Miles Mathis's "credo": On Jesus and Fear

Miles Mathis has written his "credo" - a long, somewhat sprawling, but honest and probing examination of his guiding principles and assumptions. 

Most interestingly, to me, this focuses on the nature of Jesus - especially in relation to an overarching theme that Mankind has been manipulated by Fear primarily, for many centuries and continuing. 

(This is something I have also become convinced of - including that fear should be known as a sin.)  

The essay also describes how, despite Jesus's teaching and example to the contrary; the Christian churches have all too often been co-opted as agents of this evil agenda.  

I have written about Mathis before, on a couple of occasions, and my mixed feelings concerning his writings. 

But when I say "mixed", I mean that there is a significant amount of very good stuff in his writings, as well as plenty that I regard as wrong. The test being that I keep returning to read his articles. 

And his personality, too, seems a mixture of admirable traits, with other attributes I find off-putting. But the strengths are more important.   

In this latest essay, I found a good deal to appreciate. It strikes me as an exceptionally honest and self-revelatory piece of writing; and such writings are rare, and always of considerable interest to me. 

Because such writing is well-motivated, his  particular current conclusions are less important to me than than a particular revelation of the process of an individual person earnestly trying to sort-out his understanding of the basic human condition. 

Caveat: MM's interpretation of Jesus, Jesus's example, and Jesus's core teaching; misses-out the single most important fact - i.e. that Jesus claimed to offer resurrected eternal Heavenly life to those who followed him. 

I think this is because (unlike me) Mathis is not interested by resurrection and everlasting life in Heaven, apparently because he is one of those (apparently rare) people who regard this mortal life as ultimately sufficient... He is satisfied by his life and by life in general; as it has been and is. 

Of course this overall satisfaction may, or may not, survive to the end and into post-mortal existence - but it seems clear that as of now, MM has no desire for a qualitatively different way of being. 

Consequently, Mathis genuinely (it seems) wants nothing more or other than to have more of the same-kind-of-thing, recurrently, forever - i.e. a continuation of the cycles of reincarnation, not resurrection. 

MM himself wants repeated mortal lives, not eternal Heavenly life. 

Accepting this difference of desire and motivation as real and valid; Mathis has some excellent (and clearly heartfelt) comments to make about how Men must strive to overcome fear - or else be manipulated and tormented by the powers of strategic evil...

Powers that he here calls the Phoenicians (and which I would regard as Satan and the demons, and their servants among Men).  

It is, of course, necessary to "read the whole thing" to appreciate its qualities - even if some parts of the essay are at a lower level, this is a necessary part of any honest exploration. 

But here are a couple of excerpts, that may whet your appetite: 

**

What are people most afraid of? Death, torture, loss. 

Well, of course Jesus and the other prophets taught there is no death, since your spirit lives on. 

Like matter, spirit cannot be destroyed. It simply changes forms. 

The Modern definition of death as a stark and final end was invented by the Phoenicians, and it was invented on purpose to scare you and control you via that fear. Jesus was among the first to counter that definition, reminding you we have no evidence for that and a lot of evidence against it. 

Tribal and pre-Phoenician peoples never believed that, and it wasn't because they were ignorant savages. It was because, given everything we knew then and everything we have since learned, the default assumption was for continuance, not a final end.

*

Same for torture, which Hollywood shoves down your throat year after year to keep fear high. About half the movies now released have an nearly unwatchable torture scene. 

One problem: in reality, torture isn't very successful, due to a little thing called shock. The body can only take so much pain or stress before it goes into shock. 

Shock is another gift of Nature, and you can understand it most easily by again looking at animals. A zebra in the jaws of a lion almost immediately goes into shock. 

What is shock? It is the disassociation of the animal from the pain. The mind separates from the body, so the pain never makes it to the brain. It is sort of like a dream state. 

So in real life (not Hollywood), torture is generally more stressful for the torturer than the tortured. The torturer has to stand there and watch the proceedings, while the tortured has drifted into a dream state and doesn't even feel it. 

When you watch a torture scene in a movie, it is far more stressful for you, the viewer, than it would be for the victim, because you aren't in shock. So if you think about it that way, many Hollywood movies are a form of successful, low-grade torture of the audience. And you are so messed up from a life of that, you pay for more of your own torture. I suggest you stop doing it.

*

The Phoenicians learned a lot from Jesus. . . namely how to most efficiently prevent people from developing that character. They could see that character was dependent upon being fearless, and the reverse, so job one for them became instilling fear of death and loss, and inverting everything Jesus taught. 

Some of that they did by rewriting and bastardizing scripture directly, but most of it was done over the centuries by infiltration. Within a few decades or centuries they had infiltrated the Church, and in this position they didn't need to rewrite scripture. They could achieve the same thing by stressing some things and downplaying others. 

They sold Jesus as the Prince of Peace to further pacify the masses, while importing a hell of tortures into the afterlife, to make sure the fear remained. 

Jesus was trying to dissipate the false fear of this life, but the Phoenicians brilliantly transported that torture into the after-death, making it almost universal. In that way, even death was no escape from the Phoenician gaslighting: they could frighten you retro-actively, from beyond the grave. 

Overnight, Jesus' good news or glad tidings had been flipped into an infinite future of dread and punishment, one that many Christians still believe in. The fear hadn't been mitigated, it had been magnified a thousand times, while seeming to keep Christianity. 

Surely the greatest reversal in history.

I am Not a relativist about Christianity - Here's an explanation why

I have recently been having some discussions in the comment sections at Derek L Ramsey's blog, initially in relation to The Trinity (as conceptualized in mainstream Christianity); interactions that have been helpful to me - and apparently to him as well. 

In particular, I responded to his question about whether my brand of Romantic Christianity would become relativistic in practice, if it were to become common. He found my answer helpful in clarifying my beliefs - so I reprint it here, edited somewhat:

Question from DLR: 

It isn’t that you hold an explicitly relativist philosophy—you obviously don’t—but that, IMO, the consequences of your beliefs lead to relativism, despite your intentions or stated beliefs. 

Imagine there were 100 copies of you, scattered throughout the world. Each one would be gaining divine knowledge directly, but unless you were historically unprecedented, they’d all come to a set of (ultimately) mutually incompatible positions. Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.

This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute. I don’t see how you avoid this problem. 

Am I explaining myself well enough?

Answer from BGC:  

Oh yes, I understand you perfectly – and I asked myself the same question. 

Recall that when I converted I did so because I thought Christianity could be (and was the only hope of) the basis for a good (or at least good-seeking) society. That was my priority for a few years, and why I found it hard to find a church (either within, or outside, the CofE), why I changed direction a few times. 

It’s a matter I have addressed in my blog scores of times; but my answer is not acceptable – nor even regarded as a real answer! My answer is apparently invisible. 

One answer is to consider the primacy of motivation. 

I believe that, insofar as Christians are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation at least, and probably a good deal more than that. 

Another answer is that this line of questioning derives from a world view that seems the truth of Christianity, the truth that Jesus provided and taught, as bound-up with social organization – that it is bound-up with mechanisms for ensuring (or at least incentivizing) uniformity of beliefs. 

In other words; a world view that sees Christianity as church primarily – then state. That sees Christianity as primarily social not individual. 

Like the Judaism of the OT – such a Christianity is tribal – the tribe is the nation. For the Ancient Hebrews, the Messiah was understood as primarily a tribal/ national leader. The individual’s spiritual job was merely to serve the tribe. Salvation was of-the-tribe. 

And this role was externally forced-upon Jesus during his life, and after (especially by the evangelist Matthew) – pretty successfully!

I do not believe that this Christian tribalism or groupishness is any longer possible; my evidence being – look around and consider the past couple of centuries! 

I also believe, more controversially, that the attempt to reintroduce mechanisms for unity of belief can (here-and-now) only lead to evil. 

In other words, it is possible even nowadays in The West to enforce unity of belief (e.g. 2020) but this Will Be evil. 

Good (i.e. taking the side of God) can no longer be enforced top-down. 

I suspect that the only path to good (at least in The West, for you and me) is therefore non-institutional, much more like a family than an organization or nation. 

This must develop bottom-up, and from love. 

What such a human society would look like if it happened, I do not believe can be foreknown – because there can be no blueprint for it, just as there is no blueprint for a loving family.

On looking like "other people"

All through my adult life, I have "suffered" from being mistaken for other people. 

Friends and acquaintances claim that they have seen me in places where I have never been, that they waved to me from passing cars but I did not wave back, that they went up to somebody on the street and spoke to them - but they turned-out to be... somebody different. 

This is, I presume, due to having a somewhat nondescript face with rather indistinct features - a type common enough among grey-eyed, fair-haired, light-skinned, North Europeans and Scandinavians. 

It has also led (especially during the nineteen eighties) to people saying that somebody or another in the public eye looked "exactly" like me. 

For instance, Andy Partridge - lead singer of the pop group XTC: some giggling teenage girls on a train once thought I was him; and sang "Senses working overtime" at me, as I walked past.

Watching life of Bryan with friends, when the Michael Palin character who keeps saying "Crucifixion? Good..." came on screen, my pals simultaneously turned towards me claiming that he not only looked but was "exactly" like me:

Then was Ghostbusters, when Dan Ackroyd was another, supposed, lookalike:

And later still, Kenneth Branagh in the TV series Fortunes of War, was again "exactly" like me:

In later decades, there were no celebrity comparisons; just unfortunate bystanders and blokes in corridors, on pavements, in workplaces or social gatherings; who got mistaken and variously accosted. 

(At this point the problem was exacerbated by the fact that (due to baldness) I always wore a hat - preferably with a broad and shading brim. Any rubber-faced chaps in a big hat in Newcastle, might then expect to be assailed.) 

The moral is that some people look distinctive (once seen, never forgotten), while others Do Not - apparently I am, or was, one of the latter. 

And, with the advent of bogus "face-recognition" software - I suspect that my troubles are just beginning... 

US public opinion being successfully prepped for war

The current patriotic mania apparently escalating among so many of the erstwhile disaffected US population of anti-leftist instinct and European descent - so far fits with my hard-timeline geopolitical prediction of an imminently upcoming fake pennant event being used to trigger massive US involvement in a Middle Eastern war. 

If so, this has been a clever manipulation - because just a few months ago there would have been little enthusiasm for a "Patriotic" war (for "US interests") among the class of Americans who are most inclined to support the military. 

But currently, these oh-so-recent cynics about state-led political projects, have become wildly enthusiastic supporters of the government; and pin great hopes upon the capacity of official power to turn-around the nation, and recreate the kind of conservative-materialist-utopia of prosperity and accomplishment that they associate with the 1950s, or 1980s. 

The ex-cynics would, in this prevailing mood, surely support their adored Leader in whatever military venture he regarded as necessary.  

Time will (and soon) tell whether or not the prediction turns-out correct. 

Where are the earwigs and red ants?

I was born and brought-up in the opposite corner of England from that I now inhabit - in the South West. And, even though England is a small nation, there are differences in the animals perceptible across its length and breadth. 

In childhood, there was a fear of red ants and earwigs - but we don't see these in the North East (or, only very rarely). 

We were afraid of earwigs in case the pincers at the back might be able to nip us*; and red ants were (although tiny) supposed to be keen on biting or stinging (I was never sure which). 

My instinctive response was to kill these beasts at every opportunity - which is rational; although some of the ways that I killed them entailed a deplorable mixture of curiosity and sadism. 

Anyway, I had been living up here for many years before I realized that I hadn't seen any earwigs or red ants for ages; whereas in Somerset you just had to sit down on some grass and they would come swarming - or so recollection informs.

I hated them, but I sort-of miss them. 

(Same with Starlings.) 

Thus nature balances itself...

+++

*We also vied to spook each other with stories about how "a man" once had an earwig crawl into his ear, and "they" couldn't get it out, and it ate through into his brain, and made a nest which was only discovered after he was dead and "they" cut his head open. Or something. 

Baseless Conspiracy Theory!

One famous BCT claims that the NASA moon landings were staged in a TV studio 

I love that phrase "Baseless Conspiracy Theory" - which is used by the mainstream mass media to label any attempt to challenge the (always false and misleading) Official Narrative regarding anything The System regards as important. 

It's that "Baseless" which is so delicious - so nakedly pompous; so assertive of illegitimate and unearned authority; emanating from such dishonest and incompetent toadies to power! 

Except, of course, that the mainstream media realized that they were making things too easy for the masses, by labelling every more-honest, more-truthful, more-competent alternative interpretation to their Big Stories as a BCT. 

So nowadays the Mass Media and State Bureaucrats have begin pre-emptively labelling a few of their own genuinely-baseless conspiracy theories as... BCTs. 

A sort of double-bluff; a "bizarro world" version of "opposites day", a game beloved of small children. 

At least, I believe that to be the case; albeit this particular conspiracy theory may indeed be baseless. 

New Today: The greatest and most successful case of Controlled Opposition in recent history

In other news... In the United States today (apparently, according to mainstream news); Donald Trump was sworn-in as President. 

Controlled opposition, obviously - And Yet, the jubilation of many/most of those online who oppose totalitarian leftism seems unbounded - even among some serious Christians. 

Distinguishing Christianity from a/The Church

We just have to learn to distinguish Christianity from Church - whether that be "a Church" - churches in general; or The Church - which is your particular choice of church to believe-in and serve. 

This is a Must Do - or else, soon, there won't be any followers of Jesus left in the West (there are exceedingly few already, as it is). 

When Church is mandatorily (and willingly, apparently) incorporated into the bureaucratic and therefore value systems of globalist totalitarianism - Churches are (overall, on average, by general intent) part of the Satanic agenda. 

So, obviously we must stand apart from, and discern, and judge, our Churches! 

Non optional - if you are serious about being a Christian. 

And if you are doing this, then you also need to be clear and honest about the fact of it - and not pretend you are a "faithful servant" of the-real-true Church which is in fact a product of your discernment. As when somebody (or some small minority) define and redefine what the real-true church really is, such that they (the tiny minority) are the only real-true adherents of the real-true church...

That is plain dishonesty. That is actually standing outside of Church; it is personally discerning and judging that Church - but then dishonestly claiming that you are merely, being obedient to that real-true Church's objective and eternal divine authority!

So, if you are a serious Christian - you are already doing this. You are already half-way to being what I term a Romantic Christian...

But you are not all the way, because you are lying to yourself and other people about the core principles of your faith. 

Why do people say these lies? Partly from worldly motives. They want an objective and external Church as the basis foe a decent society. 

I understand this desire - but it is not on the table, it is not an available option - so it needs to be put aside. 

They also lie to themselves because they can't make sense of how to be a real Christian without objective external authority that demands obedience. They think that Christianity Must Be like that, because that was how it was regarded in the past.

These people need to do some hard thinking - about God. They need to make themselves believe what they say, that God is the creator and our Heavenly father - we are all his children; And that Jesus Christ really has offered us resurrection to eternal Heavenly life. 

They need to go back to this kind of deep and fundamental Christian conviction, and then try to see the world in that light; in the light of how such a creator must have made things, and how Jesus Christ must have set-up salvation so that all who desired it (i.e. who primarily wanted that which he actually offered) could achieve it. 

It's a stark choice between fundamental personal reflection on the essence of Christianity; and joining the side  of the devil - which is now, I'm sorry to say, the ultimate and spiritual side which has been taken by your Church... However much your Church pays lip-service to the language and concepts of Christianity.  

 

Instant Christian!

Over the centuries, the business of becoming a Christian has been made ludicrously complex and difficult - compared with the examples portrayed in various parts of the New Testament. 

There are - apparently - several instances of people becoming "instant Christians" in the Gospels. Jesus meets somebody, has a short conversation, that person makes a decision - and he or she becomes "a Christian" - spiritually, a follower of Jesus. 

Even in the descriptions of Acts of the Apostles, after the ascension of Jesus, when baptism seems to have been inserted as an extra requirement - there is the (implicitly permanent and transformative) conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch in the course of a single conversation. 

There are clear, simple, and apparently obvious lessons from this we ought to learn, concerning what is - and what is Not - necessary to be a Christian. 

To be a Christian, you don't need a priest, don't need a church, don't need to know the Bible. 

Do not need to do anything in particular - do not need to be baptised, nor perform any sacrament, nor subsequently follow a specific life-path (indeed, it is implied that Jesus's followers included continuing "sinners" - i.e. those regarded by the Jewish Law as beyond the pale). 

We do not need to adhere to any specific metaphysical doctrine (such as The Trinity, or regarding the nature of God). We do not need to affirm any particular philosophy 

There is no requirement to be a particular kind of person, not a Jew, nor to know anything at all about Judaism - such as the Old Testament books, commandments, laws, rules of living. 

The simple inference from the actual "conversions" seems to be that anyone can become a Christian by wanting what Jesus makes possible, and by the commitment to follow Jesus to attain it. 

This primary requirement is, indeed, the only necessity - but it is also a thing, the nature of which is not obvious to our modern minds. 

We do not grasp what it means to follow Jesus - and in trying to articulate this, we are often led into vast needless complexity and spurious difficulty. 

This means that we need to set-aside the truly vast weight of accumulations that by-now hems-in the idea of being-a-Christian. 

But it also means that, in setting aside the colossal superstructure of the unnecessary, distracting, and inverted; we do the work of thinking and discernment for ourselves. 

When we (rightly) reject the authority of "other people" and of institutions to dictate our salvation and mortal destiny; we must instead do the work ourselves - otherwise we will not truly have set-aside the needless, but will simply become manipulated by a different (and probably worse) set of external authorities...

As when apostate Christians, who reject the authority of their church/ theology/ tradition - instead, and typically, become servile Leftist-materialist socio-political activists. They merely switch their unthinking-obedience from their church, to the totalitarian demonic agenda.  

This matter of following Jesus is therefore a thing we each need to work-out for ourselves. 

But work-out in a way that recognizes the true answer needs to be recognized as clear, simple and obvious... 

Such that its meaning can be conveyed sufficiently in the course of a single, brief conversation with a stranger. 

In this bureaucratic totalitarian public world, the appeal of the virtual world is obvious - But...!

This public world we inhabit in the world of work, officialdom, mass media etc. has been progressively bureaucratised to include all major institutions (and even family, and social interactions); and the bureaucracies incrementally made to interact and become compatible; and brought under the same auditing rules, therefore the same ideology and central control. 

Consequently, this functional aspect of human existence has been drained of personality and the spirit - it has become thin, superficial, mundane - and completely materialistic.

Therefore; this major (and vital) aspect of life is experienced as a dead weight of coercive oppression, with no large or lasting place of escape. 

When the public and social world is so utterly purposeless, meaningless, and dull - it is natural that people look to the virtual world for escape into something richer, more exciting, more fulfilling...

And yet, of course, the virtual world is a product of - and controlled by - the same totalitarian bureaucracy from which people are yearning to escape. 

So, he virtual world is always being subverted; always becoming more and more like the world of work-officialdom-mass media - increasingly sharing exactly that thin, tyrannical futility from which the virtual world offered some degree of escape.  

What this means is that more people are becoming more aware that their actual experienced world is never going to provide what they most deeply desire and need...

Or, more exactly, this actual world will provide less and less, briefer and briefer, weaker and weaker doses of what they most want and need.

Ever less Joy. 

What makes this spiritually-lethal (which is, of course, the ultimate demonic purpose behind All This); is that even these small, infrequent, enfeebled experiences will be interpreted as unreal, meaningless escapism, evidence of weakness, cowardice and psychopathology merely.  

And that is when people ought to consider the validity and implications of the Argument from Desire. 

Why is Modern Man spontaneously alienated - naturally cut-off from participation in reality?

Although people nowadays take the fact for granted, and hardly seem aware of it; it was much discussed in the early and middle twentieth century that Modern Man was uniquely alienated. 

Modern Man was cut-off from participation in reality; he experienced himself as separated from the natural world, other people, even his real self. Life was experienced as taking place in the bubble of his own self-awareness. 

Modern Man is not spontaneously and naturally religious - at least not after early childhood - in the way that Men throughout history were naturally religious. The world of god/s, spirit, the livingness of nature, even the values such as truth, beauty and virtue - are all experienced as separate, alien, arbitrary. 

Why should God make things so that alienated people such as ourselves are incarnated at all, but in particular why are we incarnated here-and-now (and in the recent past)?

My best answer is that we Modern Men were pre-mortal spirits with these characteristics; and that we are incarnated now so that we are autonomous of pervasiveness and extremity of the evil of this world*.

Historical Men passively absorbed the group and societal values in which they were raised, because they could not detach from them. But these values - although varying between times and places - were always good enough for Men to choose salvation. 

The usual default was salvation - because that was what most people wanted (when they realized it was real and possible). 

However; social values here and now are opposed to salvation; so that only Men who are detached from them can choose salvation. 

Our social values lead Men to reject salvation...

If we passively, unconsciously, uncritically absorbed our modern social values - then we would by-default choose damnation. 

This means that our best and only chance of salvation is to choose salvation from a situation of detachment - i.e. of alienation, of isolation. 

We Modern Men are spontaneously outside of this evil world - and therefore it is possible for us to choose resurrected eternal Heavenly life. 

And this is (I think) why people like us have been incarnated at a time and place like this. 

*I am assuming here that the Modern World, especially The West, is the most evil society ever to have existed in history - or before. There is no space to argue this - and indeed, it cannot be "proven"; but the main "evidence" is that our official, global, top-down, systemic, and socially-pervasive values are (from a Christian perspective) inverted, actively anti-Good, and incoherent.

The Most Reluctant Convert (2021) - Max McLean in a short movie about CS Lewis's conversion

Lastnight we watched "The most reluctant convert" a short (90 minute) movie about CS Lewis's life and conversion - written-by and starring the excellent Bible Gateway performer Max McLean. 

It is a meaty and uncompromising piece, which managed to interest me and hold my attention; even though I have read the contributing texts, especially Surprised by Joy; and indeed I've seen several earlier movies that covered much the same ground. 

Like many adult converts to Christianity over the past seventy years - CS Lewis's writings played a significant role in this process. 

Looking back, I can see several respects in which Lewis's experiences, and his answers, seem wrong to me now - including his experience of having to resist being-converted, his orthodox-traditional-classical theology, and the way he equates being-a-Christian with joining a (mainstream) church. 

Nonetheless, CSL (and a few others) got me over the line, which is What Matters! 

(The rest was, necessarily, Up To Me.)

I was pleased that the movie's take-home message, spoken by Lewis during in the last few minutes, focused on what was, for me, the most effective of the "arguments" that Lewis made (with Tolkien) - the argument from desire, as it is called: 

The final step was taken... It was like a man who, after a long sleep, has become aware that he is now awake. 

My conversion shed new light on my search for Joy. The overwhelming longings that emerged from reading MacDonald's Phantastes, and seeing my brother's toy garden when a child; were merely signposts to what I truly desired. They were not the thing itself. 

I concluded that; if I find in myself a desire that no experience in this world could satisfy  the most probable explanation? I was made for another world. 

At present we are on the outside of that world, the wrong side of the door. We cannot mingle with the splendours we see. 

But all the leaves of the New Testament are rustling with the news that it will not always be so; that one day, God willing, we shall get in.

Meanwhile: the cross comes before the crown. And tomorrow is another morning.  

A cleft has opened in the pitiless walls of this world. And we have been invited to follow our great Captain inside. 

Following Him is, of course, the essential point. 

Dion Fortune's description of Direct Knowing, from the 1930s

I have quite often tried to describe what I call Direct Knowing, which I regard as the most fundamental form of understanding, the bottom line, the ultimate (and divine) way of knowing. 

Yesterday I found a passage of writing which seems to describe how Direct Knowing feels and operates, written in the 1930s by Dion Fortune. 

She says there are three basic ways that the mind works: in words, in picture images; and a third and higher type of mentality, "which comes to all of us occasionally at times of stress". 

This is a thinking in terms of pure idea, in which the idea arises in the mind complete and does not have to be thought out; but comes in a flash of realization which we apprehend in a sudden glimpse of insight; which will then gradually unfold and realize in all its implications. 

Edited from page 21 An Introduction to Ritual Magic by Dion Fortune - edited by Gareth Knight, 1997/2006.   

"The hand follows the eye" - To navigate life, we need to look where we are going

The only way to talk with the subconscious mind is through the pictorial imagination, because it has a very archaic mode of mentation that developed before speech had been thought of. It is unresponsive to logic, or argument, or appeals to its better nature. But show it a picture, and it understands and is only too ready to cooperate - now that it knows what is required of it. 

This is an exemplification of the well known maxim that the hand follows the eye.

If you look over the hedge when driving a car, you will end up in the ditch because, all unconsciously, you will steer in the direction in which you are looking. 

The novice keeps his eye on the kerb in order to avoid running into it, and follows St Paul's example in doing the thing he would not. 

The expert looks where he wants to go, and gets there. 

Edited from page 21 An Introduction to Ritual Magic by Dion Fortune - 

edited by Gareth Knight, 1997/2006 

**

This is a metaphor for the role in our mortal life; "where we want to go" means our desire for, and confident belief-in, salvation. 

The hand follows the eye... "The hand" is what we do in life - all that complex and potentially bewildering combination of attitudes, and knowledge, and actions. 

"The eye" is what is the subject of our attention. 

If we "look over the hedge", looking around instead of looking ahead; we shall be distracted by the temporary contingencies of mortal life, and will end up in a ditch... 

If our attention is focused on the close-up and specifics of life - such as the avoidance of sins, or doing particular good works - then we will drive into the kerb... 

We need instead to focus on where we want to go. 

And for a Christian: where-we-want-to-go comes after death: and is Resurrected Eternal Heavenly life.  

When we know where we want to go, are confident that we can get there; when we look at it and keep this vision before us - then we will get there. 

For most Christians, officially, Omni-God is mandatory - free will/ agency... not really

The problem for traditional, orthodox mainstream Christian Churches is that they make a very Big Thing about the creator deity being Omni-God - but when it comes to the free will of Men... Well, freedom is accorded much, much less significance. 

On the one hand; Omni-God is absolutely mandatory - the church member must swear to that concept. 

On the other hand; each Man's freedom... well, it is supposed to be present and effective. Christians are supposed to be able to choose our values, commitments, behaviours - either because we get divinely evaluated on them, or else simply because these decisions have consequences related to salvation. 

However; both in theory and in practice, freedom may be (more, or less) dispensed-with by this type of Christianity. At the very least least, Man's freedom gets so hedged-about with so many caveats, that when it comes to the crunch - e.g. when it comes to a conflict between Man's Freedom and God's Omni-status... well, agency means little or nothing. 

Omni-God Must Be - but Man's Freedom is something rather difficult, something we are allowed to doubt and debate... 

In the crunch, Omni-God prevails and freedom is imprisoned, and perhaps forgotten. 

Looking at a couple of Protestant documents: The Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571 are (in theory, if not in practice) the confession of the Church of England, and all the other churches in the Anglican communion - third largest in the world. This has as its first item of faith, the Omni-God:

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.

The Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646 is the basis for several nonconformist groups, including the Presbyterians. This is more explicit, and hard-line, in its Omni-Goddism than the 39 Articles; and requires affirmation of a conception of the God that would (of itself) probably satisfy the most ardent pure-monotheist: 

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Having established the absolute requirement of belief in an Omni-God - what do these documents say of Man's freedom?  

39 Articles: The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Westminster: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. When God converts a sinner and translates Him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

We see that, in contrast to the much-emphasized and freedom of God elsewhere described in these documents; in this earthly mortal life, Man is characterized mainly by un-freedom. 

Man is describing here as lacking the freedom in the divine sense - that freedom which is necessary for creation, and indeed (I would say) for love. 

In these confessions; Man cannot will good, but can only will a kind of double negation of rejecting evil, or will acquiescing to the good that is done-for-us and given-us by God the Father and Jesus Christ. 

What I see; is how far from the situation described in the Gospels, especially the Fourth Gospel (John) Christianity had developed by the time of these confessions. How close Christianity had come to the pure monotheism of Judaism or Islam; by which Man's freedom is (so it seems to me) almost solely related to the choice of obedience and submission to God's will, law, and commandments. 

Even this minimal version of human agency as obedience is, by my understanding, impossible when God is truly Omni. 

When God is everything necessary, Man's existence and "choices" mean nothing of real value.

When God is absolute and infinite in knowledge, power, and presence; this eliminates any need, space, or place for Man's agency to exist - so it gets ignored.

For orthodox, mainstream, traditional Christian Churches; the Omni-God is absolute, compulsory, officially-required, built-in. 

Human free agency - by contrast - is treated like an optional extra, a mere embellishment or decoration on the rock of faith; nice but (when the chips are down) not-really-necessary.   

Therefore; if a Christian believes in the reality and vital importance of his own free agency to salvation and theosis - to living this earthly mortal life...

Then, in order to be honest and coherent both; such a Christian ought to set-aside the Omni-God concept, or at least relegate Omni-God to subordinate status. 

And instead seek an understanding of God that acknowledges - and clearly and coherently explains - the nature, origin, truth, and goodness of each Man's freedom. 

Note: I leave it to the members of the two largest Christian communions - Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - to do the same exercise for the confessional documents of their own institutions. 

So-called "AI" is a world of virtual virtuality: a copy of a copy...

Edited from a sharply-insightful Comment by NLR at Francis Berger's blog: 

A common claim is that (So-called) "AI will usher in an endless frontier of creativity". 

There's plenty of reasons to disagree with this, but I want to discuss the assumptions associated with this view of creativity. The core distinction is that the assumptions of mechanistic creativity are false at a fundamental level.

The idea that the virtual world would become a world unto itself has been presented over and over again for decades, in both fiction and nonfiction. 

And yet how can that be true when the virtual world takes everything it has from the real world? 

What actually happened is that the virtual world has shrunk more and more over the years and so-called AI is just increasing this. 

Since AI works by copying what's on the Internet, its products are a copy of a copy, creating a world of virtual virtuality. 

Power and corruption - Is the evil of power an amplification, a temptation, or the fundamental nature of things?

In ancient times, it seems that power was regarded as A Good Thing - the only problem was getting it! The assumption was that gaining power simply enabled good people to do good things. 

Power was wanted for Us, and Our power was good. The evil of power was when They had it, and exercised it on Us. 

When someone with power did evil, then the ancient assumption was that power simply revealed their real nature - which had previously been thwarted of expression. 

Power for the ancients was thus an amplifier. 

It was as if goodness and evil were innate qualities; "a good man" given more power would, by his nature, do more good; and vice versa. 

The best society was therefore one such as King Arthur's Camelot; in which there was a good and powerful ruler. 

The era of power-as-amplifier also includes the assumption that the goodness of the ruler's power would permeate the people (as if the people would inevitably absorb the goodness of power, like a sponge). So, a good and powerful ruler, would lead to a better people. 

The idea that power corrupts, was a product of the modern era; and became socially dominant especially in the middle 20th century. 

We see it in literature such as the depiction of the Emperors and their courts in Robert Graves's I Claudius and Claudius the God - when many basically-decent individuals such as Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius himself, become corrupted by their power. (And those who are not corrupted get eliminated.) 

The corrupting effect of power was supposed to work such that a normal, or even good, person who got enough power, would strongly tend to be corrupted by it. So that a powerful monarch, or in the 20th century a secular dictator, might start out doing overall good; but would tend to become worse, get more selfish and paranoid, and do increasing harm...

The more power someone had, and the longer he wielded that power - the more corrupted he would become. 

Thus, in contrast with the ancients; the "power corrupts" idea was that power would itself tend make individuals evils: power was understood as a temptation. 

The more power, the longer the power was wielded: the greater the temptation.

From the late twentieth century the idea began to emerge that power was intrinsically corrupt: power just is corruption. 

While it is true that power amplifies innate evil, and also corrupts; in this most recent era there is more to power. It is not just a question of power bringing-out evil, plus tempting people to evil; on top of (and underpinning) these: power always is evil in its fundamental nature. 

This analysis asserts that power cannot be good, that power always is evil - because of what power is. 

Such an idea can be seen emerging in the depiction of the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings - where the temptation of power is, in practice, unstoppable in its corruption- such that even the most good and pure of people (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragorn) know they they would be unable to resist it.  

Here we may see hints of the current concept that the very nature and operation of power is evil (yet not quite fully in place, because the legitimate monarchical power of Aragorn is regarded as unproblematically good). 

Yet now, the situation is that power is regarded as coercion; as operating by compulsion of one by another; or of the masses by the minority rulers; or of people by the totalitarian System or "machine". 

A literary exponent of this vision of fundamentally evil power is Philip K Dick; with the depictions of future (and present day) dystopias as the Black Iron Prison; in which the whole structure of societal power is regarded as evil incarnate, set against each individual - who is a victim of power regardless of his position within The System. 

The operations of power are therefore such as to spread evil; in that power compels. Power propagandizes, coaxes, and forces behaviour - power deploys punishment for failure to obey; and power allocates rewards for compliance.  

In other words: power is all about bribes and sanctions and the like - these are not means to an end; but propaganda, bribes and sanctions, and brute force are what power is. 

The corruption spreads; because power is about getting others to behave in accordance with fear and greed, and the lust for power. 

This development in the understanding of power is, I believe, a consequence of the changing nature of human consciousness - the development by which human behaviour began as spontaneously and unconsciously immersed in the group-mind; and then (via transitional stages) became a alienated modern situation, in which each human experiences himself as cut-off from other people, from reality - even from his inmost self.

Whereas ancient power was diffused among the group mind - so that it was intrinsically shared-between the members; now power is experienced as external compulsion of one upon others.

Power makes everybody worse - the powerful, and those upon whom power is exercised! 

This is why the making of structures of power - power to shape, destroy and compel the world (as its people) - has been so much the focus of demonic strategy through most of the modern era. 

This has many and deep consequences; such that whereas the ancients could do good by power; we moderns cannot - power only does evil in the modern world, and can only do evil because of its nature. 

This applies to all humans with power - all are evil; and to all institutions with power, including Christian churches. 

Insofar as a Christian church is powerful, it is evil - it can only be evil. Whatever Christian churches do to increase their power is based on the false argument that power will enable them to do more good... The reality is that more-power simply makes churches more-evil. 

Because power is evil by its nature in the context of modern consciousness; institutional activity to "do good" that was normal in the past, is impossible in the present. 

Even when the intent to do good with power is genuine; insofar as power is attained, evil will in fact be done. 

This corruption of power is not just a temptation that might (in theory) be eschewed; the corruption of power is unavoidable, because it is in the fundamental nature of power. 

**

Note: What of the future? Well, it seems clear to me that, when power is known as innately evil; Christians need to lose their past keenness on getting and wielding power via - whether personally, or via institutions. The antidote to a world of power, is a world of love - and that is Heaven; and the mortal realities of Heavenly love that we may experience on earth. But even our idea of Heaven needs to be purged of past infatuations with power. We should also distinguish between the zero-sum games of power, which is all about arranging what is already created; and our potential for adding (eternally) to the sum and varieties of divine creation - through our own divine freedom, in harmony with ongoing creation. Of course, in our mortal lives in this mixed world, permeated by entropy and evil; we cannot eschew power, and necessarily participate in it - but we can and should recognize and repent the necessity. 

Further Note: Lest I be misunderstood - the situation is Not symmetrical. Although power is evil, power-less-ness does not mean good-ness. To be wholly good, power must not be operative. To put matters positively - goodness works by love, not power. Power is the destruction of loving relationship. 

However; in this mortal earthly life, love and power are always mixed in actual Men and their actual relationships, in a manner analogous to the inevitable mixture of good and evil in the hearts of each Man. Only after we have been remade and transformed by resurrection can Men (and other Beings) become wholly-loving. So, the situation in this earthly mortal life is that we cannot Be goos and loving (except partially and intermittently) but we can , and should, to affiliate to the side of love, just as we can/should affiliate to the side of God. It is not a matter of total reform and purification (which is impossible in this world) - what matter is a matter of taking sides; and, when it comes to values and matter of taking the right side.   

Acknowledgement: My awareness of the changing understanding of power originated from Tom Shippey's discussion of the One Ring in his magisterial The Road to Middle Earth, and some further discussion in the essays Roots and Branches.  

Optimism or Boosterism?

It is surely pleasanter to expect things to get better in the future, than to expect the opposite. 

Yet, if we are honest, such predictions ought to be rooted in honest realism rather than what happens to make us feel more cheerful at the moment. 

But aside from this, optimism is often tainted by Boosterism - which is often regarded as a distinctively American trait, but (since the US came to dominate global culture) is now seen almost everywhere. 

The idea of Boosterism is that optimistic prognostications are self-fulfilling: that if people believe something is going to be successful, to get-better; then this will happen. 

Boosterism seems to derive from people "talking-up" their town or business; exaggerating and boasting about its past and present success, in order to attract belief and investment - leading (it is hoped) to a more prosperous future.

Boosterism also applies to people as well as institutions; and, in England, has gone from a disapproved rarity in my early adult life, to something insisted upon by bureaucratic procedures - hence almost universal. 

For instance; UK scientists in the 1980s were self-deprecating and affected humility. But from around the millennium, scientists were required to construct and publish elaborate deniable-dishonesties concerning the great importance and influence of their work; as part of local and national bureaucratic research evaluation schemes. 

Since appointments, promotions, and funding depended on successful Boosterism; scientists soon believed these inflated self-narratives; and their scientific researches incrementally detached from reality, transforming into status-seeking fantasies.  

Such calculated untruthfulness, in a domain which was tasked with absolute truth-seeking; was self-justified in terms of all the "good work" that could be accomplished; "if only" I had that appointment/ promotion/ funding/ award or whatever...

In the end, those who embarked on this path simply became ever-more focused on satisfying the (ever-fluctuating) bureaucratic criteria of success - which were not merely irrelevant to, but actually opposed, the conduct of real science.   

On-line discourse has also become rampant with Boosterism; as can be seen by the self-presentation of most people engaged in social media, blogs, videos etc; including the frequency with which analysis and opinion is linked to monetization.  

This happens because the promotion of a place, or a business or other group activity, so easily becomes conflated with self-promotion; and self-promotion is justified in terms of its (supposedly) leading to benefits for the place, business or group. 

This can be seen in the absurd (but universal) practice whereby people who are awarded some prize, award or honour; claim that "I didn't want it for myself, but accepted it for the benefit of the team"... This! after grinding and grovelling in pursuit of just such a prize/ award/ honour, for perhaps several decades!

Anyway; our natural inclination to want to believe things are getting better may synergize with Boosterism in a spiritually-undesirable fashion. 

Typically, this is obvious to everyone except the person doing it; who is being gratified by (what seems to him) asserting success and its achievement, as if by magic!

Pretty rapidly; the process detaches from reality, and gets sustained by dishonest fantasy. The spiritual is subjective, and therefore genuine spirituality soon gets displaced by the observable and measurable objectivities of the material. 

Successful expansion becomes both outcome and goal - so that motives are re-orientated towards... wherever "success" leads. Expanding monetization rapidly shapes and drives evaluations and opinions.   

This form of corruption can be seen operating (in real time) with respect to individual people, with churches, businesses; and in institutions such as schools, colleges and departments of bureaucracy.  

Boosterism is perhaps especially dominant at present, when honest realism seems to lead to pessimism. An increasingly desperate desire to be optimistic at any price then joins with self-promotion - leading to the self-gratifying contention that Things Really Are Getting Better... 

Instead of recognizing that we have temporarily adapted to the demands of a fundamentally evil totalitarian system - and thereby become corrupted; Booster-people instead claim to have "bucked the trend".

The Boosters assert that a corner has been turned, the pendulum has swung - and they are merely riding a new wave of betterment.

And all that other people need to do to make the world a better place is... To believe the Boosters and do what they say! 

And anyone who disagrees with the Boosters' self-aggrandizing assertions - is a Bad Person who wants to stop all the good stuff from happening! 

**

Note: This was stimulated by reflections at Francis Berger's blog.  

The individual spiritually-transcends the group, yet our material society depends on categories - A sign of the End Times?

I have often discussed the change in human consciousness by which our original state of near-complete (albeit largely unconscious and spontaneous) immersion in a group identity; has transformed to the modern experience of - on the one hand - alienation, cut offness from community and indeed the world; and - on the other hand - freedom, agency, the autonomy of the individual. 

We modern Western people need to be conscious of our understandings, and to choose our affiliations and motivations, in a way that was impossible in the past - but unavoidable in this present. 

Hence we are responsible, in a ultimate way, for our beliefs. Including the primary assumptions we make concerning the fundamental nature of reality (i.e. we are responsible for choosing out metaphysical system). 

We Just Are responsible - although, at present, this responsibility s largely shirked... 

Instead; people prefer to take refuge in assertions that they have no choice, or that their understanding is compelled upon them by facts and reason. Yet what counts as facts and reasons are, in actuality, themselves a consequence of prior metaphysical choices. 

What this means is that the individual is the primary unit of spiritual discourse, in a way that undercuts not only such groupings as nations, races, sexes, and the like; but also church institutions of all kinds. When the individual is primary, the group must be secondary - and derived. 

Yet our society is based in groups. 

All of our social institutions already (and, in some ways, increasingly) regard individuals in terms of their group identity; and this applies to laws, rules, procedures, mandatory-"guidelines", economic formulae, and the like. 

This seems both practically and conceptually inevitable in political terms; such that we cannot even imagine how a human society, in this world could possibly function - on the basis of consciously-chosen relationships between individual persons!  

In sum: The group collapses, and is transcended - spiritually. 

But, at the same time; materially, the group has not been transcended - and there seems no sign that it shall be. 

We are materially ruled on the basis of categories and algorithms; even as spiritually we are free and responsible agents of our own salvation, learning, loving, and creating in this world.

The spirit and the material now pull us in opposite directions. 

To satisfy the one, we must subvert, weaken, and perhaps destroy, the other. 

Perhaps this is another indication that we are in the End Times? 

 

Explaining contradictions: The paradoxical expressions of Christian mysticism

It strikes me that the way in which (what I might call) mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology tries to explain its inbuilt contradictions, is by the assertion of contraries, in a paradoxical and mystical way.

The contradictions arise from monism - by which I mean that the starting assumption is of the unity of God who is assumed to be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. This means that everything is God, including all of creation, and every possible derivative and consequence of creation. 

So that God is good, and God is also everything we regard as evil. And the world, which seems to be a mixture of good and evil, is actually (by assumption) absolutely unified. All that exists is one kind-of-thing - because that thing is God, because there is nothing else that it could be. 

The appearance of the world seems to include many distinct people, animals, plants, minerals etc; but at root all must (by assumptions) come from God; and everything about them comes from God. All all apparent differentness is ultimately one. 

For Christians there must be freedom, agency, autonomy; and therefore life unrolls unpredictably. And yet, everything that seems independent is actually just "a thought in the mind of God" (who is time-less), and everything that happens is foreknown to God - because for God there is no time; and all that was, is, and shall-be is "simultaneous". 

How does mainstream Christian theology explain such contradictions? Ultimately it does not explain them - ultimately, these contradictions are asserted in sequence, one after another, and both sides of the contradiction are then said to be true.

For instance: 1: We are creatures wholly of-God - everything of us was made, from nothing, by God. 2: We are also free agents, capable of genuine choice, from our-selves. Both at once, 1&2... Q: But how exactly? A: Just Because.   

Two contradictory statements are made, one after the other, and asserted both necessarily to be true - and that is the (mystical) explanation of the contradiction.   

Therefore, when an enquirer digs deep into Christian theology to ask how it fits-together; he meets with mysticism: and that mysticism entails the sequential assertion of contraries as simultaneous truths. Christian mysticism is the realization that all apparent contradictions are compatible within the unity of Omni-God. 

For mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology; contradictions are fundamental and unavoidable - therefore paradoxical mysticism is necessarily the bottom-line "explanation" when it comes to reconciling The World with Ultimate Reality. 

**

The question for each Christian is whether or not he is happy with having his religion rooted in paradoxical mysticism? 

It seems that in the past, in many times and places, people were happy with a religion rooted in contradictions. 

However, I am not happy with such a situation here-and-now; and indeed regard it as a fundamental and fatally-weakening flaw...

Which is why I have needed to develop a qualitatively distinct explanation for Christianity, rooted in different primary assumptions regarding the nature of God and reality. 

The content of visions is non-objective, clearly - and yet...

I had missed this very interesting post by William James Tychonievich - Visions as irruptions of dreaming consciousness into waking life - when it came-out some six months ago. 

I agree with his remark that dreaming goes on all the time, but only sometimes emerges into awareness; and some of these times may include visions. 

Such considerations open-up a very important theme, about which I have often been confused. 

The thing about visions is that they can be very compelling, in an overall sense. They may feel very important: which probably means they do have genuine significance. Yet at the same time the content of visions is non-objective. 

I conclude this not only from my personal experiences - in which the objective content of some very compelling, highly convincing, dreams and visions has turned-out to be untrue - factually false, informationally wrong - wrong in various ways and degrees. 

But also, I have noticed this factual/ informational falseness/ wrongness in others.... From having read and pondered large numbers of accounts of visions from all sorts of people... From some famous founders of religions and denominations and societies. And in more recent reading in the works of 20th century people who were Christian mystics, in the Western tradition of ritual/ ceremonial magic, and from "New Age" and Western practitioners of Eastern religions. 

Of course, among all these reports are plenty of people who I judge to be dishonest (pretending to experiences in order to manipulate other people), and others who seem self-deluded and dominated by wishful-thinking. 

Most self-styled visionaries are indeed of these kinds, and are spiritually interesting only in a pathological sense. 

However; there are also plenty of visionary experiences described by people whose honesty I believe, and whose competence I respect. 

There is, therefore, truth of some sort in their visions. 

And yet: the objective content of their images I usually believe to be wrong. 

Furthermore, there are stark contradictions between information reported by the various trustworthy people, even among those who I most respect. 

They cannot all be correct - at least not correct in the kind of straightforward and literal ways in which so many of the individuals themselves seemed to accept the content of their visions.    

This is not at all surprising if, as WmJas says, visions are (mostly) waking dreams - because dreams are, notoriously, often incoherent; and "factually impossible" dream material is frequent. 

It would seem like an obviously futile project to try and build some kind of objective "system" of spiritual knowledge from the material of dreams... Yet, exactly this has been (and still is being) often attempted. 

My conclusion is that we should not be trying to use visions (or, indeed, other "paranormal" kinds of experience) as a method for gaining factual understanding. 

Although this is exactly how visions often have been used; the actual results are idiosyncratic to individuals (and potentially unstable, in that future visions may contradict those of the past). 

In the case of formal religions (or systems such as Steiner's Anthroposophy); such intrinsic idiosyncrasy is controlled, and a quasi-objectivity is externally imposed, by privileging particular visions by particular persons. Usually the founder's visions are regarded as factually true, eternally objective; such that they cannot be refuted by anyone else's visions. 

To this end; there is a frequent practice of either forbidding, or ignoring, contradictory visions by other and later persons (as when Steiner's legacy Anthroposophical Society expelled the occultist-mystic Valentine Tomberg, for doing what Steiner had done). Or (as with the CJCLDS Mormons) doctrinally limiting the significance of later visions and personal revelations to minor and individual matters. 

Or, within mainstream Christianity, when there have been times and places when it was insisted that revelation ended with Jesus, or the Apostles, or the Bible, or particular Ecumenical Councils - and later claims of revelation were assumed necessarily to be subordinate, or false. 

But this seems, pretty obviously, merely an expedient exercise of top-down power, designed to maintain an institution or system. 

If a religion or other institution is founded-upon and derives-from visions (and other supernatural experiences); then there is something very dubious about later generations suppressing or limiting the significance and scope of visionary experiences. 

But such negative and sceptical evaluation of visionary experiences is not the whole truth of the matter - because it would seem to point to the rejection of this kind of experience as intrinsically false, or impossible to evaluate. 

(And if visions really are impossible to evaluate, then most religions have cut away their own foundations.) 

Even though having the quality of waking dreams; visionary experiences are (I believe) potentially very important, and rightly regarded as (in some way) significant. 

Because our dreams themselves are potentially important - and this was a fact recognized in nearly all times and places except the modern West.  

My own attitude is to try and get away from the idea of visions (and dreams) as a source of factual, objective, information or knowledge - and instead to seek the significance at another level. 

In line with my general attitude, with respect to theology and Christianity; I think it probable that the true and important facts of our mortal life are few and simple; graspable-by and innate-to young children. 

In essence, visions ought not to be used such as to increase the volume, complexity and difficulty of information; and should instead be understood as leading us towards clarity and simplicity. 

What we might reasonably expect from dreams may be of this kind: simple affirmations or refutations of simple and basic understandings; pointers towards or away-from broad aspects of our mortal lives.

I would add that it has usually been recognized that most dreams, and probably most waking visions, are essentially trivial. And only some, maybe few, and maybe rare - dreams impress themselves upon us as significant: those numinous dreams and visions, ones having a mystical feel and a sense of personal importance. 

It is these numinous/ mythic/ significant-feeling dreams to which I refer.

For instance; when I awake from a dream of a particular place having a magical quality, and this dream lingers; such a dream is not likely to be indicative or confirmation of specific information about a specific place. Perhaps, instead, it may be a very general affirmation of the potentially magical reality underlying my mortal existence - and the specifics of the dream are just a means to that end.

I have had an occasional lucid and realistic dream of Jesus Christ in his mortal life, and in one such dream he gave some specific information, which I later became sure was wrong information. Yet even when all the details are false or dubious; the dream had a lasting inner significance as a subjective confirmation of the simple reality of Jesus, as a personage. 

Broadly; that is now how I try to "interpret" my dreams, visions, or any other supernatural-type experiences that happen from tie to time. 

I try not to become focused upon specific detail and facts; and instead to reflect upon my own simple responses as a guide to what was "really" being communicated. 

Another way of thinking about it, is that visions (like dreams) are not about telling us something new; but are about the simple discernments involved in sorting-out our already-existing and most basic assumptions concerning our lives, and how they relate to reality. 

Visions are therefore about discernment, not knowledge. 

Is it possible to be A Christian, and to practice another religion?

Q: Is it possible for be A Christian, and to practice another religion? 

A: Yes it is possible, here-and-now.... 

But it was not always possible. 

In the past (and even today, in other places) someone who recited a creed would believe that creed. More exactly, he could not say it unless he believed it; because saying was believing. 

In earlier forms of human consciousness; thoughts were words, words were thoughts; and words were things. 

But now, words are not things: words can mean other than they say, or mean nothing. 

Now; thoughts are distinguishable from words, and words are distinguishable from actions. 

This is, indeed, normal - and indeed required. Therefore...

Modern Men can do Christianity, but not be a Christian; and can be a Christian but not do it.  

So it is here-and-now possible to practice any other religion, or none; and yet be A Christian...

And/or be a Christian and/yet practice some other religion, or none. 

Which is, if you think about it, when you look around at The World, very much for-the-best; which is, presumably, why God has made things thus. 

JD Salinger - the contradictions of his Westernized Hindu spirituality

In Zooey by JD Salinger, which is one of my favourite stories - reinforced by the preceding and following stories of Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters, and Seymour: an introduction - the young adult protagonists (Franny and Zooey Glass) are acutely motivated by a hatred of egotism: in themselves, as well as in others. 

This hatred of "ego" - of The Self and its aggrandisement - is so powerful as to become the prime motivation - the most important thing for them both. 

This leads to a double-negative spirituality; with the usual problem of double-negations, which is incoherence. 

Incoherence because we can (and most people do) incoherently oppose and reject multiple things; but lacking a positive motivation there is nothing (not even in principle) that can or should harmonize such rejections. 

In Zooey and the other stories (as, apparently, in Salinger's own life) this loathing of ego led to oneness spirituality, which in Salinger's case was an inevitably-Western form of Vedanta Hinduism. 

 

In Zooey; we therefore get two opposite attempts to negate ego, and attain oneness. 

The first is to reject every-thing, so as to regard this mortal life as unimportant. Unimportant because an illusion (maya). 

We should thus strive to live by asceticism, without any attachment to the people and things of this world. 

The other, substantially opposite, response is to cease discernment among the things of this world (because they are all, ultimately, one); and then to conclude from this that everything is valuable, and equally valuable. 

In other words; we should embrace every-thing: every person, every thing, every event or non-event - all just the same. 

The idea is that the whole world is (equally-) Holy, and that (as F & Z's elder brother Seymour supposedly said: "all we do our whole lives is go from one little piece of Holy Ground to the next."  

So which is it to be? 

Do we reject the ego by rejecting the world, and ceasing to care about anything? Or do we reject ego by trying to recognize and experience that everything in the world is holy and equally holy?

It seems that F & N oscillate between the two.   

Also in practice; Franny and Zooey, and their brothers Buddy and the late Seymour, are very keen on practising a kind of micro-discernment; that discovers ultimate meaning in tiny, unnoticed, neglected yet wonderful epiphanic moments of life. 

The result is an inconsistency of belief and practice which is (apparently) intensely frustrating, and indeed despair-inducing (to the point of suicide in the most rigorous among the Glass siblings: Seymour). 

Yet this inconsistency is baked-into oneness spirituality, from its very foundations. 

And this incoherence works as a kind of proof that the double-negation of "rejection of ego" cannot, and should not, be the highest value. 

We should instead seek a positive value as our highest and deepest motivator. 

A precise geopolitical prediction (for what very-little it's worth)

My prediction: Before this April (i.e. within less than a month of the new DT administration) there will be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - de facto in support of CHOAM. 

There will be some kind of state of National Emergency in the major Western military powers with dictatorship powers resumed bypassing normal legislative procedures (as happened in 2020). 

There will be plans for a large and rapid military deployment to the Middle Eastern region - and I think there may well be an attempt to introduce military conscription under some misleading conceptualization.  

This is, I believe The Plan - but of course, in a world of Free Agency, and where there is a hot civil war among the Western/ Globalist leadership class; it may not work-out as planned.

The best thing about this prediction is that if I am wrong (as I hope will be the case) - then the prediction will easily and quickly be refuted; and will not, therefore, hang-around for ages, causing trouble!

Robert Graves writing total bollix - with superb conviction

No poet can hope to understand the nature of poetry unless he has had a vision of the Naked King crucified to the lopped oak, and watched the dancers, red-eyed from the acrid smoke of the sacrificial fires, stamping out the measure of the dance, their bodies bent uncouthly forward, with a monotonous chant of "Kill! kill! kill!" and "Blood! blood! blood!

From The White Goddess by Robert Graves

**

The above is a prime example of what I mean by Graves's "superb" (i.e. impressively splendid) prose style; so strong, self-confident and vivid that it is easy to be convinced. 

And thereby fail to notice that what he is actually describing as the basis for Mankind's ideal and proper religion is not only completely-made-up factual nonsense, but also horribly, invertedly, wrong; grossly  undesirable, and an actively evil state of affairs.  

Just in case the reader is doubtful of having understood him aright as proposing this kind of society as A Good Thing; then Graves provided us with an illustrative a novel of this supposed "utopia": Seven Days in New Crete. 

   

Yet, while actually reading the passage... Well, it's hard not to believe him, for a moment or two!

Secret Christians and the secret doctrine

It seems possible, and perhaps likely, that Jesus Christ's work was at a cosmic and creational level primarily and essentially. 

Jesus changed reality, and set-up a new possibility. 

The religion of Christianity would therefore be something secondary and optional - a means to the end of being A Christian, that might well be or become an obstacle or deterrent to achieving that end.

If Secret Christians are indeed, and by intent, the main thing; then this is not really "a religion"; because, by usual definitions and practices, a religion is a social-level phenomenon. 

Christianity certainly can exist at a social level - but if that reality is love based, then it will be rooted in family and close personal relationships; therefore not in institutional forms; and its reality will not be well represented by such categorical and formal structures as rules and laws. 

Thus... Maybe the original assumption of Jesus was that Christianity would be a secret doctrine - "secret" in the sense of potentially private and personal, hence invisible to external perception. 

A doctrine so simple that it could be known by direct personal revelation (communicated by the divinity directly to the hearts of Men); and which could be inferred sufficiently just from innate knowledge and attitudes, and common sense reasoning.  

It is even possible that such a secret form of being-a-Christian would work best when unspoken and generally uncommunicated -- perhaps being kept separate-from (and unconfused by) religion, reduces the chance of distortion?

After all; the main-thing about being a Christian is Heaven, which is not of this world. 

To be born again in resurrection happens on the other side of death. 

Following Jesus during this mortal life is bound-up with contingencies; but what absolutely defines our destiny is whether or not we follow Jesus after we have died biologically. 

Whether we are Secret Christians or not; the essence of the matter is outwith public discourse - between our-selves and the living Jesus Christ. 

 

Why is value-inversion so convincing and popular nowadays?

My basic understanding is that in the process by which Jesus's work and teaching became "Christianity" - something simple and inner, became something complex and outer. 

With Christianity; Jesus's teachings became an "outer" set of laws/ rules embedded in a structure of government, with "the Christian's" duty being, primarily, obedience. 

Christianity defined being-a-Christian as obedience to the rules and laws of The Church (and/or of the Christian State). 

As part of this, Christianity became a "system" of dos and don'ts - a system of rules that were - overall and on average - Good...

Yet, at the same time, external rules (no matter how many, and how perfectly obeyed) can never, in principle, capture the essence of being a follower of Jesus Christ... Which is ultimately an inner matter - a matter of motivations. 

This has always been obvious enough to thoughtful Christians - obedience to the structure is never enough; and the rules can only (at most and at best) serve as "pointers" towards being-a-Christian. 

Furthermore, the rules - by their nature - are incomplete, to some extent incoherent, and have exceptions. 

Even the best rules do harm, as well as good. For instance; rules that benefit the majority, in the long term; will often harm a minority (which may be a large minority) in the short term. And the harms may be immediate and certain, while benefits are delayed, and somewhat conjectural.  

In other words, the essence of Christianity is personal, and private; and always has been. 

In a strict sense, therefore; all real Christians are "Secret Christians" - Christians in their hearts; and this subjective reality cannot possibly be "captured" by even the best sets of Good rules; even when these rules/laws are most ideally administered and obeyed. 

But in practice; the rules were very much more imperfect than ideal, there was corruption in their administration; and plenty of people were hypocrites - who exploited the letter of the law to subvert the Christian spirit behind the law. 

Yet it was usually asserted that the real and true Christianity was its laws and institutions. Or, that this must be the case in practice. 

What happened in private was therefore down-rated to merely subjective - and the objective fact of the actual religion was made the observable, the measurable, the societal. 

Secret Christians were relegated to an idea realm of fantasy; ignored, regarded (often accurately) as an excuse for apostasy - and so forth. 

So Real Christianity was in practice reduced to what was public, what was legal, what was political... 

  

And thereby Christianity was made ripe for destruction! 

The situation was that real Christianity was said (implicitly and in practice, even when officially denied) to be the rules, laws and institutions. 

Yet exactly this actuality of Christianity was very imperfect - even in theory, and even at its best it was incomplete and probabilistic; and Christian rules and laws did significant harm, even when they did overall Good. 

Over several generations, over the past couple of centuries; the rules and laws of external Christianity were analysed, dissected, subverted - and they were significantly discredited as Not Good Enough. 

Having been proved inadequate -- at least, proved to be incoherent, incomplete, and significantly harmful to the satisfaction of the ruling and dominant classes; these "Christian rules" were increasingly confidently seen as A Problem (indeed seen as The Problem), not as an answer. 

Christian rules and laws were seen as not reformable; but as something we would be better rid of. 

And once the rules and institutions of Christianity evil were seen as a problem; then the stage was set for the incremental inversion of these rules, and the take-over or destruction of the church institutions by the governing ideology of hedonic materialism. 

For instance; the rules of patriarchy were inverted to feminism; laws encouraging and enforcing chastity was inverted to "free love", and so forth. 

My point here is that - in the space of about 150 years - The West has gone from a set of net-Good but imperfect and partly-harmful "Christian" rules; via a stage of critique and subversion of these rules; to the current situation in which there has been a value-inversion. 

The current ideology is one that is orientated against the rules, laws and institutions of what was defined as "Christianity"; and which came to be regarded as intrinsically limited, hypocritically administered, and actually harmful - albeit usually harmful in a minority (whether large or small) of applications and instances. 

With this behind us; we cannot, and indeed should not try to, return to the pre-current-ideology System of rules/ laws/ institutions... 

Even though the rules and laws of Christendom were indeed better than the present situation overall and on average. 

The traditional externally-defined Christianity of rules/ laws/ institution has been discredited - discredited in theory, as well as in practice. 

The problems of the past are just too obvious, and too well-known, for sufficient (and sufficiently widespread) motivation to restore it (even if that were possible). 

But the Secret Christianity, of which we can read in the Fourth Gospel, remains as ever it has. 

This is and was a personal and private Christianity (or following of Jesus) that existed without (and before) there was church, scriptures, theology, or traditions.

Secret Christianity is still the real thing, un-capturable by any set or rules and laws; and immune to any institution - and attainable whether the system is for net-Good, or against it...

Just as it was during the ministry of Jesus Christ.