Finding the Black Swan - a favourite study from my empirical researches

Much of my work as a scientist was theoretical in nature; but I published quite a few empirical (i.e. experimental and observational or statistical) papers as well. 

One particular favourite of mine, and which seems to have been somewhat influential too, was done with a student called Florence Walston who was intercalating a bachelor of science degree into her medical studies, and who did the actual "leg-work" and analysis; and Richard Blennerhasset - a clinical psychiatrist, who provided access to the subjects studied.  

I liked this paper because it was as clear an example of "Black Swan"-type - Karl Popper-esque - research as one is likely to find in medicine. 

So, what do I mean by "Black Swan" in relation to science? 

Well, to state the matter more "softly" than did Popper (who wrongly regarded it as logically definitive of "science"); the idea is that it is not possible to "prove" positively the "hypothesis" that "all Swans are White" by gathering observations of White Swans - no matter how many examples of White Swans that we discovered and counted... 

But it may be possible to dis-prove negatively the "hypothesis" that "All Swans are White" - by finding even just a single example of a Black Swan.

In other words, if there is one Black Swan, then all Swans cannot be White*.

The asymmetry of this logic, the power of that single necessary observation, is recognized by using the definite article "the", in referring to The Black Swan whom we ought to be seeking.   

In this research, we aimed to refute the theory that persecutory (also called "paranoid") delusions are caused by defective "theory of mind" (ToM) ability. 

In other words that when someone falsely and firmly believed that he was being persecuted by some person or group of people; this was caused by a fault in his ability to infer the thought and intentions of those other. 

The "hypothesis" was implicitly that all people with persecutory delusions, must exhibit defective "theory of mind ability. 

All we needed to do was find a single clear and un-ambiguous example of a person with persecutory delusions but with normal ToM; and we had found our Black Swan and refuted the hypothesis. 

So, to refute this theory, we sought-out examples of people who did have definite persecutory delusions, but did not have anything wrong with their "theory of mind" ability... 

On the basis that if someone actually suffered persecutory delusions yet also displayed normal theory of mind functioning, then the delusions couldn't be caused by defective ToM. 

“Theory of mind”, persecutory delusions and the somatic marker mechanism. Florence Walston, Richard C Blennerhasset, Bruce G Charlton. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry. 2000; 5: 161-174. 

Introduction: Pure cases of persecutory delusions can be interpreted as “theory of mind delusions”; using a model that equates the theory of mind mechanism with the “somatic marker mechanism” as described by Damasio and colleagues. Three predictions were tested in a case study design: that pure cases of persecutory delusions could be found, that such cases would retain normal theory of mind reasoning abilities, and that delusions would be encapsulated to a specific group of persecutors with hostile intentions. 

Method: The caseload of 17 psychiatrists and 4 community psychiatric nurses was surveyed for “pure cases” of persecutory delusions. Cases were excluded when there was evidence of other psychopathology, intellectual impairment, abnormal reasoning, “psychotic” features, or diagnostic syndromes. Selected cases were evaluated for the scope of their delusional beliefs and the nature of their social relationships using a detailed semistructured interview that was transcribed verbatim, and putative “theory of mind tests” as devised by Corcoran and Frith. 

Results: Thirty-four potential cases were referred among which four pure cases of encapsulated persecutory delusions were eligible for the study. All were men, aged between 32 and 43. Apart from their persecutory delusions, cases were free from other detectable pathology in their reasoning processes, affect, or social interactions - and scored highly on the putative “theory of mind tests”. Identified persecutors were males, and delusions involved false beliefs concerning the threat of violence from gangs of strangers. 

Conclusions: Pure cases of severe but encapsulated persecutory delusions can be found, and such cases demonstrate intact theory of mind reasoning ability. The nature of persecutory delusions is understandable in terms of the somatic marker mechanism, and the content of delusions is consistent with the nature of hostile threats to men in the ancestral human environment.

In sum, Florence found, interviewed and tested not one but four "Black Swans" (actually five, but one withdrew consent to being included in the write-up); the Black Swans being men had such severe persecutory delusions as to have required admission to a psychiatric ward; yet who passed the Theory of Mind tests "with flying colours". 

That is: five men with severe persecutory delusions who demonstrated no measurable (or indeed inter-personal, conversational) evidence of impairment in their ability to infer the motivations of other people. 

In simple terms; outside of the specific subject of their severe delusion; these men thought and reasoned normally - so far as we could judge. 

From which it seems reasonable to infer "negatively" that all persecutory delusions are not caused by defective theory of mind abilities -- although, of course, some persecutory delusions might nonetheless have this cause. 

*Note. In practice, a single observation will very seldom have this power; usually argued on the basis that the Black Swan is either not-really Black, or else not-really a Swan. 

The future of spiritual effort - means and ends

First religions, then later spiritual systems, always demand effort of some kind - but the nature of effort could be very different - maybe these could be termed relaxation versus concentration; which corresponds approximately to contemplation versus imagination.  

At various times in my life I tried to follow both of these distinct paths - of "opening" versus "closing" the mind. 

However, the distinction between these is blurred by the potential difference between means and ends; because there is often an implicit assumptions that we can or should pursue one kind of end by a training of another kind - whereby the means is distinct from the end. 

My assumptions is that originally the means and ends were identical - that an immersive and contemplative spirituality (such as that of our nomadic tribal ancestors, and still of young children) is something that people Just Do - means and ends are identical. 

But when religion became established; it became usual to pursue contemplative spiritual ends by means of rigorous, prolonged, and intensive training that was not - of itself - contemplative and spiritual. 

In summary, a personal would learn a symbolic and ritual system, would learn its proper meanings and responses - and by effort, concentration, and repetition would learn to experience the desired subjective and imaginative responses. 

The goal is that an individual learns develops a new kind of spontaneity - so there is an element of paradox, or even contradiction in the fact that the means are often dry and mundane, while the end-point aimed-at is transcendent. 

This is the nature of traditional religion even at its best and highest; there is a necessary alienation and functionality and mechanical experience; that is "sacrificed" in order that for each individual at some times and places - or, a minority of people for most of the time - there can be a spiritual participation with the divine.  

Thus we "pay" for the spiritual, with the secular - as individuals, and socially (e.g. several peasants mundane labour pays for each monk's spiritual experience). 

I have a strong intuition that the future of spiritual effort is one in which we return to the primal situation in which means and ends are again identical; in which what we need to do here-and-now, is exactly the same as what we are aiming to do in future.  

Love baths, hate showers...

Baths v showers? No contest... 

Baths are great - deeply-relaxing, deeply-cleansing; and you can read - or sleep - if that way inclined (and I often am). 

And very traditionally English!

After all, Samuel Pepys's wife once had a bath; so he complained (admittedly Pepys himself never did). 

But showers? - Pah!

You Have To Stand Up! 'Nuff said. 

But also; unless the house is very warm, there is an unpleasant always contrast perceptible between the water warmth, and the colder air around. 

Baths are like rapping: Americanization of the worst kind.

(In an act of silent protest; I had daily baths during my sweltering month living in Texas one September). 

And the expense, my dear boy! 

Across three decades, I have spent... well, I have lost count; but some tens of thousand quid on having showers installed, re-installed, re-re and re-re-re installed - and repaired, and not-repaired - and still they leak. 

Once the house needed major surgery due to a long-term undetected leak that had caused "structural issues". 

Properly accounted; each shower taken in our house therefore costs at least several pounds each (at the worst eras, many tens Sterling per drenching)... never mind the price of hot water. 

And all this time I have been lolling in my baths and therefore don't receive the (dubious) benefit of being-sprayed.  

Our yearning for a life of continual enchantment

The "romantic" search for an escape from the mundane nature of life in this-world - that is, for enchantment - takes many, many forms; and is pursued by different people in widely varying ways. 

A very incomplete list of the themes would include by religions/ spiritualties/ ideologies; through reading, TV and movies; by personal relationships such as intense friendships and sexual relationships; through the appreciation and making of crafts and arts; by meditative, paranormal and supernatural encounters and experiences; via drink and drugs and other derangements; by holidays and travel; pursuit of personal or formal education; from performing drama and music... 

And so on - fully considered, there are only a few people who are not implicitly pursuing the enchanted life. 

All of these methods and others are at-least somewhat effective and may lead to enchantment: for some people, to some extent, and temporarily...

Because with time and the changes in our-selves, all methods and pursuits always lose effect: 

The once-enchanted becomes mundane. 

In other words, in our  failure to become and to stay enchanted; we are here dealing with the ultimate fact of entropy. 

We are up-against the inescapability of entropy in this-world we all inhabit. 

We are up-against this primary creation where all changes, loss is inevitable, and every-thing ends in its death. 

But this-world and primary creation is not all; because (by Jesus Christ) we all have the the opportunity to undergo the transformation of resurrection after death through following Jesus, and move on to the Second Creation that is Heaven: where the state of enchantment is everlasting. 

It is the state of everlasting enchantment in Heaven that Jesus is describing in the Fourth Gospel - when he uses "metaphorical" examples such as water, food and meat - and compared the inevitabilities of their incomplete, temporary, entropic nature in this-life-now; with the eternally present and gratifying fulfilment in the life-to-come:

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat... but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever... I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you... 

When Jesus says that he brings "life", life-everlasting, eternal-life; people nowadays wrongly interpret this as meaning an offer of (merely) continuing mundane life: the (mere) persistence-forever of life-as-we-now-know-it...

Merely the continuance of this entropic life...

But Heaven comes after resurrection, and resurrection is a transformation by-which not only evil, but also entropy, is eliminated...

Or, to put matters positively; when all the denizens of Heaven have made a permanent commitment to live forever wholly by love of God and divine creation and their fellow resurrected humans (and other resurrected Beings)...

Then this is a situation both of eternal goodness, and also of everlasting enchantment. 

Just as we can now, in this mortal life, know the desire for a wholly good world (without evil); but we cannot attain it. And Christians know that full goodness can only be attained after death and by resurrection...

So also we can know that our yearning for a life of continual and complete enchantment (without entropic change, decline, annihilation) - while impossible to achieve here and now - is attainable.

And/but attainable after our death - and by resurrection. 

Yuzvendra Chahal returns: It's the Indian Premier League again!

"Yuzi" Chahal's unique celebration after taking a hat-trick (three wickets in three balls) in last year's IPL 

It is the IPL again - the Indian Premier League; which means the highest overall standard of T20 cricket in the world; with a match (sometimes two) for us to view every day, and for many weeks. 

The team I have supported recently is the Punjab Kings, who come from the north (including several Sikhs in the team) and play in one of the most beautiful Test Match grounds in the world: Dharamshala, nestling beneath the Himalayas:

 

There is something about the atmosphere and camaraderie of PBKS that I like, and several players - including my current favourite: Yuzvendra "Yuzi" Chahal. 

Chahal is something of a legend, having taken more wickets in the IPL than anyone else; and having won the coveted "Purple Cap" in 2022 for the highest number of wickets in a season (27 wickets in 17 games, bowling a maximum of four overs per game). 

He usually looks very un-healthy - rather like an emaciated and renegade "street person" - being very short, gap-toothed, extremely underweight, and with many tattoos. 

Yet he is respectably bespectacled off the pitch, and was an India youth international chess player. 

So Chahal is that best kind of of all good cricketers; a vivid and unique character; who I suppose to have the high intelligence/ low conscientiousness traits that often go-with creativity, and maybe a touch of genius.      

But the main reason I like Yuzi, is that he is a master of that most difficult and entrancing of cricketing crafts: leg-break, wrist-spin bowling. 

Yuzi has such command of varieties of pace, length and line - plus direction and degree of spin; that he is able to bowl six different deliveries per Over - the ball landing pretty-much where and how he wants. 

When he is bowling well (as at present); each of these deliveries is individually and psychologically-tailored to confuse or deceive the specific batsman Chahal is facing - a batsman who, in T20 cricket, is under constant pressure to score quickly. 

Thus cricket becomes a mind-game, the bowler striving to out-think and anticipate the batsman; and each Over a mini-drama of character - and a microcosm of Life. 

Mary Magdalene at the tomb and after: Two presumed later excisions from Easter Sunday in the Fourth Gospel

Mary and the resurrected Jesus at the tomb

Where I presume later excisions is marked: [...]

John 20: [1]: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. [4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. [6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, [7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. [8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [11] 

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 

[...] 

[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 

[...]

It seems evident that there is something missing between "Master" and "Jesus saith" - because we have no explanation as to what Jesus meant by "touch me not" - in a context that the Gospel is nearly always self-explanatory and indeed detailed with respect to observed, recorded or experienced action - such as the detailed descriptions of how the author and Simon Peter ran t the tomb, and what they saw. 

And also because I am prepared to assume further excisions (and insertions) by a later hand; in the (not-very many, as a proportion) other places where the Gospel is not self-explanatory, nor is "poetic" in form.

And then there is the fact that the Gospel, as we have it, leaves Mary unaccounted for: having been so very important throughout - her story is just "left-hanging". 

This is marked as my inferred second excision.

But I think it can be inferred what is missing in these instances, and why. 

Such inferences derive from the basis of an assumed fact that Mary was married to Jesus; and that the Fourth Gospel tells us this by implication in several places. 

But later hands have removed all explicit references to this, for what may be theological reasons. Presumably they were deleted on the basis of assuming that, because the Mary relationship was (later) regarded as theologically impossible, such references must themselves have been erroneous.

Somewhat as I wrote: The exchange of words between Jesus and Mary at the tomb may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended. 

After all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. 

My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.

Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God the Father has become Mary's Father-‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. 

So, we are being-told, by Mary's brother Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel; that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband.  

However, it seems - I assume, that such further explicit and explanatory reference to Mary Magdalene was deleted by some later hand. 

I also assume that this Gospel reference was removed because seen as contradicting metaphysical-philosophical - but not genuinely Jesus-derived - assumptions of a "Trinitarian" and Monotheistic nature; assumptions that seemed to entail that Jesus could not have been married.

Or maybe that, even if Jesus was married, this could be of no theological significance; i.e. marriage could have no relevance to Jesus's divine work.

At any rate; when marriage to Mary Magdalene is not regarded as by-prior-assumption impossible, and when the Fourth Gospel is acknowledged as our first, only eye-witness, and most authoritative source - then the Good Friday encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at the tomb; emerges as of something close-to primary significance, in our understanding of Jesus's life and work. 

The significance of Good Friday

For me, the significance of Good Friday is that this was when Jesus died; which he needed to do in order to fulfil, to complete, his core mission. 

He did not need to die in the way he did, because any mode of death would suffice; and death was inevitable one way or another, sooner or later, for Jesus as for all mortal Men...

But Jesus did need to die; in order to resurrect, and ascend to Heaven. 

I believe that Heaven as a state-of-being already existed before Jesus died, and that Lazarus was probably its first inhabitant - albeit Lazarus returned to dwell on earth, for a while. 

But in order for "everybody" who thenceforth desired resurrection and eternal life to be able to achieve these; Jesus himself needed to die, be resurrected, ascend. 

That salvation for "everybody" includes those who had died before the time of Jesus - and who resided as spirits in Sheol/ Hades, or had reincarnated, or were ghosts, or even demons who were not fully corrupted...

Which is what "the harrowing of Hell" on Easter Saturday, represents in a symbolic but distorted fashion. 

Strong individual motivation cannot be scaled-up

Amidst our civilization characterized by extremely weak motivation - probably the weakest in the history of the world - there are individuals who are strongly motivated. 

But these commonly make the mistake of assuming that their own personal motivation is something that can be scaled-up: the mistake of assuming that - "What motivates me is something that could - and perhaps should - motivate the masses". 

Yet each individual who has reached a situation of being highly-motivated, has reached that position as a consequence of an unique spiritual journey; starting-out with different innate character, abilities, situation - and then following a trajectory determined by previous choices and particular circumstances. 

There is really nothing to suggest that this unique pathway - or its particular end-point - ought to be, or could be, an effective template for motivating everybody else.

Nor even that any number of such personal odysseys will add-up or average to a formula for mass motivation. 

Quite the contrary: all actually-existing group-level motivations continue to be extremely feeble and to decline; no matter when or if individuals within these groups are genuinely powerfully motivated.  

Of course; it is impossible to prevent highly motivated individuals from assuming that some future mass and motivated group can be extrapolated from his own experience...

But in practice such assertions will continue to be treated as idiosyncratic, as eccentricities or hobby-horses. 

Because what worked for him, (almost certainly) will not work for me. (There are just too many differences.)

So, we shall, and increasingly, have small numbers of highly motivated individuals; but not highly motivated groups. 

And, if we are to have realistic optimism, it will need to depend on a confidence that individual persons operating "alone" (in a material sense) can indeed make a positive overall difference.  

In other words; confidence for a better word depends on the reality of "the spiritual", and its ultimate domination of "the material". 

The unacknowledged genius of simple breakthroughs: the wheel, the arch, the bottom buttonhole on shirts...

 

If I look back on the technological breakthroughs of my life, and reflect on the genius required to make them; none are more impressive than the bottom buttonhole of shirts. 

I mean, of course, the idea of rotating the bottom buttonhole by ninety-degrees compared with those above it - to make an horizontal slit, instead of vertical.

The functional benefit is qualitative and decisive - a problem utterly solved: bottom shirt buttons used to come undone all the time, nowadays they never do!

The simplicity of the idea is simply stunning! No technological breakthrough was required - the horizontal buttonhole is pure concept: like the wheel or the arch. 

And like all the most fundamental inventions; as soon as discovered, it could be - and was - copied everywhere, and by everyone. 

The idea was simple, the method had always been possible: yet it took an unsung, indeed unknown genius to "see" this for the first time, after centuries of blindness.

 

The Easter problem, the fake-virtue of humility; and the false ideals of obedience and altruism

Easter seems to be a time when the confusion, incoherence, and errors of mainstream Christianity become most evident; as mainstream Christianity finds ever more way of being wrong, of misdirecting attention, and sowing confusion! 

Perhaps one root of this is the un-Christ-like, fake-virtue of humility.  

This leads to the preaching of two kinds of error:

1. Unselfish ego-annihilating obedience to God's will

2. Unselfish altruism 

Mainstream Christians are always saying things on the lines that all good which they enact is "not from me, but from God-in-me.". They claim that the highest Christian aim is for us to become nothing-but a channel for God to work-through. As a commenter put it: "I did nothing on my own God did everything". 

Christians repeat this without considering its implication that such an attitude depicts humans as unthinking and utterly-obedient slaves of deity; and what is worse, slaves to the kind of God who wants humans to desire nothing higher than to cease being themselves - and instead become mere tools. 

Such an attitude ultimately renders the creation of free and creative Men utterly futile - a divine mistake. 

Mainstream Christians are always preaching that we cease to be selfish and instead live to serve; that we ought to set aside considerations of self-interest, and instead help other people. 

But this is merely utilitarian atheistic materialism under a Christian disguise!

Of course, it can easily be seen what the preachers are getting-at: they are trying to combat sins such Pride and Lust. 

But the problem is that humility Just Isn't a virtue; and indeed is something close to the worst possible attitude to inculcate in a pervasively evil world of totalitarian domination of all social institutions - including the mainstream religions and churches. 

The opposite of Pride is not anti-pride; the opposite of selfishness is not doing what other people want (or "need"). 

The opposite of psychopathic gratification is not to become a non-person, one-with-God: a hollowed husk in human shape, an instrument rather than a divine Son of God, and a participant in divine creation.   

To recommend humility and living for the "benefit" of other people; is therefore to preach something other-than what Jesus did and taught - it is to preach another religion. 

There are Religions that are rooted in the oneness of God and the delusional unreality of The Self. There is a religion based on negation of the self, and absolute submission to God will. 

But these are not Christianity. 

From a Christian point-of-view; to recommend humility and altruism is, in the context of The West in 2026 - pretty much to guarantee a chosen damnation via assimilation to evil societal norms. 

Instead; the proper virtues by which to resist sins such as pride, selfish-short-termism and so forth; are the Christian virtues: 

Love of Jesus in thanks for his divine creation of Heaven, and his continuing guidance and comfort; Faith in his offer of the possibility of resurrected eternal life beyond death; and confident Hope that this shall be our personal "destination". 

The sunk cost fallacy in religion

This is: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the religion of the ancestors does not work anymore. 

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

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

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

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

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

It is their own fault. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is when things go well!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Dark Gurus" of India...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that was then; this is now. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern warfare is the material expression of our spiritual nihilism.  

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

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

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

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

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

But on the contrary - such tactics work... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat!

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

What do you want from a religion/ ideology?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But despair is intolerable. 

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

It turns-out that meaning requires purpose. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sometimes called "Utilitarianism".) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+++  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially not by individual Men...

Especially not by all individual Men. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Duncan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, having been convinced - what then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which animals are magical?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on. Discuss among yourselves. 

The cemetery surname-game

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

Does Melvyn Bragg? 

Is Anthony Strong?

Is Gareth Batty?

Does Charles Thomas Ogle?

Pete Burns. 

John Waters. 

James Rodgers.

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

Is Margaret Gray? 

But my wife got a special commendation for:

Does Ellie Teasdale? 

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

Romantic and Christian - both are needed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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