean "save" spiritually, not physically - regardless of our situation, regardless of how bad it is. 

We can do little physically except delay inevitabilities* (although plenty of people delude themselves otherwise, and defend their delusions with hysterical aggression!); when caught-up in major civilizational changes such as wars, famines, (real) epidemics, mass poisonings, social breakdown etc.

But, if we recognize the nature of the changes of consciousness, we can see that the same changes that have made Catholic Monarchy impossible, are also the same changes that make it possible for anybody and everybody in all possible circumstances to know and follow Jesus Christ...

To live and learn with loving creativity; and at the end of mortal life, to do what is necessary for us accept the gift of resurrected eternal life. 

*There is a vast middle ground between passive despairing nihilism and doing nothing, on the one hand; and on the other hand, by our personal socio-political choices and actions contributing substantively to stopping and reversing Western civilizational destruction. That middle ground includes doing some-things of some-value that are worth doing in our personal and experiential orbit. This personal orbit stuff may even be a duty. But it is altogether and qualitatively different from having a role in stopping and reversing civilizational destruction. 

Lost then found - the everyday paranormal nonsense

I really don't know we should make of the silly paranormal events of everyday life. 

I had an extreme, and extremely trivial, example a couple of days ago; one of those "lost then found" things, when an object disappears then reappears.

This time it was a pair of shoes, and my wife had helped me search for them in the place they later turned up - which was the (unmissable) middle of the carpet in a room that had been (this was the weird bit) locked overnight.

Of Course this stuff is explicable in terms of human fallibility, or somebody playing a trick - but the fact is that I would have sworn in court that the shoes were not where we found them - or, in other circumstances, that they must have been stolen from where I left them.

At bottom, all evidence is eye witness; and this has been enough to start wars and convict murderers etc; yet when something "inexplicable" happens, then we casually dismiss and forget it!

I don't have any explanation for these trivial paranormal things, I don't even know what they mean or imply.

Perhaps nothing more, or less, than a negative, mildly-disruptive, reminder of the hidden complexity and mystery of the world we inhabit...

The rise and fall of totalitarian projects is just Office Politics

News-watchers get terribly excited about reports of declining branches of the global totalitarian System. 

For example, there is currently Less top-down rhetorical emphasis on the CO2 climate agenda, although all the vast legislation is still in place.

But this is just Office Politics, the kind of stuff that happens within mega-corporations; the rise and fall of different branches and roles; the transfer of staff and resources that constitutes the frequent "reorganizations" that are endemic in all modern bureaucracies.

As some things are relatively wound down, restructured, outsourced etc; other activities are expanded such as "AI", the military, and Intelligence services.

From the outside this bureaucratic reorganization can appear to be, or spun as, decline or destruction; but this may (often does, as in my professional experience of the National Health Service!) mask actual overall expansion.

On the other hand, organizational expansion is compatible with declining coordination, efficiency, and functional effectiveness; and indeed I believe this is actually happening to the global totalitarian System...

It is both getting bigger, and also more chaotic.

How the Religious Right misinterpret bad as good, decline as progress

 The accelerating national and global success of the ("Sorathic") Agents of Chaos is being misinterpreted as progress for the sociopolitical agenda of the (church-rooted) Religious Right -- much as I predicted would happen some six years ago during the chaotic " summer of antiracism" that followed after the global totalitarian coup of the birdemic

They misinterpret the success of the AoC at weakening social institutions (which are all Left converged) as a resurgence of the Right, and their church.

On the face of it, this is bizzare! Especially in a world of ever more and escalating wars ( and the inevitable consequences)! And continuing mass migration (ATIC).

But there is an internal coherence if:

1. People interpret destruction of their enemies as progress of themselves. 

2. People assume their own church is Fundamentally immune to destruction.

This means that despite the subversion/ corruption/ apostasy/ and feeble faith of their Actual church - such people regard it as Inevitable that their church Will benefit from the ongoing situation of collapsing functionality.

I want the interpersonal, spiritual, direct (Not the abstract, pandering pseudo-communications of "AI")

One of the spiritual tests of "AI" is that it offers un-personal pandering, like a "benign" bureaucracy. That is what most people physically want, but it is not what they spiritually need. Indeed by addictive distraction "AI" usage blocks awareness of the need: and by its effect on thinking, the interaction renders the "AI"-user ever less capable of thinking from his eternal soul: He becomes a quasi-computer, a mere "personality".

We need the inter-personal, because reality is personal - and mostly consists of spiritual (not mortal incarnated) persons. Abstraction is therefore ultimately an error, even if it offers pragmatic advantages. 

To interact pseudo-personally with a not-personal abstract algorithm, may engage attention and pass time gratifyingly - but the AI-user is being manipulated two-fold: first by the content of "AI".

But second and more harmfully by the pseudo-personal nature of the interaction - by Willing assimilation into the abstract, aspiritual, wholly-materialist construct that is digital computation.

What is Most needed by Most people is the opposite. 

Instead of pandering communication, we need mutual and direct contact -- and not with computers, nor even with living people in socializing (not Only that)...

But as well we need direct, mutual contact* with spiritual beings - especially with post-mortal (dead) persons.

We Need, in other words, to make friends with some of the dead! Not for practical reasons, not for fun, not for therapeutic benefit - but for our own mortal spiritual quest, here and now: to fulfil the purpose in life.

*By direct contact, I mean mind to mind knowing, without intermediary symbols such as words or pictures.

Barbecue emergency! The desperation of the UK bureaucrats

From time to time, something relatively minor happens that nonetheless strikes me as indicating an inflexion point in the accelerating dysfunctionality of the UK. 

One was on the first day of 2000, when there were some hours of delay in opening the Blair government flagship project of the Millennium Dome - much hyped and vaunted, and years in the planning - so that the Great and Good of the nation were kept hanging around in queues outside.

This event presaged the dominating trend of the next two decades.

Last Friday was another, when the very First usage of a national system of smartphone alerts...

- which override muting to generate a blaring siren, supposedly to alert and mobilize the population in the event of national physical emergencies such as war or earthquakes - 

...Was instead used simultaneously to advise tens of millions of citizens throughout England and Wales Not to light barbecues or fireworks if they are located in the middle of high risk wildfire country.

I knew, when it was set-up last September, that the system would quickly degenerate into Crying Wolf, and be abused for propaganda and manipulation; but I did not expect that this would be done straight away and the first time of use! 

I fully expected that the managers would realize that, to serve their long term purposes, they would need to ensure that At First the system must be restricted to Real emergencies.

But no. They could not resist abusing their new toy further to crank-up the messaging in support of their collapsing CO2 climate hobby-horse.

My interpretation is that this is a significant revelation of reckless desperation, as the bureaucratic totalitarians feel their strategy of omni-surveillance and micro-control being superseded by the global-war-mongers and socio-economic wreckers of the Agents of Chaos. 

Great Reset-ers and Agenda 2030-ites see the writing on the office wall; and hope to save their jobs and power by enlisting the fears of the masses to support their own continued "safe" subservience.

We see in many places the velvet glove of bribery and brain-washing being replaced by the iron fist of punishment and coercion - all of which actually feeds the fires of chaos, and hastens the downfall of the bureaucrats.

"Sin", "Justice" and the suffering of innocents?

It is common to regard the suffering (and death) of "innocents" such as young children, babies, unborn babies; as especially difficult for Christianity to explain or justify. This derives from the assumption that the suffering and death of the wicked is justified, in proportion to the degree of wickedness.

But, at least since Paul, much of official Christian doctrine emphasizes that there are no innocents, All Men are sinners - and this state is original and inescapable. 

Therefore, the argument goes; it is justifiable and expected that because all are guilty of sin, then everybody deserves to suffer and and die - and ought to expect this. 

This sees god the creator as essentially a judge - despite that this characterization removes a motive for creation in the first place! 

Justice works as a secondary means to some other end; but when accorded primacy, justice points towards annihilation as the only and final solution to a situation of endemic and intractable sin.

It seems to be natural and spontaneous to regard the demands of justice as the reason for inflicting suffering and death on transgressors; but commonsense falls to pieces when everybody dies, everybody suffers, and there is no strong or clear proportionality between degree of sin and of suffering. 

...For instance, when the chosen people or worshippers of the true-God are conquered or enslaved.

Also, when it is believed that everybody is a sinner and justifiably suffers and dies; and when this is combined with a dogma of god as omnipotent creator of everything from nothing... 

Then we get a god who created everything, and then found it Bad. 

Lord have mercy? We should apologize for asking

There is a very great deal of importuning God, or Jesus, to have mercy on us, or other people - I have done great deal of such importuning myself, such as the Jesus Prayer.

But I've come to believe that this is a bad idea, because it tends to fix a habit of supposing that God and Jesus are Not merciful, but need to be importuned to be merciful... 

It's as if God, or Jesus, is the problem! 

As if we must Always be reminding them, even begging them to do... what is of their nature to do, and they cannot do otherwise.

Anyway, asking for mercy now seems like a Bad habit, and I am trying to remember that my loving-God does not, Not Ever, need to be asked for mercy.

There is something wrong, a sad and actually offensive misunderstanding, that Christians ever suppose otherwise. 

As if we have mixed-up the true nature of our Father, with some other god who is a tyrant that demands repeated, even continual, propitiation.

Well, we are all sinners, and we all make mistakes! 

But it's time to apologize to God for this one.

Note: Of course in asking for mercy, people may and often do mean something else - the words may not be intended literally; indeed may have more of a mantra function, perhaps simply directing our attention Godwards or at Jesus... All are possibilities. But I have come to dislike the word, and what I perceive to be its gravitational effect.

The Battle of Britain was the last group goodness at a large scale

Evil is specific, but Goodness is affiliation with God's creative purpose, a positive affiliation rooted in love. 

When a group is good, the members need to share this positive motive and also be affiliated with each other. 

Love of God and neighbour, in other words.

For some months, this was the situation in Britain, in 1940; which is why the memory fascinates and is cherished by us, here.

And because of these special circumstances, "good magic" was possible and effective, for a while: national prayer, a daily silence, many and various forms of communal ritual magic (some explicit, mostly tacit).

This situation was not long-lasting, however; and has not recurred.

Evil is specific, and works by validating and strengthening particular sins. In the later parts of WWII, several sins were thus expanded: including vengeance, sadism, spite...

And group Goodness was replaced by double-negation: by opposition to "bad things" - and so it remains.

Nowadays people can only conceptualize "good" as a kind of therapy; the attempted palliation or cure of sickness, poverty, war, or some (real or supposed) injustice. 

Goodness has become almost impossible at the large-group level; while evil has an easy time of it! 

And those who yearn for goodness have discovered that it cannot be imposed top-down nor via a minority: group activities (prayer, meditation, rituals) don't work for Good; they are ineffectual because the group is not positively affiliated to God's creative purpose.

Group activities still work for evil, however - by increasing particular sins - as we see all around us.

Group-goodness is, was, a kind of mass effect of many individuals; it was real - but continued only to the extent that this was true.

Computer issues will diminish posting...

The computer I use for blogging has suddenly been cut off from the internet by enforced wi-fi changes, and solving this may be a process that takes...well, a couple of weeks or three. 

Until then blogging will done from a small tablet device, therefore necessarily... concise.

Shocking News! - Another modern Western institution is corrupt and incompetent!

The self-styled anti-Left corner of the internet is mostly filled with revelations, analysis, and discussions of the latest Shocking News that one or another modern Western institution is corrupt and incompetent. 

How long before people realize that this is not "news". 

Yes, this is true, and true of all modern Western institutions...

Whether that be political parties of all kinds, the civil services, the mass-social media businesses, NGOs and charities, the military and police, every corporation of any size or wealth, the legal system, medicine and healthcare, school education, science, academia, and the churches of all denominations (etc.)...

And it has been true for some decades. 

This [fill-in the news story] is not something that may, unless checked lead to problems; nor is it something "happening" - it is something that has-happened. 

Neither is [fill-in the news story] something about any particular organization, nor about any particular sector - it is universal. 

This means - among other things - that [fill-in the news story] is not something "we" can do anything effective to stop or reverse...

Because "we" are the problem: we are why it has happened - if not in this particular societal sector featured in the "news", then in others that we defend, sustain, and depend-upon. 

So, there is neither the motivational-basis nor even the desire to do that which would need to be done in order to stop and reverse the dysfunctional abuse indicated by [fill-in the news story]. 

In short: there is nothing to discuss about the 1000th confirmation this week of what we already ought to know-for-sure.

("Ought" to know, if we were not ourselves long-term and deeply complicit in the underlying phenomenon.) 

To me, at this point; the endless and animated discussion of the corruption and incompetence of [fill-in the news story] about [fill-in the Western institution] is instead conclusive evidence of the corruption and incompetence of the person doing-the-discussing. 

The death throes of all Christian churches

These days are the death throes of Christianity as an institution-defined and institution-led phenomenon; the death throes of Christianity as a thing church-defined and church-rooted. 

Those who follow institutions will be led away from Jesus, will not follow Jesus. 

Those who follow Jesus will be led away from institutions.

We all have some spiritual power - and it can help, for a while - but that is all...

Watching the series "AD" (which has way too much explicit torture and violence, the inclusion of which is a sign of unrepented spiritual malaise on the part of its makers) I realize how much people crave spiritual power; and regard spiritual power as a validation. 

This is analogous to the craving for technological power; both as a way to control and exploit nature (this-world) for benefit; and (we hope) to defend ourselves against the problems and sufferings of this-world. 

It seems that the era of the Apostles (depicted in Acts, especially) was one in which spiritual power was evident, and was taken as proof of Jesus's divinity; and was regarded as presaging the salvation of this-world - en route to making this world into Heaven. 

Hence the - false - idea of the Second Coming of Jesus (at first believed to be imminent, later to be delayed), a necessary to finish the work he (as the prophesied Jewish Messiah) had left incomplete.  

If there was a high level of spiritual power among the followers of Jesus in the years after His ascension; then we should recall there is always spiritual power in everyone; even nowadays, to some degree - and what SP there is, is still deployed as purported proof of various (often opposed) religions or spiritualties; and used for attaining personal (and group) benefit and/or guidance. 

That is: we each - to some extent, and temporarily (because entropy and death are inevitable) - have ability to avert some of the bad things in life, and a make good things happen - some ability to imporve our everyday lives by deployment of spiritual powers. 

For instance, even conservative evangelicals and other denominations, who pretend to be anti-magic, deploy petitionary prayer to shape their lives and churches - and to some extent it works.  

An ability to shape our current lives, for our own reasons, and by spiritual means; should be regarded as just a fact of life; and then evaluated for what it really is, and means; and also for what it does not mean or imply. 

Since the spiritual is real, and we are spiritual (as well as physical) beings, and have agency; it is to be expected that we have spiritual abilities to influence life in accordance with our will - just as we have some physical abilities to influence life. 

Yes we do - but let us not be over-impressed by such abilities. 

They can sometimes do something; but never very much or for very long, or consistently - at least not on the positive side. 

Spiritual powers - like physical powers, like technologies - are much more apt to destruction than to make any positive difference to the fundamental and eternal nature of this mortal Life. 

Spiritual power can be good, can be used for good; as can personal qualities such as intelligence, strength, beauty... 

But spiritual powers do not defeat evil, nor extinguish entropy: they do not make an ultimate difference. 

DH Lawrence's Women in Love, revisited

When I was aged 20-21, I was very strongly attracted by DH Lawrence's novel, Women in Love; and I have been re-listening to it in the excellent audio-book version read by Ruth Golding, and available free at Librivox. 

I am only around half-way through, and there have been some excellent chapters so far, and there are some more to come, that I recall - although I also remember the the novel ends badly. 

What WiL has that appealed to me is obvious: it is written from a full recognition of the horroribleness and despair-inducing experience of alienation and materialism. It yearningly aspires to - although does not achieve, such a possibility being excluded by the nature of reality, as well as Lawrence's assumptions - the romantic ideal of a life lived with full participation, and engagement. 

The protagonists spend a good deal of the time having deep conversations and intense experiences; which is exactly what I most liked and sought in late adolescence! Indeed, there is perhaps more of this in WiL than in any other fiction I have encountered. 

The thing moves slowly, there is a good deal of incantatory deliberate repetition - and sometimes it is dull, almost grinding to a halt. I suspect that I might nowadays find it harder to get-through reading with my eyes, than to hear it well-read. 

But where Women in Love succeeds - which is quite often! - Lawrence makes a tremendous impact; with very vivid, absorbing, and memorable scenes.  

Note: My recommendation is a case of: people who like this sort of thing may find this the sort of thing they like. 

"Not yet..." Frodo was planning to claim the power of The One Ring, even before he entered Mordor.

Over at The Notion Club Papers blog; I provide textual evidence that Frodo - with part of his mind, at least - was actually planning to claim the power of The One Ring for himself, even before entering Mordor. 

I describe some of the incremental steps that culminate with the scene on the slopes of Mount Doom when Frodo first explicitly makes this claim.   

"Jesus Died For Us". In what sense is this true, in what senses is it false?

I am re-watching a 2015 TV series AD: The Bible continues; which is supposed to be a dramatization of ("based on") the Book of Acts I had seen when it came out. It is pretty enjoyable in a melodramatic way. and worth a look - a reasonably sincere production; if you are not too concerned about embellishments and looseness. I am also reading Taliesin by Stephen Lawler (1987). 

In both of these (as well as many other places, over the years) I came across the often spoken phrase that  "Jesus Died For Us" - used with a variety of meaning, some of which I personally would regard as untrue, and potentially harmfully-misleading.

So in what sense is "Jesus Died For Us" true, and what senses do I regard it as false? 

1. Overall, I would say that it is untrue; in the sense that Jesus died because he had to die, because he was mortal. 

Jesus could-not not have died.  

So if the phrase is meant, or taken, to imply that Jesus might never have died at all, ever - then this is false. 

2. Sometime the phrase is used to mean that Jesus could have saved himself from being killed at the time he was killed, or in the manner he was killed. 

This is true; he could have saved-himself from that particular death - albeit Jesus would have died some time later, and/or in some other fashion. 

3. Sometimes the phrase is used to assert that it was necessary that Jesus died in the time and manner that he did; or else Jesus would not have succeeded in his mission - and Men would not have been offered the possibility of salvation. 

This I regard as false. It was Not necessary for Jesus to be tortured to death when and as he was, in order to be our Saviour. 

In sum, Jesus needed to die in order to become The Saviour, but he did not need to die when he did and by torture and crucifixion; yet he could have saved himself from that particular death.  

As usual, these surface inferences rely upon metaphysical assumptions concerning why salvation was needed, why Jesus could achieve our salvation but not God the Father; and in broad terms how salvation "works". 

Such metaphysical assumptions need to be "in place" before we can make valid sense of "Jesus Died For Us" -- and lacking such a grounding of the structure of basic reality; the phrase is likely to lead to (what I would regard) as a wrong and harmful understanding of the very fundamental nature of what it is to be-a-Christian: to follow Jesus. 

As things (mostly) are; the metaphysics and the understanding are presented the wrong way around; with the Biblical description supposedly giving us the metaphysical understanding by which it is interpreted. 

Or there is a dishonest (or incompetent) assertion of unavoidable circularity of reasoning; that (wrongly) states we must believe both the metaphysics and the Biblical description as a single, given, object-of-faith. 

The truth is that we can make no sense of anything without prior metaphysical assumptions - and these, therefore, need explicitly to be exposed as such: and set-up for evaluation.   

What did Queen Elizabeth II have for breakfast?

Some forty-plus years ago I met somebody who had a holiday job working at Balmoral Castle - the Queen's Scottish Highland home; and he told me what she ate for her usual breakfast - a meal that he was apparently involved in serving. 

So the question is: What did this chap tell me that Queen Elizabeth II had for breakfast?

I shall reveal his (simple) description tomorrow; but meanwhile there is the prize of a Golden Medal (virtual) for any commenter who knows the right answer, or can guess it correctly. 

Making good strategic decisions (individually, or nationally). We know the moments when they arrive. They cannot be forced.

We cannot plan stuff and stick to that plan (force it through if necessary), except to make it worse. 

Maybe there was a time when good strategizing was possible, but if so, that time has gone. 

But what I do see, in individual lives and also in the lives of nations; is that key moments, cruxes, arise; when there is one right thing to do... 

Or Not. 

Good strategy amounts simply to this: Recognizing the moment is now, making the right choice now. 

Because if the right thing is not done, then it does not much matter what else is done, because it will not suffice. 

In sum: "we" (personally, individually, nationally) need to do The Right Thing, at The Right Time - or else It Will Be Bad. 

Doing the wrong things will be bad, and doing the right thing too late will also be bad. 

We just have to make the right decision when that decision needs to be made...

And this is something we can know: or rather we should know, and will know... If we allow ourselves to recognize it. 

These moments ought to be recognizable, because they are forced upon our attention: ourselves, other persons, or larger groupings. 

And the right decision is usually clear enough - but only if you are honest, and only if you have the right motivations, and only if you can stop trying (and pretending) to predict the outcome of that decision. 

This predicting stuff is a killer! Instead of staying focused on making the right decision when teh need has arisen; instead people try to make the decision that will (or will probably, or can convincingly be argued) work-out to have the best consequences. 

And so the moment is missed - and we get bad stuff. 

 

The trouble is that people need to choose the right decision. Choose freely. 

It does no good to compel or manipulate people to the right decision, because then they will not really have decided, will they?  

Modern life more or less compels everybody to make plans, strategies, schemes - and at least to pretend they are being pursued (and succeeding!) - but really it all comes down to doing the right thing at the right time. 

(Or Not.) 

Mediocrites - Socrates' more-successful brother

Some scholars claim this is an image of Mediocrites

Socrates's older brother, Mediocrites (c 485 BC-?), is regarded by most modern Westerners as the most successful and (therefore) most emulation-worthy of all philosophers; although we know nothing specific about him; and he never said, did or wrote anything interesting, honest, or of any value.

While Socrates was condemned to death by poison, having published nothing; Mediocrites success was objective and permanent - he was (it is supposed) given the highest honours of the Athenian democracy, paid a lavish salary, put in charge of all political and social institutions, and granted power of veto over all major public projects.

Mediocrites's curriculum vitae was lengthy and consisted attendance at prestigious institutions, examination results, awards, grants, tax breaks, subsidies.

We have detailed descriptions of Socrates' appearances, and manners; he attracted eminent followers; his words were transcribed; and he was parodied by the great playwrights of that era. 

But despite his brother's much greater success, Mediocrites remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma. We know he did a lot of things but not what any of these things actually were...   

From contemporary accounts it seems that Mediocrites had his name upon numerous essays and books, and often spoke at large public gatherings. But, sadly, it seems that nobody remembered anything Mediocrites said, and nobody bothered to preserve any of his writings... 

Indeed nobody can remember anything about him!

Whereas Socrates is all-but unknown, despised; and his model of religiousness, truthfulness and integrity have become the most hated and persecuted of values; Modern Britain, and indeed the Modern World itself, is run entirely by the disciples of Mediocrites.

Wherever we look, and the more so the higher we look; we see Mediocrities in charge, Mediocrities making all the important decisions, Mediocrities garnering all the highest plaudits.

Plato (and Xenophon) both recorded the Apology of Socrates, the defence argument at his trial: the justification of his life and work. However; despite its philosophical and literary greatness, Socrates' statement cut-no-ice then, and was indeed counter-productive.

But success was the Apology of Mediocrites - the justification for his life. 

Against success - there is no argument. 

Socrates was a loser, Mediocrites was a winner; and that is all that needs to be said.

Note: Adapted from an earlier post. 

Gollum: poet

 

Gollum in reflective mood

At my Notion Club Papers blog; I give three favourite passages from The Lord of the Rings, in which Gollum's talk - while he is dominated by the Smeagol persona - sometimes displays a moving lyricism.

Saturday morning music - The ending of Das Rheingold by Richard Wagner

The ending of Das Rheingold by Richard Wagner* is one of my absolute favourite pieces of music; for its dramatic complexity but also the unsurpassed grandeur of the sound and harmony. 

The mood (in this except) begins with a vision of the new home of the Gods Valhalla, expressed in great chords dominated by the special sound of Wagner's brass instruments. 

But then all kinds of more dissonant (and emotionally-discontented) harmonies break in as various characters reflect upon the terrible price paid for this paradisal residence. 

These complexities get more and more extreme almost to the very end, as the Rhine Maidens lament the theft of their gold; but at the very last minute the triumphal procession of the Gods becomes the theme with the most magnificent closing to any piece of music, with the enormous orchestra generating huge major chords to finish. 

The final impression is an almost irresistible mood of exaltation and excitement - despite all the sordid greed and lies that have gone before. 

 

This is musical drama, something that can only fully appreciated by following with a libretto, and understanding the dramatic context. 

Musical drama began with Mozart, in The Marriage of Figaro; when he uses the music to slow-down dramatic time in order to unfold, expound, and explore the emotions of participants. 

The action on stage gets almost suspended, so that the dramatic situation and words may be accompanied by touches of orchestration and harmony that bring-out depths and complexities in the character's current thoughts and emotions. 

As context for such "moments"; there must be dramatic progression in the action on stage if this to be effective; and the earliest operas were just too static for the contrast to be effective: an opera like Purcell's Dido and Aeneas is a series of (superb!) set-pieces, rather than a drama. 

In Wagner this is taken to an extreme which is, at times, almost intolerable! 

As the words are sung - very slowly - the orchestra unfolds in detail what the character is thinking; e.g. what he is reminded-of, and even foreshadows - by the use of Leitmotiven (and their development) as well as by Mozart's method of orchestration and harmonies. 

(See Bryan Magee's Aspects of Wagner for a more detailed description.)   

Rheingold ** is my favourite (by far) of Wagner's operas - and short and action-filled enough to be just-about manageable! 

So if you want to experience music drama at its peak, then you might try listening Rheingold while reading a libretto - or even better a score (which may be borrowed from a specialist library). 

* The linked recording is a live-one of the famous version done in English by English National Opera in the 1970s, and conducted by Reginald Goodall - which happens to be the one I own on CD; although I regard George Solti's Decca Ring recording as The greatest. 

** Be warned, I usually Anglicize/ misspell Rheingold as Rhinegold.