I mean that pervasive deformation of modern Western thinking which organizes society in terms of what people are against, with absolutely no notion for what people are for.
This is a recipe for social destruction; but also for personal despair - since emotions are negatively triggered, and social life becomes a multi-pronged, recurrent sequence of urgent and often fanatical crusades against this, that, or the other "bad-thing"; but with no concept of where this is supposed to be leading.
Thus we live in a society of dystopias, without any remotely plausible - or even remotely appealing, utopia For instance; the supposed-utopias put forward by the WEF over the past years "own nothing and be happy", "fifteen minute cities" etc. are actually horrific nightmare visions of the future, as well as ludicrously implausible.
But a somewhat analogous situation applies to Christians; who are much clearer about what they are against than what they are for. And when most Christians do describe what they are for - typically they only succeed in painting a kind of nightmare scenario (usually with a totalitarian flavour); or else some more-or-less ludicrous and unconvincing clearly-subjective-and-partial daydream (e.g. of a sexual nature).
This is apparently a basic and civilizational phenomenon, because what is most striking about the trajectory of religion in the West is the extent to which it replicates all other social institutions; and the extent to which broadly the same path has been followed by all the Christian denominations - and indeed all the religions, and all the political ideologies.
Thus the publicly observable faith of all kinds of Christian is obviously much feebler than in the past; but also we can see the same in all other religions in the West.
And the same again applies to political ideologies such as nationalism/ communism/ socialism; ideals that - only a century ago - inspired extreme personal heroism at a mass level -- yet now are feeble and tawdry excuses for personal hedonism, careerism, money-grubbing and power-seeking.
Furthermore; while religion and ideology have declined; so has romanticism. People are more mundane and materialist in their thinking than ever before; accepting or indeed embracing of mechanistic, dehumanized, life-less and soul-less workplaces, art and architecture, music, movies and TV, literature - and churches.
All of which are organized and conceptualized in bureaucratic terms - ruled by such abstractions as flow charts, auditing, hierarchy, surveillance and micro-control - and in which creativity is replaced by systematic plagiarism and fakery.
There has been no significant mass movement in favour of individualism for half a century -- and even that one (in the late 1960s-early 1970s) was largely a fake: stage-managed by the Establishment/ Mass Media and Intelligence services.
So if we honestly and rigorously seek for a genuinely positive outlook on life; we will search in vain through the public arena and public discourse.
At all turns we will be baited-and-switched with (more or less disguised) double-negations of things-we-are-against; instead of things we are positively for.
This change is so pervasive that I personally believe that it only makes coherent sense to regard it as a change in human beings, in human "consciousness" - that is; a change in the way we approach, perceive and understand The World, Our-Selves and The Divine.
The above analysis and interpretation is why I feel that Modern Man already-is in a situation where the public realm is net-harmful (overall and by intent); where all forms of external guidance are harmful, not helpful; where all kinds of institutions, organizations, formal groupings are harmful, not helpful...
And therefore a world in which the only place to look for a positive approach to the future is in ourselves as individuals, and the direct and unmediated relationships we have with other individual selves - including those we love among the living and the "so-called dead"; among the material-beings and spirit-beings; among human-beings and not-human-beings; and especially with God the Creator and Jesus Christ.
How we personally formulate and describe this individual situation matters less than that we actually do it - that we actually take personal responsibility for doing it.
This is why I put-forward, describe and affirm my personal vision of Romantic Christianity - despite that I simultaneously urge each individual person not to accept this but to do it for himself.*
The first step (but only the first) is to break free from the self-imposed prison of dependence on external authority - and to take personal responsibility for ones fundamental assumptions and convictions.
Then comes the process of self-critical evaluation and development of a coherent world-view in harmony with all of our deepest assumptions and convictions.
Because of the entropic nature of this world, and the triumph of evil in the public realm; this process has no end point in this temporary mortal life - but must aim beyond it and towards resurrected eternal Heavenly life.
This is why there is no coherent or plausible utopia in this-world.
And this is also why Romantic Christianity is the opposite of subjectivist escapism - in spite that it is rooted in each individual and seeks salvation beyond life.
The real subjectivity is willingly and by choice, to be subordinated to the nihilistic will of evil-affiliated demons, Men, and institutions - and to be manipulated by them, at their will - towards their goal of opposing creation by means of unending double-negations.
The real escapism is to be deluded into regarding this death-pervaded, temporary, and mortal world as a possible location for Heaven.
Whereas the Heaven reached after death, by resurrection, and through following Jesus; is the only proper object of, and context for, positive hope.
*Note: A particularly important point that I want to get-across, is that there is more than one way of being-a-Christian.
That the Orthodox-Traditional-Mainstream theology (shared by all Catholics and Protestants) is not the only possible way of sustaining Christian faith.
That there is more than one set of assumptions that - with broad coherence - can sustain Christianity.
This was first evident to me when I began to understand Mormon theology, how its assumptions were qualitatively different from the Mainstream assumptions; and that it had important advantages (in terms of explaining and validating free agency, and the nature and origins of evil) compared with Catholic-Protestant theology.
But Mormon theology is only semi-rooted in its metaphysical assumptions; and Mormon doctrine and everyday practice almost ignores, and sometimes contradicts, its own theological metaphysics.
Which is why I first realized that a more-coherent and comprehensive theology was possible than either mainstream-traditional or Mormon - but that discovering this needed to be an individual and inwardly-motivated project.
2 comments:
This post started me thinking. I get the sense that most Christians are oblivious to the existence of something like double-negative thinking. They don't recongize it in others or themselves and seem incapable of thinking in any other way, which leads me to believe they are not really all that interested in solutions.
From another perspective, it strikes me that double-negative thinking is an enslaved kind of thinking based almost exclusively in reaction to some external stimulus or other. That is, double-negative thinking is unfree thinking. Perhaps this helps explain why it is so easy to indulge in and so easy to foment in the masses, who rarely, if ever, wish to be free.
The active search for positive solutions require a freer, more internal and creative mode of thinking that tends to elevate one out of the enslaving habits of thinking double-negative frameworks. Positive thinking tends to pit one against the general milieu. It is a risk-taking endeavor based and an expression of spiritual freedom; hence, creative in its essence, which strikes me as a far more God-aligned mode of thinking than double-negative thinking.
@Frank - Indeed. There is an absolute resistance to this kind of insight.
I suspect it stems from a deep self-mistrust rooted in fear of exclusion and ostracism - "if I start thinking from-myself, where will it end?" Which is, itself, a refusal to take Life seriously - only possible to those who have covertly decided Life has no purpose or meaning.
One interesting aspect of double-negative thinking is that , from the mainstream secular perspective, it is regarded as a purer form of morality. One that is safe, because it can't really be criticized in the way that positive motivations can.
People seize upon horrors, torments, atrocities and disasters as something that they can whole-heartedly oppose - and anyone who does not join with the extremity of condemnation is made the hated out-group.
Only in opposition can modern people feel really "good" about themselves - and this means, only when Not Thinking about consequences, and the overall situation.
Post a Comment