Not a war to win, but a war to destroy

Long-term (six year plus) readers will know of my recurrent "obsession" with the subject of evil; and the nature and definition of evil. 

This is because I believe that the nigh-universal lack of understanding of evil has rendered almost-everybody helpless in the face of a very powerful class of persons who have successfully engaged the hearts and minds of a very high proportion of the population of The West, and many other places. 

Bluntly; lack of understanding of evil has led many hundreds of millions of people (at least) into supporting strategic evil - and with a clear conscience, because they regard that evil as actually "good".

In other words, the inability to understand the nature of evil has led to moral inversion: what is really and intentionally evil is regarded as good, and vice versa.  

And people are not (as they may once have been) merely victims of manipulation - because it is of the nature of evil that once embraced it increases (evil feeds-upon itself).   

Thus we find that the nicest people are, on average, the most deluded; the most likely to be most powerfully supportive of the strategies of evil. 

This is particularly stark when the strategy being supported is a deliberately maximally-destructive war. 

And a war intended to embrace in destruction its supporters - themselves, their families and friends, their homeland, their ideology and passionate convictions - all that they superficially suppose that that they hold most dear. 

A world war is openly being planned - with full public declaration, before our eyes, in the mass media - in the West: in the UK and Commonwealth, EU nations, the USA, and beyond. 

Indeed this war is becoming the only game in town: as a long term strategy war is displacing all the other evil-motivated plans/ "good causes" such as I term the Litmus Tests: socialism/ leftism, CO2 climate environmentalism, birdemic-healthism, antiracism and feminism, the sexual revolution etc. 

All are being wound-down, and preparations for war are building-up.  

What is worse - or rather worst - is that this war (which is, in part, intended to be an expansion of the war that has been going in Eastern Europe over the past four-plus years, and in the Middle East more recently, and incipiently in East Asia) is not a war to win; but a war intended to destroy.

What is already afoot and expanding in Europe, is war of a kind seldom or never seen before in human history. In this actual and coming war; although one side does indeed want to win, and wants an end to the war (or begins that way); those who control the the other side want this war to continue, to expand, to increase in intensity - without end-point.

This happens because those who control one side are not of that side, but are instead (successfully and without being detected) using that side primarily and ultimately to pursue all-round destructive purposes.

This is happening, the strategy is working; things are much worse than almost anyone - including the experts - realize; exactly because almost nobody in the West understands evil; and especially they do not understand the sheer negativity of evil.

War analysts (of all sides) consistently assume that war is about seeking benefit, a negative means towards positive goals; and will end when that benefit has been attained. 

But when a war has been created, and is being sustained and expanded, in order to destroy; and ultimately in order that the participants come to support that goal of destruction - then this is a very different matter. 

The developing war situation is one that cannot necessarily be stopped or reversed - even if there was a general and effective will to stop it - which there is not. 

Evil has such an easy time in the modern world because there are so very few people (and none with power) who are strongly on the side of God and Good.

The mass of people cannot and do not support Good because they do not believe Good exists, or has any objective meaning. Their vague notion of good is something that exists (temporarily) only psychologically; as culturally-contingent notions in the heads of themselves, and people like them. 

The idea that The Good is a part of Reality, or The Universe; is literally meaningless to mainstream modern people - it is not so much denied as something that simply does not make sense. 

But we need to recall that the war of this world is always and ultimately a spiritual war; so this is no exception. 

This is a ultimately war to induce people - as many as possible people, on all sides - to align with spiteful destruction as a spiritual goal.

And this happens by value-inversion; by inducing people to regard evil as good and vice versa; and this is easiest when evil is not understood. 

And this failure to understand evil becomes inevitable when people do not believe-in or understand Good. 

And this failure to understand goodness is inevitable because so many people have assimilated the official and culturally-mainstream fundamental assumptions - e.g. that there is no God, no spirit, no salvation: no possibility of external and objective purpose and meaning in the universe.  

The ongoing and accelerating war of destruction is a consequence of these deep and multi-generational cultural trends. 

This stuff is not some hypothetical future scenario; on the contrary this state of deep incomprehension and value-inversion describes where we are now, culturally. 

And where we are stuck; because it can be seen that the problems run very deep, and have many layers. 

Which is presumably why we are all marching blandly and blindly towards a vastly destructive and intentionally-endless war that nearly-everyone supports indirectly with sadistic vehemence. 

Note: those who publicly oppose the ongoing-upcoming war are also (very nearly always) part of the fundamental problem that has led to the war, and share the same war-generating fundamental assumptions. They do not oppose the war for Good reasons. 

Morality does not derive from Laws

Morality does not derive from Laws. 

Morality derives from God: from the nature, purposes, and methods of God; as manifested in divine creation. 

The morality of Men derives from their personal affiliation to God*. 

*The morality-enabling affiliation to God must be personal; it may or may not also be collective in different places and eras; but it must be personal. 

Note: This is intended as a summary statement of the argument behind today's earlier post. 

The intractable problem of moral legalism in Christian discourse

If there is one area of life in which discussion is futile, it is when trying to persuade a Moral Legalist in a situation where somebody has transgressed a law, rule or principle, that he regards as both absolute and primary. 

Such people cannot be made to recognize that the crucial move in their argument has been their own personal choice to regard values as existing ultimately in the form of laws. 

As well as, secondly, the choice to place This Law, here-and-now, as above all other laws that could (in principle) be applied to the situation under discussion. 

In other words; any possible argument has already-been pre-decided by the prior choice of These-Laws as necessarily valid and supreme, and the prior choice to apply This-Law here-and-now. 

Moral legalists have taken a vastly complex situation unfolding in real-time; and applied-to-it a grossly simplified model, that begs all the most fundamental questions. 

On the one hand we have Life; but on the other hand a set of Laws and relations between Laws. These Laws are then claimed to be descriptive of The Ultimate Truth about Life. The claim is that Life derives from Laws.  

In other words, the Man-assumed model of reality which is The Laws; is given primacy over all the multitude of details of that existence in which we find ourselves. 

There can be no relevant "evidence" for this assumption of the primacy of Law. It is an act of faith, a personal decision.  

Such moral legalists (and they are legion, and occur in all Christian denominations) cannot be persuaded; because they regard every attempt to point-out the fact of their assumptions, and that all such assumptions depend upon a personal choice of what-to-believe; as a challenge to their core moral values - hence as necessarily emanating from an evil tempter. 

One who debates a moral legalist, is subjectively assigned a (literally) demonic role. 

The reaction to any challenge to the assumption of the validity and applicability of Law is therefore typically extreme, and always negative. 

And also projective - in the sense that it attributes motivation in absence of knowledge. Any pointing-out of "my" assumptions as assumptions is experienced as an evil-motivated attack on what I have assumed to be ultimate good. 

Naturally enough, albeit mistakenly and sinfully; this may subjectively be regarded as "justifying", or even requiring (moralistic zeal!) - justifying an extreme response against this threat. 

Thus moral legalism is, I believe, a major cause of the extraordinary extremity of hostile rhetoric from some Christians online, and sometime IRL; and a cause of the inability of so many Christians to learn form experience, from Life. Because when These-Laws have-been accorded metaphysical primacy, primacy by-assumption; then anything that happens in Life can have nothing to teach us about the validity and applicability of These-Laws.  

Note added: If not, then what? If not Moral Legalism, then what instead? 

The answer lies in distinguishing the limitations of this actual mortal life from the ideal situation of Heaven - and in remembering the ultimate primacy of Heaven. Here-and-now in this vast and impersonal world as-is; we are stuck with legalism and bureaucracy as inevitable evils. Laws can be improved and reduced, implementation should be supervised and shaped by wise human judgment - but all Laws are ultimately wrong. 

And yet we are stuck with them, especially when it comes to public and societal morality (we can, and should, try to exclude laws and law-like rules as much as possible from a loving marriage, family, and strong friendships. 

(For the same reason, we should resist the temptation to conceptualize loving marriages and families in terms of societal-derived models - destructive errors such as regarding the family as essentially structured like a "social institution", as analogous to a mini-nation; as properly "ruled" by monarch, or "democracy", or whatever...) 

However; Heavenly morality and values are wholly relational, i.e. rooted in love between persons - and there is no place for Laws in Heaven. 

This is what we need to hold in mind, in order to avoid the self-blinded and destructive zealotry of the self-defined-Christian - but often net-evil, and in-practice demon-aligned - Moral Legalists. 

Question Time... again

BBC Radio Brains Trust, 1941 - this responded to questions sent-in by listeners. I think I recognize CEM Joad second from the left, and (?) Jacob Bronowski on the right (although it may be Julian Huxley). 

I am mentally working-through some stuff that isn't currently ready for posting (and may never be); so if commenters have a particular question they want to ask, now is a good time - as a comment to this post. 

I will take a look at "all"* questions and respond if possible (and appropriate!)

*Note: If you want an answer, don't comment anonymously - because (as stated in the sidebar and on the commenting form) such comments typically get deleted without being read. This happens since, from past experience; nearly-all anonymous comments emanate from bots, shills, psychopaths, or the entitled. 

Becoming more divine? Poetry as an example of theosis

If, in a simplified way, if salvation is the purpose of this mortal life, then theosis is the meaning of it. In other words: theosis - i.e. becoming more divine - is what we are supposed to be doing on a daily basis. 

But what this means is far from clear. To say that Love is primary, and we should become more loving is true; but somehow too abstract - and in a way too "static": it doesn't provide much of an idea of what we ought to be trying to do now - this minute, in a few hours; and over the next days, months, years. 

I find that creativity is as aspect of love, an overflow of love - such that God's divine creation can be understood as a manifestation of God's love. 

But what is creativity as we know it and do it in mortal life? 

Well, there are serious problems with the way we think about creation. 

Two of these problems are that - first - we we regard creativity as associated with specific activities - especially the arts - which means that creativity is defined externally, by human institutions. 

Secondly (and linked to this); we regard this externally-defined creativity as needing a minimum threshold of ability and achievement.   

Take the example of poetry. Poetry has long been socially defined as a creative activity, intrinsically - we assume that "a poet" is creative. Traditionally, the status of being " a poet" must be conferred-upon a person. 

However this "poet" status requires some external and "objective" criteria to be satisfied...

Publication of your poetic work - perhaps specifically publication by a high status publisher, or attracting a paying audience to readings, or being employed as a teacher of poetry - are examples of how the claimed status of "a poet" is accredited. 

These are assumed to be measures of writing what is regarded as real poetry (e.g. a shopping list or a bureaucratic memo does not count as "a poem"), while also achieving the minimum necessary poetic ability. 

Thus (traditionally) "a poet" is one who has produced work of a type and standard worthy of being called poetry. 

This is because writing poetry is so easy and so common that otherwise the status (and it is a status, a socially sanctioned role) of "poet" could, and probably would, be claimed by something approaching the majority of the population! 

But this is to treat poetry as a social function and privilege - not as a spiritual activity. 

Insofar as poetry is treated as a profession, it is not a valid mode of theosis. 

However; the alternative to having external standards of definition for poetry and poets; would seem to be reducing the whole things to meaninglessness and futility. If poetry is "just" whatever-people-say it-is, and poets are whoever wants-to-claim-the-name, then the concept has no function. 

The answer seems to be that poetry as a creative spiritual activity needs to be removed from the external and public sphere of definitions and evaluations. 

And when this is done, poetry ceases to be regarded as an intrinsically-creative activity: such an understanding means that poetry is no more creative of-itself than any other activity a person might engage in - such as preparing food, gardening, or humming a tune.

The evaluations and definitions of spiritual creation then become a matter between the individual person and God - sidestepping society and institutions altogether. 

Of course, people can and will be dishonest with themselves, will fool themselves - but then this is subject to spiritual feedback. 

By pretending to be creating but not really doing it, people are only harming themselves - spiritually. 

If someone desires theosis, desires to participate in divine creation; then it is up to that individual - and nobody else - really to do just that; to the best of his knowledge and ability; calibrated by the most fundamental discernments of which that person is capable.

With spirituality and "this world" we cannot have it both ways. 

If poetry is being done for spiritual reasons, as an aspect of theosis; it ought to be kept separate from the social system that defines and evaluates poetry - and which allocates status on that basis.

The "spiritual poet" is engaged in activity related to participation in divine creation - and there are no external objective sources that have the authority to determine such matters over and superior to our own best evaluation of the matter. 

A spiritual poet is someone who finds that doing something he himself honestly regards as being rather like what-gets-called poetry, is a good way to pursue creativity and theosis. 

Such an activity will not be recognized or rewarded socially, nor will it be accorded a higher status than any other of the thousands of alternative ways in which a person might be creative.  

What then is the reward? 

The reward of creating is twofold: immediate and post-resurrection. 

The immediate reward is that creating is satisfying, profoundly satisfying, to a Christian - because by it he joins with God and Jesus Christ in the work of divine creation. 

But such rewards are temporary in this mortal life; so creating is not cumulative (or not necessarily, and seldom cumulative) during mortal life.

I mean that the benefits of theosis do not (or only seldom) accumulate incrementally during mortal life: we don't get more-and-more "divine" as mortal Men by our creativity.  

That is: Creative accumulation is spiritual, not material. 

What happens is that we do get a benefit from each and every creative activity, and it does build-up; but lasting benefit comes after death if/when we are resurrected.

The more creatively we have lived as mortals, the more divine shall be the form in which we are resurrected...

Just as it true for Loving - which is not separable from creating: the more loving our lives, the more divine we shall be as we commence eternal life in Heaven. 

The existential perspective on life: Living in an exalted (enchanted) state is paid for by increased alienation and servitude

One of the most misleading aspects of hearing tell of high the experience of spiritual exaltation, is that such high states have been paid-for by servitude: to experience the kind of powerful enchantment that gets written about, extracts a cost in exacerbated mundane living. 

Consider a successful pilgrimage - long and arduous, expensive and tedious travel, and all the organization beforehand. The spiritual high point must be been paid for in advance and upfront. 

Or meditation. Months and years of routine, work, training, tedium; seeking a breakthrough into an "enlightenment" of understanding and bliss - which (unless death follows quickly) is, itself, inevitably a state, dissolving into the mundane again. 

Such is the nature of this mortal life on this world: a trade-off, on unfavourable terms. 

The heights entail extra depths; just as that "holiday of a lifetime" entails a preceding lifetime of daily drudgery. 

At the most fundamental level - the business of staying alive (food, shelter, clothes, defence etc) exacts long hours and heavy responsibilities.  

And there is no way out, no escape - so long as we live this is the equation, the scales are tipped against us. 

We can try not to think about this, can try to pretend it is not so; can distract ourselves, even obliterate our awareness with extreme intoxication - but this is the reality, and it is much, much harder even to ignore this reality than people pretend. 

It is one thing to say that we don't need to think about it, that sensible people just "get on with" the business of life-as-is; or that we change change our perspective to concentrate on the good and re-interpret the bad stiff so as to enjoy it.  

Easy to say, easy to claim! And yet to me the evidence is overwhelming that the existential nature of peoples' actual lives, and the deep and persisting pathologies of actual human society, distinctly undermine such optimistic but facile attempts at re-framing. 

Reality, yes; but not the only reality! 

There is far more to life than this harsh equation, thanks be! 

But it is the start of wisdom to acknowledge this situation as an inescapable, daily - hourly, fact of the human condition. 

Such is the "existential" perspective - the overview of human existence; but such recognition ought to be a starting-point to consider what are its implications for each of us, personally.

Contrary to the atheistic-existentialists of the mid-twentieth century; grasping the existential perspective is not supposed to be the terminus of thinking, nor an excuse for not-thinking. 

From the EP as a baseline; we need to grasp the situation as is; and as fully as possible, as honestly as possible - from our own a inward point of view. 

The aim being to establish what, given the solid-reality of the situation, we would most want; and what possibilities we believe are available. 

The Sea Bell poem is Not autobiographical for JRR Tolkien; but The Death of St Brendan ("Imram") is

The Voyage of St Brandon - by Edward Reginald Frampton

Over at the Notion Club Papers blog, I argue that The Sea Bell poem is Not autobiographical for JRR Tolkien but instead for Frodo in-universe; however, The Death of St Brendan ("Imram") poem is expressive of Tolkien's own experience and convictions. 

Saturday Morning Music - a new tranche of BC on M

For the handful of interested readers; I have just posted a new tranche of posts on the blog Bruce Charlton on Music.   

I am still emerging, slowly, from some kind of Upper Respiratory Tract illness I picked up when visiting Suffolk recently, and which has demotivated me from musical exploration. 

All that I have seriously listened to is a very favourite CD of Michael Tippett's early music for strings, played by Marriner conducting The Academy of St Martin in the Field's which I love more and more every time. 

This links with Suffolk; since the Corelli variations was used for the superb background music of the movie of Akenfield. 

Dylan Thomas's prose

Dylan Thomas

I was introduced to the work of Dylan Thomas at exactly the right moment - which was that post-Lord of the Rings era, after I first had felt the impact of major literary greatness, and began to seek more. 

The medium was a one-man-show in Bristol by David Ponting, a dental patient of my Father's, who went on to portray Thomas hundreds more times through his life, and all over the word. 

David Ponting

As I recall it, the show was in a small and intimate theatrical venue; perhaps at the Old Vic Theatre School* or somewhere in Bristol University (where I think Ponting worked). It was a biography using quotations from Thomas's poetry and prose works, mainly; and Ponting shifted between narration and acting the role of Thomas. 

After this I read a good deal of Thomas - perhaps all of his stories and some articles and essays, nearly all of which I liked a lot. 

I also tackled the poems, where my appreciation is more varied and selective. I do not much enjoy his early poems, and find "Do not go gentle" to be highly aversive in meaning. 

Bu several others I rate highly, and my absolute favourite (and one of the best poems ever, for me) is the second last published in the collected poems: Fern Hill. 

This is the one that starts "Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs" and ends "Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means/ Time held me green and dying/ Though I sang in my chains like the sea."  

But it is Thomas's prose that has had the biggest impact on me.  

He wrote wonderfully well about middle-late childhood and adolescence. Some of the pieces are bittersweet (like life) such as several stories in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Dog - including "Who do you wish was with us?" (read here by the magnificent Philip Madoc). 

Thomas wrote some of the most completely-enjoyable and perfectly-made examples of short humour I have encountered: such as A Child's Christmas in Wales and The Outing (originally titled "A Story". The short prose form most suited his particular genius - and when he wrote consecutively at greater length (such as Under Milk Wood) there get to be dull patches and a sense of contrivance - in between the marvels.

How deep was Dylan Thomas - was he more than a supreme wordsmith and sentimentalist? I think he was; I think he was one of the greatest 20th century writers; because he understood and memorably expressed both the delights and the tragedy of life. 

This is why Thomas always has spoken powerfully to so many serious "general readers" beyond the professional and the academic - like the many thousands, all over the world, who saw David Ponting's show, over several decades.. 

Dylan Thomas's actual life (as told in Paul Ferris's biography, and in stark contrast to the mass media propagated "legend") was badly marred by immaturity, dishonesty, selfishness, and sheer self-destructiveness. 

But underneath and fundamentally is evident a strongly religious conviction and aspiration, a cosmic perspective - which both frames and permeates even his comic writings. God is nearly always a hidden presence - even when unmentioned. 

The opening of: "Who do you wish was with us":

Birds in the Crescent trees were singing; boys on bicycles were ringing their bells and pedalling down the slight slope to make the whirrers in their wheels startle the women gabbing on the sunny doorsteps; small girls on the pavement, wheeling young brothers and sisters in prams, were dressed in their summer best and with coloured ribbons; on the circular swing in the public playground, children from the snot school spun themselves happy and sick, crying 'Swing us!' and 'Swing us!' and, 'Ooh! I'm falling!'; the morning was as varied and bright as though it were an international or a jubilee when Raymond Price and I, flannelled and hatless, with sticks and haversacks, set out together to walk to the Worm's Head. 

Striding along, in step, through the square of the residential Uplands, we brushed by young men in knife-creased whites and showing-off blazers, and hockey-legged girls with towels round their necks and celluloid sun-glasses, and struck a letterbox with our sticks, and bullied our way through a crowd of day-trippers who waited at the stop of the Gower-bound buses, and stepped over luncheon baskets, not caring if we trod in them. 

'Why can't those bus lizards walk?' Ray said. 

'They were born too tired,' I said. 

We went on up Sketty Road at a great speed, our haversacks jumping on our backs. We rapped on every gate to give a terrific walkers' benediction to the people in the choking houses. Like a breath of fresh air we passed a man in office pin-stripes standing, with a dog-lead in his hand, whistling at a corner. 

Tossing the sounds and smells of the town from us with the swing of our shoulders and loose-limbed strides, half-way up the road we heard women on an outing call 'Mutt and Jeff!' for Ray was tall and thin and I was short. Streamers flew out of the charabanc. Ray, sucking hard at his bulldog pipe, walked too fast to wave and did not even smile. 

I wondered whom I had missed among the waving women bowling over the rise. My love to come, with a paper cap on, might have sat at the back of the outing, next to the barrel; but, once away from the familiar roads and swinging towards the coast, I forgot her face and voice, that had been made at night, and breathed the country air in.

* I recently discovered an ancient programme from a performance at attended of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing; acted by students at the Old Vic theatre school c.1974-5; in which the non-speaking part of a spear carrier was done by a certain Peter Postlethwaite. Everybody has to start somewhere...

The cause of Your church's destruction, is one manifestation of large-scale causes operating at a civilizational level

People are always trying to explain "the problem" of Christian churches (and indeed all types of church) in terms of some specific malign influence.

This specific problem varies (to the point of being opposite) among analysers. 

One pundit says his church's problem is infiltration by modern/ trendy pressures from "the left" (e.g. pacifism, socialism, feminism, antiracism, inclusivity)...

But another commenter says almost the opposite! That the specific problem with his Christian church is that it is reactionary, "right-wing", out-dated and has failed to adapt to modern cultural conditions. 

At this level of specific causes, opposite sides can both make a reasonable argued case; therefore it seems an endless pseudo-debate, hence futile, to persist with discourse at this specific level.

Furthermore; as well as falsely specific putative causes, analysis almost always focuses on some specific Christian church. 

This is a deeper difficulty, since every devout Christian church member (by definition) regards his own church as unique! So the fact that what afflicts his particular church also afflicts every other Christian church carries no weight with him. 

When a trend of combined mass apostasy, failure of recruitment, corruption of leaders, and non-religious emphasis in church activities is evident in his own church; the fact that the same pattern has been seen in every other denomination and over many decades is regarded as almost irrelevant by the devout church member. 

General experience is not-relevant because "they" are not "us": because all of "them" are wrong, and only "we" are right... 

But to my eye; the overwhelming fact of Christian decline is that all churches are affected in the same way, and in all Western nations, and this trend has been established and accelerating for at least seventy years.  

By seeking specific causes for particular churches, we are clearly missing the crucial point. 

My conclusion is that what is happening to destroy your church, is happening is at a very large scale, and is operating at a civilizational level - which is why no church and no religion is exempt. 

The providential benefits of Not getting what we want

My conclusion is that benefits of Not getting what we want, only happen if we are capable of learning from our life experience. 

The trouble is that some people are not capable of learning. 

These are the type who spend their years eaten up with "if only" regrets, concerning their failure to achieve this or that which - it seems evident - either made no perceptible difference, or could never possibly have yielded the satisfactions they imagine it would - and often enough would have done them harm.  

The main area for such delusory failings to get is probably sexual relationships. Much of my early life was a sequence of "If Only" with respect to this or that girl; combined with recurrent (and rapid) disillusion about my actual "success" in sometimes getting who I wanted. 

Looking back I am only grateful that I did Not always (or usually) get what I then wanted. My early life often seems like a sequence of "bullets" fortunately avoided, or bullets that hurt but left only light wounds - it would be awarding me way too much kudos to say these bullets were "dodged". 

Mostly this stuff happened-to me, rather than me taking responsibility in any serious fashion. 

I very seldom deserve any credit for avoiding harm (either prospectively or retrospectively) - but only for (perhaps belatedly) recognizing and acknowledging that harm had indeed been avoided. 

And also professionally, career-wise; there were things I worked hard to get or to keep - but failed; and it very often now seems providential that here too I did Not get what I (most?) wanted. 

In sum, and with a few supremely important exceptions; it seems that it would have been a distinctly Bad Thing for me to have gotten those things I most wanted at most phases of my life. 

It was lucky that I did not usually succeed, in those terms I set for myself. 

One  general lesson is that there are vital lessons to be learned from failure; and we often ought to be glad for many, indeed most, of the (inevitable) set-backs to our plans and desires. 

(This is why people who do not acknowledge their failures, or those who regard themselves as victims are in such deep spiritual trouble. Only by acknowledging failure can we learn - and we are alive, mainly, to learn.) 

But on the other side; there are some moments when everything, so-many good possibilities, apparently hinge upon attaining a particular success - in a fashion that is existentially intoxicating and undermining. 

We must then do our bit, make the right choices and stick by them - although most of what happens to generate that situation, seems very much "out of our hands"; as if requiring astonishing chains of coincidence. 

My conclusion includes that providence is of extreme importance in our lives; especially considering that most people think that the notion of providence is impossible: merely pathetic, idiotic, nonsense. 

But while providence often helps us when have done little or nothing to deserve help, it cannot and should not be relied-upon to lead our life for us. 

(Indeed, although providence is indispensable; our lives would be literally worth-less if providence was the whole story.)

There always comes a point when we need to make choices in the context of a situation that providence has served-up to us. 

And that is when "what we want" becomes of supreme importance. 

Boomer versus Millennial ideology (and potential spirituality)

Because of the development of human consciousness, there is necessarily a generational effect in terms of the nature and possibilities when it comes to ideology - and also to spirituality. 

Biological generations used to be 25 years, but are now more like 30 years; since reproduction became increasingly delayed - and the popular usage of "cultural" generations actually references (more or less) biological half-generations. 

On that basis; I would like to compare (my) post-WWII Baby Boom ("Boomer") generation, with that of their children - who are mostly Generation Y ("Millennials"). 

Also, in order to confirm apparent trends, we would need to go back to the Boomer's parents' and their grandparents' generations; in order to get four approximate time-points.  

What can be seen across this span, is that the size-of-group with which people effectively identify has become smaller with each generation. 

And, as a consequence - the group identification has gone from being (at least somewhat) a positive aim (i.e. "we favour such-and-such a state of affairs" - i.e. a utopian ideology for my-group) to increasingly a double-negative value system (i.e. "we are against such-and-such evils" - i.e. an anti-my-group-dystopian ideology). 

That is, there was an incremental trend from propositional towards oppositional morality and values. 

The shrinking of group size went from the nation grouping (and or race) which may number tens of million; down by stages to a minority subculture - a grouping which may be tiny in proportion and/or numbers. 

And this shrinkage brings with it the de facto impossibility of a utopia - because a plausible utopia cannot be much smaller than a (not too large) nation. 

By contrast, the modern "identity groups" are tiny minorities, who cannot realistically aspire to a society organized around their desires; and who consequently are organized around fear and resentment of the majority who in various ways restrict (or potentially might restrict) this minority. 

Group size shrinkage is also confirmed by the nature of dominant mass media that define, sustain, and amplify group identity. 

In my childhood, for example, there were just two television channels, later rising to three then (in 1984) four. This meant that every TV programme had a viewership of many millions, and a high proportion of the relevant population shared (and was shaped by) this experience. 

The relevant categories with which people identified for Boomers and earlier were large: race or nation; social class or sex, and from Boomers a large age-category such as "teenager". And the media-mediated virtual "peer groups" for (e.g.) women or teenagers were also very large both proportionately and in actual numbers. 

For Boomers; to be an English woman or teenager, was to be one among many millions - with whom one identified.  

By the time of the Millennials (i.e. the Boomer's children) children there were first videos, then DVDs, then tens or hundreds of TV channels; then "broad band" access to uncountable sources of entertainment, information, ideology... 

The attitude changed from being one among millions; to (increasingly) selecting an ever-smaller (and self-selected) niche group - with whom one identified. 

A century ago there was a time when both the religious churches, and anti-religious atheist-communist parties, were selective, exerted sometimes-extreme discipline and control - i.e. the group-entity regulated inclusion and membership. 

But these organizations (whether churches or anti-religious) have progressively shrunk or collapsed - or else assimilated to the (always changing) profile of the mass mainstream. Millennials do not "identify" with the mass mainstream - they are instead induced to compliance by PSYOPS, threats, sanctions - and bribes. 

Because ideology among Millennials and those younger, is extremely "niche"; the groups must pander in order to recruit and retain members; this is required as there is so little and such feeble psychological (or spiritual) spontaneous group affiliation.

But Boomer ideology still retains a much greater element of self-influence by the past larger social groupings, than does the ideology of Millennials onwards. 

This may somewhat explain why large/ wealthy/ powerful/ influential organizations have been so reluctant to retire the Boomers - so that the biggest institutions/ nations seem to prefer semi- (or more than semi-) demented Boomers as "leaders"; rather than recruiting from the younger generations. 

Boomers have usually retained the expectations and values of their childhood and youth - from a time and consciousness when the world was segmented into relatively few categories. 

Consequently Boomers think of the world and the future in terms of few and large functional societal units - whether these units are multi-national/ global institutions, nations, mega-corporations, or whatever. 

But the Boomers are becoming incapacitated and dying; and later generations Will Not - first because they do not want to, but also because they indeed cannot - perform the same function as did Boomers. Later generations have changed, and the world has changed... 

If such generational change is (as I believe) indeed a consequence of the development of human consciousness, then it is irresistible; and the largest social categories will break down. 

Human society will then, presumably, "fragment" - and into ever smaller and less-positively-cooperative units - and the process may (indeed I think it shall) continue down to the level of individual persons. 

In other words; human consciousness has been on a trend towards individual autonomy, including personal choice - but this trend has not yet been fully manifested in societal organization. 

What we fundamentally believe is becoming more and more a matter of our personal choice. 

Choice includes choice of "friends" and allies; and choice among mass-social media for support; but also and more significantly: the fundamental choice either to believe-in what we know to be reality... 

Or instead to live-by what we know to be false in fundamental ways (which is what most people are currently doing).

Once this process has reached its completion; individual-level autonomy of consciousness and the primacy of choice will then become just A Fact Of Life; an aspect of reality around-which we would need-to choose-to operate.  

Red Alert warning for Extreme Heat in UK!!!

Britain Burning Now! - spontaneous fires break-out across the nation 

The CO2 "Global Warmist" Climate agenda may be a dubious, indeed nonsensical exploded scam for the majority of the UK population; but for the managerial-intellectual class it is a profound spiritual issue - sometimes The most significant problem in the world today.

(Or, second only to the ultimate historical spiritual catastrophe of the UK pretending to have left the EU.) 

Consequently, the tax-funded (about 300 million pounds p.a.) and government-controlled weather forecaster The Met Office (function now re-named "Weather and climate change") has been going berserk in the past few days; because they have been counting down the nation to "evidence" of a climate emergency with a top-level Red-Alert of danger: 

“A red heat health alert [sic!] indicates a risk to life for even the healthy population"! 

This; because temperatures are guesstimated to reach around the mid-thirties Celsius (c 95 degrees Fahrenheit) in some sub-parts of England, for a day or two. 

Well; I do not dispute that this is hot, and I dislike hot weather more than most people. Fortunately we usually avoid the extremes here in at 55 degrees latitude North. 

But the fact is that literally millions of British holiday makers per summer pay substantial amounts of money to visit Spain, Greece, Turkey, Florida, and other very hot places for their holidays; in order to be confident of temperatures in the mid-thirties. 

Indeed, the climate-delusional among the wealthier managerial intellectual class often pay the extra money and personal inconvenience to gravitate to even hotter climes than these - such as Africa, Australia, or South Asia. 

And yet, somehow, these sun-seekers don't behave as if they were taking their lives in their hands... Indeed they often look forward to their holidays; and both during and afterwards insist on showing-and-telling everybody what A Great Time they had - apparently despite dodging death while battling Red Alert Heat Health conditions. 

In sum: in the UK weather forecasting has long-since been weaponized to generate ever-more "evidence" of global warmism. 

In an island nation famed for its temperate climate; those abroad would scarcely credit the number of front page news items there are about emergency weather warnings - either predicting "record breaking" temperatures, or noting that contrived weather stats (that nobody had ever thought about - or cared about) have been exceeded... for some arbitrary slice of time in a very particular locality...

If it is not "unseasonably" warm conditions, which include pleasantly mild winters; then there are warnings before, during, and after any storms - all of which are given names - because these "weather events" are supposed to be more frequent and extreme, which is supposed to indicate climate change. 

And then linking these causally to the latest globalist-capitalist totalitarian imperatives of making colossal profits from parasitically-destroying the economy/ farming/ energy/ trade/ retail/ housing, mass personal transportation etc - aka The Climate Agenda.  

The stark fact is that just as the Met Office cannot predict our Atlantic frontal-system weather three days ahead (except during the rare spells of high pressure - such as now)...

And nobody in the world can validly-predict the future climate of the planet, nor does anybody know what determines climate except for earth's climate being driven overwhelmingly by the long-term activity of the sun - which also cannot be predicted...

But even if it could validly be known that the UK climate was for-sure going to get warmer; then a Very Large majority of the population would regard that as a Good Thing...

As should be obvious not just from holiday destinations; but from the tens of millions of those who have, over the past several generations, moved to live abroad permanently - often specifically to live in hotter places. 

There is a Direction to reality - but what is its nature and cause, and the implications?

Before I became a Christian - and on the basis mainly of my academic work in biology - I was convinced that there was a long-term Direction to reality, at least to "reality" on earth since its presumed formation; and that the direction was towards increased "complexity". This led to a strong focus on complex systems theory. 

However; further work revealed that complexity cannot be detected or measured in any genuinely objective manner. Which means that - insofar as the above is true - the study-field of complex systems has smuggled-in human consciousness, unacknowledged. 

I was eventually more-or-less compelled to acknowledge that the Directionality came from a divine source, and that the long-term Direction was more of the nature of consciousness than complexity. 

Which insight I got mostly from Owen Barfield, and also some aspects of Rudolf Steiner.

So I am convinced there is a strategy to reality over the very long term, and that it is of divine origin - and has to do with working towards higher consciousness. 

Yet I still do not feel that I have a sure grasp of what is going on, nor how it works - except negatively; by which I mean that the direction does not come wholly from the top-down, but derives also from the nature of "things"; by which I mean that "things" are actually Beings - and there is a Direction (an irreversibility) intrinsic to the very nature of Beings.  

And because I understand Beings to be eternal, alive, purposive, conscious in origin, capable of self-sustenance - I am inclined to believe that the Direction of reality comes from the (in essence) divine nature of all Beings - rather than something entirely-externally-imposed on reality by God.  

This apparently helps clarify the nature and scope of divine creation; that it is (as Joseph Smith described it) a matter of organization of the pre-existent. 

It clarifies, also, how it is that increase in consciousness is not, of itself, Good. Increasing consciousness is intrinsic to Beings, and therefore it is something that God works-with. 

Increasing consciousness is Not something that leads towards increased fulfilment of God's creative. Thus a being with higher consciousness is Not thereby more-Good.  

(Consciousness is "orthogonal" to Goodness.) 

In terms of morality; increasing consciousness is a thing that happens, like it or not, over the long term, for any Being. 

Being Good, that is living in harmony with God's purposes (living in and from Love) is a separate thing. 

However there is an interaction between consciousness and Goodness, which arises when the reality of increasing of consciousness is denied, or when the attempt is made to reverse the state of consciousness. 

This falls under the category of an evil; because it is a false (untruthful) understanding of reality - and there cannot be harmony with God's plans, when there is dishonesty - or the attempt to distort or invert reality in conformity with the individual will of any Being. 

In sum: we (as individual Beings) have no obligation to seek higher consciousness, but we do have ano obligation to acknowledge that consciousness we actually are. 

Since divine creation incorporates the reality of Direction; it is Good to acknowledge reality and work-from the reality of divine creation; and evil to deny reality and work against divine creation. 

Package Deal Christianity is Too Much for a convert to swallow

It has long been recognized in some circles that, in a deep sense, nearly all serious- and real-Christians nowadays are converts. 

They have to be, because mainstream Christianity is so feeble, so shallow, so materialistic. 

What follows therefore references only real-serious Christian churches - not the "liberal" kind, which organizations are just variants on Christian-themed social-club charity fund-raisers - plus less or more left-activism. 

But the Christianity of the churches - all of the churches - is just too much for a convert to believe. 

By which I mean there is just So Much of it - such a complexity and range of stuff - that it would take years to learn, and even longer to assimilate (even assuming that you haven't forgotten the early things, before you get around to the later ones). 

Of course almost nobody takes the time, or makes that effort - and many (most) are simply not capable of it. 

So, what we get instead, is a commitment to believe and live-by (or try to live-by) whatever the religious authorities tell us is essential for us to believe. 

Converts do not know what it is they are supposed to believe. 

Also there is a lot of stuff that converts are meant to "believe" - but tacitly ignore; or nuance away into insignificance. This includes much - or most - of what converts are officially supposed to have sworn to. 

(For instance, priests of Episcopal Christian churches have been "sacked" when they insisted on acting upon everything that they have solemnly sworn to uphold, during their ordinations.)

What this amounts to is that (traditional, orthodox) church-Christianity is a package deal - and the deal is a very large package. 

A package deal to which converts sign-up, in ignorance of what they are signing. 

Church-Christians never read all the "small print" before they put their mark on the conversion-contract - neither do they understand the official, technical (legal and bureaucratic) meanings of all the major contractual terms. 

Nonetheless; the way church-Christianity works is that converts are expected to believe-in... whatever-the-terms-technically-mean, and obey even the small-print; as and when such matters become relevant to the church (but not necessarily otherwise). 

The convert signs-up for the package deal, and takes the charter flight to "another country"; but if, after arriving at the destination, he dislikes the accommodation or the food or the other travellers - well, he has already agreed to accept it, and it is now too late*.

It is all or nothing (where that "all" is almost wholly - in practice - a matter of obedience to church authority). 

Of course, nowadays, those converts who discover later that they don't like what they signed-up-for - and who are told it is "all or nothing"; simply leave the church.   

In droves. 

The convert to church-Christianity might join another church, but whatever their diversity, all serious Christian churches are united in declaring that their own particular understanding of Christianity is that it just-is a package-deal. 

The Christian seeker has a wide choice of churches, but wherever he look, the churches offer only package deals - and, 'tho' very different from each other, all the packages are so large and so complex that there is always something (many things) he does not know, or cannot honestly and rigorously endorse.

This is because traditional Christianity always has been conceptualized as a package deal. 

Indeed, it seems that almost all Men of the past necessarily conceptualized all possible religion in a social and institutional way. 

But people now do not feel this necessity; and indeed usually feel something almost the opposite: that a meaningful religion needs to be known, understood, and personally endorsed in all of its aspects. 

This is why I regard it as imperative that Christianity must be understood in brief and simple terms; as having an essence - and therefore not as a large and complex package . 

 

*An example of this is when early Christians discovered that the religions they had signed up to insisted that every person who was not (correctly) baptised into the (correct) church, would inevitably (by logical implication) be tormented unbearably forever in Hell; and that this applied to everyone born before Christ, or in not-Christian nations and places, and all the wisest and most virtuous pagans of antiquity (even Aristotle), and to new born babies and children. This seemingly stark necessity of the creation of a wholly-loving and omnipotent God and the Good News of Christ's salvation; was later nuanced-away or ameliorated in most churches and most places; nonetheless it has been a vital component of the Christian-church package deal for many people in several times and places.  

Saturday music: The Muck-spreader song - aka "Fling it 'ere!"

As sung by The Yetties

(And by me)

Way down on our farm we are right up to date, 

For mechanisation's the byword of late 

For every task, we've a gadget to match, 

But our new muck-spreader's the best of the batch 

 

Fling it here, Fling it there, If you're standing by then you'll all get your share 

Now young Walter Hodgkins, he brought back a load 

Of liquid manure from the farm up the road 

And he hummed to himself as he drove up the street, 

And his load also hummmmmmmmmmmed in the afternoon heat 

Now the muck-spreader had a mechanical fault, 

And a bump in the road turned it on with a jolt 

An odorous spray of manure it let fly 

Without fear or favour on all it passed by 

The cats and the dogs stank to high kingdom come, 

And the kiddies, browned off, ran home screaming to Mum 

The trail of sheer havoc were terrible grim, 

One open car were filled up to the brim 

The vicarage windows were all open wide 

When a generous helping descended inside 

The vicar, at table, intoned "Let usspray" 

When manure from heaven came flying his way 

 In her garden, Miss Pringle was quite scandalised 

"Good gracious!" she cried, "I've been fertilised" 

While the Methodist minister's teetotal wife 

Were plastered for the very first time in her life 

 And all of this time Walter trundled along, 

He was quite unaware there was anything wrong, 

Till a vision of woe flagged him down—what a sight! 

A policeman all covered in ... you've got it right.

I took up playing the piano accordion aged 15, at first borrowing a smallish instrument from school; after which my Dad got me a full-sized (120 bass) Italian instrument secondhand. 

After a few months I was playing in events at school alongside my (much more musically-gifted) friend Gareth who would sing, play flute, electric bass guitar, or tambourine-attached-to-thumbstick (to be thumped on the stage in time with the chorus) - according to repertoire.  

We named ourselves the Muck-spreaders - and as such did two main performances; because in both of them the climax and finale (of a very short set) was the Muck-spreader Song - stolen from a Yetties LP. 

For this we donned comedy Somerset Rustic garb - flat cap, open shirt with neckerchief, trousers held up with hairy string, short wellington boots; and a heavily-exaggerated local dialect. Gareth was the front man and lead singer; I provided the backing music and chorus. 

In my memory, our act was "crude but effective". Helped by the excellent lyrics and Gareth's way with an audience, "Fling it 'ere" went down a storm - first with Bristol Dental students folk club; then, time later, with the parents and pupils of the Backwell School Revue.   

Yeah - That'll work! Continuous progressive societal- and self-improvement, by Changing Names

It's a great plan! 

Let's spend ever more and yet more time/ energy/ resources on locating the sins of other-people, and then loudly and emphatically stating that these other-people were sinful! 

It will make us all better people, and make this a better world - for sure. 

Especially when these people lived generations ago; and someplace else. 

Let's do loads of research to discover more and novel examples of individuals or groups of sinners...

And then let's write books, make TV programmes and Movies about how they were sinful, very sinful; and then splash these across the media in a kind of saturation process.

Let's Change the Names of everything named for other-people who were sinners, especially from the olden days; while explaining over and again that doing this makes us better people...

But refusing to Change Names means - on the contrary - that we personally approve of all the sins of all the other-people who ever lived! 

Because people who don't want to Change Names of sinners, actually personally desire that everybody nowadays ought to be doing these sins, all the time!

(Bad Kitty!)  

We can be confident that by Changing more and more Names, we shall incrementally - a little bit at a time admittedly, but cumulatively - improve ourselves and human society. 

If only we could sustain and expand such a strategy of world-reform for decade after decade (i.e. for an additional forty-plus years) - it would be certain to reduce, maybe abolish, most of the most important kinds of badness that plague the planet earth. 

We would do what previous generations (who were all sinners) have all failed to do (because They were All sinners): which is to Make This World A Better Place. 

And if the Name has already been Changed - then let's just change it again...

Because after all the changed name celebrates sin, just as much as the original name used-to! 

Is the planet of Kolob (i.e. the Mormon Heaven planet) in principle discoverable in outer space?

Reading Laeth's latest aphorisms, he reminded me of a 2019 post from Wm Jas Tychonievich about whether or not the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was, in principle, correct to posit an actual planet (assumed to be orbiting a star that Mormons term Kolob) as the place of God's (usual) residence; thus the physical, material location of Heaven. 

I made a comment at WmJas at the time; and find I have further notions now that I have thought further about heaven in relation to entropy, creation, and love: 

I mean that I now understand resurrected (i.e. incarnate, physical, material) eternal life to be possible in a situation where all the Beings have committed eternally to be wholly motivated by love. 

It is this living from love that "abolishes entropy" (to express it as a double-negative!) - or, differently expressed; enables all of resurrected creation to be eternal, eternally developing, eternally living.

Heaven happened when this became possible (during Jesus's ministry, I assume); and began to be populated when humans (and other Beings) made the choice and eternal commitment to love, and began to be resurrected.   

Thinking about the possibility of something like the planet of Kolob, and whether it would be discoverable as a place in this universe - somewhere that might theoretically be travelable-to; I realized that it seems relevant that resurrected Human Beings are (apparently) to be able to visit and function on this earth and in mortal affairs - e.g. some of the Beings people call Angels are resurrected humans.  

This would mean that eternal Human Beings can exist on earth, and in an environment where nearly everything else (or, indeed everything else) is mortal and subject to entropy, decay, death. 

And it seems that Angels are not usually recognized as such; and indeed (at least in the modern West) Angels are regarded as impossible nonsense.

My notion is that even if mortal Human Beings were capable of travelling to a Heaven such as the planet of Kolob is supposed to be, and even if these people were allowed to "enter into" this Heaven (e.g. to investigate and study Kolob) -- then it is quite possible that these mortal Human Beings would not recognize or realise that they were in the place of Heaven. 

It is, in deed, easy to imagine that modern Western Men would even deny vehemently that Heaven was Heaven if told the fact, even if these people actually were living "in" Heaven! (i.e. were present as mortal-incarnates in the situation of Heaven, but were not resurrected-incarnates) 

This self-blinding to Heaven is, after all, no different from our mainstream and official on-principle/by-assumption/ and absolute denial of even the possibility of paranormal, supernatural, spiritual, and/or divine phenomena.

As Tolkien showed in literary form: evil cannot comprehend good; likewise those who reject and are unfit-for Heaven, cannot even perceive Heaven.  

Note: I should be clear that Kolob does Not play an active role in my own theological metaphysics - indeed I have not even considered the matter for some years. But I don't see why Heaven, or God the Father's dwelling place - should be one particular planet, or  The reason I write here is that those who reflexively reject the idea as absurd, insane, or stupid - could probably benefit from thinking more deeply about their reasons for doing so.  

Resurrection, not incarnation, is the most shocking and strange thing about Christianity

I have often heard it emphasised by Christians how remarkable, how shocking, it was that God was incarnated as a little baby, lived, suffered and died an ignominious and agonising death.

But is it really so shocking? All of these are familiar possibilities for a being that is an 'avatar' of a God - a spirit part of God that takes on human form and lives as a human, perhaps a super-powered human, maybe even breeds with humans etc.

(Jesus is not an avatar - but my point is that the general idea of a God taking on a human form is common enough.)

Neither is it all that shocking when the incarnated God comes back to life after being killed - since all societies seem to have believed in some kind of continuation of existence after biological death (so nothing really dies altogether), posited some kind of afterlife; and Gods in particular would be expected to be unkillable. 


What is really shocking is that when the divine Jesus came back to life it was not as a spirit. Instead God became a Man again, in a Man's body, and for eternity. Jesus was resurrected.

I think that this is so shocking that - as far as I can tell - most Christians still don't believe it, and have never really believed it; but instead have always tried to claim that Jesus's resurrected body was 'not really' what it seemed, but some kind-of embodied spirit.

It is, apparently, very difficult for people to accept that a creator God could have a body like ours, eternally; and still be God. 

To most intellectual Christians, at any rate, it seems intrinsically ridiculous that something solid and bounded might be superior to something unbounded of pure spirit; so they resort to various types of 'yes, but'... argument, that explain resurrection as retaining the appearance of an incarnate body while replacing its inner reality with spirit.

If this was so, the question is why?... Why did Jesus bother with resurrection, if the body was merely a kind of illusion? Why didn't he make eternal life explicitly a thing of pure spirit?

Why go to all the trouble of making it 'look like' Jesus had an absolutely humanish body, why the emphasis on how normal his body seemed?

(An emphasis, but not not exclusive; after all Jesus was hard to recognise, could apparently appear and disappear etc; but certainly the primary point being made is that this was in some essential way the same human body that Jesus had inhabited before he died, with the same appearance, wounds etc; and it was certainly solid to touch, and he ate food.)

If we take the Fourth Gospel as primary (and the other Gospels as partial confirmations) it is evident that the resurrection was into a 'normal', solid, material human body - and that was the main thing about it!

We should not allow secondary explanations to remove that major - and shocking - fact.

The distinctive thing about Christianity is therefore not 'eternal life' in Heaven; but eternal life in some version of our actual solid human body. 

There Must Be something very important about The Body, if it is to become eternal for us, in Heaven.


Note: On further reflection, the fact of resurrection has very wide-ranging implications for the nature of ultimate reality; including the nature of life in Heaven. In a nutshell, resurrection implies that the life eternal promised by Jesus to those who follow him is A Resurrected Life - a life certainly including resurrected entities, beings, things from this mortal life. Not, therefore, a life of pure spirit or thought; but a life of everlasting solid beings and objects of many kinds - thought consisting-of/ interacting-with solid things. Perhaps CS Lewis intuited this, in his fantasy of The Great Divorce? 

Further Note added today: This is an edited repost of what strikes me as a significant insight (i.e. significant for me) which made near zero impact at the time of first publication seven years ago (except on WmJas Tychonievich) - and indeed, I did not properly grasp it myself. So here 'tis again. 

May 1st 1942: A German bomb lands in Bolam church, deep in rural Northumberland

Today's Northumbrian Church Project visit was St Andrew's Bolam; which is magicfully atmospheric. 

It includes a Saxon tower, mostly Norman-style otherwise (round arches), with some rebuilding (pointed arches) done in the 1200s, and some more later. 

The church is located in a gorgeous and secluded churchyard; we spent well over an hour looking around and picnicking, and had the place entirely to ourselves. 

However, the ancient church was very nearly blown-up late on on 1st May 1942, when a Dornier 217, being chased by fighters, ejected its four bombs - one of which burst through the wall of the church. 

The small rectangular window and surrounding oblong stones, slightly to the right of the middle of the picture, constitutes the repaired section, where the bomb penetrated the church wall.  

What happened next, and the happy conclusion some fifty years later, is described in a video interview with an eye witness. 

It may be of interest to foreigners that this lady speaks with a North Northumbrian dialect - which is spoken by only perhaps a few thousand inhabitants of this least-densely populated part of England. 

It is surely one of the gentlest, most soothing and entrancing, of English accents.

The Medical School analogy for mortal life lived for salvation and theosis - Something More is needed!

I have previously made an analogy between our situation in this mortal life in relation to Heaven, and that of a student at Medical School training to be a doctor. 

Mortal Life = Medical School; Heaven = Being a doctor. 

I have found this analogy helpful in trying to articulate the difference to this mortal life made by the expectation of Heaven. 

When mortal life is lived primarily to achieve salvation.  

To live this mortal life as much as possible with the sole aim of working towards salvation into Heaven, is actually the highest aspiration of many Christian denominations. 

This corresponds to attending Medical School with the sole aim of passing the exams and qualifying as a doctor. 

Some students approximate to this idea - their horizon is bounded by the goal of attaining a pass grade in final exams. 

They work hard attending official classes, revising material over and again, practising exam techniques... all focused on reaching the minimum standard. 

They strive to master the exam curriculum but nothing more, because that would be a misdirection of effort away from the essential aim. The aim is to pass the exams safely, rather than well. 

But if such people can safely and without sanctions attain the aimed-at medical qualification without working or exams - e.g. by bribery - they will do so. 

All they want is that degree certificate!

Medical School is nothing-but a way of qualifying as a doctor. 

This suggests how and why salvation is a fundamentally insufficient basis for life.

When Medical School is nothing-but a means to an end, then it has no value of itself. Likewise, if salvation is all that matters, then this mortal life is devalued - and (like achieving a qualification by bribery) it would be better if it could be dispensed-with. 

The salvation-focused Christian will often yearn to have this mortal life over and done; or that it never had been. 

He thinks: "If only God had created reality such that I had been incarnated directing into Heaven, instead of being compelled to endure this mortal rigmarole - how much better things would have been!"

At the end of this perspective lurks the suspicion that God messed-up; or maybe exhibits traits of ruthless cruelty, in compelling us to endure the futile miseries of mortal life. 

In sum: A mortal life lived wholly to attain salvation would even if successful be a meaningless life. 

When the aim of mortal life is theosis, as well as salvation 

By theosis (which I regard as being broadly the same as concepts such as sanctification, exaltation, deification) I mean the idea that a purpose of this mortal life is to "fit us for Heaven". 

The idea that we should, through our lives, strive to make ourselves more holy, more divine in character; more like Jesus Christ; purer, less sinful and more virtuous; more fully-orientated to the life of Heaven. 

In the analogy; this corresponds to the student whose goal at Medical School looks beyond the examinations and the degree certificate; and who strives to prepare himself for working as a doctor. 

Such a student would seek out extra, and more specialized, teaching; might attend research seminars as well as didactic lectures, would perhaps visit other Medical Schools and explore other models of medical services. 

He might go beyond just "picking the brains" of his medical teachers for essential facts and useful exam tips; and try to understand what "makes doctors tick", engaging in deeper conversations about the "whys", as well as the "hows". 

Theosis therefore entails orientating beyond salvation, and has potential to add considerably to the function of mortal life; somewhat as orientating beyond qualification adds to the interest and enjoyment of being a Medical Student.

Yet! Even a mortal life that combines theosis with salvation is deficient; because it accords no value to the actual here-and-now mortal life. 

Even with theosis; mortal life is still nothing more a means to an end. 

Although the "end" is enlarged by theosis; this actual present life is still utterly subordinated to the necessity and needs of post-mortal life. 

The intrinsic value of mortal life

For mortal life to be valid in itself requires that mortal life have intrinsic value, and is not merely a means to an end - no matter how glorious and eternal that end.

In the analogy; this imperative corresponds to the value to the potential "extra-curricular" activities at Medical School of a student who is already committed to salvation and theosis. 

Those many other possible ways that make the life of the student richer, more social, more creative. 

Participating in sports, music, societies. Reading widely in literature. Making strong friendship. Romantic relationships. 

Self-discovery and -development. Thinking about "life"; and understanding the essentials as deeply as possible. Choosing an aim, a path, a quest...

These extra-curricular, non-medical, activities of an imaged student - recognize that he is not just "a student"; they are rooted in a recognition that he is (or rather "I" am, from the POV of the student) a here-and-now human being with all the requirements of such. 

This is analogous to the necessity that these our mortal lives, be valued for themselves. 

That this mortal life is not only "for" something; it is of value intrinsically. 

In other words; we are not supposed to live only in conformity to external demands; we are not supposed to live only to qualify for Heaven and serve its purposes; because we have our own unique nature and potentials that demand to be gratified - and ought to be gratified... 

Of course, our spontaneous nature and potentials - just considered in and of themselves, and without salvation and theosis - might well include much that would be selfish or destructive - evil. 

This would correspond to the old (mostly upper class) Medical Students who would attend college but do as little as possible towards qualifying or equipping themselves for medical practice. They would do as little as possible except (for example) playing sports, socializing, wenching, hunting, boozing, and lazing. 

To be an "ideal" Medical Student, there must be as a basis the genuine motivation both to qualify as a doctor, and also to look beyond qualification to aim at being a good doctor. This is the essential framework. 

This is why I emphasize the necessity of a "framework" for mortal life; corresponding to salvation and theosis. 

However, we ought to recognize that, although necessary, salvation and theosis are not sufficient. 

Something more is also needed, is indeed essential - and that "something" has to do with that which is unique to each of us.