What exactly is wrong with (mass) euthanasia/ assisted suicide/ humane murder?

Mass euthanasia - humane murder, or "medically-assisted suicide"; is already established in many nations, and will probably expand to become the statistically-normal cause of death.

The reasons are 

1. That the ruling class want this to happen; and 

2. That many people in The West want it - for themselves. 

And they want this, because their fundamental understanding of human life - including their own lives - is that it is purposeless and meaningless. This conclusion (whether explicit of implicit) is almost inevitable when our society assumes (as well as argues) that there is no creator God - therefore no purpose generally or for individual persons; no spiritual world; and no possibility of existence beyond death. 

Without meaning or purpose, life is merely a matter of current feelings - a balance between pleasure and suffering. 

Many people live in fear of suffering; and because they are so afraid of future suffering and will do almost anything to avoid the unbounded possibility of sufferings; they have rendered themselves willing dupes to the machinations of evil. 

Religious prohibitions against suicide have near-zero traction nowadays; because most Western people solidly believe (and our society assumes in all its functional systems) that death is followed by total annihilation.

For such people, the "problem" is therefore how to die without suffering; and this seems to require that they will be humanely-murdered by... someone else; ideally, killed just at the point when the prospect or actuality of severe and lasting suffering becomes probable.

People also believe (or, at least, behave as if they believe) that this point can be established, and suitable death-inflicting mechanisms decided, by a sufficiently rigorous bureaucratic procedure.   

Against this there are explicit religious prohibitions - but hardly anyone nowadays takes religion seriously when its demands conflict with perceived personal interests or societal pressures. 

Also against this is a deeply buried, inarticulate, usually uncommunicable gut-feeling of the wrongness of a world of bureaucratically-decided death - no matter how painless it might be. 

Yet this feeling of wrongness, probably because it cannot be coherently expressed in the context of modern ideology, is too feeble to counteract the strength of social pressures when these are implemented in laws and procedures; and when endorsed by officialdom, mass media, celebrities, and peer group/ neighbours. 

I therefore find it useless to argue against those many who advocate the introduction, spread or normalization of assisted suicide; because the arguments I can use all assume the atheist-materialist utilitarian world view - and thereby actually worsen the underlying spiritual problem. 

The bottom line is that if you regard your life as purposeless and meaningless, then naturally it becomes merely a matter of subjective expediency how and when you die, or get killed.

When life has no meaning, death can have no meaning. 

When life is a matter of being got-through as pleasantly as possible; then the same applies to death. 

To tackle the real issue requires deepening the discussion to a metaphysical level, the level that addresses the ultimate nature of reality and our relationship with it. 

Unless someone is prepared to have such a metaphysical discussion, then nothing substantive and positive can be done for them. 

And this applies at the societal level, even more than at the individual level.

When people are trapped by their false bottom-line assumptions, then nothing helpful can be done that fails to confront the falsity of these assumptions. 

And for that to happen, absolutely needs their cooperation in the process. 

 

If it is agreed that Jesus died only After his mortal work was completed, then this has many implications...

Can we agree that Jesus died only when his earthly-work was complete? That his mortal work was done before he died? 

This is something that often comes to my mind as a subject for brooding! 

Because it would seem that Jesus allowed himself to be killed - this "therefore" implies that, by the time of death (or, at least, by the time of ascension), Jesus had already accomplished his mortal tasks. 

If so, it occurs that this has several implications which haven't really been taken on-board. 

On the one hand, Jesus had-done what he needed to do: reality had been changed in the ways that it needed to be changed. 

Whatever it was that Jesus made possible, had been made possible. 

On the other hand; it would seem that Jesus did not need to do whatever had not been done at the time of his death (or else he would - surely? - have stayed alive to do these things). 

So all the subsequent vast religious accretions of church, theology, practice, preaching... which were not done during Jesus's life; these would seem to be inessential.  

Of course; it may be that these post-Jesus accretions are in various ways better, usually helpful, may improve the chances of a good life and the choice of salvation... and so forth. 

But in terms of what we ought to regard as the requisite focus of following Jesus; it seems to me that everything vital must have been in-place by the time of Jesus's death.

If so; a consideration of what Jesus did and did not do while he was mortally alive; strikes me as a valid way of distinguishing the needful from the optional. 

By prolonged and intensive effort; we can enhance our powers, but we cannot make ourselves better people

St Paul realized that his being a brilliant orator, high-adept, and genius were ultimately irrelevant to salvation

We are much inclined to believe that people can (and should) improve themselves by prolonged and intensive effort. In short; that strong and sustained will, properly directed, leads to better people. 

Indeed, for most people, now and in the past; this is almost a definition of "religion" - redirecting our will, training and implementing our will.  

And when people are not getting better; the answer is therefore intensification of willed-effort across a longer span of time.

I personally underwent, in accordance with my will, two prolonged and intensive efforts at self-transformation in search of new abilities: first in medicine, secondly as a scientist. 

The years-long and immersive training as a doctor had many effects on me; and I developed many abilities. But there were costs. My personality was somewhat distorted and considerably hardened; and I became prone to be negatively-motivated by the group ethos, especially by a nagging sense of guilt - that lasted several years, even after I ceased to practise as a doctor. 

The years of training as a scientist also developed new aptitudes and habits, especially in the realms of thinking. I became not just able, but also almost compelled, to adopt explicit and few assumptions; stick-to and follow-through clear and transparent lines of reasoning from them; and to exclude all other factors that were not part of the "model". 

This was a deep change, and it made me a pretty good scientist; but was bad for me as a person, overall - at least until it was understood and contained. Because it was a deliberate but also compulsive form of self-blinding.  

In sum; the application of will in a prolonged and intensive training led, in both medicine and science, to functionality and power in a this-worldly sense; but were spiritual dead-ends that impaired me in significant ways as a person. 

I believe that exactly the same applies within the realms of spirituality and religion. 

I mean that when people pursue their religion by prolonged and intense training, by exercise of will (for example in the training and initiation of a priest or monk, or the leading of a rigorous, devout, or holy life) - the result can certainly be enhancements of of the mind in accordance with will; a transformation of personality; an increase of ability, of power...

But the outcome of any sustained and focused exercise of our conscious will, is also a degree of spiritually-negative distortion of our nature.

We may delude ourselves otherwise; but this becomes obvious if we can spiritually evaluate other people, and how observe the ways they are changed by prolonged and intensive effort in accordance with their conscious will-power. 

   

This was an insight of St Paul; who recognized that he himself had been impaired by the effects of his prolonged and intensive (and high-level) initiation into Priesthood. 

Paul realized - indeed he knew, from experience - that Men could not be improved in their spiritual quality by an exercise of will...

That no matter how much we wanted and strove to become better, and now matter how genuine was this desire and effort; we are unable to accomplish this.

For Paul; this was a great insight into the nature of reality, the nature of what Jesus needed to do to help us (help genuinely and qualitatively) - and also a revelation of what Jesus actually did: 

With Jesus there was not (ultimately false) promises of positive personal transformation and enhancement; achievable by following his new prescription of attitude and activities; and rewarded by salvation... 

What Jesus offered was not a new (and better!) sort of life and mind therapy - not even a spiritual therapy; but something altogether different. 

I think Paul saw vividly the limitations of human will and effort; probably because he had himself first accomplished so much by his own will and effort, but then recognized (in a flash) that all this was irrelevant to what Jesus had done for us. 

But this truth is a slippery insight: hard to keep a-hold-of (indeed, Paul often drifted from it), such are the advantages of the kind of worldly enhancements and satisfactions we may achieve from applying our will-power in a sustained and focused way.

In sum: Training and initiation may certainly be useful in this life and world; but such achievements do not and cannot make us better people, or better followers of Jesus - and, indeed, most often our transformation and enhanced aptitude will function as a snare, a distortion, and a distraction.

    

Religions and churches are analogous to Tolkien's Rings of Power

The Rings of Power - but especially the One Ring and the three Elven Rings, seem to describe something profound about reality. 

Sauron infuses much of his native power onto the One Ring; which gives him the ability to dominate the other Rings of Power - and, more generally, dominate the will to power of other beings. 

But, the transfer of power means that, when the One Ring is destroyed, Sauron cannot hold-himself-together anymore; he cannot sustain himself coherently as a functioning "self", but diffuses into a dark spirit of largely-passive malignancy. 

What is often missed by readers of The Lord of the Rings (but which was insightfully described by Paul Kocher more than fifty years ago); is that the Elves did something analogous with their three Rings, with analogous but inverted positive benefits; and similar negative consequences after their power was broken.  

The Elven Rings were made by a transfer of vitality from Elves-generally, into the Three Rings specifically. 

The Rings were apparently intended to focus and strengthen Elvish (or rather, specifically High Elven, Noldorian) characteristics - purity and the preservation of unstained beauty, in the case of Galadriel and Lothlorien; wisdom, learning, and healing, in the case of Elrond and Rivendell. 

(Gandalf's Elf Ring was given him by Cirdan, and thereby seemingly repurposed from its original intent.)

I infer that the Three Rings were made exactly because elvish vitality and power was already declining, as a consequence of prolonged residence in the mortal lands of Middle Earth (which was by will of Eru; who always intended that Elves gradually be replaced by Men). 

The Elven Rings were made, therefore, with the ambivalently-virtuous motivation of stopping the ongoing decline in Elvish vitality. 

And for so long as the One Ring was not being wielded; the Elf Rings worked well; and in Rivendell and Lothlorien, High Elven culture continued for thousands of years longer than anywhere else in Middle Earth - but at the price of being increasingly cut-off, encapsulated.  

But, when the Master Ring was destroyed, all the racial vitality of the Elves that had gone into the making of the Three Rings was dissipated and diffused, much like Sauron's beingness.  

Immediately; the special qualities of Elrond and Rivendell, Galadriel and Lothlorien, began to decline, dwindle, fade...

The High Elves could not longer remain High; but must revert towards the much lesser cultural and intellectual level of the "Silvan" or Wood Elves - or else migrate to the Undying Lands before this declining process could advance too far.  

*

I believe that Tolkien was here expressing a profound and general truth about the benefits and disadvantages of concentrating our innate vitality - our human qualities. 

I think that - across the large timescale of human history - there was a decline in the natural and spontaneous spirituality of humans; a decline in the immersive and passive awareness-of, and participation-in the divine.

In effect: there was an intent to stop this process of spiritual alienation; by concentrating and focusing our "spiritual vitality" into what is called religion: into religions and churches, into abstract systems of rituals and symbols. 

Religion is therefore a "Ring of Power". 

But, it turned-out that the Elven Rings, and church religion, did not stop the decline, but only delayed it. 

Outside of the increasingly encapsulated worlds of serious religion; the decline in human spirituality and Man's alienation from the divine continued... indeed it accelerated; given that the spirituality has been drained from it and poured into the churches. 

By this analogy; the various Christian revivals can be seen as the re-forging of further Rings of Power - further attempts to stop this decline by increasing the focusing and concentration.

These later Rings included (in general terms) greater demands for personal commitment, efforts at training of mental powers by new rituals or more frequent practice, increased exclusion of the secular from the sacred... etc. 

At the same time religions functioned like Rings of Power - achieving a sustained awareness and participation of the divine, in the cut-off context of "churches" and their activities - but at the cost of sucking spiritual vitality and divine awareness from the rest of life, and from humanity in general... 

An unintended cost of religion, was therefore the creation of "the secular" - what was not within the concentrated scope of religion, necessarily became secular. 

And as the underlying trend of human alienation continued; the secular realm expanded, while the divine and spiritual realm of religion shrank.

My main point is that when Man has created religion, and infused his churches with much of Man's native spiritual vitality - this means that when churches are destroyed, this focused and concentrated spiritual power is dissipated. 

Much as Sauron minus the One Ring was weaker than if the Ring had never been made; and as the Elves declined more suddenly and rapidly after the power of the Three Rings was lost than if the Elven Rings had never been...

So, Mankind's alienation from the spiritual and divine is more severe and intractable after the decline of church religion, than it would have been if we had not invested so much of our religious vitality into institutional, symbolic, and ritual forms. 

Thus; many modern people living after the (de facto) death of the churches and religions; experience this institutional loss as fatal to the divine and the spiritual - and without church, they feel that there is and can be no God, no creation. 

Post-religion; experienced-reality has been drained - abruptly and very fully - of purpose and meaning; and therefore of lasting personal significance. 

Although some churches/ religions sometimes did an effective job for many centuries in some places in sustaining contact with the divine and spiritual realms; because the spiritual and divine was thereby concentrated, focused, protected by the structures of church and formal religion - it now seems that when mankind's innate consciousness changed, and these social structures lost their power and integrity - then we are left worse-off than we would have been if churches had never existed. 

The churches functioned, therefore, analogously to the Elf Rings in their intent and effect; and in the consequences after the power of religion first declined and then was destroyed. 

The nine most significant British-made warplanes of World War II

1. Fairey Swordfish

Obsolete years before the war began; the Swordfish ("Stringbag") nonetheless had many successes including the Taranto raid which crippled the Italian navy, and the (later-fatal) wounding of the Bismarck (illustrated above).

2. Short Sunderland

A vast, beautiful, and beloved flying boat - converted from a pre-war airliner; the Sunderland was the most successful of the British Coastal Command aircraft patrolling against U-Boats, in the early years of the Battle of the Atlantic. 

3. Hawker Hurricane and 4. Supermarine Spitfire

Victors of the Battle of Britain: Hurricanes (background of picture) made up the majority of the fighters; Spitfires (in foreground) were overall the best of the RAF's fighters. 

5. Bristol Beaufighter

The first genuine nightfighter (with on-board radar); the Beaufighter served effectively in multiple roles in literally every British theatre of war from early 1941. 

6. De Haviland Mosquito

The fastest warplane in the skies, when it first emerged; the "Wooden Wonder" was a superb medium bomber, nightfighter, pathfinder, and reconnaissance aircraft; through the middle-war period. 

7. Hawker Typhoon

The first British aircraft to be able to overtake and destroy Focke Wulfe 190 raiders at low altitudes; the Typhoon became the main RAF fighter bomber, ground-attack, infantry-support aircraft in the period up to and around D-Day; and was the first aircraft to deploy rockets effectively.  

8. Avro Lancaster

The best heavy bomber of WWII; famed also for the Dambusters raid. 

9. Hawker Tempest

The best British fighter in the last year of the war, and for several years afterwards* especially in the Fleet Air Arm. By far the most effective aircraft at destroying the V1 "doodlebug" flying bomb.

(Illustrated above, I think the Tempest is supposed to have "flipped over" the V1 with its wing, although this was a rare mode of attack - destruction by cannon fire was usual.) 

+++

*Of the above; the Tempest was the only aircraft with a significant post-war role, especially re-engined with a Bristol Centaurus radial; and re-named the Hawker Sea Fury (illustrated below) and used by the Fleet Air Arm; where it was one of the last generation of piston-engined fighters, before jets decisively took-over. 

Note: I might supplement this at some point (after further consideration) with a list of the most significant US-made warplanes used by the British in WWII...

Jesus's gift to mankind was to make our lives be about aspiration, not circumstances

Jesus's gift to mankind was (or rather, included) to make life primarily a thing of insight, commitment, and hope - rather than being about material achievement or personal reform. 

Life is about what we most value and most want; rather than that to which we can personally attain. 

The Christian life* can be pursued just as much among children as adults; among the foolish as the sensible; among the dumb as the intelligent; among the sick as the healthy; among the insane as the sane; among unfree slaves as among powerful rulers...

Indeed, there are potential advantages (potential advantages, note) in being a child, a fool, dumb, an invalid, crazy and captive -- in the sense that we may then be more likely to recognize that ultimately we are not victims of circumstance, but masters of our fate. 

*i.e. The choice to follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

If everyone who follows Jesus is resurrected into Heaven; what is the point of leading a good mortal life?

For many people, it seems that Christianity has always offered too much and too easily - and too equally. 

So long as a person attains "salvation" then he is given eternal resurrected life, in a Heaven without evil or death...

This universal reward for all who follow Jesus Christ has often seemed to obliterate any necessary value in this mortal life on earth, or any reason for living "well" in this earthly existence. It seems as if everybody gets "the same" result, no matter how good or how evil his actions during mortal life. 

I suspect that this kind of inference is a consequence of the very common way of thinking about "human beings" as interchangeable members of a class, rather than as unique individuals: such that resurrected people in Heaven are vaguely-assumed to be identical creatures living almost-exactly the same life - "equal" in all important respects. 

But if instead we can develop an understanding of Jesus's work as aimed at unique individual persons ( individuals that have always been unique, and whose destiny is to remain unique); then it becomes evident that resurrection to eternal life must be of an unique soul. 

And, insofar as our unique soul can change through life - can learn, can get better or worse... then the result of this change, will affect the outcome of resurrection.  

In other words; if we compare someone who has tried to lead a virtuous life and who has learned from his mistakes; with someone who lived to use others for his own pleasure and gratification - the outcome of such difference will be that: that which is resurrected is different in each case. 

If we look at life subjectively; when we each come to a major life choice, our soul will be changed in different directions according to our decision and its outcomes - such that when it comes to resurrection, then we can expect to end-up differently.

Because what went-into resurrection was different - what comes-out from resurrection will be different.  

If we spend much of life in a state of resentment, which we justify by a narrative that we are innocent victims, and if we engage in spiteful fantasies of revenge on our oppressors; then this evil aspect of ourselves will need to be left-behind at resurrection. 

Any and all that is not "of love" is left-behind at resurrection - so that our resurrected self will be diminished by however much is evil and is un-repented. 

But if, instead, we were able to recognize that resentment is a sin, and we acknowledged this sin in ourselves and aspired to turn-aside from it - then such a process of learning and repentance during mortal life, means that our resurrected self will be rooted in a larger, more complex and balanced character. 

Of course, we need to be clear and unambiguous that even the most evil person imaginable - one who has dedicated his life to using and harming other people, animals, plants and the rest; can nonetheless repent "at the last moment" (which I believe comes after death, post-mortally) - and can, in principle - i.e. if he truly desires to follow Jesus - repent and receive resurrected eternal Heavenly life. 

But such a person will need to leave-behind a great deal of his mortal self to become fit for Heaven. 

His resurrected self will, and must be, made a very different character from his mortal self. 

Only that which is good is resurrected; because that which is evil cannot be carried forward into Heaven. And this is why it is "worthwhile" to live well, to learn spiritually from experience; and to repent our sins. 

"Sod-cast" field boundaries in Northumberland

Photographs were taken yesterday; on the estate of Wallington Hall, Cambo, Northumberland

The remains of so-called "sod-cast" boundary dykes are a landscape feature formed of stones, earth, and large trees; that I have observed in rural Northumberland -- but I have not been able to find much information regarding their age, construction, functionality, or purpose. 

The maturity of some of the trees on top of sod-casts, indicates an age of more than 200 years - and I have read it suggested that some sod-casts may be much older: medieval at least. 

What can be seen nowadays are straight, turf-covered banks; along which are dotted several large trees - and here-and-there, where the turf has fallen-away, it is evident that the banks contain broad stone "walls". 

I assume that these stone walls were probably the first thing built, and earth was heaped over them. But it could be that the walls were themselves built onto an earth mound. Or maybe the stone is less of a wall, and more of a "mound" - mixed with earth, and merely faced with organized stones. I just don't know. 

It seems evident that the big trees were, at one time, regularly spaced and close together - but nowadays they are scattered, and almost every year I have seen ancient trees in sod-casts felled by storms or lost to age - and not replaced. 

The large trees arrayed along the sod-cast sometimes include long-lived, slow-growing forest trees such as ash, beech and oak - but there are also sycamores (which were seldom deliberately planted then or now, because their wood was not much valued; but self-seed widely). 

It sometimes looks as if the roots of these trees have been encouraged to grow horizontally, to "encase" the stone wall - and there is sometimes an impression that the tree roots of adjacent trees may have been intended to join-up. 

The result is sometimes a barrier apparently consisting of a core of stones, earth-covered, with tree and roots making a "wooden" surface. 

Aside from having declined into picturesque ruins; the sod-cast dykes are mysterious structures. 

In the first place, they were apparently more labour-intensive to make than alternative possibilities: since sod-casts involved an element of dry-stone walling, earth-moving, and the planting, protection and nurture of trees. In Northumberland, most field boundaries are either hawthorn hedges, or dry-stone (i.e. without mortar) walls, according to local conditions - either of which can do the job with less effort than a sod-cast*.  

Further; it would take a century or more before the trees had grown sufficiently that the sod-cast began to become fully-formed - if, indeed, the horizontal root-growth was intended to become a part of the feature. 

Indeed, it is not at all clear what function the trees had in this barrier; since they are both very slow to develop - taking several human generations to mature; and unnecessary for the main function of field boundaries: i.e. the confinement of animals (sheep and/or cattle). 

My tentative conclusion is that the sod-casts were built by land-owners who expected and intended to establish a very long-term ownership; and who therefore desired to make a highly-visible and "permanent" boundary - clearly marked (for all to see) by lines of forest trees. 

And the presence of such large trees along the edge of land; themselves constituted irrefutable evidence of the ancient provenance of this particular land division and boundary.  

Sod-cast boundaries are surely evidence of the sense of security and confidence of landowners from two or more centuries ago; that they were motivated make extra expense and effort to plan their boundaries to mature many decades ahead; just as they planted and maintained woodlands that would only benefit their great-grandchildren. 

Such a multi-generational perspective - looking so far ahead - is alien and almost incomprehensible to modern people. 

Yet this attitude was was apparently sufficiently solid and strong in Northumberland around or before 1800, that it led to these now ramshackle, but still impressively robust, sod-cast field boundaries.  

*NOTE: This implies that either the sod-cast would originally have had a stone wall element high, steep and continuous enough to be impassable by animals, in which case the trees were redundant. 

Or else, there would have been a thorn hedge grown atop the sod-cast, in-between the trees; which has since died-out. 

(Nowadays, as can be seen in the photos, the sod-cast is usually inadequate to control stock, and a barbed wire fence is added for that purpose.) 

+++

Further note: If you found the above interesting; you might enjoy a look at my very occasional blog featuring a few aspects of Northumbrian archaeology - to which I have added the above post. 

No Dark Lord... The meaning of Diffuse Evil

Not any more...

In most fictional accounts of the battle of Good versus evil; evil is personified as some kind of Dark Lord; or, if not that, then as a dark "party" - a specific and circumscribed group who impose evil upon the majority. 

The defeat of evil then means the defeat of the Dark Lord, or the ousting and replacement of the evil grouping (usually foreigners or aliens) who are oppressing and tormenting the majority. 

What this also entails is that the majority, the "normal people" are implicitly Good - such that if or when the evil overlord is removed, then a (more-or-less) Good society can spontaneously emerge from under the oppression. 

The archetype is a situation of Us against Him/ Them; virtuous-Us, against wicked Him/ Them.  

Our situation nowadays is very different... Evil is now so diffused and pervasive that only the ignorant or naïve (or manipulative) suppose that the removal or any person or party would result in a significant fundamental shift towards Goodness. 

A neglected implication, is that this implies that the majority are no longer Good. 

And I think that this is true: the majority are mostly-evil; "we" are pretty badly corrupted, and indeed are not even motivated towards real Goodness. 

So much is this the case, that people have ceased to be able to discern the fact! People seem, nowadays, to suppose that it is enough (i.e. that it is "good") when people are merely selfish!

The (minimal) positive idea behind a great deal of political motivation, is to allow "ordinary people" to "get on with their lives". 

By which is meant; the majority should be enabled to lead pleasurable lives of prosperity, comfort, convenience, amusement - and stuff like that. 

And that is supposed to be "goodness"! 

Despite that it amounts to little more than the morality of the barnyard - a morality of how (for example) farm animals ought to be treated, rather than a morality for Men. 

Unsurprisingly; this hedonic pseudo-ethic does not have the power to inspire the majority to acts of courage...

With the consequence that, despite "asking for" nothing more than to get on with their lives, people are having even that taken away from them by the actuality of evil. 

Westerners seem to know only how to conceptualize themselves as innocent victims of localized and focal evil. 

It is not evident, and indeed (for obvious reasons!) usually denied, that the much bigger problem here-and-now is that evil is permeated widely.

We no longer a virtuous majority oppressed by a Dark Lord: instead this is an era of Diffuse Evil.

Such that most of the problem of evil in our civilization today is spread-out through the masses: The main problem is in "Us": not Them. 

Not "Wars of Empire" - instead, the spiteful resentment of end-stage evil

The current burgeoning inter-national wars are not "Wars of Empire" - which is one reason why historical comparisons are mistaken and invalid. 

What is extraordinary, essentially unprecedented, about the main current West-initiated-and-sustained wars: the sustained and multi-pronged attempt to annihilate and culturally-assimilate enemy nations -- is that The West loathes itself and its civilization. 

The West has, for many decades, been engaged in purposively seeking its own destruction and replacement by multiple strategies (including ideological-moral, legal, administrative, demographic, economic, agrarian, technological, and artistic).  

Such is not the action of an Empire - at least not of any Empire in history: this is end-stage evil - nihilistic destructiveness.  

As for motivation... We of the West culturally hate ourselves en masse; and therefore we fear and desire to destroy any who do not hate themselves; any whom we suspect of wanting to stand-apart-from our strategy of incremental cultural suicide. 

Our desire to annihilate and culturally assimilate the enemy is therefore not Empirically motivated but instead rooted in resentment; not done in order to spread our values and practices, nor to rule, nor even to exploit for our benefit...

Ultimately, behind the current wars is that familiar but exclusively-modern double-negative "leftist" ideology and motivation; a world-view that spitefully wishes for nothing more than that our enemy be compelled to share in our own self-loathing and self-chosen annihilation. 

Ultimate reality does Not consist of "true statements" and "true concepts" - these are Secondary values

Truth is usually supposed to consist in something like "facts" and "concepts" - especially in the form of true statements; expressed symbolically as language, numbers, formulae...

And these true facts and concepts are supposed to be true for everybody and every-thing, in all times and places and circumstances. 

Indeed, it is often assumed that truth is the main thing about reality; truth is regarded as a non-negotiable that will impose upon us - sooner or later, like it or not. 

This primacy of truth (reflected in the primacy of epistemology within philosophy) has been, throughout the period of "modernity", the bottom-line metaphysical assumption of our civilization...

An assumption so deep that its metaphysical nature is denied, and people with circularity claim that it is a result of "evidence" - by which they mean the facts and concepts derived from the assumption that ultimate reality consists in facts and concepts! 

But the world does not come to us pre-divided into discrete units about which we could make true statements - on the contrary, all divisions are Man-made and subject to argument. 

All conceptualizations (such as "what are facts" and "what does this fact mean?") are, likewise, via the consciousness of Men. 

We cannot eliminate the human mind (or minds) from definitions of Truth; hence we cannot ever find what is true in the way that would be necessary if Truth was to be our primary value, and if truths were the primary way of conceptualizing the world.  

It seems that we cannot make sense of the assumption that reality consists of truths... So, if not, then what does reality consist in? I mean: how can we instead distinguish and divide reality? 

As I have often said in the past decade or so; I think the ultimate distinctions of real-reality consist in Beings. 

If they really are primary, then Beings cannot be "defined" - but we can list their attributes (especially considering that we ourselves are beings); and these attributes include (to varying degrees) life, purpose, consciousness, self-sustaining, potential for growth. 

And instead of organizing concepts; the "organization" of reality actually consists in the relationships of Beings... 

(Thus, in a sense: in this metaphysics; Beings replace Facts; and Relationships replace Concepts.) 

An implication of the metaphysics of beings and relationships is that truth is secondary. 

That does not mean that truth is "whatever we want it to be"; but that truth derives from the nature of Beings and of their relationships. 

Change the Beings - their purposes, motivations, way of perceiving etc - and truth will be differently conceived...

Change the relationships-between Beings - eg. from love to resentment; from positive to negative motivation, from the impulse to create to the motivation of destruction... 

And you will recognize and believe truth differently.   

We can see this by the contrast between "truth" as its was conceptualized when our civilization was religious; and how truth is conceptualized in atheistic-materialist mainstream-official discourse as-of 2026. 

We can see why there is nowadays almost no relationship between these; no possible coherent compromise between them, no meaningful dialogue even. They are built on different foundations.  

And we can also trace how all this has changed incrementally (then suddenly) across the generations over the past few hundred years - and even over the past several decades.

  

What counts as truth has changed; because truth is a value secondary to Beings and their relationships; and because Beings and their relationships have changed. 

 

It was to fix the inadequacy of this mortal life, that Jesus offered resurrection

Jesus's job was to fix the inadequate nature, the insufficiency, of this mortal life on earth. 

This was achieved such that the purpose of resurrected eternal life in Heaven is for there to be a real and accessible state and place, where the intractable and incurable problems (that currently wreck any possibility of a good life) are permanently eliminated.  

If this mortal life was sufficient, or even if mortal life was perfectible; then there would be little benefit in offering the chance of Resurrection after death - because it would obviously be better to have all the good stuff and fix the problems of this world without first needing to die. 

"Christianity" is therefore for those who realize that the core problems of this world and mortal life - i.e. entropy/ death and evil - cannot be solved inside this life and world - because they are of the nature of this creation. 

Because the core problems are insoluble within this creation; our only possible and real hope is for a second creation; for our-selves to look forward to a "second" life, in a world without death and without evil.

And such a world, as a matter of reality, can only exist on the other side of mortal death. 

So; Resurrection is not about "jam tomorrow" or "pie in the sky" - it is not a wish-fulfilment daydream...

Because the truly wishful daydreams are radical politics and utopian schemes - like socialism and "transhumanism" - ideologies that pretend to offer a future that solves the core problems of life... 

Ideologies that pretend to make possible a situation where Mankind (here and now, or soon) will have fulfilment and satisfaction, and escape from fear and suffering - where mortal life will suffice. 

Those who believe such claims are real and possible, are never interested by Jesus's offer of Resurrection into Heaven that is located on the other side of death.  

Also wishful are those religions (including Christianity, in many times and places) that promise a "millennium"... 

That promise their adherents Heaven on Earth, perfected Man, a world purged of evil and death; a second coming, an earthly-saviour - such promises are also in this wishful category. 

Yet, if such things really were possible; there would have been no need for Jesus, and what he offered would be redundant. 

After all; a chance of post-mortal Resurrection to post-mortal Heaven would be a shabby second best to Heaven on Earth accessible without dying.  

The commonly-expressed idea of Resurrection and Heaven as a reward for a Good Life is grossly to under-sell what is on offer. 

This is to downgrade Resurrection and Heaven to a delayed "earthly paradise"... a world and life that is quantitatively better than, but not qualitatively different from, what we already now have.

If quantitative improvement of this mortal life ASAP is that which is most strongly desired; then Resurrection and Heaven are of merely subordinate interest.    

Even worse is to explain Resurrection in terms of the double-negative theology of Resurrection and Heaven as an escape from the default of eternal torment in Hell! 

This bizarrely posits a God who purposively creates a mortal life so-often dominated by evil and entropy, and always terminated by death; after which everlasting pain and misery is the default destination of all...

And then the same God devises Resurrection and Heaven which constitute a delayed and selective escape route from horrors of His own devising. 

If such a creator-God existed, He is not the same Good God as known and described by Jesus. 

So, even before we decide whether we personally desire Resurrection and Heaven; and even before we decide whether Resurrection and Heaven are believable...

We first need to know our present situation, what R&H mean in context of our present situation, what R&H are for: and what they do. 

Unfortunately, the clarity and simplicity of what Jesus did and made possible; is by-now grossly obfuscated by millennia of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, disinformation - and deliberate lies. 

The only viable answer would seem to be for each creatively and actively to work it out for himself - from intuitive-experiential knowing; as it were from "first principles'. With the assurance that God and Jesus Christ will with certainty have made this possible for all Men... Possible if not now, or during mortal life, then for-sure post-mortally.  

The synergy of evil - "take advantage of the crisis" leads to ever-more chaos

As I have often said; I believe there is a totalitarian evil among the Establishment that seeks a society of omni-surveillance and micro-control of the masses of the world - preferably under some version of a world system (but en route by national systems or their coalitions). 

This can be regarded as a partial evil or "lawful evil" - in that it is long-termist and strategic, and depends on relative-virtues such as obedience, hard-work, cooperation, and a sense of duty (at least among its minions) in order to operate. 

And there are increasingly dominant Agents of Chaos in the Establishment - whose motivations are almost-wholly negative - especially hatred, resentment, and spite; and who seek to inflict suffering, destruction, and death.  

This can be regarded as an extreme or "chaotic" evil - in that it is driven by short-termist and self-centred motivations.

What I seem to have noticed in recent months is that the Agents of Chaos are proving highly successful in causing coups (including externally-fixed "elections"), starting revolutions and engineering international war and global economic and trade collapse...

Which is, of course - at least on the face of things - directly in opposition to the aim of a stable and tyrannical global totalitarianism... 

Yet the totalitarian opposition to war and collapse has been extremely feeble, and diminishingly effective. At best the totalitarians seem able or willing to delay the work of destruction - but never explicitly or strongly oppose it. 

Which raises the question of why the totalitarians are not trying much harder to prevent all their plans and strategies (Great Reset, Agenda 2030, and the Litmus Test issues etc) from being swept aside by chaos? 

One answer, I think, is the progression of evil - the fact that evil is dynamic, always tending to get worse; that evil un-repented feeds upon itself. 

But partly it is due to a mid-set that always tries to exploit a bad situation rather than resist or remedy it.  

When there is an economic, trade, or food collapse - the first instinct of the totalitarian is to take-advantage of the situation. 

The totalitarians therefore believe that any crisis is an opportunity: e.g. an opportunity to get more money (ostensibly for use in implementing "the strategy") - to raise funds from corruption, taxes, tariffs, or simply by having an excuse to devalue the currency or "print money" (aka "inflation"). 

Recently, this has been streamlined into simple confiscation of assets from nations or large organizations, by large financial institutions - which are near the heart of the totalitarian project. 

Or an opportunity to get more power; e.g. by new and more oppressive laws, or to justify emergency "laws" made by diktat. 

This happened by announcement in the media and the police and legal system just following these instructions, in the UK in 2020. At present, the "process" is streamlined to statements made on personal accounts on social media.   

The consequence is that chaos (flouting of morality, breaking of rules, collapse of systems, increase of wars) expands almost-everywhere; without any serious attempt at check by those with power to do so, and with no attempt at reversing it. 

Proof of resurrection?

Many Christians (and the official doctrine of many churches) assert that resurrection does not come soon after death on an individual basis; but is delayed - perhaps waiting until some version of a judgment day, when resurrection happens "communally", for everyone all at once - albeit individuals are "judged" individually. 

However...

The Fourth Gospel does not include a "second coming" or "day of judgment"; and its narrative is consistent with resurrection happening as an individual process, and happening soon after each person's death - with its examples of Lazarus and Jesus himself, both resurrected within days. 

Jesus also seems to describe rapid individual resurrection - for example, as I understand the following two passages: 

4: 31 - In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 

I understand this to be Jesus talking (poetically, metaphorically as we regard it) of how he is finishing the work of "him that sent me" - meaning both that this work was incomplete, and that Jesus has - here and now, not at some future point - finished it. 

Everything has been done, everything is ready.

No need for delays. 

5: 21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ... 

I understand this to be stating that those who believe and follow Jesus will have everlasting life - i.e. resurrection - and will pass from death into life, will pass through death into resurrection. 

No delay. 

Further, that this benefit also applies to those who died before the advent of Jesus. 

"Christianity" ought to be much clearer on this subject; and more focused upon the promise of resurrected eternal life; and that this shall come to each to wants it and follows Jesus, and "soon" after death. 

No delay, no waiting for indefinite periods until a day of judgment. 

This also means that there are many of the dead who have resurrected already. 

And therefore, in principle, these living resurrected people are a potential source of direct personal evidence for the reality of resurrection, available to living people now.    

In other words; we are not necessarily dependent, ultimately, on second-hand sources such as theology, scripture, or the teaching of religious authorities. 

Because there is a possible "proof" of the truth of Jesus's promise - a proof that might be accessed by many people, here-and-now.

This assuming that there can be contact between individual living mortal Men such as you and me; and at least one or more of those who have died and been resurrected. 

The "attribution of Mystery" PSYOP in "AI" and the Birdemic

We live in a world that is, in all its official operations, utterly materialist, spirit-less, God-less.

However, such is our innate need for what we call "religion" - it is therefore possible for the rulers and their minions to manipulate the masses, by hinting at Mysteries. 

These hints of hidden mysterious depths are intended to tap-into the starved craving for a spiritual dimension below the surface; to inspire and motivate our officially meaningless/ purposeless/ pointless lives. 

I can see this PSYOP at work in one strand of the "AI" propaganda; the repeated hints at "something mysterious going-on" with the programs - something uncanny. 

This is usually presented in terms of a threat - some terrifying capability; although it might at other times refer to beyond-human powers and insights. 

(Maybe the "AI" is really thinking. Maybe it has a will of its own? Maybe its intelligence and understanding are so-far superior to yours that it is literally super-human - such that what seems idiotic incompetence or gibberish, is actually a qualitatively greater ability?)

The hints are nearly-always a soft-sell; refraining from asserting anything specific about the nature and abilities of the "AI" under discussion - leaving "us" to join-the-dots, and make the desired inferences. 

I observed the same phenomenon during the Birdemic, where the alleged-germ was surrounded with an aura of uncanny unpredictability. 

There were multiple wild "science"-media speculations about the nature, properties, effects of the supposedly-new infectious agents*. 

In face of this "mysterious" "novel" disease; it seemed that everything that generations of research had discovered about viruses and respiratory disease - and how to manage them - was thrown-out! 

Abruptly, the opposite was proposed and given credibility: speculation was rife... Albeit that speculation was abruptly terminated by government diktat. 

The PSYOP "sell" proceeds by describing supposedly strange occurrences, and by raising disturbing or profound questions about what might be happening - generating an atmosphere of mystery; then the individual reader or viewer is generally left to "draw his own conclusions". 

This has the advantage of drawing-in the target, and inducing him to participate in his own deception - plus, the deployment of alleged strangeness, hints, and use of questions enable deniability of any particular claims or agenda. 

At the end of the day, such marketing techniques may create a sense of profundity and spiritual expectation around the subject matter. 

With post 2022 "AI" - in face of this PSYOP-induced sense of uncanny mystery - decades of experiential knowledge about the nature and effects of computers has been thrown-out - and the wildest speculations, fears, and optimisms have been encouraged! 

The PSYOP has generated a swirling maelstrom of anecdotes, hints, and suggestions as to what this allegedly new "AI" actually is, its "character", what it can do, what it should do...

Albeit, as with the Birdemic - this situation is soon and abruptly terminated by state/ managerial diktat: as the "AI" systems are coercively imposed on our society and our lives with mandatory force. 

+++

*The Birdemic was said to have many completely new symptoms - such as losing smell (anosmia) and post-acute fatigue "long" Birdemic) - ignoring that these had always been known to be characteristic of some strains of influenza, as indeed were all the symptoms of Birdemic. Simultaneously it was asserted that, in 2020 only, influenza itself had completely disappeared for the first and only time in recorded history - so that it was literally never diagnosed in 2020; and this not-diagnosing led to virological speculations about the "mysterious" property of Birdemic to suppress influenza... "Maybe" the Birdemic virus could also "mimic" a vast range of other diseases, which are therefore probably the Birdemic-in-disguise? And spread in new and mysterious ways; such that, although a microscopic "virus" transmitted by aerosol from lung-to-lung; maybe it could nonetheless be intercepted and blocked by swabbing surfaces, by wearing porous facecloths, paper aprons, and plastic gloves? Maybe its transmission could be stopped by two yard social-distancing indoors; but maybe the "virus" could also spread across vast distances when outdoors. Yet maybe this teleportation across vast distances might be prevented by people staying in their gardens, or houses? Altogether; the Birdemic was the archetypal riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma..  

Traditional Christianity damns marriage by dubious comparisons, faint praise, and pragmatic functionality

In a world where marriage has been, over several generations; purposively and systematically weakened, subverted, and finally rendered meaningless; it is tempting to yearn for the comparative situation of traditional Christian marriage - for its legal clarity and moral strictness.  

Yet the Christian churches (excepting the CJCLDS) have, in my opinion, seriously trivialized the spiritual potential of marriage.  

And for a very long time. 

I take my example from The Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England Solemnization of Marriage: 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church;

This is absurd! To justify marriage between two individual persons in terms of a (to my mind) exceedingly dubious and opaque comparison with a supposed "mystical union" between Christ and "his Church"! 

This is to "explain" the simple with the complex; the experiential with abstraction; the clear with the opaque.  

I cannot imagine that anybody who was doubtful about the validity or necessity of marriage would be persuaded by this - or would even understand what was meant by it. The analogy merely opens a can of worms rather than explaining anything. 

After all; what is this supposed mystical union of Christ and Church (which does not feature in the Fourth Gospel)? Exactly who is the MU between - I mean, what counts as "his" Church, and what is excluded? To be specific, which actual people of which particular Church can confidently be asserted to be parts of this mystical union? 

And given the gross corruption and dissent of all the Christian churches - who and what self-identified Christian institutions, and which parts of which institutions - ought to be ignored, and in what respects? 

...which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; 

This is bizarre. Is it seriously suggested that the institutions of marriage is justified because Jesus attended a wedding, and there performed a miracle? 

Using such an argument, all sorts of things might be justified. 

..and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: 

Commended by St Paul? Well, if at all, only in the most grudging and negative way. Paul regards celibacy as the highest state, and did not allow marriage any positive spiritual value.

and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. 

Prudent advice, and nothing to disagree with here, but it would apply to life in general (e.g. eating and drinking) and any major life decisions (like choosing a job or purchasing a house) - and does not help explain why marriage might be "a good thing"

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. 

The difficulty is that this is first a biological justification merely; and secondly a sociological one - and alternative arrangements for procreation and raising children might be (and indeed are) proposed. 

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. 

See above. This is an appalling non-justification - and contains the assumption that the avoiding sin (double negative theology) ought to be our primary motivations. 

If this were true - ultimately, it were better not to have been born, or to die before having the chance to sin.   

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Unobjectionable, so far as it goes; but nothing spiritual about it - merely a matter of expediency; nothing to do with salvation or theosis. 

I regard such feeble advocacy and rationalization of marriage as a symptom of very deep and widespread spiritual problems. 

This represents a pitiful and significant inability to explain or advocate a thing that has been so obviously, to for so many people, as one of the most wonderfully positive and desirable things in human existence. 

It strikes me as evidence of a grossly inadequate theology that (even) rigorous and honest traditional Christian churches at their best have failed so badly to make explicit the spiritual value and desirability of something that has often been directly experienced and known.  

This-world is for those who choose to follow Jesus

This-world is for those who choose to follow Jesus. 

"Follow" literally, that is: follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven.

But for everyone else, this-world really is that meaningless and miserable waste of time which modern 'culture' supposes it to be. 

Yet for those who shall follow Jesus (no matter how small and obscure they may seem to be); insofar as it was loving and creative - mortal life will be known in retrospect to be an endlessly challenging, exciting, and heroic business.

Architecture - a deeply flawed concept

The centre for UK PSYOPS and subversion - MI6... What else could it be?

There are certainly exceptions; but most of the best buildings in the history of the world were built by members of "craft-guilds" (such as masons) - and without "architects". 

And, for sure, over the past century since Art Deco; architecture has had a powerfully malign influence. 

The deliberate anti-beautiful impulse of the past century of architects is evident from the difference between the housing of recent domestic buildings - which are merely practical-without-beauty*, and those that were architect-designed with big budgets.

(*Or, at least, houses were mostly functional; until the allegedly "anti-Carbon" and "environmental" regulations began to inflict complex, expensive, dysfunctionality on all construction work.)  

Whereas the large, "showcase", private and public buildings - those that employ high-status architectural corporations or individuals; are anti-aesthetic, anti-human, anti-God monstrosities. 

Such that the purposive, actively-evil turn of our civilization is advertised explicitly, unambiguously, indeed shamelessly - more by its architecture than by almost anything else.  

The centre for UK surveillance and blackmail - GCHQ. Evidently, not a nice organization.

Subversive/ gimmicky UK coinage is a sure symptom of civilizational self-destruction

I can't remember exactly when it was (twenty years ago, maybe?) that the Royal Mint decided to start making a jigsaw from UK coinage, such that each lower denomination coin made no sense; because the "tails" side was henceforth just a fragment from a larger picture. 

Given the symbolism and core historical function of coinage; such a childish gimmick was clear evidence of the covert self-loathing of the Establishment; and of the purposively self-destroying motivation of that Western Civilization in which Great Britain played a foundational role.  

This is the mockery of a servile managerial class who have given-up even the pretence of legitimate authority; and instead express their sense of smug superiority to the masses by sneering, subversion, and stunts. 

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.