Free will is Not the cause of evil

It is a mistake when Christian theologians explain evil in terms of God's gift of free will. 

Because free will is not a cause of evil.

I mean: free will is not even potentially a cause of evil.   

Evil comes from evil: evil acts come from an evil nature. 

A good Man would be free, but would do no evil.

Proof? 

Jesus Christ: He was free and did not evil. 

If Men also had good natures, Men would freely do only good. 

Therefore the cause of evil is the nature of things; the cause of evil in Men is the evil nature of Men. 

If, therefore, you believe that God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo) - including Men - then this entails that God must have created the nature of Men capable of evil.

(This has nothing to do with free will. Free will does not come into it.)

But since God really-is wholly good, and also Men obviously do evil - then it follows that God did Not create Men from nothing. 

The evil that is in Mens' nature is not of God. 

Thus there is something within Men that is not of God. 

Conclusion: Men are not wholly created by God. 

(And the notion that God created everything from nothing is refuted.)

Even Heaven isn't ideal... Total and perfect completion is not even conceivable - let alone achievable

One of the reasons that some people do not want salvation and post-mortal eternal life in Heaven; is that Heaven is imperfect and incomplete. 

For example, not everybody gets to Heaven, so that some people we want to be-with in Heaven, will not be there. 

A related imperfection is that some of those who won't be in Heaven will be suffering - and this can be seen as an imperfection - in that we can imagine a reality without suffering, and yet some kind of hell will continue to be forever. 

So, for these and other reasons Heaven is incomplete and imperfect, and may be rejected on these grounds. 

Yet if Heaven is rejected as a goal for such reasons, then (presumably) this is because something better is imagined and desired?  

However; all conceivable situations are incomplete and imperfect. We cannot coherently conceptualize a state of perfection and completion, and therefore cannot really desire it. 

For instance; the idea of oneness spirituality is an attempt at conceptualizing a state of perfect completion - the idea that in reality all is one and there is nothing lacking.

Yet this is incoherent because there is, at least, the fact that we recognize a lack of oneness in our yearning for it - and if all is really one there could be no such lack, or yearning, or even self awareness. If our dissatisfaction is put down to delusion, then how could there be delusion in a state of oneness? 

If reality really was one, there would be nothing else. 

If the incompleteness of Heaven, the fact that it leaves-out some (or much) of reality, is to be solved by conceptualizing a future state of the perfection and harmonization of every being, including every being and thing left-out of heaven; then the necessary (divine) power to perfect and complete reality is being assumed to be constrained by delay... for some reason. 

And that reason is itself a breaking of oneness/ perfection/ completeness.

If all is one, why has perfection and completion not already been achieved? 

(Why must we and others continue to suffer its lack?)

For that matter - if perfection and completion really are attainable by God, then why create anything else that perfect completeness? What is the point? 

Why should deity create this imperfect and intermediate world with its entropy and evil, and where all gratifications are incomplete and temporary?

That itself, whatever the answer proposed, is a break of perfection and completeness.  

My point is that, although we may imagine and desire perfection and completion of all reality; this wish is incoherent and cannot - even theoretically - be attained. 

The insistence on total, perfect completion is indeed, a disguised form of double-negative ideology. 

I mean that "perfection" is actually the negation of our divine impulse towards creative love; which is a dynamic and developing thing, future orientated. 

Instead of regarding this fundamental quality of being as an attribute of reality - the lack of a permanent state of perfect completion is re-interpreted as a problem. A problem that is insoluble, because it negates creation, life, consciousness, love... 

The same for completion. Completion is a negation of the potential for eternal growth, development, increase of love. There is no end to creation... But this possibility is being re-interpreted negatively, as a current state of incompletion. 

The insistence upon completion is, again, a denial of the most profound nature of reality - which is why it leads nowhere but paradox. 

In sum: when people reject Heaven because it is incomplete and imperfect; they have fallen into a trap - a spiritual prison that has no escape... 

Incoherence is a reductio ad absurdum - a conclusion revelatory of false premises. 

No escape except by becoming aware-of, examining, and rejecting their most fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions regarding the nature of reality. 

 

"The Hanging Signs of Huddersfield" - On the magical significance of specialized factual books, by Irish Papist

...Imagine, for instance, a book called The Hanging Signs of Hudderfield. Not a novel with a quirky title (I hate those), but a book literally devoted to that subject. 

In a way (as I see it), such a book would bring something new into the world. The hanging signs of Huddersfield already existed; now they have become the subject of a book. 

This might seem like a throwaway sort of claim, somewhat smart-alecky and idle. But I actually mean it with all my heart and it's one of the ideas that brings me most pleasure in the world. 

The joy I take from scanning a book of shelves and seeing that someone has written a whole book on this or that subject (which one might not have expected them to) is immense, bottomless. Within the confines of that book, the author and the reader are primarily concerned with only one thing. 

If you are reading The Hanging Signs of Huddersfield, everything else recedes into the background. World War Two is important. Dinosaurs are important. Laurel and Hardy are important. But within the covers of the book, nothing gets top billing over the hanging signs of Huddersfield. 

There is something here that penetrates to the very essence of life and reality; the magical fact that every place and every moment and every soul has its own irreducible importance.

From a post at the Irish Papist blog

**

One of my currently favourite blogs, as I mentioned recently, is Irish Papist. 

This seems to be going from strength to strength, with its quirky, buttonholing, insightful essays on... whatever takes the IP's current fancy.  

The above excerpt makes a point about specialist factual books I don't recall seeing before, that I recognised immediately as true - and which I don't think I shall quickly forget. 

A blog for browsing. 

Learning, understanding, awareness? What should Christians do in daily mortal life?

I've said elsewhere on this blog that we each need a purpose for this mortal life; and that for Christians (followers of Jesus Christ) our individual purpose in this mortal life should be "framed" by the confident expectation of  resurrection into Heaven. 

That still leaves-open the question of what we are supposed to be doing on this side of death; given that we would not be sustained alive by God unless there were reasons that were good for us - meaning eternally good for our immortal souls. 

I have expressed what we should do using the term "learning" - learning now for a "pay off" in post-mortal life; and this can be further expanded by the concepts of understanding and awareness.

(This presumes that God, by the continual action of creation, "engineers" the kind of learning-experiences that we each need, or could benefit from.)  

It seems to me evident that Christianity includes a great deal of emphasis on the positive value (and perhaps even essential nature) of understanding and awareness. 

So, it is not enough (or at least it is sub-optimal) for Men simply to experience mortal life unconsciously, passively, and without reflection - because that is unfree: such an "automatic" life does not entail the needful positive decision to align with God and work in harmony with divine creation. 

What is required then is a kind of learning that has risen to some level of understanding of what has been learned; and this understanding of what has been learned should rise to a level of awareness. 

This is what enables freedom to have its vital role. 

(And such freedom can most profoundly be understood as a bringing to bear of our own divinely creative selves - such that God's creation is expanded and enriched by the creativity of individual beings in voluntary alignment with God's aims and methods.) 

With respect to the need for understanding; it would, of course, be unrealistic (if not impossible) to suppose that we can attain anything much like a final and comprehensive understanding of this world - not least because the reality is of a world massively causally-interlinked; such that any specific understanding is bound to be deficient and distorted to some degree. 

Nonetheless, I think many will know by experience a kind of understanding that might be called an epiphany, an insight-into or showing-forth-of reality; a creative moment underpinned and endorsed by intuition. 

This seems to be close to the kind of thing we most need. 

Now, it is also essential to realize that the constraints of this mortal incarnation mean that - at least in our physical and material manifestation - this kind of epiphanic insight can be misremembered or completely forgotten in a bodily sense; we might suffer all kinds of accidents, sickness or degenerative disease. 

It would (after all) be pretty worthless if our needful spiritual learning/ understanding/ awareness depended on such fragile things as the functionality of human brain and body. 

Therefore, we must assume that true knowledge is never forgotten in a spiritual sense; that our intuitive epiphanic insights are permanently stored as part of our spiritual-person, our immortal soul.    

A further constraint that needs acknowledging is that most actual people most of the time, are "victims of" (in thrall to) their innate personality, abilities and circumstances. Such that they (we) will mostly be making bad choices and leading lives that are not just un-virtuous - but considerably more sin-full than they "ideally" might be. 

The message I get from the Fourth Gospel and other confirmations; is that this does not matter ultimately; and that a Christian life is possible for everyone capable of love, who value love most highly and who desire above all to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

Ultimately, it need not matter how weak, mean and corrupt such a person might be, or what terrible kind of life he leads. Jesus came to save (even) sinners - not perfect, nor even better-than-average Men*.  

It is crucial to note and absorb that Any bad circumstance of this world, including the self-inflicted, can be (and actually is) overcome by faith - sustained by hope and driven by love. 

But although all manner of spiritual guidance and support are available when needed; none of this happens automatically, nor can it be achieved by any external power. We cannot be "made" to live in a worthwhile way; just as we cannot be compelled to salvation. 

The crucial aspect is always in our-selves, in our freedom (properly understood as the creative agency of our real self, in chosen-alignment with the divine); and the basis of freedom includes learning, understanding, awareness. 

There is always something eternally-valuable to be learned from any person's actual life here-and-now; and/but this learning always requires to be driven primarily by the free spiritual life of each person...

Indeed by the free spiritual life of each being of any kind; since Heaven is populated by those Beings of all kinds who - after their mortal deaths - commit eternally to live primarily by Love.  

*It is not really relevant here - but I suppose that I need to comment on the fact that none of this is meant as an excuse for being selfish, sadistic, spiteful - doing evil. But the usual problem with those who do evil is that they deny that what they are doing is evil, or (nowadays, invertedly) say that the evil they are and do is good. The take home message is not that utter impossibility that we should cease from sinning, nor that "real Christians" are better (more ethical) people than others on average, nor that becoming a (real) Christians entails becoming a "better person" -- but that Christians need to acknowledge and repent the evil that they (we) inevitably do; and that (in principle) nobody is so bad in their behaviour that they cannot become a Christian. What excludes so many modern people from salvation is not that they are worse than past people in their behaviours; but that modern people Do Not Want Salvation.  

How does Melkor get to be evil in Tolkien's Silmarillion?

There is a problem in explaining the origin of Melkor's evil nature, in the creation myth Ainulindale of The Silmarillion . 

If Eru is wholly good, and if Eru was wholly responsible for creating Melkor - then Melkor's evil nature and choices must derive ultimately from Eru...

(Which apparently means that Eru is not wholly good.)

I discuss this, and some possible answers, over at the Notion Club Papers. 

The Hedonic-Therapeutic, Right-Left axis of morality

Because the assumption of modernity is that human existence is bounded by conception and death - outwith there is nothing of our-selves - therefore the morality is one based upon living human experience. 

The relevant aspect of human experience adopted by modern morality (perhaps inevitably) relates to pleasure-pain - in motivational terms this is hedonic (pleasure seeking) or therapeutic (suffering avoiding). 

This roughly corresponds to what people term as Right and Left of the political spectrum - those on the Right are broadly orientated to maximizing positive and pleasurable experiences while those on the Left have a more therapeutic stance - in that their ultimate justification is the relief of negative experiences, alleviation of suffering. 

And this is why the Left sees itself as a higher morality than the Right - in that therapeutic alleviation of suffering is seen as more sophisticated, altruistic, compassionate etc - than trying to create as much positive emotionality as possible.

The Right sees our finite life as something we should make the most of (for ourselves and - some- others; the Left as something we should get through with the least misery (for ourselves perhaps, but mainly justified in terms of therapy for others). 

All this is bizarre and incoherent and unfounded as a basis for "morality" - but that is what we've actually got. 

Why does Western/ Globalist ruling ideology have no name?

It has often been noticed that the morality, ethical system, ideology; that rules the Western world and globalist institutions Has No Name - indeed it will acknowledge no name for itself as valid.

It is typically atheistic, materialist, politically leftist, totalitarian in aspiration etc etc - but the most powerful and pervasive ideology of recent generations does not attempt to describe itself, and will mock or muddle any attempt to do so. 

This is rooted in the reality that the dominating ideology is oppositional - so that it does not have an essence; and that what-it-opposes (i.e. ultimately God and divine creation, in all manifestations) cannot be acknowledged; or else the evil-affiliated nature of our world leadership class would become explicit. 

In sum: the true name of the dominating W/G ideology is "evil" - which is The Reason that it has no acknowledged name.

So most people, and all people who deny the reality of God and divine creation, live in a state of perpetual confusion and perplexity with respect to what has happened and where we are going.

Any possible particular name for the Western/ Globalist ideology would be incomplete and misleading, would fail to capture the protean and fluid nature of an inverted morality that opposes (ultimately) all that is truly good. 

While the above describes the ultimate nature, at any given place and time (proximately) the Western/ Globalist ideology is necessarily opposing something or another; some-thing much more particular and specific...

But this thing can and will change according to context and expediency, and there is no positive and coherent logic behind its multiple and shifting oppositions. 

Last week there it was pacifist, today and here it is warmongering; a few months ago it was passionately environmentalist but before that it had been implementing massive and lasting radioactive environmental contamination; once upon a time it was aggressively feminist but lately its long-term policies ensure increased violence-against and rape-of of women.

And so on... 

No mystery, no paradox, nor any kind of self-contradiction is involved here: That just-is the nature of what we are dealing-with, for the simple reason that that is the nature of evil.  

 

Reversing death, or resurrection? What Jesus did with Lazarus wasn't "a miracle"

Jesus was a prolific miracle worker - but far from unique in that. He was also a remarkable healer, but far from unique in that. 

Most accounts of Jesus's miracles put the raising of Lazarus at the pinnacle of achievement and note that it was this action which brought upon him the implacable hostility of the official Jewish priesthood. 

But most accounts fail to understand the qualitative distinction between miracles of healing, food production etc - and what happened to Lazarus. 

This is missed because the raising of Lazarus is presented as if it was "merely" a reversal of a recent death - which might be framed as an extreme form of miracle; whereas it was instead the first example and public demonstration of resurrection. 

Nobody had ever resurrected anyone before, because it was something that only Jesus could do. 

Jesus's Father, i.e. God the primary creator, did not and could not resurrect anybody ever; which was why Jesus's incarnation and work was necessary if Heaven was to be possible. 

A miracle is something done to the world; but the raising of Lazarus was something Jesus did with him. 

Lazarus could be resurrected because he loved Jesus, knew Jesus was divine; and therefore was led by Jesus through death to life everlasting.

Lazarus was the first Man to die who fulfilled the conditions that Jesus described* as necessary for resurrected eternal life.  

The distinction is between a Lazarus brought back to mortal life, temporarily - but destined to die like everybody else...

Or on the other hand, a Lazarus who has died mortally and desired to be transformed to eternal resurrected life; to become fully a Son of God, and the first potential inhabitant of Heaven. 

The first inhabitant of Heaven was Jesus himself, he made Heaven possible and then actual. But after his resurrection Lazarus was ready and able to ascend to Heaven, at any time.  

So the raising of Lazarus ought not to be considered "a miracle" - rather it was a public demonstration of what Jesus came to do for all Men who desired resurrection and who loved and followed him.  

*From the IV Gospel: As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name... God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life...  I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die... That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Christopher Langan - still producing good insights

Q: What should I do in my life? CML: Search for God. Ask God to establish a personal relationship with you. 

It's available! - you're attached to God by your soul. 

I hadn't looked at Christopher Michael Langan's work for a while, so I dropped-in at his CTMU Radio channel on YouTube, and browsed a few recent postings. 

The first thing I did was watch a three minute video called "Satan"; which I regard as excellent: concise, clear, decisive! 

The video is illustrative of the major differences in metaphysical assumptions between Langan and myself; in that his models of reality are highly abstract, and use the language of physics and mathematics. 

Whereas I am recurrently (whenever I remember) trying to understand and express reality in terms of Beings and their motivations - I regard the universe as ultimately "animistic" not abstract. 

Yet behind the different assumptions and expressions, I find myself in a high degree of agreement with CML. He is surely on the right side of the spiritual war; and, despite major personality differences between us, I certainly regard Langan as A Good Bloke. 

I can't claim to have read or watched more than a sliver of Langan's prodigious output, but here are some sources for those who wish to explore further. 

Is it ultimately incoherent when Western Civilization says, in effect: "We are superior because we know we are inferior"?

It must be a bizarrely conflicted life to be one of the Western leadership class who are engaged in geopolitics! 

(Small wonder that they bear the hallmarks of self-damaged/ deleted souls.) 

On the one hand, the "external" rhetoric of Western powers is one of implied superiority... 

The West intervenes everywhere in the world and attempts to destroy other societies +/- remaking them in "our" image; on the basis that other places are morally inferior - because they do not sufficiently adhere to "our" Western ideology, laws, values and morals. 

On the other hand, the "internal" rhetoric is of definite inferiority and self-abasement. 

The West, the people of each and every Western nations, are (by a vast inner propaganda of politics, bureaucracy, mass media, education, academia, corporations...) routinely assumed to be ethically inferior to people from... anywhere/ everywhere else. 

Such that our primary duty (for which we ought to sacrifice almost anything) is to enable any number of people without limit, from anywhere in the world but especially Not the West; to come to Western nations; there to be supported by the native populations (fed, housed, paid, educated, kept healthy...) to the same or higher level than the native population - and at the expense of native Westerners.  

So, there is a massive rhetorical incoherence between the arrogant and violent self-assertion of Western "foreign policy"; and the pervasive self-hatred and strategic self-destruction of the "home affairs" of Western nations. 

It is as if that ideological superiority which makes it our ethical duty to subvert, terrorize and make war on everybody-else; is rooted in the awareness of our moral inferiority to everybody else...* 

What explains and solves this apparent paradox and conflict of interest at the material level is quite simple. 

The answer lies in is that "our" and "us" used in relation to the West - the explanation is the "we" who does all this stuff... 

It is that the Western leadership class (and their agents and clients among the other nations) regard themselves as morally superior to everybody else in the world, and at any point in history.  

Themselves as superior - i.e. the leadership class only - and emphatically not the nations that they lead. 

This conviction of superiority to everybody else is why They strategically aim to destroy and impose Their values on all other civilizations and nations; and simultaneously destroy and impose their values on their home populations. 

This is why They do whatever They want, while subjecting everybody else to ever more invasive laws and regulations. 

This is why They destroy economies, impose "equality" or "diversity", reduce and limit housing and transport etc etc - while reciprocally leading jet-setting lives of international travel, multiple residences, mega-consumerism, colossal and wasteful extravagance of lifestyle - and vastly enriching themselves personally.

From the perspective of the Western rulers; all this is natural, logical and wholly consistent with their own qualitative and separate superiority of nature. "They" are not like Us, and see deeper and further - so of course different rules apply to Them.   

Strategically, They are simply trying to conquer and subdue the entire world, to bring the entire world under Their good ideology; and to create an impenetrable defensive bubble around Themselves.

It justifies itself: Looking-down from their high vantage point and with vast quantities of secret intelligence information, the Western rulers are convinced that they can see farther and deeper than anyone else. And with an touch of compassionate regret (which emphasizes Their moral depth); They nobly accept the necessity of destroying most of the people and nearly-all of the places of the world - because the alternatives would be... well, un-think-able. 

(And therefore they accept the need for coercing and deceiving the masses into doing whatever is required for this goal. After all the mass majority could not be expected to embrace their own messy annihilation if this was honestly explained. Obviously, we must be lied-to.)  

Sad, perhaps; but such a supreme "sacrifice" is required in order to make actual the dream of a good world of superior beings.  

So the Western leadership class regard themselves as superior, and also as hard-nosed realists who are prepared to take (covert) responsibility for sacrificing almost-everybody/everything in order to achieve the kind of world that they regard as Good...

(Hence the snake-eyes.)

And yet they are pawns and dupes and suckers - because the real plan behind "the plan" is not human - but demonic; and the global destruction and sacrifice therefore is intended to include all the humans, including every man jack of the Western leadership class - every last one of them, and all their descendants.  

The demons are motivated by fear and hatred of divine creation in all its aspects; and (as un-incarnated spiritual beings) they do not require the people of this world, except for pleasure, as a gratifying source of "energy"; and demons do not need the planet earth.

In the meanwhile, the demons feed-upon the terror, lust, resentments, and despair of those who serve them, and those whose evil affiliations and acts are un-repented - especially the Western ruling class.

Thus apparent self-contradiction, paradox, and incoherence of aim and action at the human level...

Makes clear and simple sense at the spiritual level. 

NOTE: It may seem that I am blaming everything on Them. But this is not so. Evil must be invited into the human heart; therefore the Western masses (i.e. Not the leadership classes) are deeply complicit in the geopolitical and internal strategies, in enough key ways that the continued spiritual domination of the leadership class is guaranteed. And at the root of this complicity are the materialistic, hedonic, atheistic, and anti-Christian assumptions; that have been embraced by the vast majority of Western masses of all kinds and regardless of whether they call, and believe themselves to be, spiritual, religious, or Christian. 

* This is especially obvious when moral behaviours of other civilizations or nations in their own countries is used to as rationale for destruction or takeover; but allowed and encouraged when the same peoples enter Western nations. Perhaps the most extreme example is slavery (although systemic and lethal violence against women is more common). Allegations of slavery in any other nation is regarded as evidence of their moral inferiority; yet when foreign populations enter Western nations they are allowed to practice slavery - so that slavery has now returned to the West in significant numbers and for many years, with full official connivance.  

A real creative scientist: Graham Cairns-Smith

1931-2016

It was probably 1990 or 91, while I was a lecturer at Glasgow University, Scotland; when I first met Graham Cairns-Smith. 

At that time he was a Reader in Physical Chemistry, and I interviewed him for an article that (I think) was published in the Glasgow Herald newspaper. 

That interview led to further discussions; because I realized quickly that GCS was not just a real scientist (truth-seeker, truth-speaker) - I had already met several of these - but a creative scientist; one who original in a genius way, and orientated towards developing new and true theories; rather than doing ever-more (and more expensive!) experiments. 

What jumped-out was the way he talked, the quietly sustained focus, that he went back to first principles, talked about theories; and the extreme clarity and simplicity with which he expressed his thinking. 

He very quickly explained his Big Idea, which was related to the origins of life on earth having have occurred via the replication of simple molecules, probably siliceous, possibly clays -- necessarily much simpler than the usual candidates of nucleic acids or proteins - which he ruled-out on chemical energetic grounds and the vastly improbable complexity required for their production. 

His ideas were accessibly published for a general audience in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (1990) - and became widely influential, albeit often in somewhat garbled form - even in mainstream science fiction.

(Those many silicon-, instead of carbon-, based aliens mentioned in various media, might well be derived ultimately from GCS.) 

The way Graham discussed natural selection made me realize that I had never previously encountered anyone with his level of understanding; and with just a few deep insights - he made me begin to realize my own fascination with the subject; and set me onto the path whereby I worked on evolutionary theories for more than decade - worked with greater intensity and mental effort than I ever worked at anything else.   

Graham's quality was recognized at a high level among other real scientists, and he would (for instance) participate in meetings, symposia, lectures etc. where nearly-all the other people were Nobel laureates.

And/yet this status was not matched in terns of career, which was very modest. 

GCS was apparently almost obscure within Glasgow University. He rose to Reader but not Professor. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, but not of the (then) much more selective London RS. 

Many thousands of industrious but mediocre researchers garnered more elevated positions, greater system prestige, and achievement-awards - over his head, and those like him. 

This, because GCS was quiet, modest, and interested in "the science". 

I should make it clear: Graham was not at all bothered about promotions or prizes! -He was very happy with what he had. 

All that he asked for, was to be able to do the scientific work he was motivated to do. Anything else in the way of rewards was a bonus, a gratuity: nice, but inessential. 

And - because GDS retired before things got too bad around 2000, he was just able to have that minimum needful support from the UK university system. 

By the 1990s there was already a wide and increasing gulf between achievement in real science, and the system of rewards accorded to professional researchers in the bureaucracies that had once been genuinely scientific.

Going into the next millennium; it soon became evident that real science was dead and gone; and internally-motivated, creative people like Cairns-Smith could not longer expect even his moderate and delayed success; but had near-zero realistic career prospects of any kind within professional "science".     

I didn't know Graham well, and not at all on personal level. But his example made a decisive difference to my life and work. 

Also the fact that he recognized me to the extent of asking me to review and comment on the developing texts of his subsequent works, was a great confidence-booster, indicating that he believed that I too inhabited the same world of "real" scientists. 

Yesterday, in sorting through my library, I came across the copy of Evolving the Mind (1996) that he had sent me; and read the hand-written inscription thanking me for help with it. 

I then belatedly realized that a personal tribute of thanks to this creative, brilliant, honest and significant scientist - had become long overdue. 

What to do about "the re-entry problem" in relation to Christianity

Names and describes the re-entry problem - but doesn't suggest a valid Christian solution

Back at the beginnings of this blog I wrote a rather heart-felt post derived from what author Walker Percy termed "the re-entry problem":

What is not generally recognized is that the successful launch of self into the orbit of transcendence is necessarily attended by the problems of reentry. What goes up must come down. The best film of the year ends at nine o’clock. What do you do at ten? What did Faulkner do after writing the last sentence of Light in August? Get drunk for a week. What did Dostoevsky do after finishing The Idiot? Spend three days and nights at the roulette table.

A brief escape, to rise above our normal level - but then comes re-entry...

This re-entry problem applies to Christianity. 

For instance, a new convert will typically experience a great sense of exaltation and possibility on considering the profundities of his new faith. 

But what then? A crash-down into the mundane realities of joining and attending a church, and being expected to conform to a lifestyle so very dull and niggling - when compared with the great cosmic ultimates by which the Christian may have come to faith. 

This is not just emotionally disappointing, but the everyday experiences of (what he is told) means "being a Christian" is typically experientially utterly un-related to the original conversion. 

This problem is not unique to conversion, of course; we get a deflationary come-down after any exceptionally positive experience. 

But it hits hardest in relation to religion - because of our expectation of a qualitatively "more spiritual" life post-conversion. 

Most churches will argue that this expectation is false, and that real-life is what it is, and our job as Christians is to understand and value it accordingly...

But I do not fully agree; because I think this is usually just an excuse for the fact that church religion is almost-wholly assimilated to the mundane world, its values and priorities - and indeed even explicitly aspires to this "relevance".

The worldly aspects of church are propagandized and strongly insisted upon; while in contrast the spiritual aspects are vague aspirations, "just words" - and there is no pressure or encouragement towards pursuing them, nor do they affect church conduct - especially not if spiritual considerations interfere in any significant way with everyday church functioning. 

Well... it's facile to be critical about this world, and the many ways it falls short of our aspirations - and as of 2025 it is misguided to look for higher spirituality from any social institution (except in its unofficial and minor counter-currents to the Zeitgeist). 

Furthermore; it has proved impossible for most people, most of the time, to become spiritually better overall - which was probably why Jesus in the IV Gospel emphasized aspirations and repentance - rather than reform of behaviour - as necessary and sufficient for salvation. 

Yet the re-entry problem will not go away, and is a major difficulty for many people - such that recommending negative stoicism is probably counter-productive: the fact is we must each be motivated in Life, and that means the pursuit of some positive enhancement in our everyday spiritual aspirations and sense of spiritual achievement. 

Instead of giving-up on a spiritual life (and assimilating to the mundane), or aiming for the spiritually impossible (and despairing at the lack of progress); I think we should address the re-entry re-examining what the spiritual quest ought to be in accordance with our Christian goals. 

This may lead to re-framing our personal spiritual quest into something where genuinely valuable progress is realistically attainable, on a frequent, everyday basis. 

For me this implies that, because spiritual progress is not evident in this world; spiritual progress therefore instead "must be" logged and accumulated with reference to our future resurrected eternal life in Heaven.  

So that - whatever brief specific things we achieve in the here and now - in terms of love, understanding reality including evil, thinking from our real selves, participation in divine creation, repentance, aspirations and commitments, good-motivated actions, the attainment of an eternal and "cosmic" perspective to frame this mortal life etc... 

I strive to recognize that every and all such brief, partial and specific spiritual attainments shall be retained and stored; and will be added to the resources of our post-mortal resurrected selves. 

The conclusion: There are always such things we might be doing at any time or place; and they are always worth doing. 

Rather than such palliatives as getting drunk (Faulkner) or immersing ourselves in trivia (Dostoevsky); that is how we might positively respond to the re-entry problem - whenever it rears its ugly head. 

Taize "worship" - the dark side of Liberal Christianity

Artist's impression of a Liberal Christian priest about to perform the "Taizing" ritual

Various "Liberal Christian" churches around here are openly advertising so-called Taize services*.

I have become convinced that Taize is a crudely-obscurationist French translation of Tazer; and that this apparently innocuous form of "worship" must involve ritualistic electrocution.

Covert surveillance is required, but success in this aim has not yet been achieved.

Not many things illustrate the degree of demonic influence on present-day churches more vividly than that such (presumably?) sado-masochistic practices should so blatantly be performed in consecrated ground, under cover of quasi-liturgy.  

*Why openly advertised? This will surely be an example of the Law by which demons must operate by consent and be invited-into the soul - To be spiritually-effective; sin must announce its intention. 

"The problem of evil" just won't go away for Christians

It's remarkable that mainstream orthodox traditional Christian theology has been wrestling with the "problem" of explaining evil for the entirety of its recorded history*. 

Officially the origin and presence of evil has long-since been explained, to the complete satisfaction of theologians; who cannot understand why people continue to harp-on about it. 

Yet - somehow - it just won't go away! 

It seems that everybody who accepts the definition of the Christian God as omnipotent and omniscient, and creator of everything from nothing - rapidly and unavoidably crashes-up against the problem of explaining how this-God is also supposed to be wholly Good and loving of each and every one of his children - all the time.  

Again and again, later if not sooner, people find that - in this collision of principles included in the definition of "Omnipotent plus Good" something has-to give-way. 

Again and again, people insist that to be "God" - God must be omnipotent and creator from nothing; and this primary and prior assumption inevitably makes people realize that therefore God cannot be "Good" in the same way that human beings understand Good...

For Omni-God to be Good either pushes us towards a redefinition of Good as it applies to God - so that our human evaluations become irrelevant, and we must just submit (preferably uncritically) to God's incomprehensible Goodness...

(Christianity tends towards Islam...) 

Or else we are pushed towards a version of Oneness spirituality in which everything that has ever happened or could happen is actually Good - if only we could understand it; and again our own personal evaluations are declared worthless.

(Christianity tends towards Hinduism/ Buddhism...)    

Again and again; thoughtful people are pushed away from Christianity, because they recognize that their own profoundest understanding of Good and evil is being declared irrelevant. 

Of course there is the alternative of challenging the definition of God as omnipotent - but that has been declared not-Christian by nearly all the major Christian churches. 

And since most people believe that Christianity is derived from (one or another) Church - and the individual person's understanding must be subordinated to (one or another) external authority; then redefinition of the nature of God is disallowed.

Something must give-way - and something does give-way - and what gives-way is (nearly always) the possible validity and human desirability of Christianity itself.   

   **

*It is not a problem to explain evil if one regards the Fourth Gospel (John) as the prime and unique overall-valid source of Jesus's life and teachings. Jesus's depicted relationship both with his Father and his disciples are personal and loving - human-like; but raised to an ideal and eternal degree. God is stated and assumed to be wholly Good; but in the IV Gospel's substance, there is nothing to insist upon God's omnipotence and omniscience. Consequently; Jesus and his followers do not seem troubled in the slightest about how to explain evil. The problem of evil apparently comes from post-Jesus theological and philosophical definitions of God, and is apparently related to the development of Christian churches - including the notion that to-be-a-Christian (to follow Jesus, to attain salvation) one must be a member of the true Church.

NOTE: Mormon theology does not posit the Omni-God, nor creation from nothing; and evil is easily explained by Mormonism's pluralist metaphysics. It should be noted, however, that the extremely radical and distinctive qualities of Mormon theology and metaphysics do not much impinge upon the CJCLDS - where the emphasis is very much on doctrines and practices.

Chaotic evil will win, sooner or later: The instability of Rule of Law in the ongoing Totalitarian backlash against Chaos

My understanding of the international scene (which is, in this respect, a macrocosm of what is happening in many individual people); is that most of the populous nations of the world aspire to totalitarianism; but the leadership class of some powerful countries (Western civilization especially) have gone "beyond" totalitarianism - to become dominated by an impulse towards spiteful destruction and the strategic generation of chaos. 

In a nutshell: Chaotic Evil is ascendant, but Lawful Evil is attempting to save the System. 

The System reached its apex in early 2020, with the international Birdemic lockdown - but has been on the defensive ever since. 

Much of this geopolitical backlash focuses upon "Law" - which term here includes all forms of international treaties, contracts, rules, regulations, formal agreements and the like. 

The (Western and "globalist") agents of chaos have abandoned Law and do: whatever they currently want. 

Opportunism, expediency and spiteful-intent are their principles; and the leadership class retrospectively manufacture excuses/ rationales by complexifying/ confusing/ / overwhelming/ boring people. 

Or more often simply ignoring previous agreements and commitments and "changing the subject". 

This is made possible and easy by a combination of the colossal propaganda resources of the Western mass media and social media (long since included in the totalitarian System); operating upon the willing-addiction of the Western populations to mass/ social media. 

Thus in the West; totalitarian structures and processes are used to generate chaos - and to export chaos to the rest of the world.   

  

Against this Chaotic ascendancy (with its inflexion point in summer of 2020) there has been a totalitarian backlash, among the nations and civilizations whose leadership class desire a stable System of population surveillance and control to pursue their various religious-ideological goals. 

These nations are trying to generate a new and international System of Law, plans, treaties, agreements, etc - and these recent Laws are intended to be long-term mutually beneficial (to their leadership classes). 

So - on the face of it, those in favour of Law are pushing-back against the agents of chaos. 

Yet, the gravitational pull is nonetheless towards chaos; because (among such diverse nations and civilizations) there is no coherent basis for these new international Laws except the long-term self interest of the current leadership class, as a whole. 

This "enlightened self-interest" is always under pressure of subversion by internal rivalries within the leadership classes of the nations (encouraged by the external machinations of the agents of chaos and their mass media); and subverted by short-term and individual self-interest - corruption of leaders and factions by immediate temptations such as more-power, opportunities for theft, offers of bribes - and in response to a wide variety of negative threats such as extortion, blackmail, prison, torture, assassination etc.   

Furthermore, the situation of Laws being recent, and the continual revising and adding-to of these Laws - means that there is always the possibility (or likelihood) that todays Laws will sooner or later be superseded by tomorrow's Laws...

And tomorrow's Laws may be made by a different set of people, with different intentions...

We can see this happening already - what what yesterday seemed like solid treaties, agreements, rules; don't actually get implemented today - after circumstances have changed, and obedience has become inconvenient or inexpedient for the currently more powerful side. 

Therefore; the totalitarian backlash attempt to re-impose a stable framework of "Law" seems doomed to fail under present conditions. 

And this failure would be predicted both for international relationships between nations, and also within nations where the interests of bureaucrats and managers come up against the spiteful destructiveness of Chaotic Evil.  

The underlying fact is that Chaotic evil is much easier than Lawful Evil - because destruction is easier than creating. 

And because evil is unstable, and feeds-upon itself...

In a world where the leadership classes and most of the masses have taken the side against God and divine creation; there is consequently an innate tendency towards Chaos - that cannot long be resisted by even the most sincere totalitarian bureaucrats.

The corrupting effect of worldly engagement

It is one of the more obvious lessons of life experience that prolonged engagement with some kind of evil environment almost-always has a corrupting effect on people - and consequently on groups including nations. 

While theoretically avoidable, in practice is seems almost inevitable that dealing with evil and with those who are themselves deeply involved; responding to evil aggressions and temptations, trying to defend against them...

The process of repeatedly trying to seek and pursue the lesser of evils...

Over time, this wears down people and institutions, and they conform to the level of those they engage with - even when they start-out as on-the-side-of Good. 

This wearing-down certainly happened to me whenever (as was common enough) I was often engaged with the activities of those whose motivations I initially tried not to share. 

My principles would become compromised by compromise, my perspective would shift' and the attempt to resist some particular evil, would result in playing people at their own game. 

This can be seen in history; when nations at war progressively become more like those they war with. If World War II began as UK resistance to totalitarian tyranny and population manipulation; the UK very soon began to mirror exactly that which it purported to oppose - especially deliberate mass indiscriminate slaughter of innocents (innocents swiftly being redefined as complicit- and quasi-combatants). 

Total war meant totalitarian - which is intrinsically evil. 

(Although the totality was not uniform - e.g. there remained reciprocity of decent treatment of prisoners of war between the UK and Germany; at the same time as prisoners were slaughtered, starved, enslaved, and worked to death by both sides on the Eastern front.) 

We can see the same in everyday life, when someone somewhat decent takes a managerial job or gets involved in bureaucracy - we can observe the (usually rapid, mostly unconscious) assimilation to totalitarian standards and values. We can observe the assimilation, and this may be extreme.   

I experienced exactly this myself, while working (a couple of days a week, for a couple of years) for the NHS bureaucracy. 

Simply in order to be reasonable friendly - to make the most of a bad situation, and to do my bit effectively - I was quickly drawn into the characteristic habitual thinking of those who participate in the systemic evil of our society.

The has always been some element of this, due to the nature of "human condition". 

But in the past, groups and institutions were sometimes overall-good in terms of their aims and affiliations, and their discourse. And Men we unable to detach from their group-mind - it was simply how human consciousness was. 

And so people got the idea that the fundamental and primary issues of human values were located at the level of groups: that is, our convictions and principles ought to relates to tribes, institutions, religions, nations, ideologies... whatever.  

Whereas nowadays we inhabit a world where all institutions are Systemic; necessarily assimilated to a global ideology that is nameless (because universal), pursues inverted values, and serves a demonic agenda.

So that it is nigh impossible for those who must earn a living and engage with "the world" to avoid the pervasive converging influences that will almost certainly corrupt them - even if they begin by recognizing System-evil and wanting to avoid convergence, and instead adhere to transcendental values of Truth, Beauty and Virtue (which not many do). 

 

The "material" situation for many (most) people is one of being besieged by the world! And this is a war that cannot be won - but shall certainly be lost by trying to win it!

But, God would not place us in a situation where we could not personally achieve spiritual victory; by choosing salvation and learning eternal life lessons. 

Given the fact of global evil and the divine certainty that you and I or anyone can win the spiritual war; The Big Question for each and all is: how?

(i.e. There is, for every person, an effective and attainable answer to our predicament - our job is "merely" to find it! But, while seeking; we should be confident that it is there to be found...) 

What's the use of Jesus here-and-now? Theories about the effect of Jesus on mortal life

What's the use of Jesus in my actual, daily life, here-and-now? 

This question needs an answer that is simple and clear enough to be comprehended and grasped whole - or else it will be ineffectual. 

But also, of course, the answer must be true - not some kind of incoherent answer; nor one that will soon be contradicted by experience because of its implications. 

Furthermore, the answer needs to be one that may - in principle - be endorsed by intuition. It should Not be an answer that depends on "evidence" relating to the validity and interpretation of external authority. 

(...Or else we will enter an "infinite regress" - and one that does not begin with Jesus, but has Jesus at its far, inaccessible, end - where he will never be reached.) 

In other words; we need to know that the answer is true; and we need to know its truth for-ourselves, and from our-selves  so that we personally can take the fullest responsibility for choosing and living-by the answer. 

If it is agreed that Jesus's work was to offer Men the chance of resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then some modern people will regard this as irrelevant to this mortal life...

Either because this finite and temporary mortal life doesn't matter by comparison with eternity...

Or else (more likely) that our post-mortal state and destination, has nothing to do with the practical needs and minutiae of everyday life. 

(i.e. The idea that everlasting life in Heaven would be very nice and all that; but is just pie-in-the-sky - maybe, sometime in the future - when what is needed/wanted is pie on the table, now and for-sure.)

In the past, in the era of church-led Christianity; the everyday implications were set-out in detailed commandments, rules, practices, and (especially) prohibitions - that dictated our lives in all important - and indeed apparently trivial - instances.

The Christian life was a complex and comprehensive instructional blueprint, and Christian living was obedience to its dictates.

I believe that this needs to be replaced - because it manifestly doesn't work, and never really was what Jesus said and did - and people instead require a personal and internally-endorsed understanding of what it means to "follow Jesus". 

That is the nature of the task. When one becomes a Christian - in theory; then instead of looking to one church or another for instructions concerning "what to do next" - this is a personal quest. 

And I feel sure that the quest is not going to be satisfied by any answer that we feel to be drab, materialist, mundane, utilitarian, monochrome, military rations... 

We absolutely require an answer that is as broad and deep as our fullest and most-valued experience of this mortal life, and our most heart-felt aspirations for what we most desire life might ideally become.

And that answer must be the basis for a powerful and robust, inner-generated, personal motivation. 

(Or else, if insufficiently motivated; we will surely succumb to the endemic evil of this world.) 

So that if, like me, you value (insist-upon) that sense of life as being lived at a higher level - a state of awareness of the enchantment of living - then we need to know how the future, post-mortal promises of Jesus shall eventuate in the potential for here-and-now joy, meaning, purpose, and loving-creation. 

 

Bonald's explanation for AI-dolatry

The archetypal modern senior manager: heroic, far-sighted, at the cutting edge... 

A corrupt, mediocre, spiteful, psychopath

Bonald has come up with a convincing proximate explanation for the current AI-dolaltry; that seems to fit with the short/ medium term self-interest of the senior managerial class.  

My paraphrase of his argument is that the managerial class are strategically (and with calculated dishonesty) hyping AI by pretending that it can efficiently replace humans without significant loss of quality. 

This hype provides senior managers a pseudo-justification for making massive short-term savings on salaries by sacking a large percentage of the workforce; under cover of the lying notion that they are enhancing productivity by taking early advantage of a major technological breakthrough. 

What will actually happen is that the senior managers will save a lot of money for their corporations in the short term, will get performance related salary enhancements; and will surf out of the corporations on a wave of prestige, at a job well done - to get a better paid job elsewhere. 

When the company collapses due to the inevitable catastrophic failure of AI, this will no longer be a problem for the senior managers who implemented it - who by that point will long-since have departed to graze on pastures new; there to reap the rewards of their executive genius. 

I'm currently delisted by Google...

I have long been fascinated by the machinations of the Google search engine - who also own the platform on which this blog is published. 

At present, I mean a few minutes ago; this blog seems to be delisted by Google - so that searching my name in quotes for the past week gives no return - zilch. I don't exist.  

By contrast, Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yandex all have me top-ranked. 

Yet Google's own blog statistics award me 638,334 page views for the past week - absurdly high, I know; but these are Blogger's own data. 

I can't fathom what They are up to except that it is clearly purposive, not "random"; nor do I worry much about it or what (if anything) it presages. 

But it is microcosmic evidence of the kind of self-contradicting, and therefore self-destructive, phenomenon that is happening, increasingly - in the mainstream-dominant domain of public discourse. 

There is an epidemic of spinner-throwing into works, sand-putting into gears; all over the place and at all levels - and this is just a slice of my share of it!

NOTE: The reason I mention this; is that this sort of thing didn't happen on the internet 25 years ago, but now it happens All The Time. Back in the 90s and 2000s you could search the internet, day by day, year after year - and invariably re-find something you had found before - plus lots of new stuff. Searches would return thousands, or millions, of results. Now it is normal not to find something you could find yesterday, or earlier in the day. And you can never find much of anything. As WmJas pointed out even if you search something like "Jesus Christ" or "the Beatles", which has trillions of web sources, you'll only probably get a few hundred results. I used to be able to find web references to almost anybody - family, old friends; now most people's names yield no returns at all. The search engine strategy seems to be two-fold - to censor returns (or charge for what used to be cost-free) and severely to limit the volume of results - the first requiring the second of course, but the limitation in returns is far more extreme than censoring would require. 

Further note: Next day. 

I am no longer de-listed, but come up number one on the search - restricted for the past 7 days. 

From Zero to Hero!

Like I said - no point in wasting time overthinking these things. 

In passing, when readers reported I was Not delisted - I wonder whether they had restricted the search to the past week - as I had? Maybe they didn't notice that? Anyway, I've italicized the phrase now, for emphasis. But it's too late, anyway...

The choice is between virtuality and metaphysics

Because of the nature of human consciousness, we inhabit a world where perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc are irrelevant; because what counts as perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc is shaped by our assumptions and interpretations. 

So, most people most of the time (and, apparently, some people all of the time) inhabit the virtual-world - virtuality as contrasted with what used to be called reality. 

People nowadays inhabit virtuality - especially wrt Litmus Test issues: the themes that most obsess and motivate nice people and leaders, the great moral "issues" of our time: antiracism, inequality, climate, the birdemic, wars and disasters in remote places and among strangers... 

All share the characteristic that they are virtual concerns, rooted in inculcating theoretical frameworks that take-up any and all possible facts as confirming evidence for the theories.  

Consequently; old-style reality is (as of 2025) simply not an option, because not available to choose - because that is not how our minds work.

Our reality depends on our fundamental assumptions about reality - i.e. metaphysics; so the answer to controlled-virtuality does not lie in more or different facts; but in disengaging from the nigh-infinite deluge of facts; and instead re-examining ultimate assumptions directly.   

Most people inhabit this world via perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc; but are typically unaware that the meanings of their world comes wholly from their assumptions, preconceptions etc -- which they are fed by the mass/ social media, bureaucracy, officialdom, teaching etc.  

So - as is well known in theory, but seldom experientially - people inhabit a virtual world. 

A world where people are unconsciously and pervasively fed assumptions and theories, interpretations - which they are told are rooted-in-facts and objectively true. And from these assumptions and theories they infer the meaning of old and new facts, past and future experiences. 

Which circular process confirms the assumptions and theories they have been fed. 

...e.g. They are fed that science is objectively the only valid form of knowledge - and that this is factually proved; they then interpret the facts of the world on that basis; and these facts (which are the only facts they recognise as facts) tell them that science is indeed the only valid form of knowledge. 

At which point; those who control the feeding, can decide that science is... whatever they want it to be.

This is exactly where we are, almost completely; and have been for some decades, increasingly. 

A world where everything is based on "evidence"; but what counts as evidence, and what that evidence is allowed to mean - is wholly a product of whatever officially -true theories have been fed into the cycle from the beginning. 

The interlinked "system" of media propaganda, officialdom, education, research etc is all about the theories - all about the deep assumptions and derived interpretative schemes by-which facts are understood. 

Once in place, the theories determine the facts, and the facts sustain the theories. 

So long as we stay at this level, there is no way out from virtuality; all labelled "escape routes" lead back inside...

The conclusion ought to be that we need to make our fundamental assumptions about reality without regard to perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence. 

Indeed, we must rigorously eschew any external, material, sense-mediated influence on our fundamental beliefs concerning the nature of reality. 

This exclusion encompasses nearly-all of what is traditionally regarded as religion; because churches, traditions, scriptures, theologies - all of these are aspects of those externally-fed interpretative schemes by which virtuality exists. 

And this means that at some point, sooner or later - unless content to remain in the virtual world; each person needs to step-back and to stop taking notice of external inputs and inculcated theories...

 

Instead to consider directly - for himself and from himself - the nature of ultimate reality and the fundamental questions: answers to which determine... everything else.

This activity is called metaphysics. 

(If you don't understand - then just do it. Do it ASAP. Once you've done it, you will understand what metaphysics is, and how things work at that level.) 

As we now are; our actual and inhabited reality does not - it just doesn't! - depend on external inputs - perceptions, facts, common sense or any other such. 

It depends on our virtual-world metaphysics, which we have been fed under the disguise that it is objective fact. 

As of 2025; we should not seek reality from outside us - because only virtuality lies outside . 

We should, indeed, shun the external, and exclude the external from consideration; as a first and essential step. 

It's either metaphysics; or we shall continue to live inside virtual world - under control of its masters, and not even wanting to escape... Indeed, not even aware that there is anywhere else that we might escape to.     

We are born and live as young children with a coherent world view

It is strange to a modern mind, but makes obvious sense if this is the creation of a good and loving God; that our innate understanding of the world, which we spontaneously experience as young children, often (and ideally) seems to be more coherent than any of the others which come to replace it. 

In other words; a child's experience and explanation of reality makes sense and hangs-together better than mainstream modern materialism, and also better than the complex intellectual structures of religions. 

However, a vital element of this coherence is the mind of the child - the consciousness of a child (the way he apprehends, experiences, explains the world); which is different from the minds of those who come-up with alternative explanations. 

I have come to regard the young child's understanding as innate because God-given, part of divine creation - which is why it is true; so although different, other forms of understanding (e.g. among adults, and in various societies) ought to be compatible with those of the child. 

This innate understanding relates to the pre-Christian world, the not Christian world - or what I term Primary Creation: creation without Christ. 

A loving child in a loving family knows the goodness of God; and that this world is purposive and has meaning is implicit. 

Reality is personal - a matter of beings not things. And the world works in terms of the relationships between beings - in terms of desires, motives, etc. 

I don't think young children spontaneously think about "creation"; rather, they implicitly assume that the world is created by personal intentions - the world doesn't "just happen", is not random nor mechanical.  

But the child also has an implicit understanding of both entropy (change, death) and of evil that sometimes impinges upon goodness and happiness. He realizes there are threatening beings, that want to scare and harm him. 

The child also knows that he is involved in this, that bad things happen in part because of something in himself - e.g. it is because he thinks about them or dreams about them - that monsters and other threats are attracted, and may come. (It is because he got angry that his favourite toy was smashed.) Yet he cannot stop himself from thinking/ dreaming about monsters; cannot stop himself getting angry, spiteful...

This implies a knowledge of evil in himself. 

The child also realizes also that people and "things" change, and he does and may lose things and people from forgetting, breakages, destruction, theft, removal, death etc. 

And also that when these happen, or might happen; the child will also himself have something to do with it. 

Irresistible, irrevocable change is inside himself, as well as outside. 

The child's spontaneous "answer" to these problems would seem to be a wish for invulnerability for himself and those he loves; so that the bad things of the world do not affect him or his life.

A wish, too, to be free from those bad thoughts that attract trouble and misery.  

This relates to the fascination for heroes - whether divine, demi-god, angelic, or "superhero"... what lies behind this is the idea that we may personally be transformed - while remaining our-selves - such that the bad things of life do not affect us personally, or those we love. 

If this were to happen, then we could live in the world without fear of pain, harm or loss; and this I believe is a daydream hope of young children. 

So far this is negative; but a child aspires to the positive as well. 

Especially if we recognize that a child spontaneously knows that the material is always spiritual, and nothing is neutral - all has meaning and relates to purpose. For a child; everything is personal and relational, and everything has resonance and depth and is important - nothing is mundane or trivial. 

Children's play and talk is full of fantasies, of wishful thinking and make-believe. And these are important to the child. 

It is here we should be looking to find spontaneous creativity. 

One common fantasy aspiration of childhood (which can stand for many others) is to fly - fly without wings and by will-power (again the "superhero" idea, or in the past some kind of spiritual being, were-being, demi-god or the like). 

This is a way in which a young child is creative, or proto-creative: wanting to expand his experience, especially in ways that lead to a new quality of experience. 

Hoping to do something of his own that adds to the world (adds to creation).

This lies behind the wish-fulfilling fantasies of being a superhero or a princess; of being unique, special, famous. This isn't merely trivial hedonism or conceit; because to a child such a possibility is creative, important - enlarging and changing the world for the better.   

It seems to me that - in terms of a young child's world - the meaning of what Jesus Christ made possible lies in the relationship between his understanding of everyday reality; and the world of his wishful thinking and fantasies. 

The work of Jesus impinged upon the already existing world; to offer a new possible reality; and this unique historical event may be recapitulated in the development of a child. 

Anyone who was genuinely wholly satisfied with "Primary Creation" - with the world as-is - would not be interested or attracted by Jesus's possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

What such a person wants is to become something like an invulnerable superhero - a super-man (Ubermensch) who inhabits this world as it is, but is personally invulnerable to the entropy and evils that are intrinsic to Primary Creation. 

Resurrection and Heaven are, on the other hand, attractive to those whose child-like day-dreams are of a world - that is, a Second Creation - in which there is only love and no evil in ourselves and all other beings whom we love.

A world in which all change is good: the exciting possibility of growing-up. 

What Jesus offers is that instead of only living in this world but becoming invulnerable to its bad things; we can also inhabit a world where we have become all-good, there are only loving relationships, and happy day-dreams can become reality - with our help.  

That - in a young child's terms - is approximately what Heaven offers; above and beyond the wishes or hopes of pre-Christian and non-Christian understandings. 

Christians are badly mixed-up about Hope - with evil consequences

It seems to be a hallmark of the dangerous stupidity of most self-identified Christians that they translate the injunction to Hope - as one of the core virtues - into a kind of dumb optimism about the people and social institutions of 2025. 

They "hope" that if they continue to believe, support and obey their leaders, national government, church, science and medicine etc; then this kind of undiscerning process of taking the side of evil and obeying it, on the basis that it "might" (hopefully) actually be good is A Good Thing. 

Good and also necessary because a "Christian" thing. 

The reasoning is that if a good thing is not certainly utterly impossible, then Christians ought to believe it - or, at least, say they believe it. 

Such Christians seem to spend most of their energies and efforts in lending assistance to evil-affiliated people and institutions; on the grounds that "there is always Hope!" that these might already are secretly good, or good despite everything, or change their minds and become good...

Especially if we "give them the benefit of the doubt" - who knows? 

(It is easy to imagine what Jesus would have said if he had been told to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the activities of Temple money-changers, or the Pharisees?)

So people continue (actively as well as passively) to support Western nations and social institutions - including churches - that once may well have been overall-good; but now are quite openly and aggressively untruthful and pursue value inversion... 

And all on the basis of what they call Hope!

This is evil in at least two ways: Firstly because it supports the strategies of evil institutions in their work of corrupting the world. Secondly because it corrupts the individual who supports evil institutions. 

It's my impression that such is one of the most common methods by which individuals, including many individual Christians, get corrupted; and drift into changing sides in the spiritual war of this world.

Even worse, they change sides without realizing that they have done so, and therefore they have aligned with evil without repenting. 

[In this world of sin; to do evil, even to support evil, is itself not the most fundamental spiritual problem. Jesus came to save sinners, exactly because we cannot stop sinning. The really serious, indeed lethal, spiritual problem is to do evil without recognizing, acknowledging and repenting that evil.] 

Such Christians have set-aside the need to take personal responsibility for their discernments and judgments, and personally to make spiritual choices in this mortal life. 

Instead, what they actually do, is make more-expedient, more socially-acceptable, more personally-rewarding life choices on the excuse of Hope... 

Which as of 2025 means supporting organizations and groups that are overall explicitly evil in both their aims and methods. 

The problem with this "Hope" is therefore that it blocks thinking, discernment, judgment and personal responsibility - and dissolves the very purpose and meaning of life.

Not good.  

If not; then what?

Christian Hope is meant to be something very solid and sure; it is meant to be rooted our firm intention and belief in our own salvation. 

We ought not to be un-sure about this, because the matter is in our own hands. Jesus made it possible; after that, it is our choice. 

Vague wishful-thinking Hope has no place in this - we ought to be thinking of salvation in a realistic way: do we want it, will we commit to it? 

But what about other people? 

In the first place we have no business hoping for the salvation of people in the mass or in the abstract ("people" reported in history books, or the mass media); and our feelings are only genuinely Christian when they relate to actual human beings...

Indeed, to those whom we love to at least some degree. (Bearing in mind that love is inter-personal - between human and other beings.) 

We can and should and do Hope for the salvation of those we love: and this is very important. 

Loving is, indeed, the single most important thing that we can do for them. 

But this Hope is rooted in the fact that the game is not over until it is over. 

In particular, no matter how deeply enmeshed and engaged in evil; those who currently reject salvation are allowed to change their mind at the very last moment - and perhaps forever.

It can be seen that this Hope has nothing to do with the necessity for judgment and discernment in this our mortal lives. 

We can, should and must evaluate other people, organizations, nations; in terms of whether they are good-affiliated on the one hand - or else opposed to God and divine creation. 

We need to make and act upon such judgments. Obviously we do! As Jesus did. 

And this has absolutely nothing to do with any claim that our judgment is fallible... Of course our judgment is fallible, in this as in everything! If infallibility were required we could never do anything, and neither would we choose to do nothing. 

To demand infallibility before judgment is incoherent; hence (even for this reason alone) evil.  

Genuine, strong Christian Hope is in fact a product of faith in God: faith in a God who is our loving parents, and who is the creator. 

But that is not sufficient, because for Hope to be real and for us personally, we need furthermore faith in Jesus Christ who made our salvation - resurrected eternal life in Heaven - possible to those who follow him. 

All genuine Hope therefore springs from our personal confidence in our own salvation. 

So, in this sense, and contrary to mainstream Christian teaching; we ought not merely to "Hope" for our salvation, because it is guaranteed us - if we make the needful commitment to live wholly by love. 

We should therefore live in sureness of our salvation. 

And Hope? 

Well, Hope is for those we love; and Hope is an ultimate aspiration related to their final choice and destination.

Hope is not a guide to our behaviour in this mortal life.  

We harm people by treating metaphysical errors with psychological palliatives

There is a very common psychological scenario in which someone is (or feels himself to be) motivated by high goals, then he is given "well meaning" advice that addresses mundane concerns. And the consequence is that the high-aimer feels misunderstood and alienated.   

For instance, somebody wants to change jobs or get married; and such risky (and perhaps genuinely misguided) behaviour is met by "well-meaning" pragmatic advice pitched at the level of probabilistic human psychology.

Perhaps advice about being cautious, not burning bridges, maybe by describing the kind of adverse scenarios that could be expected to eventuate - and so forth. 

In this situation; one person is operating at a higher level of aspiration and motivation than the other; and the attempt to drag him down to mundane cautiousness and matters of practical expedience may (quite accurately) be experienced as a profound misunderstanding - and the process leaves the high-aiming one feeling isolated.

This is a serious error of discourse. 

Yet, I'm sure we have all done it - and more than once. 

Especially because in our society, the mundane is equated with the only-real - and high goals seems imaginary and delusional - which indeed they may be... 

But the point is that even "obviously" mistaken, imaginary and delusional high aspirations need to be addressed at the same level - or a higher level. 

We should learn not to try and drag-down high aspirations to expedient pragmatism - even when (perhaps especially when) the aspirations are wrong. 

This situation arises in individual persons and at a societal level. For example; it describes public discourse concerning 1960s counter-culture - as it affected many millions of adolescents and young adults. 

The counter-culture included a great deal of manipulation and wishful-delusion; and was based on wrong metaphysical assumptions and included many selfish and hedonic intentions - nonetheless it operated at a higher than mundane level: a level of "idealism". 

When flaky and naïve 60s ideals were met with pragmatic and mundane arguments concerning the Real World and economic necessity, status and security - this was (rightly) experienced as an attack on idealism, and a dragging-down of high aspirations to the futility of barnyard materialism.

In dealing with high but wrong aims; we ought to eschew the temptation of shooting at the easy mundane targets - and consequently reducing the discourse to a level of mere survival and selfishness. 

We ought to respect the aspiration for higher things - and sympathize with the instinct to reject mere expediency as the primary guide for life. 

We need to meet naïve idealism on its own level, or above. 

NOTE: This point was derived from re-reading and considering Chapter Four of William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness. 

What blogging should be about - and sometimes is

Last week the "secular right" blogger ZMan - who I had been reading regularly for several years - apparently died suddenly of natural causes; and I find that has saddened me more than might be expected.

The reason seems related to this strange and recent literary form of blogging, which I have been reading for more than twenty years, and myself doing regularly for fifteen.

In particular to the distinctive relationship that may develop (inwardly, perhaps wholly in imagination) between a blogger and his readers - and vice versa.   

To read and get-something-from a blog, it really needs to be a personal thing - either frequent, or else extensive. This is because there needs to be a persona behind the blog; we need to be aware of a person behind the opinions. 

(On the flip side; for a blogger to sustain his work sufficiently; he must himself be motivated by the process of blogging - and by its opportunity for presenting miscellaneous ideas freshly, and without being subject to overview.)

And - while there obviously must be a significant degree of common interest to keep reading a blog; there need not be any very complete "agreement". For instance, several of my long-term favourite bloggers long-term have been orthodox and traditional Roman Catholics - people such such as Bonald at the Orthosphere, who I've been reading for a couple of decades. 

Instead there has to be some kind of basic affinity with the blog persona - but especially with the person we infer behind that persona. I say infer, because we don't need to know much specifically about the blogger "in real life" - so long as what we do know is honest and unpretentious.

I personally find it very irritating/ intolerable when bloggers are trying to impress me, especially when they try to stimulate may admiration or envy!  - no matter what other valuable qualities they have. And there are many such bloggers, and unfortunately their need to brag seems to feed upon itself, and get worse.

In other words, we keep reading a blog attentively because (to use an English phrase) we have come to believe that the blogger is Basically A Good Bloke. That is far more important than a close fit of specific convictions or opinions.

But, as the pretentiousness/ bragging aspects makes clear - bloggers change; and someone we begin liking may evolve into somebody we find intolerable - and so we bale out from readership. 

Beyond that, because blogging needs to be relatively high volume, interest is maintained by insights - and a good blogger needs to generate plenty of these to sustain attention. 

Blogging is, I think, mainly a stimulus; rather than a medium for conclusive argument. So, a blogger like ZMan kept me reading partly because he had many insights that seemed personal rather than (as with mainstream journalism) merely parroted; and partly because I found what he wrote stimulating.

Even though I often disagreed with it both ultimately and superficially; and even though I think his blogging was constrained by the constraint of monetization and pseudonymity, which prevented it from achieving the highest levels of the form.

(I have come to believe that professional writers very seldom generate first rate work, although they may produce a large amount of second and third rank work - furthermore I think all the greatest writers did something else, worked some other "job", before they wrote their greatest work. Writers who have done nothing but write as adults; never, I think, attain the highest levels.) 

I think readers usually judge a blog by its best, rather than its average, level - just so long as the gaps between the good stuff is not too great. So long as we retain our basic liking for the blogger - we don't much mind the duds. 

And in fact we cannot have the peaks without the troughs, as we see from the history of even the greatest artists. Even so supreme and natural and artists as Mozart, for instance, continued to produce dud operas and concertos even during his greatest phases of achievement and right up to his death. 

To do our best, we must take risks; and when we take risks we shall sometimes (or often) fail. And we can learn much from acknowledging our failures - but first the failures have t happen.   

At any rate, blogging benefits from a careless attitude of freedo-, and the ability to shrug-off those times when posts don't take-off or just don't gel.

As an example of a recent example of the kind of blog post I like best; here is (non-famous) blogger Irish Papist; with a very personal and honest, free-associational development of ideas on the theme: Everything comes back to religion. 

As often said: writing is thinking (or it can be); and here you can sense AP thinking as he writes; and share his excitement at the insights as they emerge from the exploration.

I've been sampling Irish Papist on-and-off for several years - long enough to have decided he is a Good Bloke; and from this assumption I find that he produces a stimulating post every so often, that seems to set off associations and notions in myself. 

And this perhaps is what good blogging is about; and why regular readers come to care - at least somewhat - about our favourite bloggers; and miss them when they are gone.