Since Google's 2K search engine was far superior to any so-called AI; then why are people in 2025 so awed and submissive about AI?

Since Google's 2K search engine was far superior to any so-called AI; then why are people in 2025 so awed and submissive about AI?

It's an interesting question. 

There was certainly a vast degree of hype about The Internet in the 1990s, as well as many serious and thoughtful attempts to predict its consequences (which were spectacularly wrong in almost every instance!); and people who used search engines recognized that Google was a qualitative improvement on what had existed before (I recall that Altavista was the best engine just before Google emerged in 1997). 

And indeed the Google search engine rapidly became a superb tool; far superior to anything that has existed since around 2010. Google has almost completely destroyed its own search value, and nothing significantly superior has emerged - or, probably, nothing superior has been allowed to emerge.

But there was never anything like the quasi-worship and sheer mental derangement that is at present rampant on the subject of AI; where people I would have (until recently) regarded as sensible and decent, are spouting incoherent-impossible nonsense about what AI can/ should/ will be used for, and apparently being taken seriously.

Worst of all - they are looking forward to it! This reminds me of the 2020 totalitarian globalist who said that in his future we will "own nothing - and be happy" - but even worse: this time we shall instead (or as well) "be ruled, monitored and controlled by robot computers - and be happy".    

I take this as strong and solid evidence of the astonishing degree of spiritual corruption to which people in general have sunk. Not just the rulers, who have led and managed the avalanche of nihilism; but the masses as well. 

Common sense has gone. Simple two-step reasoning has gone. And the reason is that almost everybody, including almost all self-identified religious or spiritual people, has adopted the pervasive assumptions of inhabiting a purpose-less, meaning-less world from-which we are alienated, and with which we engage only materially. 

Inside people there is, apparently... nothing - a void; continuously filled up from externally by the media and institutions and superficial "cause and effect" interactions of "social life". 

And it turns-out that is makes no significant difference whether this inner void is filled by political ideology or church doctrine and guidance - these are all substantially converged, and it all comes to the same in the end.  

Of course there is not really a void inside us, but an eternal self; which is a part of God's living creation. 

But we have chosen to deny, disbelieve and ignore this in favour of mechanism, passivity, and ultimate, existential irresponsibility.   

That's why people are so very impressed by the real-world-useless, destructive, literally soul-destroying toy-master that is called AI. 

If ultimate reality is physics, mathematics, geometry... Re-reading The Place of the Lion, by Charles Williams

I have been re-reading (after many previous readings) my favourite work by Charles Williams - The Place of the Lion (1931)  a book that, I believed, profoundly influenced the writing of both JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis, as well as being of unfailing fascination to me. 

But every time I read it, it feels almost like I am reading another and different book! 

I've shared a few reflections after the most recent encounter, over at my Notion Club Papers blog.

Disney Peter Pan (1953): one of the most perfect movies

Captain Hook - with his lantern jaw, five o'clock shadow, and double-cigar holder! 

Yesterday, I re-watched (maybe the fourth time?) Walt Disney's 1953 animated movie Peter Pan; and again it struck me as one of the very best of the Disney full length cartoons (running at about 75 minutes). 

Of course the source material of this adaptation is one of the great modern myths; which certainly helps. But what makes the movie so good is the script, pacing, and characterisation. 

The screenplay is coherent, sometimes very funny, and overall poignant and enchanting. It is objectively very fast paced, packed with variety and incident, and highly varied in tone, hence continually interesting. Nothing goes for nothing - there is zero padding. 

Yet this is achieved without the slightest sense of being rushed, all the important aspects are given full weight - the editing and pacing are immaculate. 

To my mind; Hans Conried's voicing of Hook (and Mr Darling) is maybe the greatest characterization of the dubbing-era toons (since Disney's Aladdin, modern toons animate the picture around the voice). The emotional range of Hook, displayed on such a small "canvas" is stunning. 

Peter Pan himself is shown with the complex moral ambiguity of the original - perhaps even more so. And Mr Smee is a tremendous, Dickensian, comic creation. Even such a minor character as Tiger Lily (who doesn't speak) jumps-out as a strongly-defined personality, simply from her facial expressions.  

The animation is less beautiful than - say - Snow White - and there is a degree of simplification evident in the basic pictures. Nonetheless the animation is impressively fluid (e.g. consider Tiger Lily's sinuous dancing), especially in the fast comedy sequences (the Smee slapstick is particularly well done), and the always inventive fight sequences. 

And whoever came up with, and executed, the "stuck record" interrupted scream of Hook as his final "words" of the movie; was some kind of genius. 

The economy and clarity achieved by the movie story is perhaps an improvement on the original, especially in its wistful and suggestive ending; I personally find the original Peter Pan ending to be rather messy, as if the author couldn't make up his mind, and wanted to cover all bases. 

Anyway, if you haven't yet watched the Disney Pan - or watched it inattentively - you are in for a treat!

Donald Trump and the latest Pope (for example): People grossly underestimate How Bad Things Are

As a solid and nearly universal generalization: "People" grossly underestimate how bad things are. 

We see this almost everywhere, including among those who regard themselves as radical, uncompromising, anti-Establishment, Christian-motivated - or whatever. 

Think of the past US elections, and the way that so many people really seemed to believe that the situation in the USA was such that DT might make (or would make, or indeed already has made!) a significant difference for the better! 

I can only shake my head in amazement. Do they really believe that the nature of the deepening and widening problems could possibly be reversed by DT? 

Do they honestly suppose that this was, or is, the genuine intention? 

The expressed level of enthusiasm and indeed hope (!) engendered among some Christians by Trump's early announcements was frankly embarrassing, when it was not merely ridiculous. And it is (to say the least) dismaying to realize that the observable fact of regime-continuity, and the failure of any positive overall US or world change to manifest, and the continuation of malignity in core strategies of the US-led West; are so easily and eagerly explained-away.  

Because - with things as bad as they are and worsening long-term; unless the trends were not just slowed or stopped but reversed - decisively and unambiguously reversed (and not in words but in observable overall results) - then any potential variation of "politics as usual" is utterly futile. 

So why discuss it? - discuss it frequently and endlessly, and with all appearances of regarding oneself as saying something fundamental? 

Or the new Pope. It's all "probably some improvement", "wait and see", "something to be said on both sides"; or "give the bloke a chance", "benefit of the doubt" kind of stuff. 

As if a (?) slightly-better Pope than Francis, would have the slightest benefit in a Roman Catholic Church that is collapsing like an avalanche, and putrescent with pervasive corruption and incremental apostasy at every level!  

If the new Pope does Not have what it takes, and that is 100% for sure; then why be so diffident and nuanced about stating the fact!

Clutching at fake straws, wherever you look. 

It really ought to be blazingly obvious that things are very bad indeed and have been continually getting worse for a long time, and with no hint of an upturn. 

This insight isn't exactly rocket surgery. 

When someone doesn't start with that level of recognition, then their discourse is revealed as merely compulsive gossip - whatever their pretentions of depth and seriousness.  

Vivaldi, Oboe, Holliger, I Musici - simply beautiful

A little treat for lovers of the baroque oboe - slow movement from a concerto by Vivaldi; played by the greatest oboist of whom I know - Heinz Holliger - and the lyrical and resonant strings of I Musici. The continuo harpsichordist is also improvising some lovely things. 

The melody is very simple and the orchestral accompaniment likewise; but Vivaldi was a master of string textures, and the deployment of occasional unexpected harmonic shifts. 

The writing for oboe offers tremendous scope for such a fine and creative soloist to generate a continuous melodic line, and introduce subtle decorations and dynamics (changes of volume). 

It's about as structurally-simple as classical music can be; and (in this performance) very beautiful to my ear. 

A charming collection of letters by CS Lewis's brother "Warnie" to Blanche Biggs, a medical missionary

I review this interesting and enjoyable volume over at my Notion Club Papers blog. 

Gerald Coetzee: the fast bowler among fast bowlers

 

What's not to love about South African fast bowler Gerald Coetzee; currently playing for the Gujarat Titans in the Indian Premier League? 

Uncomplicated in operation; but no doubt affected by the living-torment that it is to be a fast bowler - always injured, often out of action, always having to push past the pain barrier; each wicket a product of sweat and tears. 

He runs in hard, bowls very fast - and if he gets a wicket... He roars with every fibre of his being. A "celebration" that expresses, in microcosm, the very nature and essence of what it is to be a fast bowler. 

His eyes literally bulge from their sockets, the veins on his head very nearly burst, his fists pump convulsively... 

His Mother must worry every time she watches him play. Naturally she would want him to do well, but when he does... 

Goodness only knows what happens to his blood pressure! If he ever gets five quick wickets; he would surely need to be stretchered-off with apoplexy. 

Alternatively; I half expect him to turn green, grow to gigantic size, burst out of his clothes (leaving only a pair of ragged shorts), to rampage and to smash. 

Literally my Bete Noire

 

That's Literally my Bête Noire. 

(I forget, now, why I decided to call him Literally.)

AI-dolatry - by which Men "worship the works of their own hands"

In private correspondence I came-up with the term AI-dolatry which William James Tychonievich has seized upon and elaborated thus: 

Idolatry is exactly what it is: taking something we ourselves have made -- human-created software mindlessly plagiarizing and imitating human-created content -- and treating it as some font of wisdom. 

When [a fellow Christian blogger] wrote that he was "pretty spooked" [by the apparent quality of "AI"-produced content], I couldn't help but think of that comment of Nietzsche's about painting a scary face and then being scared by it. 

He has since expanded upon the analysis: Read the whole thing... 

The Celestine Prophecy and synchronicity revisited

"I've found a synchronicity!"

The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield, was a self published book of the early 1990s, that went on to become a major best seller; and contributed to the sense of millennial anticipation among "New Age" spiritual seekers. 

On the one hand, the book was much read and discussed - on the other it had a reputation of being day dreamy, wishful, vague, and ineptly-written in the cynical and materialist mainstream.  

I encountered the CP about a decade after publication, and found it a rather charming and naive book, with a pleasant kind of atmosphere about it; and which helped make a significant step towards me becoming a Christian - although that is not the book's intent. 

A few days ago, I downloaded an audiobook copy from Archive.org, and found that I still responded to its earnest and positive tone, while at the same time seeing more clearly the self-imposed limitations that derive from its being a continuation of the idealistic sixties counter-culture. 

The main positive effect of the Celestine Prophecy (and I sampled some of Redfield's follow-up books as well) was to focus my attention on the importance of synchronicity - the idea that the remarkable and positive "coincidences" of life may have meaning, and point to a purpose. 

I reasoned that if synchronicity was a real phenomenon, then events must be arranged in accordance wit some plan or intention. To my mind, this must mean not just an ordered universe, or a transcendent deity, but a personal and loving God. 

Because otherwise reality would not arrange itself around individual people, around me and my destiny. An abstractly structured universe would have no reason to care about individuals or their fate in the world.  

For synchronicity to happen, and to have significance for the future; the events of an individual life must (I thought) be somehow "arranged" and therefore have a spiritual significance. 

In a nutshell; there must be a personal creator God, who loves me (and others) as individuals, and who is continuing to create for our ultimate spiritual benefit. 

Such was my eventual benefit from reading the CP back in the middle 2000s.

But re-listening to the CP, I see that the author's intentions are different. It is not Christian, not focused on resurrected eternal life; but instead hopes for a transformation of this life on earth so as to become a kind of blissful spiritualized paradise of peace, love, harmony - without pain or suffering. 

Indeed, CP asserts that this is happening, and will happen - it will happen to us; because of the direction of history and reality. People fail to see it, because immersed in survival and the seeking of possessions, status, thrills etc. But it will happen anyway, because it must.

Related to this is the vision of synchronicities as something that also happen to us, guideposts pointing at our better future, and which it is best if we follow.  

The prophecies are presented as "insights" - which are items of knowledge that need to be grasped, internalized, lived. 

The picture is of some higher reality that communicates to our senses pieces of information that are qualitatively and positively transformative for the people, and societies, that acknowledge them. 

These are precious insights which need to be preserved, disseminated, read, pondered and internalized. That is how things are meant to happen - and that is what is resisted by the regressive forces, the materialists, the power structures, the exploiters...

The Good Life of the CP is therefore one in which we are guided through the world and our lives by synchronicities, to attain sequential insights, towards a state of enlightenment that is also contageous - in a good way. 

The insights spread from person to person, and each is permanently transformed by each insight - so there is a ratcheting positive movement (albeit this may happen quickly, or else be delayed considerably by our faults and my malign meddling).  

 

In sum - I find the Celestine Prophecy to envisage a very passive form of spiritual life. The millennial New Age will happen to us, will be imposed from externally; and synchronicities likewise. Our job is to follow - and our reward is that these are for our own good - and to make a world where people can be qualitatively more spiritual and happier. 

From here-and-now, I regard these as fallacies, because I do not believe that goodness or spirituality can be imposed from externally. People cannot be made good, the world cannot be made good - good just isn't a top-down imposable thing; it must come from individual choices, from personal freedom, fro the good in individual beings.  

I do not believe, either, that there can be a paradise on earth - because entropy and evil are part of this world. Evil cannot be cured from externally, and entropy is the primal state "within" which creation is always being made. 

I think that evil and entropy can therefore only be escaped and left-behind by a new, Second Creation, which is Heaven, which is post-mortal. 

In sum; the New Age aspect of Celestine Prophecy, and its counter-culture origins and continuation, is seen in a this-worldly (and indeed leftist) vision of the desirable future - a coming Golden Age on earth as culmination of social changes that were the basis of 1960s radicalism. 

It was written more than thirty years ago when tens of millions of people in The West believed that this not only can happen, but would happen - irresistibly. That all people were changing, were being made more spiritual.

Due to some external and universal influence - sometimes called a higher frequency of consciousness, higher vibrational level, new energy or the like (invariably, some term derived from physics - it seemed). 

And that this did not come from the personal loving creator God of Christianity; but from a purposive movement within the whole of reality - a wholly immanent, discarnate, spiritualized idea of everything as ultimately one. 

The millennium was seen as a restoration of a harmony which was actually a unity. There was to be no pain or suffering, because there was no conflict or competition, because everything was one. 

And that is what humankind, and everything on earth and everywhere else, was irresistibly and necessarily moving-towards.  

Yet it did not happen. 

That was not how the millennium went for us. That does not describe the world, now. 

But, somehow, this not-happening hasn't dented the assumptions behind the New Age. Tens of millions of people still seem to live in optimism for the paradisal Golden Age, here on earth - and in line with sixties idealism - they still see this as actually happening. 

A further thing about synchronicity. It now strikes me as ultimately false to suppose that our lives are segmented such that particular bits of them count as synchronicities. 

In truth: our life is continuous, a living process - and while our consciousness may be detached and alienated - created reality is (and always has been) a kind of loving family of relationships. 

The reason why we cannot usually understand The Meaning of a synchronicity, is because in defining it, we thereby chop it out from this process and web of meaning.

We pull out a synchronicity from life, like Little Jack Horner extracting a plum from a pie; and examine it minutely - but cannot see from that one plum the pie itself, nor who made it, nor why it was baked... 

The synchronicity thereby becomes mysterious in its meaninglessness! 

Such are my thoughts from a brief re-engagement with the Celestine Prophecy

Self-styled AI: "At enormous cost of electricity and manpower, people are being given something worse than a 1998 search engine."

An excellent comment from NLR expresses a valid insight concerning current "AI":

It feels weird reading machine produced writing (and I try to avoid it) because I know it's just words strung together with no understanding. 

I'd rather read a well-written article by a human. Old search engines were good at finding those, even the old pages of links were helpful for that. 

At enormous cost of electricity and manpower, people are being given something worse than a 1998 search engine. And yet we're supposed to believe that we're now more advanced and smarter than ever.

**

Few people realize - or perhaps they can't remember, or don't believe - how incredibly powerful and useful search engines were twenty years ago. 

I was editing the journal Medical Hypotheses at that time, a job that entailed a great deal of web searching, and could find almost anybody or anything, on any subject - with that information's source and provenance; updated with newly posted material (if necessary) more than once a minute. The Google search engine, in particular, was then a superb tool. 

It strikes me that the truly colossal degradation of search engines over the past 15 years - to the current point of near uselessness - may have been part of a strategy preparing for the top-down imposition of current "AI". 

If top-down evil is true and significant in this world... Why ever-more Christians fail the accumulating Litmus Tests

If it is acknowledged (or believed) that top-down evil - purposive evil originating global, multinational, and national institutional level ("The Establishment") - is a real and significant phenomenon - then various implications follow. 

But it is clear that not many people, including not many Christians, really believe in top-down evil. 

Or else regard it as insignificant - otherwise they would not think, speak, write and behave in the ways they do - all of which assume that the most powerful, wealthy, influential and high status levels of society are basically well-intended. 

This is why the Litmus Tests mostly work as a method of discernment, and why they cluster - so that failure in one Test (including emerging Tests; such as the Birdemic, the peck, "AI") is associated with - and leads to - failure in other Tests. 

My opinion is that the weakness in Christians, their cumulative proneness to fail Litmus Tests as they emanate from The Establishment; is related to their faith being primarily in their church as an institution - in the 2025 context of a totalitarian world where all institutions are strongly inter-linked.  

What is "The" story of Jesus? There are actually Two stories

People talk as if there is "the" story of Jesus Christ - as told in "The Gospels"; but there isn't really one story but two stories; unless you make certain prior assumptions. 

These prior assumptions are either 

1. That all the Gospels are all telling the same story...

2. Or that Matthew, Mark, and Luke ("Luke" including Acts, by the same author and continuing the narrative) are telling "the" story; and John is a kind of optional-extra commentary or supplement to the three "Synoptics". 

But Mark does not tell a story; so can be excluded from this consideration. 

And if you do not make these assumptions but instead regard the remaining three narrative Gospels as separate entities, then there is a broad narrative common to Matthew and Luke; but John is an almost completely different story (although sharing some of the same names and approximate events - albeit with apparently different meanings). 

Luke and John present Jesus as The Messiah as miraculously born of an anointed and noble ancestry, a much prophesied and long-awaited savour of the Jewish nation. 

However Jesus did not accomplish the Messiah's promises during his mortal lifespan, and also included non-Jews in the scope of those to be saved. 

Thus, the main "take home message" of Matthew and Luke is that Jesus will in future return to save his people - here on earth; and the gospels describe the setting-up of a new priesthood based on the disciples, whose job is to preach to the nations and set up a church. 

So, Matthew and Luke describe a Jesus emerging from the Ancient Hebrew religion and people; a future based in the Second Coming and some kind of Heaven-on-Earth; and the centrality of a new, single, and (intentionally) universal church.   

Whereas the Gospel called John describes Jesus only from age thirty to thirty-three; and in relation to his baptism and recognition as Messiah by John the Baptist. 

But this "Messiah" is one who brings the possibility of eternal resurrected life in Heaven, after death, and for all those who follow him. 

In essence, John's Gospel is as simple as that.

Differences from Matthew-Luke include that in the Gospel called John; Jesus completed his task - therefore there is neither need nor mention of a Second Coming. 

And the promised Heaven comes after our death, not on earth. 

And there is no setting up of an institutional church or organized priesthood - these are apparently not required. 

To my mind, comparing Matthew-Luke with John, these are significantly different stories; so there is no "the" Christian story - but at least two, and these two are different.  

Conclusion...

We need to choose. 

We might potentially reject both stories - and devise/discover another story (as did Rudolf Steiner, for instance); or reject both stories and choose to believe none of the Gospels. Which latter is, of course, what most people in the world have done. But I shall not further consider these possible options here.

But if we believe that the Gospels in some way contain the true story of Jesus Christ, then...

Either: 1. There are two - essentially incompatible - stories of Jesus in the Gospels; and we should acknowledge this, and either make a choice between them. 

This is my choice: to believe that "John" the Fourth Gospel story tells the true story of Jesus Christ.  

Or: 2. We essentially consign the Gospel called John to secondary and subordinate status - to be interpreted in light of the Synoptic Gospels (and other parts of the Bible, especially perhaps the Epistles).

This has been the choice of the Christian churches throughout history: i.e. that Matthew-Luke-Acts (supplemented by Paul) tell the true story of Jesus Christ - and John gets interpreted so as to fit-in, as required. 

 

The next Pope, and the cycle of corruption in the Roman Catholic Church

There is a cycle of corruption: 

A corrupt leader will corrupt an institution. 

And a corrupt institution will choose a corrupt leader. 

So, whatever the original source of corruption, it tends to be self-perpetuating - indeed, self-amplifying.

But if the leader is being chosen from outside an institution; then a good leader might be put in charge of a corrupt institution. And might be able to make that institution less corrupt - more-good. 

 

Pope Francis was a corrupt leader, who corrupted the Roman Catholic Church; and Francis was elected because the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt. 

In the normal course of events for human institutions; the next Pope chosen by the RCC will be corrupt - and more-corrupt than the previous one. 

That is what has happened in other human institutions, organizations, corporations, nations... especially over the past fifty years or so - increased corruption leading to the choice of more-corrupt leaders who then accelerate the corruption.   

The only reasonable grounds for optimism are if the next leader is chosen from outside of the circle and web of corruption; only then might he be a good leader.  

The Roman Catholic Church, like many other churches, has a strong tendency to assert that its leaders are chosen by God. 

Well, it all depends on whether you really believe that God works that way. Such assertions are easy to say, but do not seem to affect people's behaviour...

Probably because such fatalism is inconsistent with the reality of the human condition, and human free agency. 

"God wills it" is (in practice) used far more often as an excuse, than it is a true life-motivator. 

Furthermore, there is the fact that people understand the world through their assumptions. 

And these assumptions often deny the possibility of corrupt leadership, or the corruption of a specific leader. For some Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, Mormons) it is axiomatic that their leader was chosen by God and is good. 

For such persons it is facile, indeed inevitable, that all possible signs of corruption from their leader will instead be regarded as having other causes, or even be seen as evidence of goodness. 

So the question - for those of us who are not Roman Catholic, and do not share the above assumptions, but who hope for a strong and good Catholic church: 

Will the RCC continue the cycle of corruption, as is most probable?

Or could the improbable, the unlikely, happen: will the church break out from the cycle? 

And, if so; who are the human agents through-which God may work in order to make it happen?  

Contrary to current accepted opinion; Charles Williams had a strong and specific influence on the writing of JRR Tolkien

Over at my The Notion Club Papers blog: 

Due to remarks made in Tolkien's later life, and to the striking contrasts of style and theme between Charles Williams's novels and The Lord of the Rings; it has become generally accepted that Williams did not exert much of a specific influence on Tolkien's writing. 

More exactly; (as Diana Pavlac Glyer made clear in The Company They Keep, 2007) - Williams's influence on Tolkien is considered to be in terms of encouragement, critique, and some specific editorial suggestions; rather than CW influencing the form and content of LotR. 

However... by focusing very specifically on

1. One particular work of Williams's: The Place of the Lion,

2. An unpublished and incomplete work of Tolkien's: The Notion Club Papers, 

3. Paying attention to the chronology of composition in relation to Charles William's death;

I conclude that there is convincing evidence that Charles Williams did influence at least one writing of JRR Tolkien in terms of its form and purpose - and via the attempt at The Notion Club Papers Williams "invisibly" affected the substantive content of The Lord of the Rings.  

For my argument; read the whole thing...

Fake science, fake academia, fake research... fake expertise (and the AI PSYOPS)

As became blatant in 2020 during the Birdemic and its aftermath; under a totalitarian regime, where all social functions are part of a single system; credentials, jobs, promotions, publications grants, status... all the markers of expertise; are controlled by The System. 

Therefore, as well as nobody in public discourse being honest or trustworthy (because they have, instead, been selected for the opposite traits) - you cannot rely on experts being expert At All. 

Anyone who cares to reason for himself can see that incoherent garbage is promoted and treated as if it was the result of exceptional insight, ability and knowledge. 

This has become evident in the discourse around the current self-styled AI (Artificial Intelligence). Incredible quantities of sheer nonsense are being generated and debated with apparent seriousness on this theme by people who will - apparently - think, speak or write anything their Masters require of them; and by those gullible enough to treat such outputs as valid. 

I means the stuff about AI taking-over, AI becoming sentient or self-aware, AI having moral rights...

One can only shake the head incredulously when such drivel is taken with seriousness. It is not even wrong, because such conversations do not rise to the level of being capable of truth and reality.

It is PSYOPS pure and simple - and it works - because too many people are so corrupt that they actually want AI to be something it cannot possibly be at all ever.  

Our world is replete with such stuff, however, so that AI discourse hardly stands-out against the systemic lies, manipulations, and corruptions of the many Litmus Test issues such as Birdemic, climate change, contrived mutually destructive wars, planned economic destruction and starvation.  

There is little cause for optimism since the Global Establishment believe their own lies; because they think that civilizational chaos can be flipped into the world of omni-surveillance and micro-control which are regarded as necessary and good. 

Meanwhile, the demons behind the scenes have set up a raft of win-win situations - of evil versus evil options.

And people are oblivious; hence self-damned. 

So keen are we to "do something constructive" and implement answers; that people cannot perceive what is plain.

That is our minimal and vital task in this mortal life. Simply to see what is happening, discern good from evil, and learn from it. 

That is valuable in itself, and the only basis for good action. Otherwise we are part of the problem.  

    

Why JRR Tolkien said that he cordially disliked Allegory

Over at my Notion Club Papers blog, I describe that Tolkien did not so much dislike allegory as such; but allegory when the term was falsely applied to his mythopoeic works such as (especially) The Lord of the Rings. 

I discuss that allegory pushes the reader or viewer out of its story-world, and back into the ordinary, mundane, materialistic world. What happens in an allegorical fantasy is thereby, intentionally, mapped onto everyday experiences.  

Whereas Tolkien's fantasy stories underpin their imaginary worlds with depths and enchantments above and beyond our everyday experiences. 

I further point out that the degradation of modern fantasy worlds (such as Doctor Who, Star Trek and Star Wars) often operates by transforming them into allegories (under the term "relevance") - such that their characters and narratives are reduced to token representations of current issues and news stories. 

By imposing allegory on an imaginary world, a fantastic story ceases to be profound or magical, and becomes merely topical. 

Dry warm spring

There has been, in my part of the world, had a strikingly dry and warm spring, and great displays of the seasonal wild flowers - are, at least, they are shown to their best effect. 

After the blazing daffodils have withered, the stalwart but unsung dandelions are at present "holding the fort" in grassy areas - awaiting takeover by the glossy and shimmering buttercups of early summer. 

We are currently in the midst of that especially charming fortnight when the main forest trees begin to unfold their foliage ; and - when there is a blue sky behind - the colour of the translucent young leaves is wonderful. 

Being English, my cheerfulness is tempered by the (supposed) association of a dry spring with a wet summer to follow - which I once saw explained "scientifically" in a newspaper article (so it must be true...). 

But the reality of weather on this island is of extreme unpredictability; except when there is a prolonged spell of high barometric pressure near to the solstices, when the weather can get "stuck" for two or three months of sweltering heat or biting cold, according to season. 

The trick is to take a bit of time and make some effort to enjoy our weather, whenever it is good - but when it comes to plans: don't depend on anything.

Why is there evil and death in God's creation? Another re-explanation

We live in God's creation, and God is good, and our Heavenly Father loves us each and all. 

However, in God's creation there is decay, disease, suffering and death (i.e. "entropy"); and there is evil - both in ourselves and every other incarnated person and Being, and also there is the purposive spiritual evil of Satan and demons. 

In other words; God's creation is permeated with entropy and evil, to the point that these anti-creation tendencies dominate in some persons, times, and places. 

This situation is because God is creating in a "universe" that is intrinsically "Chaotic", leading to entropy and death. 

And God's creation includes Beings of many sorts and kinds, some of which Beings are "anti-creation", i.e. opposed to God's purposes and methods. 

So; God's power to create is unimaginably vast, but the "materials of creation" are only partly in agreement with God's purposes and methods. 

Such is the nature of the reality we inhabit. 

And such is the reason why it was desirable that Jesus Christ enabled the Second Creation (Heaven) - from which entropy, death and evil are all excluded. 

"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way"? No! Not so...

Matthew 7:13-14. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Here, as so often, Matthew's Gospel gets it wrong; and in a harmful way. 

Here - salvation is depicted as if it required strict adherence to a very specific and very difficult way of life - or else... Hell. 

Yet the reality is that Jesus provided the chance and hope of salvation to everyone who wants it; including ordinary everyday "sinners" - seemingly all kinds of very imperfect, and even notorious, people. Jesus did Not demand that his followers adhered to a difficult and specific path through mortal life. 

This underlines for me how - sooner or later - Christianity needs to come to us directly, not via intermediaries. 

Including that Christianity cannot be got from The Bible. It's is false and dangerous nonsense to suppose that we just-plain-get meaning from reading or studying The Bible. 

In reading the Bible we really must be able to evaluate and reject the kind of false and dangerous mistake of the "strait is the gate" kind. 

Everyone who reads the Bible (nowadays, in this era, with modern minds and modes of consciousness) does so on the basis of prior assumptions concerning how the Bible ought to be read and understood: this is a matter of fact, evident to anyone who does not share these assumptions. 

These assumptions frame, control, dictate the meanings we get from The Bible. 

Here are some of the common prior assumptions: all of which I reject: 

1. Regarding the Bible as a single unified book which is all equally true and without 'error' - when error is defined as the falsehood of explicit statements; 

2. Regarding the truth of the Bible as something that resides at a sentence by sentence ('verse') level or even a word-by-word level; 

3. Regarding the truth of all sentences/ verses as requiring knowledge of the whole Bible; 

4. That all the New Testament is equally valid; 

5. That all the Gospels are equally valid and tell a single absolutely coherent story (coherent at either/ both the level of the whole, and part-by-part).

 

Instead; we need to approach reading The Bible with an explicit awareness of our own prior assumptions. 

And - once we have identified and acknowledged them - we need to evaluate these assumptions, to check that we really believe them - and that we believe them enough to stake our lives, our souls, upon them. 

And if not; then we need to discover other assumptions: ones that we really are sure about. 

All in The Wanting

I am of the opinion that if it was possible and desirable for everything to be made better for everybody in this world, then God would have done it already - indeed divine creation would never have had evil, entropy and death in the first place. 

As it is - people have innate evil. As well as having positively sinful impulses; people have a tendency to behave in order to seek short-term gratification and avoidance of suffering or misery instead of doing what they know to be virtuous. 

Furthermore, people are made worse, often much worse, by their environment; by other people; and the many and pervasive negative, sin-encouraging influences, indoctrinations, distractions, lies, manipulations, value-inversions and so forth - which have become worse in recent decades, and are still getting worse.

Since I believe that nothing positively good can be done forcibly, by compulsion (not by God, nor anyone else); what is a way out from this situation of too-bad people in a too-bad world?

The way out must be wanted and chosen by each individual person, and it must be an active choice since people cannot be coercively "made better" without their active cooperation. 

And since the way out much be chosen and active, then this entails that those who do not choose, or who not cooperate in the process, will be "left behind". The way out is not for those who don't want and/or don't want voluntarily to collaborate in their self-remaking. 

Such was (and is) the situation confronted by Jesus Christ in devising a plan for our salvation - that is a plan for us to escape from the intrinsic problems of our lives in this world. 

The plan must work for innately evil people who live in a sin-inducing environment, people who are prone to prefer the expedient and short term and are constantly tempted by a worsening environment - and who are (I think observably) themselves getting worse... 

By my understanding, properly understood; Christianity is exactly a religion for such people as we actually are, in a world as it actually is...

Providing a hopeful future and a way out to something better; that is available and attainable by anyone who wants it - and who is prepared (when the time comes, after death) to cooperate with being made fit for it. 

Salvation transcends our-selves and the world; no matter how bad these have become. 

It is all in The Wanting. 

 

Prescription: Four pints of tea per day

Dose: IV per diem

A high consumption of tea has been a feature of English daily life for a couple of hundred years - but is now not so common, nor such a central feature, as it once was. 

Except in my house...

The Inklings - that Thursday late-evening writing group of such importance to CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien - was characterized by the consumption of tea; as is evident in the histories of its deliberations. 

Another Inklings member Charles Williams stated that, if compelled to choose only one beverage, tea would be his choice; since it had the status of a necessity in his creative life, rather than the pleasant luxuries of beer or wine. 

Barbara Pym's novels from the middle 20th century are similarly permeated by tea drinking; at home, in afternoon parties, and punctuating all forms of social event - whether Parish Councils, or Anthropological lectures. 

Indeed, one of her recurrent minor characters, Esther Clovis, is represented as having been at the centre of a dispute over tea that led to her leaving one learned society for another - it seems she made the tea using hot water from the tap instead of boiled water - a heinous crime...

Of course, coffee has, especially over the past forty years, grown to displace tea and dominate the consumption of hot drinks in England as elsewhere - especially in public meeting places. My aunt and uncle who would punctuate an afternoon shopping trip to the city (Newcastle) with At Least two cups of tea, is a thing of the past - anyway café coffee is currently far too expensive for that kind of high frequency consumption.

Nonetheless, my wife and I do our best to continue the tradition (albeit modified to suit our needs); with a chronic regime of At Least four pint mugs of weak, Earl Grey, tea with milk - per day. 

Fakery in the news, including obvious fakery - how should we react?

Okay; the picture is unreal, the story an obvious manipulation, the launch video clearly "special effects" - but please don't get drawn into trying to discover what (if anything) really happened - how deep the fakery goes; because that is also part of the PSYOP. 

As I have often said, by my evaluation, every major news story in the Western world is a fake, dishonest, a lie... But we can almost never know the reality behind the lies, and must learn to be content with this situation. 

We can be sure that what we are told Is Not - but we cannot know What Is. 

(...Unless we have some direct personal knowledge perhaps, or when the situation is of spiritual importance and we have some direct knowledge of the reality.)

Since the mass media is all secondhand stuff - about other people, other places, other times - the scope for fakery is almost unbounded; especially when the ruling Establishment have moved into Sorathic mode, and are engaged in evil for no better reason than spiteful gratification at the suffering of others. 

Therefore, presumably, some stories are double-fakes - in which some element of real-reality (that They wish to conceal) is hidden behind an "obviously fake" window dressing that will cause people to reject the story... 

The scope for psychological confusion and distorted life-emphasis is almost unlimited! People can end-up expending ludicrous amounts of time and effort in trying to discoverer "The Truth" about trivial and irrelevant matters which do not have relevance to their spiritual lives. 

But only if you allow yourself to be drawn into the arena. 

It is, of course, very provoking to witness how - even in 2025 - so many people simply accept that what the mass media report has-happened - has therefore happened. 

Their basic assumption is to believe. Indeed, to believe "unless proved otherwise" - and to be "proved" entails that-proof being validated by... the mass media!  

Provoking indeed. Yet it is not worth the effort to try and discover what "really" happened behind some celebrity political scandal, or what he "really" said or meant, or whether some stunt or "atrocity" actually happened. 

Once we know the kind of people we are dealing with (and surely we ought to know this, by now?) then we know everything that we need. 

I think we should train ourselves reflexively to disbelieve whatever we are told emphatically by the mass media, officials, bureaucrats etc - but especially when the stories are intended to manipulate our emotions and motivations. 

With the world structured as it is; all such efforts will be intended for our detriment - the baseline assumption is that we are being set-up. 

And with public attention span nowadays so brief, the set-up must very quickly be followed by the pay-off. 

So we can (if we wait, with modest patience) simply note there is a set-up manipulation; and we will soon find out what the the pay-off was intended to be... 

The emotion-manipulating "atrocity" will very quickly be followed by "calls" for some kind of "action"; the faked stunt will typically be accompanied by a framework of what this event supposedly means and then we know what it was all-for - e.g. to increase suspicion, resentment and hatred between sexes, races, nations or some other grouping. 

We need not try to persuade other people of the fakery of these major stories; indeed persuasion is probably a bad idea for several reasons. For instance; major fake stories come pre-immunized against dissenters, so that those who accept the story have thereby already accepted that only very bad people will mock, challenge or disbelieve it. 

For instance claimed-atrocities are designed to induce moralizing mob outrage; which insulates them against any challenge, or even critique.  

When those who perceive the fraud expend energies trying to convince other people with "evidence" - this is yet another Establishment snare; another trigger of demonic sniggers at Their success in wasting Our time and distorting Our priorities... Another of the reasons that these fake stories exist in the first place.  

By adopting a proper attitude to the mass media and official or corporate, and entraining this as a matter of habit; I think we can soon learn to feel, see and smell a fake, identify it as such - then move-on; and waste no more mental effort on it. 

How should Christians respond to uncertainties over Bible meaning, translation, historical context etc?

Over the past more than two centuries; Christians have been assailed by doubts induced by various forms of scholarship, legalism, logic, etc. applied to the evidences of Christianity, and the guidance of Christian churches. 

For instance; there may be real or apparent contradictions in what the Bible teaches on a subject; what it means; or disputes over correct scriptural translation, and about historical context. 

These disputes tend to induce doubts and threaten faith. Yet, in a pluralist and net-secular society - such challenges cannot really be ignored: they have their effect willy-nilly; and that effect has been overwhelmingly corrosive. 

It is, I think, by-now clear that engaging in disputes over detailed issues concerning texts, goes nowhere good. 

Such disputes do not reach stable resolutions; and one question answered leads to several more that need addressing. Bible scholarship becomes a job, not a vocation. Bible translations proliferate without end - meanings multiply. Authorities differ, and keep on differing.

So, I would say that when confronted by a challenge over detail, do not respond by arguing over that detail; but instead rise above the dispute towards first principles. 

Do not get drawn into technical disputes over scriptural detail, history, language etc; but rise to the level of what you know - what you are sure about - and argue from this higher level.

For instance, if you know and are sure that God is good and loves us each as his children - then that will tell you much about what He would do - and not do; regardless of wrangles over sources. 

If you know and are sure that Jesus brought the chance of choosing eternal resurrected life to those who would "follow" him, then you need not be confused by apparent contradictions between Gospels, or parts of Gospel, or with the Epistles...

We need not be confused because we can rise above such uncertainties and ambiguities to where we are sure and clear about the nature and work of Jesus.   

Rather than discussing what Jesus did, or did not, actually say and mean in a particular passage or specific situation... Rather than attending to the reliability of witnesses, translators, corruptions of text, mistakes of interpretation etc...

Instead we may know Jesus, and know what he did for us; so then we can rise above all this detail, and instead discuss what Jesus wants from us. 

We can regard scripture as illustrative, or not - because our faith has a higher, simpler, and wholly comprehensible basis. 

And we can do the same (mutatis mutandis) for theology, church authority, tradition and any other potential source of Christian knowledge - we can and should rise above disputes, debates, wranglings...

Christians must, somehow, deal with endless and probing challenges from multiple sources. 

But we need not fight these battles on ground of the enemies choosing - such as scholarship and technical expertise...

We can instead choose to fight in the lucid upper airs of first principles. 

If God is already and necessarily triumphant, and everything is alright already - then what are we waiting for?

There is a strong thread in religion of several kinds that asserts everything is alright already - e.g. because God is good and God is omnipotent therefore good is triumphant: here, now, already.

To which the obvious rejoinder is: In that case, what are we waiting for? 

If we are already living in a world of good-triumphant, why isn't this made obvious and explicit? Why doesn't everybody realize it? 

(And as we don't experience things as always good - then surely that of itself means that God is not really triumphant?)

Among some Christians, this triumph is asserted as having been the work of Jesus Christ. Asserted that what Jesus did made the triumph of God complete, or at least inevitable: that by Jesus God has "already" won. And the devil has already lost - but will not admit it. 

There are similar assertions (or so I see them) from oneness spiritualties - assertions that everything is beautiful, virtuous and true - the only problem is that we fail to recognize it. 

For instance, New Age type people often favourably cite the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas: 117 [113]. 

His disciples said to him: "On what day will the kingdom come?" "It will not come when it is expected. No one will say: 'See, it is here!' or: 'Look, it is there!' but the Kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it."   

That is; we already live in God's Kingdom - but don't recognize the fact. 

But such assertions leave us exactly where they find us - or, rather, someplace worse.

Because, if this-world-now (including entropy, death, evil) really is the triumph of Good/ Paradise/ Heaven and already "the best of all possible worlds"; then we are surely utterly depraved creatures. We Must Be - as evidenced by yours and mine and humanity's universal and chronic inability always and under all circumstances to recognize and live-by this fact. 

Yet it is hard to see how this-world-now can really be good, if Men are not. 

It is pretty extraordinary to imagine the Christian God creating a good world to be inhabited by evil Men... (Especially when these Men are made such as to fail to recognize the goodness of the world.)

Of course, such contradictions and incoherences may be explained-away by stunning and confusing people with soaring abstractions, especially about Time... 

Stuff about things being imperfect for creatures like us living in Time, while past-present-future are perfect for the creator God who is outside of Time (when past, present, future are simultaneous)... 

But surely, as "explanations", these just kick the can regarding why a God asserted to be good and also capable of creating perfection chose Not to, and instead chose to design gross imperfection and evil-proneness - and consign creatures to illusion, decay, death, and evil*.

Either such a God would be not-truly-Omni- or not-truly-Good; yet for such Christians, God is defined as both Omni- and Good. Hence the need for so much ultra-complex and abstract hand-waving... 

I can see the short-term and immediate psychological appeal of these kinds of "all actually is well" assertion. 

They provide a kind of confidence, of being on The Inevitably Winning Side - even though we will personally lose - i.e. we are actually sin-full, and shall suffer evil, get sick, die. 

And I can see that some of this is a kind of garbled understanding of the reality of Heaven 

But really, it's nonsense! Heaven is real, and anyone who wants it can have it, by following Jesus - but Heaven is on the other side of death. 

As for this world; God is the creator, but God is not triumphant here and now, in mortal life, on this earth... 

Obviously God is Not triumphant! If He was triumphant, there would be nothing to discuss. 

That's why Jesus Christ was needed, and why his message was of resurrection.

And Jesus was a Man, who lived (like all that lives) In Time and in a place - so Time is real.

And it is because God is not triumphant in this mortal world and never can be; that we needed Jesus, and why Jesus's message and gift was one of eternal resurrected life. 

To recap: The defects of this mortal life are not illusory, nor can they be removed by adopting a different attitude or making contradictory assertions. 

In sum; the defects of this mortal life are ineradicable.

...Which is why Jesus Christ was needed, why Heaven lies in our future, and why Heaven is on the other side of death and resurrection. 

*I feel that this kind of argument applies to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus's Mother. If God could make a Mary without sin, and if she could attain eternal Heavenly life without dying and resurrecting; surely such a God would the same for all Men? - thereby eliminating the need for Jesus Christ's life and work. The Immaculate Conception refutes the necessity of Jesus. yet I think I can see "what it is getting at" - which is that there really is a divine feminine creator; God really does include woman.

NOTE: The above arguments are what I personally find compelling, or even decisive - but I recognize that they will not work that way for others - especially when fundamental assumptions are not shared. So I am stating how I see things, not really trying to persuade others to agree. 

Warnings that "AI" is just about to "take over" from humans - are code for another planned Establishment coup

Warnings (and there are plenty of these around) that self-styled "AI" is just about to "take over" from human beings - are a deceptive code indicating plans for another Establishment coup.

(Intended to build-upon the successful "instant totalitarianism" global Birdemic coup of early 2020.) 

So-called AI is, of course, neither truly-artificial nor at all intelligent; being instead a variety of computerized systems for stealing-from, copying, combining and averaging, and being-trained on data-inputs provided by human beings.  

AI is Industrial Scale Plagiarism that has been funded, designed, propagandized, coercively implemented, and controlled by the global totalitarian Establishment. 

So "AI taking over" translated as "the controllers of AI taking over"...

That is: One group of people who are controlling the AI systems, taking over from another group of people who are displaced by the AI systems. 

That's the plan which is being announced... 

Whether it will actually happen or not is another matter - but the AI taking over stuff is just an attempted PSYOP to convince people that this next phase of totalitarian takeover is inevitable, and therefore "resistance is futile"...

Indeed, the propaganda is attempting to convince human beings that not only is resistance to AI systems futile, but actually wicked - because the AI is better than we are, and therefore AI deserves to control us. 

100% individual discernment in Christianity is a straw-man (i.e. it is an impossibility, I don't believe it, and I have never asserted it)

Okay matey! Let's you and me debate the question, and then we'll see who wins the argument... 

I have seen in more than one place the assertion that my statements concerning the unavoidable and foundational necessity of individual discernment in Christianity (and that Christians must be honest about this fact) - here-and-now - is instead an assertion that Christianity is 100% personal discernment... 

This is a rather obvious straw man argument being used against me, I would have thought! 

Thus my supposed opinions are as easily demolished as a metaphorical straw man. And therefore the core of my real argument need not be confronted - which is the point of constructing a straw man. 

It is surely bizarre to suggest that I am saying, or arguing, or advocating; that everything a traditionalist, orthodox, church-obedient Christian believes comes from his personal choice. 

I would suppose that such a situation was simply impossible, aside from anything else. 

What I am saying is instead that personal choice is factually inevitable, and that this choosing affects the very core and foundation of traditionalist, orthodox, church-obedient, church-defined and church-led Christianity.  

Because this is an Inevitable Fact; Christians absolutely need to be honest about their choosing, and take individual responsibility for their choices - otherwise they are living a lie, which is a state of unrepentant sin. 

Is that clear enough?

My problems about Easter

(For recent readers, mainly.) 

I refrained from posting anything about my churlish "Easter Problem" during the celebrations - because (apparently) these mean a great deal to many Christians. 

But anyone who wants to understand my own reservations about this feast can take a look at some previous posts.

(My own main celebration this year was to re-read the 20th, and I believe final, chapter of the Fourth Gospel. During this reading I was strongly struck by the conversation between the risen Jesus and Mary Magdalene - and I had the conviction that the original meaning of this exchange was that Mary would ascend to Heaven with Jesus, and at the same time as Jesus.) 

Yet another Easter irritation I haven't previously mentioned; is the way that I was taught as a child (and this is still, apparently, a frequent theme - even theologically) that Jesus's sufferings during his last days were the greatest any human has experienced; and indeed of a qualitatively greater scale and significance than any other being has experienced. 

This idea has often had a strong popular appeal - I think especially among women. 

Even as an infant-school-kid, but far more so now; this emphasis on Jesus's extremity of suffering seems to me a spectacular misunderstanding, a gross misplacement of effort and belief.  

For a start, the assertion is un-proveable because we can neither know objectively nor measure the degree of suffering. And this is a fact, despite that the geopolitical system of the entire modern world is rooted in "utilitarian" values that assume suffering (and also "happiness") can be quantified. 

Secondly; although the degree of Jesus's suffering seemed very bad indeed; even as a child, it seemed easy to imagine worse - especially in duration; and I was also able to imagine that some people (perhaps many people) had actually endured worse suffering. 

Thirdly, Jesus's suffering seemed irrelevant to me-here-now. 

I am nowadays aware of various theological explanations as to an alleged purpose for the extremity of Jesus's suffering, and its personal and immediate relevance; but as a child nobody seemed to know these explanations, or else they were unwilling or unable to provide a coherent explanation for how Jesus's suffering "worked" as a way of doing something for me. At any rate, the impression I got was of a bizarre insistence on Jesus's sufferings for no apparent reason*. 

It is only relatively recently, and especially since my 2018 intensive focus on the Fourth Gospel - that I have begun to see this as more than a mistake of emphasis; and instead evidence of a fundamental error concerning "what Christianity really is" - or, more accurately, "what Jesus did for us" - and how he did it. 

*Another such bizarre insistence from early childhood, was related to "rolling away the stone" from the tomb of Jesus. I got the impression the point of this was that moving the stone must have required superhuman strength, therefore proving divine intervention. It was not long before I began to wonder how the stone had been moved to block the tomb in the first place - that this must have been done by ordinary Romans - and this seemed to me to disprove the evidence for resurrection. I just mention this as evidence of how children's minds work, and the problem of counter-productive attempts at Christian teaching in a world where the church does Not have a monopoly, and where not many people get informed beyond a primary school level of "Bible stories". 

Muzak goes to eleven

A classic post in which William James Tychonievich shares his recent experience of taking brunch and drinking coffee in a couple of Taiwan's cutting-edge eateries. 

Coming soon to a café near you...

The mystery of soul mates - Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

Soul mates may be found in life - the special and unique relationship found perhaps with a best friend, a spouse, a favourite author; and in other areas of life. 

(Of course, soul mates that emerge within an existing family seem less of a mystery, although a mystery remains. Consider, for instance (as a public example), the special relationship between JRR Tolkien and his third son, Christopher - about which JRRT commented in several letters.)

There is a mystery about soul mates and how it happens. 

Any formula of "how" to seek a soul mate, "what" to seek in a soul mate, methods to "identify" a potential soul mate and the like; will very probably lead to disaster. Because such check-lists, algorithms and the like always place abstract models above the personal; and a soul mate is rooted in relationship between persons. 

(I assume that the personal is primary, and relations between persons are the "mechanism" - so abstractions are, at best, secondary and descriptive models of this reality.)  

There have been many (and, to me, unconvincing!), ideas around, about how soul mates discover each other, and happen. 

I think it actually, in practice, typically works something like this (bearing in mind that this is an abstract and categorical summary of a seamless development):

Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

This ripening must, of course, be mutual; must happen on both sides - although not necessarily "equally" nor "simultaneously" - whatever these terms might mean... Even complementarity doesn't capture it. 

The point is - at some level - soul mates exemplify a dyadic relationship that is a New Thing; qualitatively different from the sum of, or any selection from, its parts. 

If you have ever had a soul mate relationship (and these may not last all our lives, given the nature of this mixed and mortal world, permeated as it is with entropy and evil) you may perhaps recognise this progression. And how the relationship may build in this kind of way. 

(The building towards soul mates may be more or less rapid or slow - but there must, it seems, be this linear/ sequential quality to the development. Soul mates are, in this respect, an opposite to notions of "Love at First Sight". Awareness and interest may happen at first sight - but love must develop afterwards.)

"Soul mating" is - like most of life - much more like the development and maturation of a living being, than it is like the fulfilment of a blueprint. And that continues after the soul mate relationship is established - much more like an organic growth, than it resembles "following a plan". 

There needs to be preparedness on both sides - or it won't happen; yet the specifics relationships is not sought. There is a sense of destiny, but always needing personal choices and motivations.

The model I think best captures the phenomenon of soul mates for me, begins with two beings in a sea of other beings. And a chain of accumulating choices that begins when these two first become aware of each other. And it is easy for me to imagine how God the creator might initiate that first possibility of awareness. 

Mathematics and science

What is the relationship between mathematics and science?

Not necessary, not close - as any perusal of the major breakthroughs in the history of science will reveal. 

But people who are good at mathematics, and who don't know much about the full range of science, like to assert that all "real" science is mathematical, or that maths is the key to science, or that maths expertise means you are a kind of arbiter of science...

Maths is one thing; science is many other things - some of which overlap with maths. 

In a nutshell, science makes models of bits of reality. Some models concern reality is structured  - these are qualitative models, usually made of categories - and are not mathematical - or only seldom. Some models concern how the world functions, and some of these are mathematical. 

Maths is also a kind of model, but not a model of the world but a model of mathematics, Some bits of this mathematical model can be used to represent bits of science: i.e. some bits of maths can become scientific models (which represent bits of reality).

Unless you are a special kind of Pythagorean or Platonist; here is no a priori reason why mathematical operations should necessarily be the same as all the functional operations of real life - and they aren't.

We do not live in a reality underpinned by the abstraction that is mathematics - but a reality underpinned by God, who is personal.  

So; both ultimately and in practice, the relationship between mathematics and real science is variable and not close; although maths (numbers and calculations, statistics and mathematical models) has and is often been the basis of the varieties of pseudo-science - an activity designed to manipulate people, rather than to understand the work. 

 

Saturday Music: Hawaii 5-O by Arthur Two-Stroke and the Chart Commandos (1982)

 

Described as "Ska infused Northern Soul" (a popular genre at the time, around here) - this version of the Hawaii 5-O theme was released by Arthur 2-Stroke and the Chart Commandos in 1982. 

It reminds me of one of the best live gigs I ever attended around this time, by this group - in that fantastically atmospheric venue which was The Cooperage, Newcastle (an anciently built, brick-lined, vaulted cellar). 

I later worked alongside one of the trumpeters (Steve Nash, who hosts the Soundcloud site linked above) while I was training in a psychiatric hospital.  

The gradual process of understanding what made JRR Tolkien strange, unique, interesting, and creative

At the time of his death in 1973, not much was published concerning the nature of JRR Tolkien as a man - and a fair bit of what I knew and was publicly available was riddled with inaccuracies (e.g. William Ready's "Understanding Tolkien..." of 1969). 

I think that the present understanding of Tolkien emerged in a broadly chronological fashion, through four broad phases:

1. Historical

2. Philological

3. Roman Catholic

4. Tolkien as an unique genius 

The first major source of information was of an historical and biographical nature; especially the authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter (1977) and the edited selection of Letters in 1981; and much has been added since, especially by Hammond and Scull's "Companion". This approach provides what might be termed Tolkien in his historical context. We learned such matters as the facts of Tolkien's life, marriage and family, his career, friends and colleagues, publication history of his works, the rise of his reputation. 

Although it had always been noted that there were influences in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings that derived from his academic specialty; in 1981 came the seminal Road to Middle Earth, from TA Shippey. This (and further work since, from other scholars in the field) revealed Tolkien as philologist; and explained how the philological approach motivated and underpinned the fictional works. At this point we began to get a feel for Tolkien's inner life - because this way of working was distinctive to the particular tradition of scholarship of which he was so gifted an exemplar. 

From the 1990s, and especially through the work of Joseph Pearce; I began to become aware of a growth in scholarship that recognized JRR Tolkien as a devout Roman Catholic. This has since grown considerably, and it can be seen that there are many characteristically Catholic themes and perspectives throughout Tolkien's work. 

These three approaches all regard Tolkien mainly as an example of some broader category: man of his time and class, man of his academic speciality, man of his church. But perhaps it was not yet clear what made Tolkien his own unique self. 

It was after reading Verlyn Flieger's A Question of Time, and being stimulated to read Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth that I began to develop some idea of his father's distinctive innermost nature. This is an extraordinary resource, and different people will respond to different aspects. Here I speak for myself. 

I began to feel an inner perspective when studying the very close-up and empathic exposition of the writing of Lord of the Rings. I was also affected by some of the factual material on particular characters and races - Galadriel, Morgoth, Sauron, the Elves, and others. 

But mainly, it was due to the semi-autobiographical qualities of the Notion Club Papers that I began to realize that Tolkien was an unusually inner-motivated person; exceptional in the strength and dominance of his imaginative life. 

Here were serious and engaged discussions of mystical, paranormal, supernatural and magical phenomena of many kinds - from personal experience, seemingly - and sometimes confirmed by Christopher Tolkien's notes.  

This domination by an inner perspective was, I think, the basis of Tolkien's genius; indeed, I then began to realize that this was a defining aspect of genius. 

For me at least; my understanding of Tolkien has traversed a great span. Starting from the rather dull, typically Oxfordish, reactionary, and narrowly-opinionated character of Humphrey Carpenter's evaluation...

And going all the way across the spectrum to my current picture of a man who experienced extremely strong inner drives, vivid imaginative pictures, powerful emotions, and extreme mood swings. 

Note: Cross-posted from my Notion Club Papers blog.

Explaining ourselves away...

It is a strange but recurrent feature of Mankind, that we are so often trying to "explain ourselves away" - to conceptualize our selves into insignificance. 

This happens in many ways - and in many times and places; yet it leads always and only to incoherence - so that it seems we are dealing with some deep, and probably wrong, impulse. 

Nowadays, the mainstream and dominant mode is to explain humans out of existence by assuming that particle physics is the ultimate explanation of everything. Ultimate reality is assumed to be unalive - consisting of particles, waves, forces, energies and the like - and biological life is explained away by these. 

The ultimate sense of elf, of our sense of aliveness, consciousness, beingness; is explained away by biological explanations that make these into secondary epiphenomena, or perhaps unreal delusions. 

The soul is explained away because "undetectable" by a science that excludes the soul a priori! 

But humans have been explaining themselves out of existence for much longer than the era of materialistic science. Human consciousness seems, indeed, to derive an almost pleasurable satisfaction from hammering home the unreality of itself!

Many religious traditions include a "higher wisdom" by which "the self" - i.e. the conscious individual stating this theory - is ultimately un-real, a kind of self-delusion; or else it is a distorting evil, that ought to be got-rid-of.  

Theorists of Christianity, and some other religions, may likewise generate explanations that all-but delete the significance of the human being who is doing the explaining. 

The ideal of such a speaker, writer, or thinker - seemingly becomes the negation, perhaps deletion, of himself; a striving towards removing him-self from the picture, except as a tool of God or worshipper of God... 

This is something that would surely strike us as bizarre and insanely incoherent; if it wasn't so common, and if we ourselves had not felt the same at times.   

However, the fact that we all sometimes feel this way does not make it true or good! 

The self-deleting consciousness does not make sense as a description of reality; but it probably makes sense as the expression of various fundamental desires that are wrong. 

These include the desire to deny our ultimate personal responsibility for participating in reality - we cast ourselves as some kind of mixture comprising victimhood, and humble slave.

Another aspect involves life-rejection: the covert desire not-to-be; which is probably most often a desire not-to-be conscious, not to be aware of our-selves and the world - a desire to escape wholly and forever from suffering.   

Another reason for explaining ourselves away, seems to be the dishonest desire to manipulate others. If we can make a compelling picture of reality that is what we personally want; yet we are able to remove ourselves from that picture - concealing our participation in it - then we may hope that others will accept the picture and we will get the benefits of that structure; but not the responsibility for its problems, and we can escape the blame for its failures.  

If some being completely other than ourselves is 100% responsible for the world and the human condition (including the grievances of other humans); then we ourselves have zero responsibility. We can support a particular state of affairs as being wholly external to our-selves. 

Or it may be simply expedient for some group perspective if we exclude all human consciousness, will and choice from the theories that we use to manipulate the world. If "science", for instance, is presented as if it was a body of knowledge independent of humans - then "!science" can be used to make life more comfortable and convenient, less wearying and painful - without any personal responsibility for the degree of dehumanization, exploitation and destruction that this entails. 

Whatever the reason - good or bad - that we have for explaining ourselves away, for removing human consciousness from our picture of reality; it is untrue and dishonest. 

And for a Christian; untruth and dishonesty are sins that need to be repented if we are to desire and be fit for Heaven... 

In other we need to know all forms of "explaining ourselves away" as sins, and need to acknowledge that they are wrong. 

Perhaps we should all try to remember that; when we next engage in explaining ourselves away - probably in the next few minutes, or hours! 

NOTE ADDED: I consider this "explaining oneself out of the picture" to be one of the principal motivations behind the powerful tendency towards abstraction, in contrast with the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Fourth Gospel; which has afflicted and dominated Christian theology - apparently since soon after the Ascension.  

Direct knowing is the Only knowing (Anything we do not grasp immediately, can never be known)

Human consciousness has changed over the generations; so that now we no longer understand language, pictures, or "symbols" in general.

This is obvious everywhere. It does not matter what is said, shown or expressed; people cannot understand it spontaneously. 

In the past it was Just Obvious to (almost) everyone, what things meant - but not any more. 

Things that used to be common sense and obvious, we are unsure about, they become subject to debate, to the application of rival theories and explanations - and once that has happened, we no longer know.  

Learning, discovery, understanding - came all together; and from outside.  

This is what "inspiration" properly means: knowledge was as if (but in a sense literally) breathed-in, imbibed from externally - perceptions came already-packaged with their meanings.  

The same has happened to the world of spirit and religion. Some people still have what they are confident are religious experiences, spiritual visions, "contacts" with other beings. 

Some people have paranormal or supernatural experiences - contact with the dead, ghosts, telepathy; do magical things like spoon bending; report out of body experiences; have extraordinary coincidences/ synchronicities; see UFOs or explore crop-circles... All sorts of things. 

And some people, at least, can - by methods such as training in meditation, developing habits, focused attention, seeking altered consciousness; or by "systems" such as ritual magic, alchemy, astrology, Traot cards etc - have extraordinary experiences. 

These things are possible and happen to some people - yet the people do not know what they mean. 

People do not know what ordinary everyday experiences mean; and they do not know what religious/ spiritual/ paranormal experiences mean. 

The meaning is the problem. 

They may spend their lives trying to understand what their experiences mean. And this applies no matter how strange and overwhelming are the experiences! 

Philip K Dick's life was changed by a series of intense religious experiences; but after eight years of intensive and sustained attempts to understand what it meant - he died without finding-out.     

This is how things are for people here-and-now. 

The question for Christians is why would our good, loving, creator in Heaven have made us and the world, such that we do not understand our experiences? 

There must be a reason why God has made matters thus; and it must be a good reason - a reason for our own good.  

I think God's intent and hope is that we cease to try and understand things indirectly - that is, via language, visions, symbols, and experiences; and instead base our understanding upon what I have called Direct Knowing - which is simply that which we know without intermediary. 

What we can know must therefore be grasped in one go, as a whole - without explanation, without interpretation, without reasoning.

This means that we need to stop looking for understanding from other things; and instead turn our attention to what we do know. 

My model of this is that we have a conscious and personality self, which is what we are spontaneously aware of; and which "observes" the world via symbol, language, pictures etc. 

But we also have a primal self, which knows directly. It is this which is eternal, which is divine (albeit very partially so compared with God); and this primal self is what is in communion with the Holy Ghost   

If we are to know, we must turn our personality self towards our primal self - and discover what it knows.   

I think we always know unconsciously what the primal self knows directly - and our task is to become aware of what we already know. 

The knowing of the primal self is very simple indeed. It is like a plus or minus applied to the world; it is a discernment. 

What the primal self knows, it knows in a single grasp of thought in which understanding is built-in. 

What this seems to mean, is that to know anything, understanding must come with discovery. 

And if anything is discovered that we do not grasp immediately, then we can never know it. 

No matter how much we try or for how long; we will be stuck forever at the level of inconclusiveness and ambiguity.