Friday 30 November 2018

Note added on resurrection and Life Everlasting in the Fourth Gospel

I want people to read the Fourth Gospel for themselves - because the primary meaning is in the Whole Thing, and the teachings it references multiple times in different ways - but I have just added some illustrative quotations from the first six chapters to the original post; demonstrating the kind of thing I mean.

Joseph of Arimathea and the Holy Grail

...The Angel, when he came, came quietly and not all at once. A red spot in mid-air, just at Joseph's eye level, pulsated and expanded and took on shape and form until a mighty winged being with a flaming sword stood before him. 'I am Michael the Archangel,' he said in a voice like a trumpet blast. 'Come now.' The cell door opened at the Angel's touch. Joseph picked up the Chalice and followed him along the corridor. It was night. The guards were lying on the ground, fast asleep. The Angel led Joseph to the High Priest's courtyard. The palace gates swung open as if in response to an unspoken command. Michael walked the length of one street with Joseph, then turned right into a little alley. 'Go now,' he said. 'Gather those close to you and sail West to the Pillars of Hercules, then North to the shores of Britain. You must make your way into the mountains from there, following the star which the Most High will send you. Where the star stops, there you shall build your church - the Church of the Grail - and you will be the first Grail King.'...

John Fitzgerald gives us an original, inspirational 3000 word short-story about the life of Joseph Arimathea; read the whole thing at Albion Awakening.

The System and piecemeal reform - the unholy alliance of the sexual revolution and bureaucracy

Everyone who is active in politics implicitly subscribes to the ideal of piecemeal reform; the idea that small incremental changes in specifics will eventually lead to overall improvement of The System as-a-whole. This is almost compelled because all attempts at reform need to be 'realistic'.

However, piecemeal change can only be destructive - which is why it has been the platform of Leftism (pioneered by that most-successful of all Leftist organisations, the Fabian Society). And piecemeal change is effective because it is dishonest.

The dishonesty is in suggesting that a single Thing can be pulled-out of the weave of society and improved, and that this will not have any consequences. However, honest strategic thinkers realise that every significant change has consequences, and that these consequences tend to lead to further change.

The sexual revolution gives the clearest example. It began (early in the 20th century) with humanitarian arguments in favour of divorce, then easier divorce; and humanitarian arguments against the miseries of unmarried mothers and their children - then other victim groups were added: the intriniscally evil language of 'rights' was introduced...

Each change to the law, institutional regulations and to social norms was treated as an isolated reform addressing an injustice; but each reform destabilised The System in favour of more reforms - in an accelerating sequence.

Step by step each 'reform' led to consequences that implied further change - until continuing the sexual revolution became the core of Leftism, and Leftism ruled all developed nations (now, all significant political parties are Leftist, all bureaucracies are Leftist, indeed all mainstream institutions of all kinds - including churches - are Leftist - and their leaderships are all dedicated to continuing the sexual revolution).

Where is it going? Nowhere - the point is that it continues, not where it is going; the point is that the sexual revolution is destructive - not that it is trying to construct anything in particular. Each change drives further changes in an attempts at 'consistency' - yet there is no consistent outcome in view or aimed-at; therefore the sexual revolution is net destructive. 

And as the sexual revolution continues its incremental destruction; so bureaucracy expands - reaching into every home and workplace; monitoring and controlling at a finer and finer level. As the sexual revolution (and other allied Leftist permanent crusades) destroys all spontaneous, natural and voluntary forms of cohestion (marriage, the family, clubs and guilds) - bureaucracy emerges as the sole form of organisation: the totality of socio-political cohesion is one single, global, linked-bureaucracy.

The sexual revolution and bureaucracy are an unholy (literally unholy) alliance: the sexual revolution is justified by valorisation of instinct and impulse; yet always it is implemented by bureaucracy. The every expanding, ever-linking bureaucracy is validated by its work in implementing the sexual revolution - and the two collude in making sexual issues ever-more the centre of public discourse; The Most Important Issue for all major modern bureaucracies (including the mainstream churches).

But the sexual revolution and bureaucracy are both a socio-political process, not a socio-political end-point. In materialistic and this-worldly terms they are not going anywhere in particular.

They are a means to an end - but that end is spiritual, hence excluded from all mainstream public discourse.  The sexual revolution and bureaucracy are types of evil, and as such aim at the damnation of souls - and effective damnation must be chosen self-damnation.

Yet when we (as free, conscious individuals) look at modern society, we see a system of self-damnation with no apparent way-in; any reforms that seem necessary will in practice only get leverage by accepting and arguing-from the bulk of  The System. In effect, we are required to accept The System to change The System - we must 'work with' The System to try and induce positive change...

Not surprisingly this Never works; and all change feeds The System. and supports the demonic spiritual goals of The System.

This is a harsh truth and people don't want it to be true; because it induces despair. People want to be able to improve things a bit at a time, they want to see signs of such improvement - they love to interpret some changes as precursors of more and stronger changes in the direction they desire. But this is self-deluding nonsense.

The degree of change to The System required for change to be positive; to reverse the generations-long progression towards a System of damnation, is so great as to be almost incomprehensible. So much needs to change, all at the same time, that it is unimaginable - especially considering that hardly anybody would want such massive changes.

Thus the discontent and dissatisfaction of people, their alienation, their sense of being trapped like laboratory animals in an iron cage of bureaucracy, and equally trapped by the manipulation of the sexual instincts and other impulses... All this is deftly turned towards piecemeal reforms that have the net effects of tightening the mesh of the cage and degrading human motivation to the gratification of ever-more short-termist physical satisfactions...

Yet the way-out is there, available to every single human individual irresistible and for the asking - if they will turn their attention away from the self-blinded materialism of The System. There is only each one of us, isolated, as a conscious soul; and confronting the single vast, growing and innately-destroying bureaucracy - but that is enough.  

Thursday 29 November 2018

Mainstream morality is (always) the opposite of what is needed

Thought-provoked by reading yet another mainstream media Leftist article about the need to suppress conspiracy theorists who have ideas critical of Globalist billionaires...

The vulnerable-victim-Establishment Leadership urgently needs comprehensive police surveillance of and protection from (what is it?) fascist, antisemitic, racist, supremacist, terrorist (etc.), Russian-puppet conspiracy theorists - who persist in discussing their evil doctrines online and in private meetings. Intolerable!

In a society of greater conformity and credulity than any in living memory - the perceived need is... greater conformity, greater credulity.

No mystery about it - if we weren't already credulous conformists, we would not be where we are - so naturally we want more of what we already want.

Same with racism - by the mid-1960s there was essentially Zero problem with US racism (all statistical indices converging), and race preferences ('affirmative action') had already begun; so naturally racism then became the supposedly leading injustice leading to insubordination, aggression, violence - all in the sure and certain knowledge that it would not be opposed or punished; but instead valorised and rewarded.

As soon as 'resistance' did not require bravery; and instead became expedient, fashionable, sexy, naturally 'resistance' increased.

Same with feminism. After equality of opportunity had been met and surpassed - then the mainstream became fixated upon the injustices to women - and so it goes...

We want to have our virtues praised and do not want our vices to be criticised; therefore our moral crusades are focused exactly where they are not needed, exactly where we have already gone too-far.

'Too-far', because each specific virtue is only a means to the end of Goodness - so that any specific virtue pushed specifically will become evil and will lead to more evil.

As we see all around.

But the concept of Goodness requires God*; so mainstream morality (being Godless) cannot ever be anything but evil-tending - whatever its particular achievements.

So the most mind-controlled society ever, will naturally seek more mind-control above all else...

*If this statement does not strike you as obviously true; you need to think more about it. 

The cure for insanity is Not common sense...

We live in an insane world - and with the new pervasiveness and aggression of the transgender agenda the insanity is upfront and and inyourface in a way that has never been true for any known society in history.

So, how have people responded? Well, most deny the insanity. Most can't see that only an insane society could have swallowed this level of insanity and tried to carry-on-regardless.

The fact is that - by now - insanity is integrated-into our bureaucratic systems and is hourly fare in the mass/ social media to which most people are addicted.

Thus, most people have careers in systematic insanity (systematic bureaucracy that integrates insanity) and almost every hour they can spare from their work of being bureaucratic drones is spent face buried in a 'smart'-phone avidly sucking-in insanity from the mass-social media.

How insane can things get before people say no? Well, because we have already come this far, the answer is: any amount of insane, a lot more insane - as insane as They want.

Of course, Things can't work when insanity is integrated and strategically-prioritised - but in an insane world, collapsing capacity can/ will be blamed on Somebody Else (probably 'white supremacists') - so it doesn't matter.

All that matters is what is going-on in people's minds - that is what the Evil Establishment realise - and they are absolutely correct, in an ultimate sense.

Using common sense to argue against insanity, amounts to collusion with the motivation-destroying materialism of modern life.

The real battle is in the mind: For the mind.


Wednesday 28 November 2018

Who gets resurrected? - according to the Fourth Gospel, 'only' those who believe and follow Jesus

A couple of days ago I read through the Fourth Gospel (again) - this time all-through in a couple of hours, to try and get an overview. Several things stood-out and were clarified; but probably the most important was an answer to the question of who gets resurrected.

And the clear answer is - those who believe on, who follow, Jesus.

Or, to put it another way, only those who believe on, who follow Jesus, will be resurrected to that Eternal/ Everlasting Life which Jesus brings us.

This is in contrast to mainstream Christian belief that all are resurrected (but not-all are saved); and it also contradicts a single but explicit sentence in the Fourth Gospel+; however, the overall structure of the Fourth Gospel and multiple, repeated, references support the answer that it is 'only' those who regard Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, that will be resurrected.

(This opens a further question of what happens to those who are choose Not to follow Jesus and who are Not therefore resurrected - but I will deal with that below.)

Assuming this interpretation is correct, how could this simple teaching have been missed? The answer is quite simple: Biblical understanding has operated on the basis that the whole Bible is equally true - therefore a specific teaching in 'just' one Gospel (especially the Fourth Gospel) is ignored/ explained-away when it contradicts other parts of the Bible - and especially when it contradicts the three Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.

Whereas I believe that if we believe the truth of the Bible (truth in at least a general sense, recognising that this must mean interpretation of specific verses), then we believe the Fourth Gospel is true - including its claims about itself; and these Fourth Gospel claims mean that it is the single most authoritative Book in the Bible, which ought to be given the highest authority, above any other Book in the Bible.

(By contrast the other Gospels are, and claim to be no more than, secondhand and post hoc compilations of accounts about Jesus; and Paul's knowledge is from intuitive revelation that is, for Christians, intrinsically unlikely to be detailed and specific.)

Therefore, to check this claim for yourself - I would simply urge you to read the Fourth Gospel as an autonomous text in light of this interpretation, and looking for evidence of this teaching. (Assuming that you do already have a personal revelation of the truth of this Gospel; and if not then you would need to seek one.)

If we take the original Fourth Gospel to run from Chapters 1-20, with Chapter 21 added later (but presumably by the real author) - then the Gospel begins and ends with two core teachings - which are repeated throughout:

1. That Jesus is who he claimed to be - the Son of God, the Messiah sent by God; and that he died, resurrected and ascended to Heaven to become fully divine.

2. That Jesus came to bring resurrection and Life Eternal/ Life Everlasting to those who 'believed on' him (including believing his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God), who followed him as a sheep follows a shepherd, who loved him and believed in his love for each of us, who trusted and had faith in him.

In fact, we see that these two teachings are linked, and are - in a sense - a single teaching.

Most of the Fourth Gospel is taken up with providing 'proof' that Jesus was who he claimed - and this proof is of the type that would be effective for those living just after the death of Jesus and in the same region - evidence suitable for that time and place.

So, the evidence is the witness of John the Baptist (who was very well known and would have been regarded as the best possible witness); the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (which, again, would have been well known); and the evidence of the miracles including the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, at a time when many witnesses of these events were still around.

None of this evidence is very convincing to people 2000 years later and in different places and cultures; but the further teaching of the Fourth Gospel is that after his ascension Jesus sent the Holy Ghost, the 'Comforter', to provide a direct witness and knowledge to the disciples - and implicitly (although probably not explicitly) to everyone else who sought it. 

The rest of the Fourth Gospel is, via stories (parables), miracles, reported conversations and direct teachings - to explain the enhanced, divine nature of Life after resurrection - this being termed Life Eternal or Life Everlasting; and to promise this to all who would follow Jesus.

That is, pretty much, everything that the Fourth Gospel says (aside from some specific remarks to the disciples - and a single hint that they ought to teach about Jesus following his ascension). There is little or nothing specific about how to live or about a 'church' of any kind - which is probably another reason that the Fourth Gospel has been historically down-graded from its proper supremacy over the rest of the Bible.

If it is true that only the followers of Jesus are resurrected, then this removes certain problems that arise from the alternative view. It means that resurrection is chosen, it is voluntary; and therefore resurrection is not compelled nor is it enforced. I was always troubled by the idea that Jesus brought resurrection to all, whether they wanted it or not - especially since the prospects for someone resurrected but not saved seemed so grim. It seemed that Jesus was giving with one hand, but taking with the other - which would not be very loving, and seemed sub-optimal (for a creator God) - surely something better could be managed for the children of God?

But apparently that was a misunderstanding. Those who do not believe Jesus, or who do not love him and do not wish to follow him, or who do not want Life Everlasting in a (Heavenly) world of love and creation - these are Not resurrected - but shall instead return to spirit life (as we began; before we were incarnated into earthly mortality).

This fits with the beliefs of many non-Christian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and some other paganisms) - who see post-mortal life in terms of a return to the spirit world.

It also opens the possibility of reincarnation, which has probably been the usual belief of most humans through most of human history. The Fourth Gospel teaches that reincarnation is a possibility, when it discusses whether John the Baptist was one of the Old Testament prophets reincarnated... the conclusion is that he was not one of a series of possible named prophets, but the possibility of reincarnation is assumed.

We could even speculate (and it would be a speculation unless confirmed by revelation) that the world contains some mixture of newly incarnated mortals, and a proportion of reincarnates who did not accept Jesus in previous lives but have returned (presumably by choice) to enable further chances.

But again, it seems intrinsic to Christianity that all higher theosis is by choice; and post-mortal spirits would not be compelled to resurrect, nor to reincarnate - but might remain in spirit form as long as they wished.

Mortal life is best seen as an opportunity. As Jesus explained in his conversation with Nicodemus, Heavenly Life Everlasting is available only via death and being resurrected or 'born again'; and this was the path that Jesus himself needed to take in order to attain to full Godhood at the ascension. Jesus brought us this possibility - but it must be chosen, and the reason for choice must be love.

+This is John 5:28-9: ...'all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and come forth; they that have done good, until the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.' I regard this, from its interruption of the structure and its contradiction of the rest of the gospel, as a later, non-canonical insertion. 

Note added:

I want any seriously interested reader to do what I suggest above; which is to check this claim for yourself - I would simply urge you to read the Fourth Gospel as an autonomous text in light of this interpretation, and looking for evidence of this teaching.

However, below I have made a selection of relevant passages from just the first six books of the Fourth Gospel (you will need to search the rest of the Gospel for yourself) - and the last verse of the (original final) Chaper 20. These are consistent with the understanding that resurrection is to life eternal/ life everlasting by means of 'receiving' Jesus; and that those who do not accept Jesus, shall not be resurrected to this new kind of Life as Sons of God: Life eternal/ everlasting is for the resurrected, both together - there is no sense of there being a distinction or sequence between resurrection and the New Life.

1: [11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

2: [14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. [16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[36] He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

5: [24] 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. [25] 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.

[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. [40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. [41] I receive not honour from men. [42] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. [43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

6: [26] Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. [30] They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? [31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. [34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. [35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. [36] But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. [40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. [41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. [46] Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. [48] I am that bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. [52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. [58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. [64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. [65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
20: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Writing It or just writing-About-It

The Big Problem with so much writing is that it is merely About and not he thing itself. And this applies especially in the kind of area that I write... about: Alienation and that stuff.

Because when someone writes About, they alienate. Even if they are writing about overcoming alienation, about future possibilities such as Final Participation - the writing in which this happens is just more of the usual stuff...

This is a great difficulty with a writer like ST Coleridge, or Rudolf Steiner or Owen Barfield when it comes to the development of consciousness and the overcoming of our alienation; they are writing-About the subject, and the prose itself causes that which its content aspires to overcome.

Just like this.

It is what is preferable about, say, William Arkle's aphorisms - they are themselves what they urge us to become.

Yet, they are also unclear, ambiguous, easy to misunderstand... But then again, what isn't?

William Arkle tried both approaches. In Geography of Consciousness he wrote About, in a science style, using analogies from Physics; in Letter from a Father he wrote directly the thing he wanted us to know.

Barfield attempted to do this in his fictions and Platonic dialogues, but I could not say that he was very successful; since they often read as dramatised essays; and when they don't it becomes difficult to recognise what they are trying to do.

Modernist writers often try to achieve the participation by making the reader 'work' to understand or simulating the stream of consciousness (which we are supposed to participate-in) - but generally they simple become incomprehensible unless 'decoded' by highly alienating methods. 

CS Lewis was at times successful in the Narnia books - successful at doing rather than just telling us about; and in this sense they are a greater achievement than any of his prose. At its best the Screwtape Letters attains something similar, in that we enter into and identify with - rather than simply leaning-about.

But we need metaphysics now, more than anything; and metaphysics needs to be participated not just known about. In the end each can only do it for himself; but it would be of great value if a text itself-exemplified the metaphysical thinking it advocated.

Tuesday 27 November 2018

Romantic Christianity to replace the sexual revolution

The sexual revolution currently does sterling work in maintaining the totalitarian bureaucracy; mainly as a fantasy, but also as an actuality (being bound-up with travel and intoxication, the other great fantasy self-manipulations).

This is another reason why Romantic Christianity is what-we-need. When Christianity is bureaucratic, it is just like 'work' - which people hate (even as they clamour for ever more of it). In contrast, Romantic Christianity is individual - each must 'do it' for himself; because no current institution or group will be encouraging him.

Indeed, whenever some modern group does appear to be encouraging this, it is invariably a fake or a deception - as with the 1960s counterculture embrace of William Blake. What was actually on offer then (and now) was Blake minus Christ, which made a decisive and deadly difference.

Or sometimes there is Christianity without Romanticism - which sometimes entails a passive, externally-applied pseudo-Romanticism; internal conformity to a pre-determined and externally-defined 'mass Romanticism'.

Of course, Romantic Christianity is not for the masses but only for geniuses - which may sound to be of minority interest only... since not many people consider themselves to be geniuses; whther actual or potential. Yet - when understood - genius is seen to be the thinking of the real self; and everybody has a real self and everybody can think from it - potentially. So we ought all to conisder ourselves potential geniuses, and becoming such to be our destiny...

Because the creativity of genius is Not in remarkable and admired discoveries or artworks; but in direct participation with created reality, which is the consequence of thinking from the real self.

And direct participation in the ongoing work of creation can happen only when the awakening real self is aligned with the divine - so it is always Good.

But at the same time difficult.

On the other hand, we can't be prevented from doing it; ultimately we can only prevent our-selves.

Which means stopping-preventing-ourselves - which prevention is the prevailing situation.

And this active stopping is the most radical and personally transformative act that can be imagined (: better than the 50 year-old sexual revolution - which has Very Obviously Failed...).

The numinosity of hilltop tree clumps

This landscape feature is one that much appeals to me, and which seldom fails to induce a yearning kind of numinosity.

I realised recently that the interest and feeling probably came from the cover of my teenage-bought edition of Alfred Watkins's The Old Straight Track.

So that is the (suggested) link between such tree clunps and ancient landscape features - they are supposed to mark 'ley lines', which - according to Watkins - were Neolithic pathways criss-crossing Southern England.

I heard about Watkins's book from the references at the end of The Moon of Gomrath by Alan Garner - and found a copy in the Bristol City Library; Garner has the Old Straight Track as a magical path visible only at full moon, as the moon rises - it plays an important part in the story, and provides its most memorable scene.

Later, John Michell (in A View over Atlantis) took Watkins's Ley Lines and made them into lines of spiritual power - but I knew nothing of this during my teens.

Anyway, all this seems to have left me with a particular sensitivity to a particular landscape feature. The Hundred Acre Wood in Winnie the Pooh is also sometimes depicted like this - which may have been a further latent aspect of my interest; as also a very good children's book called Borrobil by William Croft Dickinson (1944) - a kind of neo-pagan precursor to Narnia, and also written by a Professor.