A brief reflection.
Something has been going on at the planetary level, and also with Men, since about the millennium - and this was foreseen by quite a few people in the decades (going back many decades) leading up to this stage or phase.
I assume that there is some kind of God-aligned planetary Being (an angel, the angel of this world; some would call it) who is involved; as well as Satan and his gang.
How might this work? Given that the planetary Being, and each of us, are free agents?
I think it must work by love, by-analogy-with (and also in "the same way" as) the ideal human family.
Satan's rulership, by contrast, either manipulates people as if they were cause-effect machines; or else strives to dominate their wills utterly, to "make" them do what Satan wants.
Love is not (ultimately) an emotion or feeling; but is a creative relationship between any two Beings - it is, indeed, the ultimate basis of divine creation.
So this contest - this war - of spiritual good, and the opposition to spiritual good - has reached a point of potential awareness in recent decades - as humans have changed to become more spiritually aware.
(Sadly, this awareness has been, so far, overwhelmingly negative in effect - awareness has destroyed the power of traditional religion, but few have embraced the power the new awareness brings. People use their new ability to intuit and believe - to dis-believe truths because imperfectly expressed or corrupted; and believe incoherent nonsense that is part of the agenda of evil.)
It seems that many more people are aware of the evil attempts to dominate and control this world - earth and Men; than are aware of the positively good "angel of this earth".
This is (I think) because we are aware of love and of the angel only by the spiritual (immaterial) way of "direct-knowing"...
And this way of direct-knowing is denied, ignored (and over-ridden) or else regarded as trivial by comparison with the material communications of institutions, words, symbols, models etc.
Another way of conceptualizing this distinction is to regard that which is directly-known as a consequence of heart-thinking. Whereas all the mass of other communications are kind of head-thinking, rationality; modelling that maps components of reality onto a wholly-known scheme; all based ultimately upon perceptual "data" (including the perceptions and measurements of machines).
So - if the above is true; it suggests that we ought to allow ourselves to aware of the angel of the earth - and also many other spiritual realities - but in such a way that we don't simply fall back into giving authority to the materialism of of head-thinking.
This is exactly where so many spiritual writings and teachings fall down. Direct insights are re-expressed (approximated, modelled) in communicable systems; but then (and this is the fatal error) this head-thinking is allowed to take-over.
So that we get spiritual systems that are easily assimilated into the demonic system.
This is the problem, not only of all traditional religions (with their philosophies, specified rituals, formal symbolism etc.) - which purport to define and thereby capture spiritual realities...
And thereby become the basis for schemes of monitoring and control; very similar in nature to that of the current global totalitarianism: doing things "to" people "planning" to "make" people do what is wanted.
Not only religions; but also many spiritual systems that purport to replace religions - from the many New Age ideas to older systems such as Steiner's Anthroposophy.
The danger is that so many of these begin with genuine insights, often achieved by direct knowing, which impress us rightly; and only then do they shift into the mode of system and communication.
As when Rudolf Steiner or his disciples begin with true and rare insights derived from direct and personal intuitions (and thereby gain our admiration) - but then construct and fit these with numerology, categories of many types (mineral, plant, animal, human - material, etheric, astral, ego), astrology, and detailed schemes of the purported evolutionary history and future of the solar system, earth, and Men (and thereby attempt to re-impose a tyranny of external spiritual authority).
It seems natural, and almost inevitable, for us to express direct-knowing and heart-thinking in such categorical and systemic ways, in order first to communicate-with, then maybe influence - and potentially control - other people.
The systems begin by explaining and teaching, then get used for monitoring and evaluating; but end by attempted domination and over-riding the ultimate agency of other Beings.
Much of our deep and strong drive to do this; arises (I think) from a strong, prioritized, sometimes exclusive, focus upon the conditions of this mortal life and our gratification during it.
If we could, instead, view this life and world as a vital but intermediary phase leading to resurrected life in Heaven - maybe it would be easier to resist such temptations?
Meanwhile, we can but strive to recognize and repent our tendency to make ourselves (and others) captive to "that which can be communicated and systematized" - and instead strive to use our heart-thinking to listen for direct-knowing.
4 comments:
The devil saw a man pick up a piece of the truth. "Aren't you worried?" said one of his demons. "Not at all." said the devil, "I'll just wait until he starts to organise it".
@William. That's apt.
Of course, I'm aware I have only stated one side of the problem, and that this kind of thing can come across as a negative prohibition. As if it was merely "against". But that doesn't work. This is why "the romantic" (in some sense) is positively needed.
To make it work: We each need to become what would in the past have been termed "a mystic" (although not usually what was then meant by a mystic).
I've felt for some time that German idealism was really close to getting at the real heart of things, but it was just always almost there. It never got there, and instead became deeply complex and incomprehensible. Then it led to the postmodern and philosophers who's ideas were certainly stemming from evil.
The idea of a “direct knowing” or “heart thinking” outside language conflicts with modern philosophy’s recognition of, in the words of Owen Barfield, “the extraordinarily intimate connection between language and thought”. Short version: all thinking requires making distinctions (God/devil, good/evil); making distinctions requires judgments of same-ness and difference according to a rule (same colour, same shape); with such judgments you already have concepts, language.
The idea that all language attempts to “capture” and abstractly define I also consider incorrect. There is what F.R. Leavis called the “exploratory-creative” use of language, prominent especially in Shakespeare, which Barfield develops in “Poetic Diction” with his “concrete meaning” and “concrete thinking”. A couple more relevant Barfield quotes: “‘the development of thought is by the use of meanings as worth more than they are as yet recognized to be worth’”; “Shakespeare enriched the content of ‘balm’ (and of ‘sleep’ too) when he called sleep the ‘balm of hurt minds’”.
Post a Comment