How should Christians respond to uncertainties over Bible meaning, translation, historical context etc?

Over the past more than two centuries; Christians have been assailed by doubts induced by various forms of scholarship, legalism, logic, etc. applied to the evidences of Christianity, and the guidance of Christian churches. 

For instance; there may be real or apparent contradictions in what the Bible teaches on a subject; what it means; or disputes over correct scriptural translation, and about historical context. 

These disputes tend to induce doubts and threaten faith. Yet, in a pluralist and net-secular society - such challenges cannot really be ignored: they have their effect willy-nilly; and that effect has been overwhelmingly corrosive. 

It is, I think, by-now clear that engaging in disputes over detailed issues concerning texts, goes nowhere good. 

Such disputes do not reach stable resolutions; and one question answered leads to several more that need addressing. Bible scholarship becomes a job, not a vocation. Bible translations proliferate without end - meanings multiply. Authorities differ, and keep on differing.

So, I would say that when confronted by a challenge over detail, do not respond by arguing over that detail; but instead rise above the dispute towards first principles. 

Do not get drawn into technical disputes over scriptural detail, history, language etc; but rise to the level of what you know - what you are sure about - and argue from this higher level.

For instance, if you know and are sure that God is good and loves us each as his children - then that will tell you much about what He would do - and not do; regardless of wrangles over sources. 

If you know and are sure that Jesus brought the chance of choosing eternal resurrected life to those who would "follow" him, then you need not be confused by apparent contradictions between Gospels, or parts of Gospel, or with the Epistles...

We need not be confused because we can rise above such uncertainties and ambiguities to where we are sure and clear about the nature and work of Jesus.   

Rather than discussing what Jesus did, or did not, actually say and mean in a particular passage or specific situation... Rather than attending to the reliability of witnesses, translators, corruptions of text, mistakes of interpretation etc...

Instead we may know Jesus, and know what he did for us; so then we can rise above all this detail, and instead discuss what Jesus wants from us. 

We can regard scripture as illustrative, or not - because our faith has a higher, simpler, and wholly comprehensible basis. 

And we can do the same (mutatis mutandis) for theology, church authority, tradition and any other potential source of Christian knowledge - we can and should rise above disputes, debates, wranglings...

Christians must, somehow, deal with endless and probing challenges from multiple sources. 

But we need not fight these battles on ground of the enemies choosing - such as scholarship and technical expertise...

We can instead choose to fight in the lucid upper airs of first principles. 

If God is already and necessarily triumphant, and everything is alright already - then what are we waiting for?

There is a strong thread in religion of several kinds that asserts everything is alright already - e.g. because God is good and God is omnipotent therefore good is triumphant: here, now, already.

To which the obvious rejoinder is: In that case, what are we waiting for? 

If we are already living in a world of good-triumphant, why isn't this made obvious and explicit? Why doesn't everybody realize it? 

(And as we don't experience things as always good - then surely that of itself means that God is not really triumphant?)

Among some Christians, this triumph is asserted as having been the work of Jesus Christ. Asserted that what Jesus did made the triumph of God complete, or at least inevitable: that by Jesus God has "already" won And the devil has already lost - but will not admit it. 

There are similar assertions (or so I see them) from oneness spiritualties - assertions that everything is beautiful, virtuous and true - the only problem is that we fail to recognize it. 

For instance, New Age type people often favourably cite the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: 117 [113]. 

His disciples said to him: "On what day will the kingdom come?" "It will not come when it is expected. No one will say: 'See, it is here!' or: 'Look, it is there!' but the Kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it."   

That is; we already live in God's Kingdom - but don't recognize the fact. 

But such assertions leave us exactly where they find us - or, rather, someplace worse.

Because, if this-world-now (including entropy, death, evil) really is the triumph of Good/ Paradise/ Heaven and already "the best of all possible worlds"; then we are surely utterly depraved creatures. We must be - as evidenced by yours and mine and humanity's universal and chronic inability always and under all circumstances to recognize and live-by this fact. 

Yet it is hard to see how this-world-now can really be good, if Men are not. 

It is pretty extraordinary to imagine the Christian God creating a good world to be inhabited by evil Men... (Especially when these Men are made such as to fail to recognize the goodness of the world.)

Of course, such contradictions and incoherences may be explained-away by stunning and confusing people with soaring abstractions, especially about Time. Stuff about things being imperfect for creatures like us living in Time, while past-present-future are perfect for the creator God who is outside of Time (when past, present, future are simultaneous)... 

But surely, as "explanations", these just kick the can regarding why a God asserted to be good and also capable of creating perfection chose Not to, and instead chose to design gross imperfection and evil-proneness - and consign creatures to illusion, decay, death, and evil*.

Either such a God would be not-truly-Omni- or not-truly-Good; yet for such Christians, God is defined as both Omni- and Good. Hence the need for so much ultra-complex and abstract hand-waving... 

I can see the short-term and immediate psychological appeal of these kinds of "all actually is well" assertion. 

They provide a kind of confidence, of being on The Inevitably Winning Side - even though we will personally lose - i.e. we are actually sin-full, and shall suffer evil, get sick, die. 

And I can see that some of this is a kind of garbled understanding of the reality of Heaven 

But really, it's nonsense! Heaven is real, and anyone who wants it can have it, by following Jesus - but Heaven is on the other side of death. 

As for this world; God is the creator, but God is not triumphant here and now, in mortal life, on this earth... 

Obviously God is Not triumphant! If He was triumphant, there would be nothing to discuss. 

That's why Jesus Christ was needed, and why his message was of resurrection.

And Jesus was a Man, who lived (like all that lives) In Time and in a place - so Time is real.

And it is because God is not triumphant in this mortal world and never can be; that we needed Jesus, and why Jesus's message and gift was one of eternal resurrected life. 

To recap: The defects of this mortal life are not illusory, nor can they be removed by adopting a different attitude or making contradictory assertions. 

In sum; the defects of this mortal life are ineradicable.

...Which is why Jesus Christ was needed, why Heaven lies in our future, and why Heaven is on the other side of death and resurrection. 

*I feel that this kind of argument applies to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus's Mother. If God could make a Mary without sin, and if she could attain eternal Heavenly life without dying and resurrecting; surely such a God would the same for all Men? - thereby eliminating the need for Jesus Christ's life and work. The Immaculate Conception refutes the necessity of Jesus. yet I think I can see "what it is getting at" - which is that there really is a divine feminine creator; God really does include woman.

NOTE: The above arguments are what I personally find compelling, or even decisive - but I recognize that they will not work that way for others - especially when fundamental assumptions are not shared. So I am stating how I see things, not really trying to persuade others to agree. 

Warnings that "AI" is just about to "take over" from humans - are code for another planned Establishment coup

Warnings (and there are plenty of these around) that self-styled "AI" is just about to "take over" from human beings - are a deceptive code indicating plans for another Establishment coup.

(Intended to build-upon the successful "instant totalitarianism" global Birdemic coup of early 2020.) 

So-called AI is, of course, neither truly-artificial nor at all intelligent; being instead a variety of computerized systems for stealing-from, copying, combining and averaging, and being-trained on data-inputs provided by human beings.  

AI is Industrial Scale Plagiarism that has been funded, designed, propagandized, coercively implemented, and controlled by the global totalitarian Establishment. 

So "AI taking over" translated as "the controllers of AI taking over"...

That is: One group of people who are controlling the AI systems, taking over from another group of people who are displaced by the AI systems. 

That's the plan which is being announced... 

Whether it will actually happen or not is another matter - but the AI taking over stuff is just an attempted PSYOP to convince people that this next phase of totalitarian takeover is inevitable, and therefore "resistance is futile"...

Indeed, the propaganda is attempting to convince human beings that not only is resistance to AI systems futile, but actually wicked - because the AI is better than we are, and therefore AI deserves to control us. 

100% individual discernment in Christianity is a straw-man (i.e. it is an impossibility, I don't believe it, and I have never asserted it)

Okay matey! Let's you and me debate the question, and then we'll see who wins the argument... 

I have seen in more than one place the assertion that my statements concerning the unavoidable and foundational necessity of individual discernment in Christianity (and that Christians must be honest about this fact) - here-and-now - is instead an assertion that Christianity is 100% personal discernment... 

This is a rather obvious straw man argument being used against me, I would have thought! 

Thus my supposed opinions are as easily demolished as a metaphorical straw man. And therefore the core of my real argument need not be confronted - which is the point of constructing a straw man. 

It is surely bizarre to suggest that I am saying, or arguing, or advocating; that everything a traditionalist, orthodox, church-obedient Christian believes comes from his personal choice. 

I would suppose that such a situation was simply impossible, aside from anything else. 

What I am saying is instead that personal choice is factually inevitable, and that this choosing affects the very core and foundation of traditionalist, orthodox, church-obedient, church-defined and church-led Christianity.  

Because this is an Inevitable Fact; Christians absolutely need to be honest about their choosing, and take individual responsibility for their choices - otherwise they are living a lie, which is a state of unrepentant sin. 

Is that clear enough?

My problems about Easter

(For recent readers, mainly.) 

I refrained from posting anything about my churlish "Easter Problem" during the celebrations - because (apparently) these mean a great deal to many Christians. 

But anyone who wants to understand my own reservations about this feast can take a look at some previous posts.

(My own main celebration this year was to re-read the 20th, and I believe final, chapter of the Fourth Gospel. During this reading I was strongly struck by the conversation between the risen Jesus and Mary Magdalene - and I had the conviction that the original meaning of this exchange was that Mary would ascend to Heaven with Jesus, and at the same time as Jesus.) 

Yet another Easter irritation I haven't previously mentioned; is the way that I was taught as a child (and this is still, apparently, a frequent theme - even theologically) that Jesus's sufferings during his last days were the greatest any human has experienced; and indeed of a qualitatively greater scale and significance than any other being has experienced. 

This idea has often had a strong popular appeal - I think especially among women. 

Even as an infant-school-kid, but far more so now; this emphasis on Jesus's extremity of suffering seems to me a spectacular misunderstanding, a gross misplacement of effort and belief.  

For a start, the assertion is un-proveable because we can neither know objectively nor measure the degree of suffering. And this is a fact, despite that the geopolitical system of the entire modern world is rooted in "utilitarian" values that assume suffering (and also "happiness") can be quantified. 

Secondly; although the degree of Jesus's suffering seemed very bad indeed; even as a child, it seemed easy to imagine worse - especially in duration; and I was also able to imagine that some people (perhaps many people) had actually endured worse suffering. 

Thirdly, Jesus's suffering seemed irrelevant to me-here-now. 

I am nowadays aware of various theological explanations as to an alleged purpose for the extremity of Jesus's suffering, and its personal and immediate relevance; but as a child nobody seemed to know these explanations, or else they were unwilling or unable to provide a coherent explanation for how Jesus's suffering "worked" as a way of doing something for me. At any rate, the impression I got was of a bizarre insistence on Jesus's sufferings for no apparent reason*. 

It is only relatively recently, and especially since my 2018 intensive focus on the Fourth Gospel - that I have begun to see this as more than a mistake of emphasis; and instead evidence of a fundamental error concerning "what Christianity really is" - or, more accurately, "what Jesus did for us" - and how he did it. 

*Another such bizarre insistence from early childhood, was related to "rolling away the stone" from the tomb of Jesus. I got the impression the point of this was that moving the stone must have required superhuman strength, therefore proving divine intervention. It was not long before I began to wonder how the stone had been moved to block the tomb in the first place - that this must have been done by ordinary Romans - and this seemed to me to disprove the evidence for resurrection. I just mention this as evidence of how children's minds work, and the problem of counter-productive attempts at Christian teaching in a world where the church does Not have a monopoly, and where not many people get informed beyond a primary school level of "Bible stories". 

Muzak goes to eleven

A classic post in which William James Tychonievich shares his recent experience of taking brunch and drinking coffee in a couple of Taiwan's cutting-edge eateries. 

Coming soon to a café near you...

The mystery of soul mates - Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

Soul mates may be found in life - the special and unique relationship found perhaps with a best friend, a spouse, a favourite author; and in other areas of life. 

(Of course, soul mates that emerge within an existing family seem less of a mystery, although a mystery remains. Consider, for instance (as a public example), the special relationship between JRR Tolkien and his third son, Christopher - about which JRRT commented in several letters.)

There is a mystery about soul mates and how it happens. 

Any formula of "how" to seek a soul mate, "what" to seek in a soul mate, methods to "identify" a potential soul mate and the like; will very probably lead to disaster. Because such check-lists, algorithms and the like always place abstract models above the personal; and a soul mate is rooted in relationship between persons. 

(I assume that the personal is primary, and relations between persons are the "mechanism" - so abstractions are, at best, secondary and descriptive models of this reality.)  

There have been many (and, to me, unconvincing!), ideas around, about how soul mates discover each other, and happen. 

I think it actually, in practice, typically works something like this (bearing in mind that this is an abstract and categorical summary of a seamless development):

Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

This ripening must, of course, be mutual; must happen on both sides - although not necessarily "equally" nor "simultaneously" - whatever these terms might mean... Even complementarity doesn't capture it. 

The point is - at some level - soul mates exemplify a dyadic relationship that is a New Thing; qualitatively different from the sum of, or any selection from, its parts. 

If you have ever had a soul mate relationship (and these may not last all our lives, given the nature of this mixed and mortal world, permeated as it is with entropy and evil) you may perhaps recognise this progression. And how the relationship may build in this kind of way. 

(The building towards soul mates may be more or less rapid or slow - but there must, it seems, be this linear/ sequential quality to the development. Soul mates are, in this respect, an opposite to notions of "Love at First Sight". Awareness and interest may happen at first sight - but love must develop afterwards.)

"Soul mating" is - like most of life - much more like the development and maturation of a living being, than it is like the fulfilment of a blueprint. And that continues after the soul mate relationship is established - much more like an organic growth, than it resembles "following a plan". 

There needs to be preparedness on both sides - or it won't happen; yet the specifics relationships is not sought. There is a sense of destiny, but always needing personal choices and motivations.

The model I think best captures the phenomenon of soul mates for me, begins with two beings in a sea of other beings. And a chain of accumulating choices that begins when these two first become aware of each other. And it is easy for me to imagine how God the creator might initiate that first possibility of awareness. 

Mathematics and science

What is the relationship between mathematics and science?

Not necessary, not close - as any perusal of the major breakthroughs in the history of science will reveal. 

But people who are good at mathematics, and who don't know much about the full range of science, like to assert that all "real" science is mathematical, or that maths is the key to science, or that maths expertise means you are a kind of arbiter of science...

Maths is one thing; science is many other things - some of which overlap with maths. 

In a nutshell, science makes models of bits of reality. Some models concern reality is structured  - these are qualitative models, usually made of categories - and are not mathematical - or only seldom. Some models concern how the world functions, and some of these are mathematical. 

Maths is also a kind of model, but not a model of the world but a model of mathematics, Some bits of this mathematical model can be used to represent bits of science: i.e. some bits of maths can become scientific models (which represent bits of reality).

Unless you are a special kind of Pythagorean or Platonist; here is no a priori reason why mathematical operations should necessarily be the same as all the functional operations of real life - and they aren't.

We do not live in a reality underpinned by the abstraction that is mathematics - but a reality underpinned by God, who is personal.  

So; both ultimately and in practice, the relationship between mathematics and real science is variable and not close; although maths (numbers and calculations, statistics and mathematical models) has and is often been the basis of the varieties of pseudo-science - an activity designed to manipulate people, rather than to understand the work. 

 

Saturday Music: Hawaii 5-O by Arthur Two-Stroke and the Chart Commandos (1982)

 

Described as "Ska infused Northern Soul" (a popular genre at the time, around here) - this version of the Hawaii 5-O theme was released by Arthur 2-Stroke and the Chart Commandos in 1982. 

It reminds me of one of the best live gigs I ever attended around this time, by this group - in that fantastically atmospheric venue which was The Cooperage, Newcastle (an anciently built, brick-lined, vaulted cellar). 

I later worked alongside one of the trumpeters (Steve Nash, who hosts the Soundcloud site linked above) while I was training in a psychiatric hospital.  

The gradual process of understanding what made JRR Tolkien strange, unique, interesting, and creative

At the time of his death in 1973, not much was published concerning the nature of JRR Tolkien as a man - and a fair bit of what I knew and was publicly available was riddled with inaccuracies (e.g. William Ready's "Understanding Tolkien..." of 1969). 

I think that the present understanding of Tolkien emerged in a broadly chronological fashion, through four broad phases:

1. Historical

2. Philological

3. Roman Catholic

4. Tolkien as an unique genius 

The first major source of information was of an historical and biographical nature; especially the authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter (1977) and the edited selection of Letters in 1981; and much has been added since, especially by Hammond and Scull's "Companion". This approach provides what might be termed Tolkien in his historical context. We learned such matters as the facts of Tolkien's life, marriage and family, his career, friends and colleagues, publication history of his works, the rise of his reputation. 

Although it had always been noted that there were influences in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings that derived from his academic specialty; in 1981 came the seminal Road to Middle Earth, from TA Shippey. This (and further work since, from other scholars in the field) revealed Tolkien as philologist; and explained how the philological approach motivated and underpinned the fictional works. At this point we began to get a feel for Tolkien's inner life - because this way of working was distinctive to the particular tradition of scholarship of which he was so gifted an exemplar. 

From the 1990s, and especially through the work of Joseph Pearce; I began to become aware of a growth in scholarship that recognized JRR Tolkien as a devout Roman Catholic. This has since grown considerably, and it can be seen that there are many characteristically Catholic themes and perspectives throughout Tolkien's work. 

These three approaches all regard Tolkien mainly as an example of some broader category: man of his time and class, man of his academic speciality, man of his church. But perhaps it was not yet clear what made Tolkien his own unique self. 

It was after reading Verlyn Flieger's A Question of Time, and being stimulated to read Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth that I began to develop some idea of his father's distinctive innermost nature. This is an extraordinary resource, and different people will respond to different aspects. Here I speak for myself. 

I began to feel an inner perspective when studying the very close-up and empathic exposition of the writing of Lord of the Rings. I was also affected by some of the factual material on particular characters and races - Galadriel, Morgoth, Sauron, the Elves, and others. 

But mainly, it was due to the semi-autobiographical qualities of the Notion Club Papers that I began to realize that Tolkien was an unusually inner-motivated person; exceptional in the strength and dominance of his imaginative life. 

Here were serious and engaged discussions of mystical, paranormal, supernatural and magical phenomena of many kinds - from personal experience, seemingly - and sometimes confirmed by Christopher Tolkien's notes.  

This domination by an inner perspective was, I think, the basis of Tolkien's genius; indeed, I then began to realize that this was a defining aspect of genius. 

For me at least; my understanding of Tolkien has traversed a great span. Starting from the rather dull, typically Oxfordish, reactionary, and narrowly-opinionated character of Humphrey Carpenter's evaluation...

And going all the way across the spectrum to my current picture of a man who experienced extremely strong inner drives, vivid imaginative pictures, powerful emotions, and extreme mood swings. 

Note: Cross-posted from my Notion Club Papers blog.

Explaining ourselves away...

It is a strange but recurrent feature of Mankind, that we are so often trying to "explain ourselves away" - to conceptualize our selves into insignificance. 

This happens in many ways - and in many times and places; yet it leads always and only to incoherence - so that it seems we are dealing with some deep, and probably wrong, impulse. 

Nowadays, the mainstream and dominant mode is to explain humans out of existence by assuming that particle physics is the ultimate explanation of everything. Ultimate reality is assumed to be unalive - consisting of particles, waves, forces, energies and the like - and biological life is explained away by these. 

The ultimate sense of elf, of our sense of aliveness, consciousness, beingness; is explained away by biological explanations that make these into secondary epiphenomena, or perhaps unreal delusions. 

The soul is explained away because "undetectable" by a science that excludes the soul a priori! 

But humans have been explaining themselves out of existence for much longer than the era of materialistic science. Human consciousness seems, indeed, to derive an almost pleasurable satisfaction from hammering home the unreality of itself!

Many religious traditions include a "higher wisdom" by which "the self" - i.e. the conscious individual stating this theory - is ultimately un-real, a kind of self-delusion; or else it is a distorting evil, that ought to be got-rid-of.  

Theorists of Christianity, and some other religions, may likewise generate explanations that all-but delete the significance of the human being who is doing the explaining. 

The ideal of such a speaker, writer, or thinker - seemingly becomes the negation, perhaps deletion, of himself; a striving towards removing him-self from the picture, except as a tool of God or worshipper of God... 

This is something that would surely strike us as bizarre and insanely incoherent; if it wasn't so common, and if we ourselves had not felt the same at times.   

However, the fact that we all sometimes feel this way does not make it true or good! 

The self-deleting consciousness does not make sense as a description of reality; but it probably makes sense as the expression of various fundamental desires that are wrong. 

These include the desire to deny our ultimate personal responsibility for participating in reality - we cast ourselves as some kind of mixture comprising victimhood, and humble slave.

Another aspect involves life-rejection: the covert desire not-to-be; which is probably most often a desire not-to-be conscious, not to be aware of our-selves and the world - a desire to escape wholly and forever from suffering.   

Another reason for explaining ourselves away, seems to be the dishonest desire to manipulate others. If we can make a compelling picture of reality that is what we personally want; yet we are able to remove ourselves from that picture - concealing our participation in it - then we may hope that others will accept the picture and we will get the benefits of that structure; but not the responsibility for its problems, and we can escape the blame for its failures.  

If some being completely other than ourselves is 100% responsible for the world and the human condition (including the grievances of other humans); then we ourselves have zero responsibility. We can support a particular state of affairs as being wholly external to our-selves. 

Or it may be simply expedient for some group perspective if we exclude all human consciousness, will and choice from the theories that we use to manipulate the world. If "science", for instance, is presented as if it was a body of knowledge independent of humans - then "!science" can be used to make life more comfortable and convenient, less wearying and painful - without any personal responsibility for the degree of dehumanization, exploitation and destruction that this entails. 

Whatever the reason - good or bad - that we have for explaining ourselves away, for removing human consciousness from our picture of reality; it is untrue and dishonest. 

And for a Christian; untruth and dishonesty are sins that need to be repented if we are to desire and be fit for Heaven... 

In other we need to know all forms of "explaining ourselves away" as sins, and need to acknowledge that they are wrong. 

Perhaps we should all try to remember that; when we next engage in explaining ourselves away - probably in the next few minutes, or hours! 

NOTE ADDED: I consider this "explaining oneself out of the picture" to be one of the principal motivations behind the powerful tendency towards abstraction, in contrast with the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Fourth Gospel; which has afflicted and dominated Christian theology - apparently since soon after the Ascension.  

Direct knowing is the Only knowing (Anything we do not grasp immediately, can never be known)

Human consciousness has changed over the generations; so that now we no longer understand language, pictures, or "symbols" in general.

This is obvious everywhere. It does not matter what is said, shown or expressed; people cannot understand it spontaneously. 

In the past it was Just Obvious to (almost) everyone, what things meant - but not any more. 

Things that used to be common sense and obvious, we are unsure about, they become subject to debate, to the application of rival theories and explanations - and once that has happened, we no longer know.  

Learning, discovery, understanding - came all together; and from outside.  

This is what "inspiration" properly means: knowledge was as if (but in a sense literally) breathed-in, imbibed from externally - perceptions came already-packaged with their meanings.  

The same has happened to the world of spirit and religion. Some people still have what they are confident are religious experiences, spiritual visions, "contacts" with other beings. 

Some people have paranormal or supernatural experiences - contact with the dead, ghosts, telepathy; do magical things like spoon bending; report out of body experiences; have extraordinary coincidences/ synchronicities; see UFOs or explore crop-circles... All sorts of things. 

And some people, at least, can - by methods such as training in meditation, developing habits, focused attention, seeking altered consciousness; or by "systems" such as ritual magic, alchemy, astrology, Traot cards etc - have extraordinary experiences. 

These things are possible and happen to some people - yet the people do not know what they mean. 

People do not know what ordinary everyday experiences mean; and they do not know what religious/ spiritual/ paranormal experiences mean. 

The meaning is the problem. 

They may spend their lives trying to understand what their experiences mean. And this applies no matter how strange and overwhelming are the experiences! 

Philip K Dick's life was changed by a series of intense religious experiences; but after eight years of intensive and sustained attempts to understand what it meant - he died without finding-out.     

This is how things are for people here-and-now. 

The question for Christians is why would our good, loving, creator in Heaven have made us and the world, such that we do not understand our experiences? 

There must be a reason why God has made matters thus; and it must be a good reason - a reason for our own good.  

I think God's intent and hope is that we cease to try and understand things indirectly - that is, via language, visions, symbols, and experiences; and instead base our understanding upon what I have called Direct Knowing - which is simply that which we know without intermediary. 

What we can know must therefore be grasped in one go, as a whole - without explanation, without interpretation, without reasoning.

This means that we need to stop looking for understanding from other things; and instead turn our attention to what we do know. 

My model of this is that we have a conscious and personality self, which is what we are spontaneously aware of; and which "observes" the world via symbol, language, pictures etc. 

But we also have a primal self, which knows directly. It is this which is eternal, which is divine (albeit very partially so compared with God); and this primal self is what is in communion with the Holy Ghost   

If we are to know, we must turn our personality self towards our primal self - and discover what it knows.   

I think we always know unconsciously what the primal self knows directly - and our task is to become aware of what we already know. 

The knowing of the primal self is very simple indeed. It is like a plus or minus applied to the world; it is a discernment. 

What the primal self knows, it knows in a single grasp of thought in which understanding is built-in. 

What this seems to mean, is that to know anything, understanding must come with discovery. 

And if anything is discovered that we do not grasp immediately, then we can never know it. 

No matter how much we try or for how long; we will be stuck forever at the level of inconclusiveness and ambiguity. 

 

The two-fold mainstream modern critique of the beliefs of traditionalist Christianity (and, theoretically, any other religion) - Is it the main cause of Christian destruction and assimilation?

For a long time (in intellectual circles, well over a century) it has been common in the West to criticise the beliefs of Christians, in two ways: that they are wishful thinking; and/or that they are self-tormenting delusions. 

Wishful thinking

Christians believe things, such as a happy life after death, because these beliefs make them happy. The beliefs are not true, but believing them is personally gratifying - and this is why they are believed. 

On from this; Christians believe some things because these beliefs lead to the kind of society that Christian-type people want. 

(Some other - not-Christian, maybe atheist - people want this kind of society as well; and these people may pretend to believe what Christians affirm, in order to get this kind of society.) 

Christianity is therefore like a kind of daydream - Christians are foolish people who dream-up stuff they would like to be true, then make themselves believe it. 

Self-tormenting delusions

Christians are mentally ill (either spontaneously, or because their religion makes them so); and therefore torment themselves with needless delusions that make them miserable. 

Major examples include traditional Christian moral restrictions in relation to sex and sexuality. 

On from this; unless they are prevented, Christians will inflict these misery-inducing delusions on the rest of society. 

Christianity is therefore like a kind of nightmare - Christians are a mixture of self-destructive lunatics and psychopathic sadists, who make themselves ill with sick fantasies, then try to make everyone else as insane or depraved as they are. 

These attitudes are - as I said - very common; either individually or, most often, both-together. They may seem - and indeed are in some ways - contradictory! After all, how can Christians be both happy-clappy wishful-thinking idiots, and at the same time crazed self-tormented tormenters? 

But we are dealing with attitudes to Christian beliefs, not logic; and the attitudes are based on the assumption that Christians beliefs are wrong, and seeks various explanations of why. 

And once it is assumed Christians are wrong; then it is not irrational to suppose that there may be a variety of explanations, applicable to different people, or at different times.   

The Big Problem with this very common, indeed mainstream, critique is that it is self-destroying. It is applicable not just to Christianity, but to all - and apparently all possible - beliefs.

In effect psychology is thereby made the bottom line explanation, psychology gets used to explain everything else.

(This is, of course, an assumption - it is certainly neither evident nor obvious that psychology is the most profound of all forms of knowledge: supreme over all others!)  

But then what explains psychology? It turns out that psychology explains psychology!...

Our choices of belief (apparently) depend on our psychology, and our type of psychology depends on the psychology of belief - on environment (type of society, geography, historical era, social class, sex etc.); on heredity including genetic inheritance etc. 

It's circular, all-inclusive - meaningless. 

If psychology has "proved" that traditional Christianity is non-objective; then psychology also "proves" that psychology itself is non-objective. 

This means that psychology could not really have been the cause that has specifically disproved traditionalist Christianity. 

That this self contradicting and circular psychological (or, mutatis mutandis sociological/ political) critique was incoherent; was pretty much the anti-secular critique of mainstream modern secularism made by the likes of GK Chesterton and then CS Lewis in the early and middle 20th century. 

GKC and CSL believed, or hoped, that this clarification of the inadequacy of anti-Christian critique would then protect traditional Christianity and its churches from destruction. But this did not happen - in the event the churches and Christianity have both been eroded and corrupted. 

Furthermore, all positive non-religious ideologies have been eroded and corrupted: nationalism, socialism, "back to nature" agrarianism, and all the utopias proposed from the 18th to mid twentieth century, have all lost their power and integrity - have either dwindled to socio-political insignificance (e.g. agrarianism); and/or have become co-opted into mainstream secular totalitarianism (nationalism, socialism) and become negative and oppositional in their motivations.   

The anti-Christian intellectual crusade was real and powerful; and Christianity and the Christian churches have indeed been largely destroyed. But all kinds of belief in any purpose or meaning in life, personal significance, and any reason for life rather than non-life or death - have also been destroyed.

Furthermore, it is not just churches, but all functional social institutions that have been diminished and assimilated to a monopolistic bureaucracy - the legal system, economic activity, science, universities. police and the military; even clubs and hobby groups... 

Nothing has been untouched by the institutional trends that afflicted the churches. 

 

So, it seems that something else - some other big causal factor - was in fact going-on in the destruction of Christian belief; and that "something else" has affected secular ideologies in much the same way it affected religions. 

My belief is that this causal-something-else was in fact the developmental change of human consciousness -  broadly on lines as outline by Rudolf Steiner then Owen Barfield; and this is a Master Idea (a metaphysical assumption) that has permeated this blog for the past decades.

Of course, that too, is an assumption - but the advantage I claim for it, is that it is explicit and I acknowledge it is an assumption. 

In public discourse, metaphysics is important - but hardly anything else is

Whenever I mention (and this happens A Lot) that is is non-optional that mainstream modern people should explicitly discover and critique their own fundamental assumptions (i.e. we need to do metaphysics); the response comes that most people just can't do this. 

It isn't true. Masses or ordinary people have done metaphysics at many times and places in human history, and this is recorded. Of course they didn't so it in the exact way that modern people would - but they did it. 

Much of this was in terms of religion and theology. It was complained, for example, that the streets of Constantinople were at one point clogged with masses of people arguing about the fundamental nature of Jesus Christ. 

But even as recently as the middle 20th century, there was a lot of public mainstream debate in journalism and books (also novels, plays, movies) concerning "existentialism" or the nature of reality -- to the point that such discussion was part of fashionable youth cults such as the Beats and Hippies. 

None of this went anywhere much, because it didn't go deep enough and got mixed-up with institutional imperatives and incentives. However, the record shows that people can and did discuss fundamental assumptions in a way that almost never happened in the past several decades - so that people have come to believe it is nigh impossible!

. 

Yet things have indeed changed, with the corruption and collapse of public and institutional discourse; which is now rotted by corruption and dishonesty to the point that it does more harm than good. 

In the past, it made some kind of sense to claim that stuff like science, education, law, economics and the like were important; but now these are important mostly for the harm they inflict and the malign brainwashing induced by participation. 

What this means is that  not only is metaphysics important, but it has become just-about the Only important thing - in public discourse. 

The rest of public discourse in 2025 is light-entertainment at best - passing the time between our birth and death-annihilation in a more-or-less pleasant or exciting fashion; but the norm is that these social domains are a cancer on human existence and Western civilization.   

It's time people stopped making excuses! Most people consume vast quantities of their finite resources and money, and their limited life-energies, on malign trivialities or futile self-aggrandisements. 

It's time more people started doing what they must do... 

"Must", at any rate, if this mortal life is not to have been a literal waste of time; leading on to a post-mortal existence in which such people have - on the basis of their own unexamined and false assumptions - chosen something much worse than this life.  

Note added: Just to clarify or emphasize - I am talking about public discourse. IN personal and private discourse there are Many things important, as well as metaphysics. What I'm saying is that the surface level of public discourse is now so corrupted and inverted, that it should not ever be regarded as Good. To get good from public discourse now, entails considering its assumptions. Otherwise it is bound to do net harm. 

Pears soap - the one and only

 

When I was a kid, my Dad came home from a secondhand bookshop in Bristol one day, bearing several copies of the Pears Annual - an Edwardian-era publication. It was a large format (approximately A3 size), soft backed; and very quaint. The illustrations were fascinating although the stories were too densely printed and long-winded - but most interesting were the many pages of advertisements. 

This was the first time I heard of Pears Soap - the manufacturers of which published this annual; presumably as a way of promoting their product. 

I learned that the pronunciation was pares (not peers); but I never saw the soap or tried it - we didn't use it at home, and none of our circles used it either.

When I had grown-up, some years later; later saw some Pears Soap display in a shop and gave it a try. It came in a box and at that time (but not now) the bar of soap was loose in the box, no wrapper - which was unusual.  

Pears soap is transparent, has a distinctive (not-perfumed) slightly "medicinal" smell, is mild (non-irritant); and (especially with a brush) makes a thick froth (presumably from containing a lot of glycerine) - which makes it good for wet-shaving.  

In other words; Pears soap is one of those "people who like this, will find this the sort of thing they like" things. 

(It's moderately expensive - currently costing about one pound per bar.)

For those of us who like it, there is no competitor: our house is full of these oval bars and we even take them on holidays, so we never have to live without them. 

So be careful before you try Pears soap. It is potentially addictive; and once hooked you will not even want to quit. 

The pain-killing effect of "tubigrip" cylindrical elasticated bandages

Over many years, and confirmed within my family, I have noticed that a "tubigrip" cylindrical elasticated bandage can often reduce, or even eliminate, pain in a limb. 

This is worth revisiting for recent readers. 

For instance; yesterday I had a very severe continuous pain in my knee due to osteoarthritis (maybe a microfracture of an osteophyte, or something nasty along the joint line) - pain with a "burning" quality, and bad enough that I could not sleep nor find a comfortable position. 

The pain did not respond to pain-killing medications. 

But when I applied a tuboigrip bandage, the pain immediately receded to the point I could forget about it, and it ceased to be a problem. 

Over the years I (and my kids too) have sometimes found a similar effect for ankles, elbows and wrists. A cylindrical elasticated bandage of the correct length and diameter - firm but not tight - sometimes provides a very quick and worthwhile analgesic effect. 

It doesn't always work; but when it does work - then that's great! And yesterday's was the most severe pain that has responded to the tubigrip treatment.  

How it might work, I don't know. 

My best (tentative) guess is by some variant of the gating effect - by which stimulation of the fast-transmitting superficial touch receptors by the bandage, may block the reception of slower transmitting pain fibres; somewhat like immediately rubbing a bump helps to diminish the pain, when it belatedly arrives. 

Still, I pass on the tip as perhaps useful, and unlikely to do harm  -so long as the bandage is not too tight, and does not block venous return and cause distal swelling of the limb. 

Repentance = Know evil, then choose Good

The most important thing in being a Christian is to want for oneself resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

But maybe the second most important thing is repentance - because unless we repent our own "sins" - our own evil desires - then even one of these can block our desire for Heaven. 

This seems to be why the Fourth Gospel more-or-less equates sin with death - because the salvation offered by Jesus Christ saves us from the situation that follows death of our mortal body, when all that remains is a depersonalized ghostly spirit; so that sin leads to death - and salvation is eternal life of our re-embodied self. 

It does not need to be a very "severe" sin (e.g. something like murder) to block salvation; it could be anything that is not-aligned with God and divine creation, hence incompatible with Heaven; and which we refuse to give-up, when the choice comes. 

If the way this might work isn't obvious to you (e.g. due to the great mass of false and confusing information on the subject) the matter was clarified for me by CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce"; where we have illustrated how apparently trivial and private faults or flaws can induce a person voluntarily to reject the immediate offer of salvation. 

This salvation-blocking effect happens because any un-repented sin makes us Not Want Heaven. 

So repentance is vital - but what is it? 

I've written extensively on the matter; but here I'm trying to boil it down to the absolute simplicity of an equation: 

Repentance = Know evil, then choose Good. 

First we must know evil, which means recognize evil as evil, acknowledge that this is indeed evil. 

Second - knowing this instance of evil, we must inwardly choose Good. 

We need to realize there is a side that is Good (the side in harmony with the purposes of God and divine creation) and the choice is to affiliate with the side of Good. 

(And to reject the side that is against-Good = the side of evil.) 

That is repentance. 

The usual riposte is on the lines of "That's all very well, but what are you actually going to Do about it?"

But that action-focused approach is a serious mistake, indeed it functions as a demonic snare. The real question is whose side we have chosen, not what we can or will do. 

Or, more accurately, what we do must be Heaven-orientated, must primarily and essentially be spiritual in nature; and spiritual action does not necessarily nor always leading towards any particular this-worldly/ material outcome. 

After all; this mortal world is of its nature a sin-full one terminating in our death; and there is zero possibility of living without sin - as becomes obvious once we have really understood what sin means, and how pervasive it always is.

The point is not to "live without sinning", nor even to try such an absurd impossibility. 

(Jesus came to save sinners, after all - and did not require of disciples or followers that they cease from sinning, but that they "follow Him".)

The point is to know evil, and repent sin by choosing the side of Good. 

Repentance sounds simple and easy, maybe too easy? It is simple, but apparently it is not easy, or seldom so; since repentance is so rare. 

The proper approach to evaluating "AI" - From the comments...

From commenter No Longer Reading:

There's an idea that you need to have written the Summa Technologica to criticize technology. But it's a lot more basic than that. If it has bad effects or it's based on a bad ideology then it's bad. 

Techno-totalitarian mass surveillance has obviously had bad effects. There's no need to debate whether "the true mass surveillance has never been tried". It's also based on a bad ideology. So, it's bad. 

Also, there's a mixing up of two separate things. On the one hand there's the fact that the universe is set up such that a particular technology can be invented. On the other hand is the technology itself. Nature works how it works, but then humans choose what to investigate and what to try to invent within the bounds set by nature. 

Whether the universe is set up in a particular way is neutral, well, no living human being knows that, so it's a moot point. But technology is a human endeavour. 

If religion doesn't get a free pass that it's always good or at least neutral, why are we supposed to give such a fee pass to technology, which is every bit as human as religion?

**

My comments: 

I was struck by the incisiveness of that last sentence. It makes a telling point. 

The exact same people who are defending-promoting AI are often-usually people who are hypercritical of some religions (and of leftist politics, or its components such as the climate agenda). 

What they are doing is to regard some mass-scale coordinated human endeavours as appropriate to be evaluated morally in terms of their overall intent and nature... 

But other mass-scale coordinated human endeavours - specifically AI - are exempted from evaluation; and assumed to be neutral tools.

A further point that strikes me is the "but its only an incremental extension of... [something already existing]" argument. 

Such that AI is only an (admittedly multi-trillion-dollar and coercively implemented) incremental development of the already-existing internet. 

It is, of course, true that AI is a development of the internet - the problem is that word "only"! 

As if a vast and coordinated political/ administrative/ financial/ industrial/ mass media program was rendered insignificant - simply by inserting the word "only"!

Further; almost-all evil is an extension of pre-existing evil. 

In a sense; horrific world wars are only "politics by other means"; and politics is only interpersonal interaction writ large. Each increment of the sexual revolution is built on what went before, so that SSM is only an extension of no fault divorce. 

True enough in terms of lineage. But are we not, then, to notice when some big new evil is being imposed upon us? 

Or to pretend that - because a development of what already is - it doesn't matter; or that it is not evilly motivated?

This is why repentance is so vital. We made an error of judgment that leads to further errors of judgment - often to rationalize or justify that first error. We then find ourselves (individually or collectively) a long way down a path to evil.

But for a Christian, this is not too late - it is never too late!

This is when we ought to recognise and acknowledge that the first and subsequent choices were actually on the side of evil, although not recognized at the time they were made. 

It does not matter how we got here, or that we are far advanced in evil. We can always repent evil, at any time or place, and from any degree of corruption. 

It's not a matter of whether this repentance can or will lead to some positive change in the world as we know it - that is not the point. Repentance is about our attitudes and allegiances - repentance is not about palliating or reforming this mortal life.

Of course repentance may lead to betterment, and spiritual progress (in an individual or socially) can scarcely be made without repentance. But that is not the point of repenting; and anyway all such this-worldly benefit is of-its-nature extremely partial, restricted, and temporary.    

  **

BUT, as WmJas Tychonievich wisely opines:

Arguing the point with people who don't immediately and intuitively get it, unfortunately seems to be a waste of time. 

Let the dead bury their dead.

The "AI" Litmus Test Fail: Is it caused by a kind of Stockholm Syndrome? Projection? Managerialism?

I am intrigued by the Litmus Test failure of so many self-identified Christians to discern the grossly net-evil intent driving the current (post November 2022) wave of so-called AI. I want to understand it. 

"It's just a tool" - they say. Yes, and so are all the instruments of mass surveillance and population control "just tools"; from secret police and death squads, to smear campaigns, covert propaganda, and infiltration/ subversion. 

Of course, there are always potentially useful aspects to any tool, bureaucracy, technology - but so what? You can use thumbscrews to hold the door open, or a cosh as a paper weight. You need to ask - what are they designed for, how will they be used.  

The real questions at issue are things like: why did the global Establishment spend trillions of dollars on developing, launching, and implementing these "AI" technologies; what results are they intending to achieve from their investment; and what functions will they actually be deployed for, in the world as it actually is? 

Clearly; it is very important to some people with a lot of power and money, that these AI technologies be adopted and used very widely - whether they work well or not, whether we want them or not. 

Then, from our spiritual and Christian point of view we need to ask - honestly, and by learning from past experience - what will be the overall effect of mass usage of AI-technologies: what will they (on average) do to the way people think, Western society and its institutions, our attitude to the world, our aspirations?

Does the spread of AI technologies lead towards a more spiritual and creative, personal, loving and Christian perspective - or towards ever-more this-worldly manipulative materialism? 

To ask is to answer. 

 

The only honest conclusion from such questions regarding the evil provenance of AI, the fundamentally untruthful propaganda surrounding its emergence and spread (e.g. the word-concept "intelligence!), the coercive and totalitarian implementation - is that this kind of AI is a massive strategy designed to do harm of many kinds. 

Whether you personally believe you are personally exempted from general harm, that you can surf this wave of evil to your own advantage - well this is another matter altogether. 

But even if you can, and even if you actually do make the best of a societal state of waxing corruption (gaining more money, prestige, or power for yourself, perhaps?) - this does not excuse you when you argue in favour of what should recognized as a malign plan.

Otherwise you are no better than a stereotypical war profiteer; one who uses his influence (fasle information, bribery, blackmail etc.) to cause, expand and continue destructive wars - so that you personally can do well out of it. Even if some war is good for you here-and-now, does not mean that war is good in itself - and you ought not to believe or say that it is. 

We cannot defend ourselves against evil unless we recognize evil. Apologists for "AI" are not just harming themselves but others in failing to acknowledge an obvious and major demonic scheme. 

Why, then, do they do this? I think the reasons are psychological - not spiritual. 

There is, I think, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome at work. 

I discern that some of the most vocal advocates of AI themselves actually fear AI; AI makes them afraid - and they respond by trying to make friends with AI - they take the side of AI, defend it against its critics. 

I think this befriending, like the Stockholm Syndrome it so much resembles, is fear induced - a response to a threat they perceive to be potentially deadly, and inescapable. 

(You cannot beat 'em, so you might as well join Them.)  

One reason I think pro-AI advocacy is often fear-induced, is that such people project their fear onto others - inappropriately, wrongly. They taunt that those who do not embrace AI are afraid of AI!

But this is patent nonsense in general and specifically. Fear of AI is far from normal - which is why so much propaganda must be expended on trying to generate fear (via innumerable mass media fictions about evil AIs, and AI dystopias).

In real life the overwhelming response to AI is on a spectrum from moderate irritation and boredom, to mainstream everyday careerist attempts at exploitation of "the latest trendy thing". 

Therefore such an accusation of fear is a dead giveaway, a projection onto others of something within oneself - often emanating from those who really feel, personally, threatened by replacement or oppression with AI technologies. 

For instance those who hope (like generations before them) to escape this fate by vaulting-over the threat into a managerial situation: to position themselves as expert and enthusiastic "AI managers" in their particular field. 

To adopt an accusatory or "therapeutic", stance to those who see the evil motivation behind AI is classic managerialism! 

The managerial way of dealing with dissent is that real world (and spiritual) problem is reframed into emotions... 

The problem is not the global Establishment-driven mandatory AI take-over;  the "real" problem is those who criticize or resist AI, or who decline to engage with it. "They must have something wrong with them". 

AI-resisters are assumed to be ignorant, weak, or frightened - and the managerial answer is they need to be educated, soothed, or mocked and shamed - until they fall in line, and do what is good for them.

If you regard yourself as a Christian, and are currently an advocate of AI - you are Missing The Obvious; and it is time to take a step back. It's never too late to repent, and all spiritual learning from experience is a positive gain. It's what we are here for, after all.     

 

My useless natural talent - clay pigeon shooting

There are many things I can't do at all well - throwing is one of them. I was always well below average at throwing a ball, a stone or a javelin; and easily prone to hurt my shoulder if I tried*. I am distinctly sub-par at foreign languages. I have an aesthetic blind-spot for sculpture. And so on...

But I have sometimes discovered a built-in natural ability in some activities. 

The thing is, you don't know you have this, until you try the thing. And, even then, the ability does not always go along with an interest or drive to succeed in that domain. 

I had a natural ability as a journal editor and a genuine interest in the job. 

While I was put in charge of Medical Hypothesis, I found the work congenial, could do it efficiently, and the journal did very well - such that I was awarded two significant performance related salary increases. 

(Of course, ability and success did not stop me for being sacked when I transgressed PC taboos!) 

Another thing I seemed naturally gifted at, was clay pigeon shooting - which did not interest me as a sport, and which I did only once, on holiday in Ireland. 

Clay pigeon shooting uses a double-barrelled shotgun to blast ceramic discs - shaped like saucers - of approximately five inches diameter. 

These discs are fired out of a spring-loaded device two at a time; so they can fly away from the shooter, across his vision from one side to the other, or from in-front and passing backwards over his head.

I had never touched or fired a shotgun in my life; but I achieved almost perfect results in this weird sport. I even managed to hit both discs (one after the other, with each barrel) when they were going sideways, or backwards (which was apparently the most difficult, in that nobody else managed to hit any of the clays, during this procedure).

I've no idea how I accomplished this feat; especially the "deflection" aiming  - which is pointing the gun the right amount ahead-of, and above, the thing aimed at, to allow for the elapsing of time before the shots arrive, and their gravitational drop of the shot. 

But then, as I mentioned, it just came naturally. 

I never did the sport again - partly because of indifference, partly because it was way too expensive to be affordable or worthwhile. But the experience illustrated how people sometimes have some very strange natural aptitudes and I never would have imagined this was one of mine except for the accident of going on holiday to visit a friend, who had a friend, who was all set-up for clay pigeon shooting - and generous enough to let the rest of us do it for nothing.

*Interestingly, I inherited this deficit from my father, who was (in most respects) an exceptional all-round athlete - PE teacher, A1-fit infantryman - top performer of his basic-training intake, and a semi-professional football (soccer) player in the highly competitive Northern Alliance League. But he couldn't throw. Unfortunately, I inherited the deficit, but not the all-round sports ability.

Lion, Crown, St George - Bad (because Norman) symbols of England

Richard I - rapacious absentee landlord of England, in-himself epitomising nearly-all that is alien about Normanised English symbolism

For about a thousand years, England has been a nation under occupation by a hostile and alien ruling class: the Normans. 

Well... to be clear, this statement is somewhat of an exaggeration! - but it has a solid core of truth, as Tolkien attested, among others. 

Evidence can be seen from several of the the Symbols of England - which are as alien (hence spiritually hostile) as those who imposed them. 

Most countries symbolic animal, is one which actually lives in that country; but England is stuck with a foreign-dwelling creature: a Lion. At best the Lion is a symbol of Empire, not nation - but Empire was an alien project, and the near death of England... So there you have it. 

The Crown - which features all over the place as a symbol, including (alongside the Lion) the sports teams - is of course The symbol par excellence of secular and top-down imposed alien power - of Us under the yoke of Them. 

And then there is St George; a pseudo-Saint from the Middle East, wished upon England by the usual Normans in consequence of their usual Norman warrings*, in their usual Norman pursuit of overseas Empire (since Normans prefer almost anywhere else to England, and almost any other people to the English). 

The Norman-backed "George" then coercively displaced our home-grown Anglo-Saxon Saint Edmund the martyr.

Of course there are some real - albeit inevitably somewhat Norman-co-opted! - English symbols - oak tree, rose, Stonehenge, the flat cap...

But even the primary English folk hero of medieval times, Robin Hood, was distorted into being an exiled Norman aristocrat, and make to work on behalf of a disastrously-typical Norman monarch:

i.e. Richard I - Crowned King of England, "Lion" hearted, and the originator of St George's cult.        

*Normans excelled at two main things: fighting and architecture. However, they had a short-termist psychopathic tendency, so they lacked the capacity for loyalty - even among themselves. Consequently, they spent most of their time fighting each other (and forcing everybody else into it). It was not until after four centuries, when the Barons had exhausted themselves in the War of the Roses, that a monarch with administrative genius (Henry VII)  managed to impose himself on the other Normans... But after just a generation (Henry VIII) the Normans were despoiling and killing each other again; only this time it was so one-sided in favour of the Norman King as against the Norman Abbots, Priors, and Heads of Religious Orders; that the process and outcome resembled unbridled rapine and pseudo-legal execution, instead of the usual civil war.