Political optimism is an Antichrist phenomenon

Just a reminder, eight years on - referencing the current environment of optimism among the self-styled "based" online - that we live in a totalitarian civilization; and that to desire for its revitalization by the results of an election is the kind of sin implied by the Antichrist phenomenon - to place one's hope in one who is not Christ, but in important and fundamental respects - a this-worldly net-opposite of Christ*. 

Recall too, that this-worldly pessimism Is Not Despair. 

Nor is optimism a Christian virtue; indeed, it may be an evil coping-mechanism. 

With matters as we know they are in The West; we should hope for the best (because we do not know everything) -- yet our hope needs to be not of this world;  but we should expect things to get worse - because that is where we are+, and the trend for generations, with self-destruction baked-in; and "the worst" is what Western people deeply and overwhelmingly want.

*Of which the "queue a-none" PSYOP was a prime instance: its mantra being that we ought-to "trust" [i.e. assume the positive inner motivations of a mainstream politician, and team], "the plan" [i.e. The System - i.e. external and human guidance; and do not take personal responsibility for your value-discernment]. 

+Things are much worse than you think: progressing over more than two centuries, by now the rot goes very deep and very wide. Reset to an earlier phase is impossible - it has never happened, and it never will.   

Welby Watch no more...

Cool threads Bish!...

Separated at birth? The Archbishop of Canterbury (top) and Walter the Softy from the Beano (below)

I see that the egregious Justin Welby - surely the most completely-mediocre and corrupt individual ever to hold the position so far - has been forced to resign as Archbishop of Canterbury*; and this only seven and a half years after his complicity in systematic sexually abusive "training camps" was described in multiple and detailed reports in Anglican Ink dating back to early 2017, as well as the Daily Telegraph.  

Which means, as usual the media reports are deeply misleading; since Welby's role in "covering-up" abuse (as well as his active role as camp counsellor) will have been thoroughly known to the monarch and prime minister for all this time (ie. those responsible for appointing the Archbishop of C). 

They and other senior people have therefore been shielding and protecting Welby, and apparently maintaining him in his job for as long as they could; because he was doing their bidding, following their agenda, and doing what they regard as "a good job" - i.e. destroying the Church of England specifically, and attacking Christianity in general. 

Among Welby's multiple aggressions on Christianity, surely his greatest was during the birdemic; when the Church of England imposed probably the most stringent lockdowns of any British institution. 

This succeeded in its implicit aim of wiping-out approximately an extra quarter of church attendance, over and above the steady decline over which Welby has presided.   

God bye - and good riddance? Well, we shall see what happens next to the docile dope of Lambeth Palace, before deciding whether he has really been punished at all; or just translated to a "higher" sphere. 

Justin's The Fonz impression always gets a laugh

*Note: The position of Archbishop of Canterbury is not quite the joke-job it superficially seems. As well as being the senior bishop of the worldwide Anglican communion - which is the third largest Christian denomination (after the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox); "Cantaur" (the Latin abbreviation of Canterbury) is an integral part of the UK constitution, second in precedence to the King (who appoints the Prime Minister) and required to anoint the legitimate monarch at his coronation. 

Numinous experiences are "objective" - yet also personal

From what I can gather (and assuming other people are telling the truth!) what elicits numinous experiences varies between persons - and in this sense the numinous is subjective. 

Yet for each person there seems to be an "objectivity" - in that particular places and people can sometimes be (more or less, at least for a while) relied upon to evoke the numinous in a repeatable fashion. 

(I am assuming - in all this - that one is, in the first place, open to the experience of the numinous - which, apparently, many people are not!)   

The numinous sensation of some kind of underlying spiritual, religious or divine quality; needs to be distinguished from liking, enjoying, and finding immediately beautiful. I think this must be because the numinous is something implied or behind the surface of things. 

Thus, the numinous feeling seems more associated with yearning than with gratification; it has elements of deep and lasting fascination; such that the numinous stays in the mind and recurs, and each recollection brings the feeling again. 

Furthermore, I have found that (assuming a receptive mood) the numinous is experienced first-time, rather than being a thing that develops with repetition.  

A recent example was driving along the B7009/ 709 beside Ettrick Water in the Scottish Borders (the same trip in which I visited Tam Lin's Well). 

This was only my second time along this road (and over thirty years apart) - and it was again the quietest, most traffic free, road I have ever encountered. 

I find the journey weaving beside the Ettrick Water extremely "numinous". The scenery is indeed somewhat conventionally-attractive, yet far from the most attractive, even in the immediate vicinity. 

Indeed, there aren't many pictures of Ettrickdale online, nor has anybody made a photographic book of the region. But for me this landscape is saturated with covert meaning and significance. I experienced a light magical "trance", while in the area. 

When we passed the watershed of the Ettrick and crossed west into Eskdale, the numinous sensation began to diminish. The scenery was at least as pretty, indeed conventionally better; and yet for me the underlying magical quality reduced.

I wonder if this has to do with a change of geography or geology; or some kind of memory or association... Who knows? But this is the way that such things seem to work. 

Another example is Oxford versus Cambridge. For me (at least until around the millennium, when it diminished quite sharply: a reduction in the spirit of the place) Oxford is a numinous place but Cambridge is not - indeed Cambridge is anti-numinous! (Despite Cambridge being prettier and much less traffic-ravaged.) 

There are historical reasons why this might be so (e.g. Royalist Oxford versus Roundhead Cambridge, Classical Oxford v Mathematical Cambridge), and again the geography is different - albeit in this case I find the west more numinous than the east. 

(Albeit rural East Anglia is numinous; as are Ely and Norwich.) 

But in the end, the numinous is a matter of experience - yet any explanation of the difference comes second and is not-necessarily convincing. Even locally, in my everyday life; I find some particular trees, buildings, streets... numinous; but most others not. But why this should be, I cannot even guess.   

I have found the same, throughout my life, with people. A few people had (when I met them) a numinous quality; while others seemed and remained stubbornly "unromantic"! 

This applied to both men and women, friends and acquaintances. And, like places, the numinous romantic quality could be lost, but was never gained after an initial absence.

And the numinous is attractive - but not necessarily conventionally beautiful or nice, or even necessarily likeable - while, conversely, a person could be attractive and likeable without having anything of the numinous about them.  

  

As I discussed earlier today - what this all means is a different matter from the fact of its reality. However it is, and always has been, important to me. I will go to efforts and inconvenience to experience the numinous, and will continue to puzzle over its implications - without ever getting anywhere in particular. 

I am convinced that something is going on in me, at some level, in these numinous experiences - and that it is of lasting importance...

And so long as I continue feel that, and am able to respond to places and people in this fashion - for so long will I continue to seek experience of the numinous.  

What to make of significant-moments/ peak experiences/ epiphanies/ revelations? ...Because they don't interpret themselves.

I have for decades had a strong interest in those moments of experienced "numinous significance"; those times and places where - either at the time, or in retrospect - we have a conviction that something-has-happened which is of relevance to our life, generally. 

It seems that many people have these "peak experiences" - they vary with age, circumstances, place and company; some people have them a lot, and some (apparently) not at all. 

The actual raw experiences - their emotional and sensory qualities - seem pretty similar and identifiable as such. Yet whether they are significant; and, if so, what is their significance seems to depend on the interpretative scheme that is applied - and a wide range of schemes are applied. 

I think it is Not the intensity of emotion that matters, but the lingering sense of significance - the way an event recurs in memory, and that "something important, and potentially good" happened. 

But understanding what happened, and what are its meaning and implications; is where there are such big differences between people. 

I have read many books and essays by mystical/ spiritual/ esoteric/ occult type people; and it is evident that most of them have these "peak experiences" and regard them as central to - whatever it is they believe. Yet that which they believe varies extremely widely and often in opposite directions! From atheism of an hedonic flavour, right through New Age spirituality to devout adherents of formal and traditional religions -  of many kinds and with perhaps opposite tendencies.  

From this; it seems clear that such experiences are not "evidence" or "proof" of any particular "system" or metaphysical assumptions. This applies even when the experience is one of "theophany" - a vision of God for example. 

Reading the reports from people who believe they have experienced the presence of God, it is clear that the believed experience alone does not really get them anywhere in the longer term; because they need to understand, explain, make sense of their experience - and that requires such larger, perhaps pre-existing, scheme of assumptions. 

There is therefore probably an excessive emphasis on the occurrence of mystical/ spiritual (etc) experiences, and a relative (or complete) neglect of the matter of making sense of such experiences. 

In other words: the significance of unitary, discrete experiences is not self-evident. 

The scheme by which one makes sense of peak experiences, and indeed of all kinds of life-experiences, is a different matter - and apparently a deeper and more significant matter; than even the most significant of moments. 

It is inevitable that churches become part of a totalitarian society - therefore obedience to a church here-and-now = damnation

If you consider the nature of the kind of totalitarian society we inhabit in The West, it can be seen that it is inevitable that churches - including Christian churches - will be parts of The System. 

This to the same extent that these churches exist in the public realm as legal/ economic/ financial/ employing/ educational etc.) entities. 

(The nature of a totalitarian society is that all significant social institutions are necessarily part of the system of surveillance and control - which means, part of the totalitarian strategy.)

Thus, in a totalitarian society, insofar as they are significant social systems; churches will be part of The System - that is, part of the totalitarian system. 

And, totalitarian = evil* 

Therefore (under totalitarianism, in The West here-and-now) churches are evil institutions: evil in overall-effect and by their overall-aim. 

 

The consequence is that (as a strong generalization):

Obedience to churches = obedience to evil.

...Which means a positive choice to reject the salvation of Jesus Christ, and instead to choose damnation. 

This is explainable on the basis that the totalitarianism is manifested materialism, and operates by "brainwashing" people (by multiple means) to regard the external and the material as primary - indeed as the Only Real; and to subordinate, ignore or deny the inner intuitive and the spiritual. 

Churches are readily encompassed into totalitarianism; insofar as they actually function on the basis of quasi-objective laws, rules, regulations, dogmas, written documents with fixed conceptual interpretations, on the one side; and requirements for particular publicly observable behaviours (speech, writing, actions...), on the other. 

Therefore; under totalitarianism, any church that operates on the basis of public obedience to publicly observable and regulate-able behaviours is doing the work of evil: doing evil in terms of training its members to regard "the external" and "the material" as primary and mandatory. 

(What is deadly is the doctrine that salvation depends on the principle of obedience to a church which is so pernicious, rather than the specific content of that obedience.) 

So; (here and now) any church is evil in requiring obedience to itself (which is a social institution) as necessary to avoid damnation - when in reality this obedience is itself, precisely, damnation. 

It can be seen that under totalitarianism; the churches (which are part-of The System) engage in the same institutionally-imposed value-inversion that characterize totalitarian evil. 

+++

*Totalitarianism is evil because it is a manifestation of that kind of "materialist", anti-life, anti-human evil I have termed Ahrimanic; therefore evil both by its demonic-aim, and also intrinsically - by its nature. 

+++++++

NOTE ADDED: I realize that real Christians who are (here and now) members of churches do not obey them (except selectively, and on the basis of intuition and spiritual guidance - which is precisely Not to obey, in a traditional sense). 

However, too many of these people are currently dishonest or self-blinded as to the foundational Christian necessity of their own and personal discernment; which is itself a weakness and/or a sin - doubly-so when they pretend to church obedience as necessary to salvation. 

It is therefore important that such people understand what they are actually-already doing, and why; and are explicit and honest about what they are doing (at least in their own minds, if not publicly).

As we may perceive all around us in everyday life: nobody can be argued or compelled to take personal responsibility for their own choices, nor can they be argued or compelled into becoming conscious of that which they prefer to maintain unconscious. And there is a significant chance that having "bad faith" pointed-out will merely lead to an escalation of the self-distraction and displacement-activity of attacking the messenger.   

It would therefore be much better if the kind of self-identified "obedient" church-first Christians I am talking about would reach a true recognition, each from- and for-himself. 

A droll music-video - Mission Impossible Theme from The Piano Guys with Lindsey Stirling

A blast from the past (11 years ago) - I remembered this today and enjoyed it as much as ever.

Christianity is ultimately Not about happiness, Nor the elimination of suffering

What is life "for" - it it to be happy - which implies a continual "timeless" state of bliss. 

If happiness is rooted-in the elimination of all suffering (which is the emphasis in some major religions); then there can be no needs, no desire, no "wanting"*. 

All Just Is, and what is, is good.  

Or else is life rooted in purpose? Purpose is dynamic, includes time; and purpose entails and some degree of dissatisfaction, yearning, wanting, desiring.

(Because if here-and-now was wholly satisfactory and sufficient, then there would be no reason to change it - no purpose.) 

Happiness (and the elimination of suffering) is in ultimate conflict with a life of purpose: one or other, but not both, can be the aim of spiritual life. They can't simultaneously be the aim. If we tried to conflate both in a unity, then one or other will - in actuality - be dominant over the other. 

So purpose is in-conflict-with the desire for a state of perfect happiness; and with the desire to eliminate all suffering - because purpose entails some degree of suffering. 

To live (always) with purpose, is always to experience some degree of dissatisfaction with here-and-now; in order to desire some, somewhat-different future state. 

Therefore the desire for happiness (including the elimination of suffering) is incompatible with purpose. 

This is part-of the incompatibility of, on the one hand, the many forms of oneness spirituality - of "Eastern" religion so-styled, yet actually far more widespread that the East, including being strongly, and from early, within Christianity) -- with, on the other hand, Christianity (properly understood).

Christianity is about purpose, ultimately. Therefore, not ultimately about happiness, nor about the elimination of suffering. 

What Christianity is about, is dynamic, purposive, taking place in-and through-time: it is about Love as the basis of creation. 

**

(But because Love has so often been defined in terms of a static state of perfect happiness, the dynamic purposive nature of Love - hence of creation - has become confused and/or occluded. To put is the other way about; there are two distinct ways of considering "Love" as the goal of existence: one is as a timeless, perfect-in-itself, blissful - and essentially impersonal - state; the other is as dynamic, purposive, creative - and essentially inter-personal.) 

*Note added: It could be said that Love (understood as participation in divine creation) is itself the ultimate happiness; and in a sense that would be correct - for those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. But it is not the ultimate happiness for everybody. It seems that for many people the highest happiness entails a changeless bliss. And there are others for whom the greatest gratification (if not exactly "happiness" entails that which Christians regard as evil - selfish gratifications of various kinds. 

The positive path, forward through life

If oneness is primary, why did oneness allow that oneness be fractured; only to permit or demand the restoration of primal oneness? 

Contra-oneness: life is linear and the future is open. Therefore; what we need above all is a way forward; and the inner motivation to pursue it. 

Most important in faith is that there is always - at every moment - a positive path ahead. This must be so; or else we would (by now) be dead. 

Avoiding wrong paths  (double-negative living) does not suffice, since wrong paths are limitless in number; and all living would be expended on error and repentance.  

Our path forward is for each of us to find, because it is not, and cannot be, externally provided from any source in this world. It must be sought (which is our responsibility), and be discerned (by our-selves, as much as is possible). 

There can be, and may be, divine rescue and the external imposition of a direction when our own efforts fail; but remember that this is seriously second-best. 

God most wants us to do it, so that we will learn it. Divine rescue may be useless or counter-productive in terms of what we are here for - promoting passivity instead of creativity.  

What is the bottom-line? Not one thing, because we are Beings, and Beings are complex (irreducible) by nature. 

The true complexity of this world derives primarily from the hearts of Beings; secondly from the relationships of Beings. 

In other words; the complexity of this world is rooted in extreme structural simplicity - therefore Not in complex theological-philosophical schemata. 

Unconditional, universal love is a benign disposition towards abstract "thought forms"; whereas Christian love is for particular and personal Beings. 

Personal and abstract are distinguishable, and vitally so; but are not completely separable. 

...Thought forms become inhabited by personal spirit Beings; thus unconditional and abstract love gets personalized (willy nilly); while personal Love contains the expansile tendency to seek more of itself, pressing towards other and (as yet) unknown persons.     

Jesus overcame the world*- but nobody else among Men has come near!

Including not the Saints (by their own accounts). 

Neither you nor I can overcome the world. 

It is a terrible, and terribly common, error to suppose that Men can overcome the world; or, even worse, that we should. 

That was-not/ is-not how the world is set-up in God's creation. It is not how things work. 

There is no such thing as enlightenment - we cannot overcome the world; but there is repentance, which (properly understood) is the path to eternal resurrected life.  

Men are God-intended to know, acknowledge, and repent sin - to learn-from mortal life; that we may thereby become better Men in eternal resurrected life. 

We should not strive to overcome this world, because Christ's "Kingdom" is not of this world.

Instead we should know and follow Jesus: out of this world and into Heaven.  

*John 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. 

My "kingdom" is not of this world... On being led by the Fourth Gospel (called John)

A couple of days ago I wrote that we should think of Jesus primarily as The Good Shepherd (leading those who will follow to resurrected life everlasting beyond biological death); and not as a King. 

Such is a natural consequence of the decision I made to base my Christian belief on the Fourth Gospel (called John) - the background to which decision is covered in my 'mini-book' from a few years ago, Lazarus Writes. 

I am aware that history took a very different path of putting the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed the Epistles of Paul, above the Fourth Gospel; and also of interpreting the Fourth Gospel in light of the rest of the New Testament. However, I regard this as an error, simply because I believe what the Fourth Gospel says about itself, and therefore put it first and above all other scriptures. 

The Fourth Gospel tells us, repeatedly and in many ways, that Jesus is Not a King, that it is a mistake to regard him as such. How then do I interpret the phrase "My kingdom is not of this world"? [See this verse in context below the post.]

Quite simple - in the context of the whole Gospel and of the section in which this occurs; I understand Jesus to be saying to Pilate something like: My "kingdom" is not of this world. 

In other words, Jesus is telling Pilate something like: "I am Not saying that I am a king - that is Your assertion, and that of Jews who have misunderstood my mission and role. 

"Furthermore what You might think of as the kingdom to which I belong is Not even part of this mortal life on earth. 

"I am, in other words, not primarily concerned with this mortal world. What I have to teach and do is concerned with life beyond death, the world of eternity: Heaven not earth". 

In other words, it is a radical misunderstanding to suppose that the Fourth Gospel asserts Jesus is a King. 

 

Of course, most Christians through history regard Jesus as a King because this is clearly and repeatedly stated in other parts of the New Testament. Jesus (after death and ascension) is often regarded as true ruler of this world ("Pantocrator"). But if the Fourth Gospel is what is says it is; then this must be an error - no matter how common. 

I completely understand that Christians who take the orthodox and traditional, church-led, view of Christianity; will reject this idea outright as being ridiculous. They have made very different assumptions concerning the relative validity and authority of Scriptures, and of the authority of their church - or of historical churches. 

I understand this perspective, and why people do not want to go-against the weight of tradition and church authority - but I reject it for myself; because I believe the Fourth Gospel and therefore think it is a mistake. 

Here-and-now (however differently it may have been in the past) I believe that understanding Christ as King of this world, first and foremost, may well lead to contradiction and adverse consequences.

Instead of a King - we need to grasp that Jesus is essentially the Good Shepherd, one who enables all who will follow him to attain resurrection into Heaven.   

John: 18 [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

Is BRICS the backlash of Lawful Evil?

As The West continues its path of (in Dungeons and Dragons terms) Chaotic Evil  - or what I would term spite-driven Sorathic self-and-other destruction; it seems to me that Lawful Evil (i.e. the Ahrimanic - control-motivated, hence totalitarian and bureaucratic type of evil) is making an attempt at comeback via the now world-dominant BRICS grouping. 

In other words The System ("the Matrix") is doomed to inwardly-driven (and actively-desired) self-destruction, and is already collapsing, in The West; therefore the powers of evil whose strategy is to impose a material mechanism for spiritual damnation, are shifting attention from The West to The Rest. 

Geopolitics is always evil, no matter its explicit purpose. 

While, from the POV of the dominant countries of the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, BRICS seems to be a means towards the end of national sovereignty and the cultural autonomy in face of a monolithic globalism; the very facts and necessities of any multi-national compromise coalition, continue to push the existing and emerging alliance towards the nature of Lawful Evil. 

This is evidenced by several of the many recent statements of BRICS policy and strategy; which favour UN-type organizations to formulate and enforce "international regulation". 

It therefore seem like the demons of Lawful Evil have abandoned "The West" to the ministrations of Chaotic Evil, and are increasingly directing their main efforts towards "The Rest". 

From a Christian perspective, we are dealing with greater versus lesser evils (at best); therefore there is again the pitfall opening of inducing people actively to support that which is actually-evil, on the basis that it is a different, and maybe less extreme, kind of evil than that which preceded it.  

The danger is that Christians are actively supporting Lawful Evil on the basis that it is possible to be optimistic about its prospects in this-world, here-and-now. 

I suggest that Christians need to be much clearer than they currently seem to be, about the necessity actively to support only that which is Good by motivation and methods - no matter how weak that Good may be in this-worldly terms; and no matter how pessimistic the prospects of Good seem, with things as they currently are.

On the material and earthly level, Christians will inevitably lose - sooner or later; and it is on the spiritual level that are there solid grounds for realistic optimism. 

The grounds of our hope are sure, but Not Of This World. 

Once we have grasped this; then (but only then) can we see and know how such a spiritual and next-worldly expectation, can and will improve things in this mortal life. 

In D&D terms we should eschew not just evil, but the categories of lawful and chaotic, and pursue that which is creative. 

Go to Heaven - Go Directly to Heaven; do not pass through earth, do not collect 200 lashes

One of the questions that are answered inadequately (incoherently) by the off-the-peg mainstream religions is: What is the point of this mortal life on earth? 

Why don't we go directly to Heaven? Why must we mass-through mortal life, why must so many people endure (and, sometimes, enjoy) decades of earthly existence - what may amount to decades of suffering? 

Even for Christians: Why do some of us spend so-much time, effort (and, often, misery) tediously mucking-about in getting, conceived, born, growing-up, living, getting sick, maybe reproducing, getting old and dying (the whole complicated and hazardous rigmarole) - before we get to Heaven (maybe).  

There are indeed ways of making sense of this, but mainstream Christianity - with it's omni-God and double-negative Jesus - is not one of them. 

But do we really need (after 2000 years without!) a deep, metaphysical, theology that tells us positively what this mortal life is for, and what Jesus did, and how it fits into divine creation? 

Surely it is (as Jesus seems to have said) enough to love and follow Jesus Christ to salvation? 

Yes it is enough - for salvation; assuming that we can get through mortal life still wanting it, and not so corrupted as to reject the offer when it is made after our death.

Yet this world is full of ex-Christians, fake-Christians, self-identified by not-really Christians. The churches are collapsing, and those that remain "devout" are evidently on a path leading down and away from Jesus. 

But meanwhile? Are we really living through mortal life just for that final decision? - or is there something we ought to be doing here and now that will contribute to that eternal resurrected life we anticipate with confidence?

Important questions - vital questions - it seems to me. 

And if our society and our churches are not giving coherent answers - then what are we (personally_ going to do about it? Say "it's not my fault"? Or find answers?

(Or, is there something more important that you need to do instead?)

The darkest hour is just before the dawn... No it isn't!

 

From timeanddate.com/sun/uk/newcastle-upon-tyne

"The darkest hour is just before the dawn" may be psychologically true as a proverb - but is astronomically false. 

If dawn is defined as the sunrise; the night goes through three evolving phases of increasing light (defined by the sun's angle below the horizon), that are conventionally separated as such:

Astronomical dawn - Sun is 12-18 degrees below the horizon: when the sky lightens from black towards blue such that fainter stars disappear.

Nautical dawn - Sun is 6-12 degrees below the horizon: when, on a clear day, the horizon and brighter stars are still visible at sea.

Civil dawn - Sun is 0-6 degrees below the horizon: when all the stars (except, maybe, Venus) disappear, and it is light enough over land to do normal outdoor stuff.  

The truth is that it is darkest in the middle of the night, when the sun is at its greatest angle below the horizon. 

That doesn't fit the moral of the proverb - which is rooted in an archetypal narrative of eucatastrophe. 

Yet I can't help but suppose that "the darkest hour is just before the dawn" is a proverbial product of the kind of people who never look at the sky, or who have not been out of bed early enough to observe the dawn for themselves!... 

Relationships with the world of spiritual Beings: Characterizing stronger and weaker interactions between people (and other Beings)

Since I understand reality ultimately to consist of Beings (i.e. Beings are the only final and objective categories of reality); and creation to consist of their interactions and relationships* (so that the laws, processes, forces, fields etc) --  naturally, the question of what influences the relationship between Beings is of interest.  

I try to seek such understanding in what we spontaneously know (for example as young children) - or at least seek validation of my ideas in this (because I regard our genuinely innate and spontaneous knowledge as ultimately God-given - because a Good creator God who loves us would - I think - want to build-into us essentially-valid, as well as useful, knowledge). 

On this basis. relationships need to be possible between incarnated people - including those in remote places; and also between us and "the dead", and with un-incarnated spirits (angels, demons, other kinds of spiritual entity) - so we must go beyond the usual materialist ideas of how relationships work. 

So, on the one hand, it seems that there are no absolute physical limits to the possibility of relationships - which is what would be expected given that all Beings are first-and-foremost of a spiritual nature. 

Yet at the same time, I notice that the strength of relationships is influenced by a variety of factors. Most obviously spatio-temporal proximity is a factor that increases the likelihood of a relationship and tends to increase its strength. In other words, Incarnated Beings that are nearby, and are currently "alive", are the easiest to make relationships with, and indeed it may be difficult Not to have relationships with nearby incarnate Beings. 

(Nonetheless, modern city dwellers seem completely to ignore the vast majority of proximate living Beings - so the modern mind seems to block relationships as a default - hence our default state of alienation and isolation.) 

Consciousness also has a positive effect on strength of relationships; such that relationships are more likely, and more likely to be strong, when we are aware of an other Being - than when we are unconscious/ unaware. 

Attention is another positively reinforcing factor on relationships. When we are spiritually orientated-towards another Being, then we are more likely to relate to them, and more strongly. Attention, in turn, may be a product of motivation (and the factors that affect motivation - interest, impulses etc). 

Such a consideration of relationships can be helpful in understanding their strength, or weakness. And it can be helpful in understanding the nature and reason for incarnation - for the material instantiation of spiritual Beings (such as mortal Men) in bodies. 

An embodied Being increases the strength of spatio-temporally close relationships - the relationship between beings her-and-now; at the cost of weakening relationships between incarnate and discarnate (i.e. spirit-) Beings.

In other words; our default insensitivity to spirits that are unincarnated, with non-human and non-biological beings, and with people who are distant in time or space; is the flip-side of our spontaneous social bias in favour of the human beings around us, now. 

This gives insight into why few modern people experience spontaneous and strong relationship with spirits. 

It also explains why consciousness of the reality of spirits (of spirits in general, and also specific spirits - including "dead" humans), and directing attention to spirits, can overcome this default insensitivity. 

...Which fits rather neatly with my oft-expressed conviction that our task as modern Men includes increased conscious and explicit understanding of the ultimate nature of reality (ie. "metaphysics") as including the spiritual as primary; and also that we must make choices, exercise our agency, take responsibility for the bottom-line freedom of our situation in the world. 

In a nutshell: we need to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual world, and choose to engage with it.

But of itself this conscious engagement with the spirit world may be good or evil according to the side with which we affiliate in the spiritual war of this world. 

So, to be Good; all the above should take place in the context of what can briefly be characterized as "Christian Love". 

*NOTE: Relationships between Beings are a primary assumption of this metaphysics, which means that relationships cannot be defined. Relationships can, however, partially be described in terms of attributes - and this is of value in clarifying what is meant by relationships. Just as Beings can be described in terms of attributes such as purpose, life, consciousness, self-sustaining ability, possibilities of growth and transformation... These attributes are open-ended in number, and vary very-widely in quantity between Beings, hence they are not definitive. So relationships can also be described in terms of their attributes. That "description of relationships in terms of some of their attributes" is what this post is attempting. 

Fake garbage vegan pseudo-substitutes for Turkish Delight and Pease Pudding

"It shouldn't be allowed", but it has already happened, that two of my favourite foods have been eliminated and replaced with fake, garbage, vegan substitutes. 

As a kid, Fry's Turkish Delight (milk chocolate coated TD) was my absolute favourite sweet; and when I later discovered actual Turkish Delight (powdered with fine sugar) I liked that very much as well. 

But the stuff they sell under that name now is completely different, because "They" have eliminated the essential ingredient of gelatin, because it comes from animals. 

So the pseudo-TD is just gooey sugar-gel, flavoured with rose water - which I find so vile that I can't eat it.

Pease Pudding (as in the nursery rhyme*) is a traditional, working-class, North English garnish; which is traditionally made from the stock remaining after boiling a ham, ideally flavoured with onion, celery and a carrot. 

You boil dried split peas (which are a bit like larger, beige lentils) in the stock, until they have softened to a thick paste. It is the perfect accompaniment to ham; and makes an excellent sandwich. The only problem is that the process takes long time - more than an hour, and then the pease pudding should be allowed to cool - and this takes longer than roasting the boiled ham. 

So I have recently bought "pease pudding" from the local supermarket; and discovered a pseudo-product that is so bland and flavourless that it actually detracts from the meal. This is simply because it is not the same thing - unsurprisingly, because this vegan product is made of split peas and... salted water. 

And vegans wonder why normal people hate them so much!

*Pease pudding hot, Pease pudding cold, Pease pudding in the pot, Nine days old. Some like it hot, some like it cold, Some like it in the pot, nine days old.

...But nobody likes it with salted water, instead of ham stock. 

Alone, overnight, in Durham Castle

I once spent the night entirely alone in the ancient structure of Durham Castle, comprising scores of empty hallways, passages and a hundred-plus bedrooms; the kitchens, Feasting Hall; and both an underground Norman Chapel with peculiarly eroded primitive cravings, and a severely-dignified 16th century chapel. 

I was, at the time, a Resident Don, living in the junction to the Victorian-restored and residential Keep. It was, I think, the Easter vacation, when undergraduates were absent; and also, for reasons that I cannot now remember, the place was also vacated by postgraduates, the other Dons, and even the college porter and her family who lived in the gatehouse at the back-left of the above illustration.  

The porter told me that I was the only person remaining in residence for the one night; and gave me instructions for locking-up and security. 

On the actual night in question, at first I was unfazed - just getting on with my work. Then it became dark, and mostly very quiet... 

But there were, in fact, many noises of many kinds, of the kind one would expect in very old buildings; especially creakings and short deep thuds.  

Quite suddenly I became afraid; and experienced an involuntary picture in my mind of the many dark, empty rooms that surrounded me - and I felt very alone.

I considered going out, but did not fancy venturing through the empty halls and courtyard, and liked even less the idea of returning. 

I did not even want to speak to somebody on the phone - since this would somehow amplify awareness of the oppressive sense of the building around me. 

In the end, I adopted the cowardly tactic of distraction and hiding; I turned the television and music up loud until I went to bed; inserted earplugs, and took refuge in the oblivion of sleep. 

By the next morning, everything seemed normal and friendly, and I rather enjoyed the interval until people began to trickle back. But I still recall how thoroughly I spooked myself -- or else became aware of aspects of the situation that were normally drowned-out of consciousness by the intrusive presence, activities, sounds of many people.   

 

JRR Tolkien's implicitly positive attitude to magical methods and practices in the modern world

Over at my Inklings blog, and by reference to The Notion Club Papers; I suggest that JRR Tolkien implicitly displayed a (perhaps) surprisingly positive attitude to that approach deployed by the British tradition of Christian White Magical Societies. 

  

Tethered caps on disposable bottles - a microcosm of strategic cultural suicide

I began to notice recently that I could not get the caps off bottles of drinks, which remained tethered to the bottle, until I cut them with strong scissors, or tore them free by main force. Otherwise it was nigh impossible to pour the drink because the tethered cap got in the way - and even unscrewing a tethered cap is mechanically self-defeating. 

After this became more and more common, I belatedly discovered that this was due to a new EU law - and (of course) the UK has never left the EU. 

This business is a perfect microcosm of here-and-now. Tethered caps are supposed to "encourage" recycling of the drinks caps, and recycling is always and invariably A Good Thing. And the more plastic crap we manufacture, the more we can recycle it - Yay! 

It's all an oh-so-serious issue - but conveniently serves the stepwise agenda of universal and detailed surveillance and control; by which permissible screw-on bottle top design has been brought under globalist totalitarian control.  

So, yet again; a dysfunctional and utterly futile law in service of an evil-motivated, anti-life agenda (CO2 Climate-excused totalitarianism) has been oh-so-laboriously discussed and decided-upon, and imposed internationally by vast bureaucratic-regulatory efforts. 

One of the stupidest and wrongest of traditional sayings, an inversion of truth - is: Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.

(Especially stupid since it arose when there were 240 pennies in a pound sterling!)

Yet this is modern Green "environmentalism" in a nutshell. In service to fake knowledge about a fake-and-evil theory concerning "climate change" - we have governments imposing energy-consuming and CO2 producing laws in pursuit of changes that - even if all predictive climate-change models were accurate (which they certainly are not, never having been validated), would have undetectably trivial benefits. Meanwhile engaging in mandatory and colossal environmental destruction - for example by gratuitous and mega-polluting wars.    

As another instance; thus we have (in the UK) truly draconian criminal laws protecting certain species such as bats against humans - we are not even allowed to touch these creatures. On the other hand, bats are being slaughtered by the ever-increasing numbers of "environmentally friendly" (but functionally counter-productive) wind-turbines at an admitted rate of thousands-to-millions per year! 

Nobody sincere, rational and well-motivated could possibly behave this way - hence we know for sure that those ruling The West are overall dishonest, irrational and evil-motivated. 

This is possible only by the docile, stupid, and preeningly self-satisfied mind-set of the Western managerial-intellectual class; a group who personally profit from laboriously and expensively implementing an agenda of pointlessly symbolic pseudo-reform in context of a strategy that is ultimately aimed-at purposive political, social, and personal destruction. 

The ruling demons are laughing themselves sick - pay attention, and you can "hear" them!

Why do I believe that we should we become aware of our metaphysical assumptions?

From a strictly metaphysical perspective, I guess that the important thing is to recognize what we are assuming in an "it just is" way, and what is secondarily explained in terms of these assumptions. 

If this is achieved to some extent; I think we can then compare metaphysical "systems" or schemes, and then there is a basis for choosing between them. 

For instance, one person may regard an explanation of freedom/ free-will/ agency as vital to him; but another person may desire that everything he considers important must be as it is, with no contingency, and no possibility of things being otherwise. 

Such personal imperatives will influence the choice of metaphysical assumptions. Or perhaps, when a person becomes explicitly aware of his own current imperatives, he may come to disapprove of them, and may then reject them*.   

Simply to clarify what one actually is assuming - in a clear and explicit way - is itself something very valuable -- maybe essential when it comes to really fundamental matters. 

Personally, I want my primary assumptions to be the kind of thing that is knowable intuitively, by personal revelation - and without having to depend on communications that may be unreliable, from secondary sources that may not be accurate or trustable. 

This has meant that - over time - it has been necessary to reduce the dependence of my core faith not only on church teachings, but also on scripture. I have come to regard both church teachings and scripture as (for what seem very obvious reasons) unsure and unreliable. 

I simply cannot stake everything on the accuracy of scriptural transmission and interpretation, or the integrity of any actual modern institution - whether or not it calls itself a church. 

To generalize, and for a Christian, this means (among other things) "knowing" both God the creator, and also (and more importantly) the person of Jesus Christ for oneself; know them "here and now" as it were - and as the root of everything else.

This is edited from a comment at Francis Berger's blog

*As an example of what I mean: One metaphysical assumption of this kind that I rejected after having become aware and clear about it; was that God our loving Father would create the world such that "the church" (or churches in general - or access to accurate scriptures) was necessary to salvation. This is a very common assumption, even nowadays; but once I had made it explicit, it seemed clearly wrong. A Good and Loving God who desired the salvation of Men would not organize things thus; because the world and its people are far too varied (over time and geographically), and there is far too much that could (and would, and has) go awry in terms of making salvation depend upon any specific worldly entity, its dissemination, and understanding. It seemed obvious that God would make it possible for all of his children to attain salvation in whatever circumstances they found themselves or contrived; and this would need to be done directly - that is, by sufficient and needful unmediated contact: by what is sometimes termed "personal revelation". Since it is Jesus Christ who is essential for each Man's salvation; the attaining of salvation would need to be something primarily decided between Jesus (here and now - not depending on historical records), and each Man in his specific circumstances... Including (importantly) each Man's specific circumstances after biological death, and before the choice of salvation or not.     

No space for Jesus (in mainstream Christian theology)

It is clear that freedom does not matter much to many people (perhaps because spiritual freedom entails ultimate responsibility for our own fate). So the fact that mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology has no place for freedom in its conceptualization of God; is not something that deeply bothers those who aspire to total obedience, or the annihilation of "the self". 

This exclusion of space for freedom is somewhat distinct from an explanation for freedom - although the two can go together. 

There is no space for freedom when God is assumed to be "omni" and to have created everything from nothing; because every-thing then is ultimately made, known and controlled by God. 

To explain what freedom is requires a rather different understanding. We need to get an intuitive grasp of what we are talking about when we reference freedom, free will or agency; and develop a picture of how it could happen (even if it seldom does actually happen). 

The difficulty is that most people have an unconscious assumption that understands every possible action (including every thought) to be caused by some prior stimulus. Such assumptions leave no space for freedom. 

So freedom must be uncaused. But many modern people vaguely-but-firmly believe in a thing they call "randomness"; so then they assume that stuff happens completely unpredictability... 

But randomness is not freedom, indeed it is not an explanation At All but the opposite of explanation - "randomness" (if it existed, rather than being just a mathematical tool) would be a denial of even the possibility of explanation. 

Freedom must therefore be the attribute of a particular person and his nature and motivations. In other words, freedom must be an uncaused cause, a first-cause - which is a partial definition of God. 

Hence; freedom is a first-cause, which is a divine attribute. 

It seems that the conclusion is that Men are gods, of the same kind as God; insofar as they are free.  

Insofar as Jesus Christ really matters to Christians, it is noteworthy that so many Christians have been so concerned to assert the absolute power and fundamental nature of God's unity, omni-qualities and total-creation, that they have left no space for Jesus the mortal Man.

And no possibility of explaining why Jesus was necessary - after all, if God is defined as having everything possible already covered, there is nothing substantive for Jesus to do.

If God does everything, either directly or via creation; then Jesus is merely optional.   

The exclusion of freedom by theological assumptions is therefore another side of the same coin that excludes the possibility of a coherent explanation of why Jesus is necessary for the accomplishment of what Jesus offered. 

If we agree that Jesus (a mortal man, living in a particular place and time) offered the possibility of for Men to choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then there must be some reason why Jesus was needed for this task - and if God is predefined in terms of omni-qualities, it seems clear that the Man Jesus was not necessary for anything.

Yet those who accept Jesus's claim to divinity and to be the necessary path to eternal resurrected life should - it seems to me - be making metaphysical assumptions and constructing their theology around that fact. 

In sum: If Jesus is a Man and is necessary - then God cannot be Omni. 

My view is that the reality and necessity of Jesus must be the primary focus and structuring factor in creating a Christian theology of God; not the other way around.

NOTE - It may be asked why, if there is indeed no space for Jesus, so many previous generations of Christians were satisfied by theological explanations. The first answer is that many weren't and these stayed Jews or embraced Islam. But the main answer is that Men's consciousness has changed through history - and world-pictures that strike us as abstract and dead used to be spontaneously infused with purpose and meaning - by the innate Original Participation which Men have only recently left-behind.