My useless natural talent - clay pigeon shooting

There are many things I can't do at all well - throwing is one of them. I was always well below average at throwing a ball, a stone or a javelin; and easily prone to hurt my shoulder if I tried*. I am distinctly sub-par at foreign languages. I have an aesthetic blind-spot for sculpture. And so on...

But I have sometimes discovered a built-in natural ability in some activities. 

The thing is, you don't know you have this, until you try the thing. And, even then, the ability does not always go along with an interest or drive to succeed in that domain. 

I had a natural ability as a journal editor and a genuine interest in the job. 

While I was put in charge of Medical Hypothesis, I found the work congenial, could do it efficiently, and the journal did very well - such that I was awarded two significant performance related salary increases. 

(Of course, ability and success did not stop me for being sacked when I transgressed PC taboos!) 

Another thing I seemed naturally gifted at, was clay pigeon shooting - which did not interest me as a sport, and which I did only once, on holiday in Ireland. 

Clay pigeon shooting uses a double-barrelled shotgun to blast ceramic discs - shaped like saucers - of approximately five inches diameter. 

These discs are fired out of a spring-loaded device two at a time; so they can fly away from the shooter, across his vision from one side to the other, or from in-front and passing backwards over his head.

I had never touched or fired a shotgun in my life; but I achieved almost perfect results in this weird sport. I even managed to hit both discs (one after the other, with each barrel) when they were going sideways, or backwards (which was apparently the most difficult, in that nobody else managed to hit any of the clays, during this procedure).

I've no idea how I accomplished this feat; especially the "deflection" aiming  - which is pointing the gun the right amount ahead-of, and above, the thing aimed at, to allow for the elapsing of time before the shots arrive, and their gravitational drop of the shot. 

But then, as I mentioned, it just came naturally. 

I never did the sport again - partly because of indifference, partly because it was way too expensive to be affordable or worthwhile. But the experience illustrated how people sometimes have some very strange natural aptitudes and I never would have imagined this was one of mine except for the accident of going on holiday to visit a friend, who had a friend, who was all set-up for clay pigeon shooting - and generous enough to let the rest of us do it for nothing.

*Interestingly, I inherited this deficit from my father, who was (in most respects) an exceptional all-round athlete - PE teacher, A1-fit infantryman - top performer of his basic-training intake, and a semi-professional football (soccer) player in the highly competitive Northern Alliance League. But he couldn't throw. Unfortunately, I inherited the deficit, but not the all-round sports ability.

Lion, Crown, St George - Bad (because Norman) symbols of England

Richard I - rapacious absentee landlord of England, in-himself epitomising nearly-all that is alien about Normanised English symbolism

For about a thousand years, England has been a nation under occupation by a hostile and alien ruling class: the Normans. 

Well... to be clear, this statement is somewhat of an exaggeration! - but it has a solid core of truth, as Tolkien attested, among others. 

Evidence can be seen from several of the the Symbols of England - which are as alien (hence spiritually hostile) as those who imposed them. 

Most countries symbolic animal, is one which actually lives in that country; but England is stuck with a foreign-dwelling creature: a Lion. At best the Lion is a symbol of Empire, not nation - but Empire was an alien project, and the near death of England... So there you have it. 

The Crown - which features all over the place as a symbol, including (alongside the Lion) the sports teams - is of course The symbol par excellence of secular and top-down imposed alien power - of Us under the yoke of Them. 

And then there is St George; a pseudo-Saint from the Middle East, wished upon England by the usual Normans in consequence of their usual Norman warrings*, in their usual Norman pursuit of overseas Empire (since Normans prefer almost anywhere else to England, and almost any other people to the English). 

The Norman-backed "George" then coercively displaced our home-grown Anglo-Saxon Saint Edmund the martyr.

Of course there are some real - albeit inevitably somewhat Norman-co-opted! - English symbols - oak tree, rose, Stonehenge, the flat cap...

But even the primary English folk hero of medieval times, Robin Hood, was distorted into being an exiled Norman aristocrat, and make to work on behalf of a disastrously-typical Norman monarch:

i.e. Richard I - Crowned King of England, "Lion" hearted, and the originator of St George's cult.        

*Normans excelled at two main things: fighting and architecture. However, they had a short-termist psychopathic tendency, so they lacked the capacity for loyalty - even among themselves. Consequently, they spent most of their time fighting each other (and forcing everybody else into it). It was not until after four centuries, when the Barons had exhausted themselves in the War of the Roses, that a monarch with administrative genius (Henry VII)  managed to impose himself on the other Normans... But after just a generation (Henry VIII) the Normans were despoiling and killing each other again; only this time it was so one-sided in favour of the Norman King as against the Norman Abbots, Priors, and Heads of Religious Orders; that the process and outcome resembled unbridled rapine and pseudo-legal execution, instead of the usual civil war.   

When someone very belatedly notices some specific problem, that has actually been massive and "obvious" for decades...

Every day, more than once a day, I come across somebody (IRL, or on media) who reports, tentatively - as if making some wild claim - that he has noticed something... some-thing that has been massive, and should-have-been grossly-obvious, for decades. 

Some people regard this level of insight as a promising sign of someone coming to his senses, and beginning to extract himself from the propaganda systems in which he is immersed...

But in practice this almost never happens. 

Instead - maybe - the first noticing leads merely to some very restricted insight into some circumscribed domain of Western society; with nearly all the rest of it being taken on trust, and regarded -indeed - as solid and true, so it is implied that if This-Problem could be fixed, then Life would be much better. 

Apparently, individuals get so smug about noticing some-one-thing, and so preoccupied with "fixing" it, that they feel no need to venture into more dangerous levels of understanding ^. 

Partial and superficial understanding, then blocks anything genuine; anything potentially of spiritual value. 

Hence we get the Single Issue (or handful of issue) Politics that plagues our age. Those people and organizations who always trace everything back to One Fundamental Cause: to some specific group of people, some particularly malign economic or social principle or motive, some particular form of persecution, some particular sin... 

Whatever. 

(And once decided upon, this "root cause of all our significant ills" becomes un-dis-provable - and supportive-evidence is found everywhere...! Such is human nature, and the constraints of argument and proof - which depend on assumptions far more than upon "evidence".)

What I find so dismaying about these partially-insightful, partly-aware, people is that - from my understanding - things-in-general are much, much worse than they suppose; the state-of-the-world is far more pervasively and deeply evil than they seem capable of imagining.

To me; these folk - who very explicitly regard themselves as clear-sighted, tough-minded, "red pilled", ready-for-anything - strike me as dewy-eyed optimists...

Too insecure and emotionally fragile to confront reality*. 

And this is simply because such half-awake, semi-realistic folk are viscerally invested primarily in their own status and success in this world - the same world that they pretend to critique savagely - yet the world from-which they yearn for recognition and reward.   

Such people cannot countenance the real nature of this world without despairing - so they cling to a distorted picture of our situation: a world-picture that is acknowledged to be faulty only to such an extent that they can convince themselves of the possibility of fixing it. 

If only - they assert - everyone-else would believe as I believe, do as I do, do what I tell them - then everybody would be So Much better-off. 

Any recognition of the deep, pervasive, and intractable nature of the flaws of this world in general and Western Civilization in particular (including, of course, its self-identified Christian churches) - is rejected with a savagery borne of a this-worldly idealism that feels itself to be on the cusp of becoming overwhelmed by incipient despair. 

+++

^ It is often asserted that "surely it will do some good" if the single-issue problem is fixed, or even ameliorated. This is a seductive argument, because in an idealised model of the situation it seems obviously to be the case that things would be better if such-and-such a problem were improved. But there are two usually-lethal difficulties: one proximate and practical, the other ultimate and even-in-theory. 

The practical difficulty is that there is always some very powerful within-System reason why any clear and serious problem (like open-ended mass immigration to the UK caused by European Union rules) that could straightforwardly be fixed, has actually not been fixed. This means that the totalitarian system does not want the problem fixed, which means that The System will fight hard against fixing, making even the slightest change extremely resource and time-consuming; and The System will do all it can to sabotage the process. So Brexit (voted for in 2016) was supposed to fix the problem of UK mass immigration at a stroke. But the totalitarian Establishment sabotaged Brexit to "BRINO" (Brexit in name only), and mass immigration has in fact increased very substantially since to reach record levels (admitted officially a million, but really more) in 2024. Mass Immigration indeed declined rapidly and substantially, albeit briefly. when The System had other priorities - i.e. during Birdemic lockdowns, proving that the problem was easily soluble. But because The System wants to destroy the UK - including by mass immigration, MI was resumed and accelerated very quickly from summer 2020. 

As well as such pragmatic limitations, there are ultimate and theoretical reasons why fixing a specific problem, or a few specific problems, will not work - which is that the system is totalitarian; and totalitarianism is both all-inclusive at the institutional level and evil by its nature. In effect, if any specific part of The System underwent significant improvement and became more Good; this would be detected by the whole System, and the anomalous part would be "healed" - would be brought-into-line with the aims and methods of all the rest. This destructive "immune response" is indeed irresistible (which is why all significant institutions of all types have "converged": become part of the totalitarian system). All institutions are bound to the rest of the system by multiple mandatory and motivational connections - formal (like laws, taxes, subsidies, regulations etc) and informal (mass media pressures, awards or slanders, discretionary harassment by bureaucrats, infiltration by hostile pro-Establishment agents etc.). No significant institution can opt-out of The System, as of 2025; because institutions are now parts of a societal and civilizational whole.    

* Such people will not see the obvious and long-term fact that we live in a totalitarian society; a society in which bureaucracy and management (and the mass media) links and coordinates all the major social institutions - politics, civil administration, law, finance and the economy, education, police and military, science and research, the arts and entertainments, charities/ pressure-groups/ NGOs; and of course the organized and economic manifestations of religions and spiritualties. 

All institutions are now linked by rules, practices, and a value-system. All are monitored, controlled, propagandized by a multitude of mechanisms. 

This includes everything you can think of in the societal realm; excepting (for some people, some of the time) our-selves (i.e. our divine, primal selves) and some primarily-motivating personal and loving relationships - such as the family.  

Thus, The totalitarian System is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing; yet to underestimate its scope and capability - to regard its flaws as if a fixable glitch - is merely to confirm that you are yourself inside The System . 

Totalitarianism means that all social-activity is linked; there is no discrete, detachable or specific problem - so there is no realistic possibility of significant reform within The System we actually inhabit.  

And The System is everything in the public domain (i.e. all those institutions described previously) - so that we all depend upon it for all of those functionalities. Casual talk of destroying The System fails to account for this destroying functionality, and the means of support. 

The real-reality is that we all depend - for nearly-all the many aspects of living - upon the same System that is purposively evil; and is purposively destroying itself, and destroying us. 

Such - nothing less! - is the scope and nature of our situation.

NOTE ADDED: The above is not a counsel of despair, not unless you believe that institutions and their practices are everything that is significant, and this-world is all-there-is. In other words; the real and true answers to our situation are non-institutional, and rooted in the resurrected eternal heavenly life to come. Such real answers derive from our-selves and our freedom, our direct and personal relationships with God and Jesus Christ and divine creation in general; and the answers work by love between persons and Beings.     

How do I know For Sure that things are Not getting better overall?

How do I know for sure that things are Not getting better overall?

Because, although God can turn evil events to enable Good to ensue; God cannot mix evils to make Good. 

For Good to ensue, there must be Good motivations in the mix. 

And Good motivations are spiritual primarily - not material, not this-wordily, not aiming at expediency, not trying to make some people happier, healthier, suffer less... Such are temporary palliatives at most; even when (as very seldom) the stated material intentions are sincere, potentially effective, and actually happen.  

From where we are here-and-now in Western Civilization; we do not even desire that which is Good. 

Our world view is materialistic and nihilistic; we reject God, the spirit, transcendental values, and do not even want what Jesus Christ offers. 

Therefore, from where we are here-and-now in Western Civilization; spiritual rebirth, awakening, repentance (i.e. a turning-around of understanding, belief, motivations) is absolutely necessary before any subsequent Good can ensue. 

Good must be added to the mix, so that God can work with it - can sustain and amplify it. 

This is non-optional: Repentance and embrace of Jesus Christ's gift and offer Must Come First. 

Must means must; so that when repentance and conversion has not happened (as now), we will continue to be motivated by our endemic and pervasive civilizational evil: by our false understanding of reality, and by our wrong intentions about our life and death. 

Good comes only from good; because God needs good to work-from - and work-with. 

And in this world of purpose-less, meaning-less, hedonic materialism: real Good means spiritual-Good. 

If we have not got spiritual Good as our basis and direction - then whatever socio-political-economic reforms/ changes may be imposed with whatever radicalism at whatever level of organization; we shall merely be exchanging one kind of evil for another.  

What is the point of petitionary prayer? Of asking God to make things happen?

It has often been asked by mainstream/ orthodox/ canonical Christians; "What is the point of petitioning God in prayer?" - of asking God for something to happen? 

Such prayer seems redundant, or even a mistake. It seems to make no sense. 

And this for strong reasons. Because, by standard Catholic and Protestant theology, God is omniscient, so He already knows what we want and what we need; and also because God is omnipotent, such that a loving and personal God will already be doing anything which He knows to be good for us.  

To ask for divine interventions in this world therefore seems at best futile; and at worse to imply that the person praying knows-better-than-God what God ought to be doing, as if God needed "reminding" of His duty! 

But petitionary prayer (by a broad definition) is exactly what would be required and valuable by a God who desires to enlist Men as participators in the work of creation. 

This because such a God recognizes that each Man has the potential to bring something new, additional, and unique to ongoing creation.

Man's participation in creation is thus not only temporarily beneficial for the Man doing it, but also of everlasting value for divine creation.  

From such an understanding of reality; it can be seen that in prayer we may actually participate in the ongoing work of divine creation, and thereby change its content and direction. 

This may happen, not by asking-for God to grant us favours and having such wishes granted; but instead via the (albeit temporary and partial) alignment of our will with God's will.  

If such alignment is happening in a prayer, then that prayer will change reality - and change it always in harmony with the direction and methods of divine creation (because such prayer is in harmony with the divine). 

Such a perspective changes and expands the concept of prayer, so that "prayer" will include all ways by which we might align our motivations with God's motivations; and in doing so actively (and it must be active for there to be participation rather than merely contemplation). 

If we can actively join-with God in our thinking and acting; then we are thereby joining in the work of divine creating.  

...Of course, even when this happens - in this mortal world of change, death and evil, it can only happen to some incomplete degree and for a limited time. 

Nonetheless; it is a foretaste, an actual experience, of the eternal reality of resurrected life in Heaven.   

 

Globalists - all over the globe, simultaneously - proclaim "The End of Globalisation..."

That's it - really. 

Says it all. 

Just think about it, please?

Fireball XL (Take-) Five

Regular readers will know that I have a fondness for musical pieces in the 5/4 time signature - when it is done well (which is usually phrased as a syncopated 10/8 - or 3/8, 3/8, 4/8 - rather than 5/4).

Well here is another, by the great theme composer Barry Gray - from the early 60s Gerry Anderson puppet show Fireball XL5; and called Formula 5. 

It's a pleasing pastiche/homage to the famous Paul Desmond/ Dave Brubeck tune Take Five.  

LATE BONUS FEATURE:

Alfie Pugh's arrangement of the Joe 90 theme - another Barry Gray classic; great tune and this version really builds!

It evoked nostalgia for the superb and danceable arrangement of the Joe 90 theme done by Arthur 2-Stroke and the Chart Commando's which I heard live at The Cooperage (Newcastle) one memorable in 1981 - as I recall the band included Arthur on vocals, plus two trumpets, tenor sax, maybe keyboards, electric guitar and base, drums, and bongos. 

The magical basis of High Elven agriculture in Lord of the Rings

Over at the Notion Club Papers blog; I speculate on how it is that the High Elves of Rivendell, Lothlorien and the Grey Havens feed and provide for themselves.   

The soulless mediocrity of current-"AI" is a consequence of blending and averaging in its industrial -scale plagiarism

One striking aspect of the industrial-scale plagiarism that is current "AI", is that the mechanism of generation leads inevitably to soulless mediocrity in its output.

This is because it samples, selects, blends, extrapolates from multiple sources. It is based on averaging - which entails removing the extremes that characterize genuine creativity, including genius. 

Consider: how would you plagiarize poetry such as to generate a work of genius? 

The only valid method is to re-label. 

You would need already to know of, a poetic work of genius (something which depends on prior human evaluation) perhaps a particular sonnet by Shakespeare. 

...Then to re-label this sonnet with your own name as author instead of Shakespeare - and convince other people that you (not Shakespeare) had written it.  

Such is the only way to ensure the production of a work of genius, of quality equal to the original. 

If instead you were to try and create a poem by sampling and combining several or many Shakespeare sonnets, then obviously the result would not be as good.  

If you tried to create poetry by (in some way, any way) averaging multiple Elizabethan poems of multiple authors, or many poems from all eras - the result would become less and less good, the more you added. 

The more you sample, and the more you average - the worse it gets. 

What this kind of multiplying and averaging can do, is create fakes that are hard to distinguish from mediocre poems - and can pass as an instance of the type, especially among people who are lack time, or aptitude, have little interest, or are weakly motivated. 

For example, if you were to combine all of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets - you could perhaps make something that was not easily distinguishable in quality from the mediocre or poor instances of his Sonnets - especially among those who were not really able to appreciate the quality of the best of the Shakespeare originals. 

And the AI approach is what successful forgers have done in the world of fine art. They do not try to forge the best Vermeer; not least because the forger could not do it. Instead, they attempt to forge a mediocre instance Vermeer, a variation on a known theme; something "good enough" that - when provided with a fake provenance by aesthetically-incompetent evaluators - can pass as a mediocre work by a great painter. 

Such mediocre forgeries can then sometimes be passed off as "great art" on the basis that they are superficially appealing to only-mildly-interested people with mainstream modern tastes - but that does not affect their artistic mediocrity - evident to those who can evaluate quality. 

But here we have another problem of AI, which is that it is mostly being casually used by lazy and conformist people who have little interest, ability or experience in the area of implementation. 

If all you are working at some chore, and all you want is background music, then genuine creativity is irrelevant - fakes and forgeries are fine. Computer-generated or AI muzak will suffice. 

If you are an average school kid, college student, post-graduate, professor; and all you want is to complete some assignment with the minimum of effort and getting the highest evaluation possible (without activating the plagiarism detectors - mechanical or human); then the truth and validity of what you write is irrelevant. Consensus-compatibility is very important, but ultimate value is not at all. Averaged mediocrity is indeed the ideal! AI will suffice. 

If you are a professional researcher in "science" or academia, who seeks career advancement and high status; then you will do or say whatever you believe will help pursue those goals. Developing, buying, using or praising AI will be embraced insofar as it seems expedient in terms of your immediate objectives. The fact that AI-output is boring, derivative and adds nothing substantive is all-but irrelevant; because that exactly characterizes the professional environment in which you already operate and in which you hope to thrive. AI will be fine for your purposes.  

 

It is evident that the set-up of current so-called AI - to sample (i.e. plagiarize) massively, combine and blend multiples, and generate an averaged-output; is necessarily soulless and mediocre. 

AI simply cannot-help but generate the soulless and mediocre - and is therefore a tool introduced and imposed by those who desire that society should be like that. 

Furthermore, this kind of "AI" can only spread and be used is a society where most people actually prefer the soulless and the mediocre; at least, when this is convenient. 

On top of this; Western Civilization is led and inhabited by shoals of Godless materialistic people who care absolutely nothing for Truth, Beauty or Virtue; are indifferent to quality and even functionality. 

These will implement AI even when it is functionally inferior or much worse, than existing systems and persons. 

It is a measure of our civilizational and personal corruption that AI is being so rapidly and pervasively imposed upon The West - and why so many, at so many levels, have embraced it. 

Current AI is "Industrial-scale Plagiarism"

A comment from yesterday by William James Tychonievich on the subject of the "creativity" of the post 2022 iteration of "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) is well worth highlighting:

Real creativity is impossible for a computer, but since “AI” is based on industrial-scale plagiarism, it’s possible in principle that it could “produce” something moving. In that case, it’s pale fire would have been snatched from the sun, the human beings from which it plagiarized.

Industrial-scale plagiarism is a useful phrase to remember. 

Current AI is Exactly That - and as with all forms of plagiarism, whenever it generates something apparently creative, that is merely a re-labelling of human-derived creativity - an unacknowledged theft more or less disguised through distortion by selection and recombination. 

It reminds me strongly of that "fake creativity" I discussed in The Genius Famine (word search for it); when humans (e.g. those working in in advertising, PR, journalism) claim other people's original ideas, but disguise the origins of their de facto plagiarism using similar strategies.  

Yet, as William goes on to say: All this is hypothetical, though. In the real world, “AI” products remain palpably and repellently soulless. 

That spiritual fact tells us much about the motivations behind AI. 

The intentional psychological and spiritual harm of current "AI" is located in the deceptive sleight of hand that pretends "intelligence" and creativity when dishonest plagiarism is done by computers. 

Because these machines are operated by mega-corporations that stand above-the-law and control the mass media and "science" in a closed-loop; they are enabled to steal brazenly, indeed with vast self-congratulation; larded with repeated assertions of their own brilliance and wisdom. 

Such behaviour would potentially lead to legal action and heavy fines if it was proved against ordinary human beings. 

But when done under the disguise of AI, this is supposed to make us stand in awe of the industrial scale plagiarizers; to induce us to acknowledge them as higher and better forms of "intelligence".

We are supposed to conclude that the Establishment justifiers, funders, and operators of AI; not only can and shall (by force majeure), but actually deserve to, take-over the running of the world from the minds and souls of (puny) individual persons. 

The idea is that post-2022 AI has successfully rendered obsolete those human beings from-whom anything that happens to be good in AI (including the existence of AI programs and engineering) has originally been stolen.   

PSYOP Thought Experiments: How would you react if you learned that a sad and beautiful poem that touched you deeply had been written by a computer?

You may think she's cute - but she's a replicant, you fool!

Thought experiments are usually pretty evil mind manipulations, as I've said before. 

The thing is that in order to respond to thought experiments, you must allow yourself to admit them as possible, as potentially real. 

I got the title of this post from an advert for an NYT "Best Selling" book of such questions - which provides a clear example of the PSYOP nature of Establishment-allowed and Mass Media-publicized thought experiments. 

"How would you react if you learned that a sad and beautiful poem that touched you deeply had been written by a computer?" compels us to admit (for the purposes of argument, in our own understanding) that the very highest realms of human creativity can - in principle - be replicated by computers. 

Of course there is no instance of any such creativity from a computer ever; for the good reason that it is impossible - impossible in principle, not in practice.

But we are supposed to take it seriously, and in doing so we take it seriously - and thus genius-level computer creativity becomes a social reality, even when a real impossibility. 

One could extend the thought experiment (and of course this has been done, is being done, on a near daily basis in the media and elsewhere); to even more subversive questions as: 

"How would you react if you learned that your deeply loved wife of twenty years was in fact a robot"? 

Or the Philip K Dick story The Electric Ant, in which the "how would you react" is to learning that you yourself were a robot*.   

Focusing on "how would you react" is a classic way of smuggling assumptions; of the "do you still beat your wife" type, or implicit character-assassinations like asking "what made X become such an murderous psychopath?". 

(Of course, PKD is the genius-originator of this line of thought-experiment; with a difference that he really lived it.)

The PSYOPS give-away is that this kind of supposedly-free-thinking-radical, subversive, confusing, delusion-inducing, doubt-generating, demotivating thought experiment is media mainstream - often mandatory in schools and colleges; and indeed currently a Major (Trillion Dollar) part of public funding, strategy and propaganda... 

Is actually located in an Establishment monitored and controlled public discourse; in which innumerable and ever-increasing everyday and obvious experiences and observations are treated as hate-facts: taboo, suppressed, slurred, dishonestly-denigrated, excluded, and increasingly punishable. 

This kind of detailed, long-term manipulation of discourse - such that the impossible must be taken seriously and the true must be regarded as a lie - is clearly intentional and strategic... Global and totalitarian PSYOPS, in other words. 

A dangerous product?...

 

I developed conjunctivitis in my right eye, and went and bought some treatment; and only after I had used it, too late, did I realize that the bottle was labelled infected eye drops. 

It's outrageous that such a dangerous product can be sold to the unwitting public. 

What is it about eye drops, anyway? 

Prayer addressed to Jesus is primary

For Christians; prayer addressed to Jesus is primary - because it is by-Jesus that we attain salvation. 

This world, this Primary Creation, is mortal, temporary; goodness is mixed with evil and death... Therefore eternal salvation to wholly-good Heaven without death is the most important thing - for those who want it. So, prayer to Jesus must be primary. 

Prayer to God the Primary Creator, is about our hope or intention to affect positive change in this mixed,  temporary, mortal world. 

Miracles and answered-prayers are the provenance of the God, Primary Creator: because God is creating this world, and it is by creation that miracles are effected and prayers answered.

Amelioration during this mortal life is potentially significant, especially if this leads to faith in Jesus Christ, or helps us to learn spiritual-lessons from the experiences of mortal life.

But prayer to God for present help, is secondary in importance to the eternal matter of salvation. 

 

First Creation is groupish - Second Creation is individual

The Primary Creation is groupish, because it is universal: the creation of everything that is created, for everything that is created.  

We all inhabit the First Creation - and can only "opt-out" in the sense of annihilating awareness of our self as a distinct entity. 

Second Creation is personal, individual... 

Because the Second Creation is "opt-in" - Heaven is accessed by a decision/ action of a specific person. Heaven is not universal; it is inhabited by those who have chosen it. 

Direct Knowing or Intuition... How I try-to Do It - in practice

In the past (and perhaps still, in other cultures) men spontaneously experienced "contact" with gods or God, the divine - more generally, spirits, the dead/ ghosts, and many other supernatural/ paranormal forms of interaction such as with remote persons or animals. 

These also include sensory/ perceptual experiences such as the seeing of spiritual visions, or hearing voices and having conversations 

But here-and-now it seems that adult and healthy (or healthy-ish) modern Men - and I count myself as pretty typical in this respect - do Not spontaneously have such experiences; nor can we have such experiences in alert, healthy, and clear consciousness; no matter how we strive. 

"Contact" of this sort only happens spontaneously to modern Men in states of lowered consciousness; such as dreaming sleep, trance, intoxication; or when there is brain dysfunction in psychosis (including with brain diseases, such as dementias). 

To my mind, the difficulty or impossibility of having these supernatural/ paranormal experiences of contact and interaction, points to the conclusion that the old sensory/ perceptual experiences (while they may lead to good) are ultimately retrograde, "atavistic", and often motivated by a nostalgia and desire to revert to an earlier (less conscious, more automatic, less free) phase of the development of consciousness (which we may recall from early childhood, or have imaginatively experienced).

But given the mundane and alienated nature of typical modern consciousness, and more importantly (indeed vitally) the necessity for each of us to receive personal guidance from the Holy Ghost in particular - given these needs, we must develop other ways of establishing some kind of experienced-interaction or "contact" with spirit Beings.

Indeed, I have often said that this kind of interaction is the basis for metaphysical reflection on the fundamental nature of reality. It is the basis of that "intuition" upon which everything depends - and which I have variously called "direct knowing", or sometimes "heart thinking" or "primary thinking". 

The point is How To Do It?  

In my experience, I think this contact works by an awareness of such contact while actually speaking, writing, or thinking. 

It is a "direct" form of knowing, because (unlike the past and other cultures) there is no sensory aspect.

What it is like is a deep and simple sense of affirmation or rejection, support or opposition, yes or no. 

Such a "feeling" is indeed the deepest awareness of which I am capable. 

This does not mean the experience is infallible, but that it is the best I can do - here and now. 

Because the experience is deep, it is not reached as a result of inference from other kinds of evidence, nor does the awareness come with "proof" of itself - although naturally evidences, proofs, excuses and the like can be derived or contrived secondarily - after the guidance. 

Since this mortal life is mostly about what we ought to try to do, here and now - in these particular circumstances - the experience-of-itself suffices.

    

As an example; this is how I have developed my fundamental theological convictions. For instance, I needed to decide whether "God" was single or a dyad: more exactly I wanted to know whether God meant a Heavenly Mother, as well as Father. 

I had come across the idea of God as originally eternally-married man and woman from Mormon theology, and then later the work of William Arkle. I had felt an immediate stirring and attraction to this knowledge, an experience that proved robust to re-acquaintance.  

To discover its truth, to discover whether I ought to assume such a reality; I wrote about it. Writing for myself, in a journal; candidly and without an audience. 

I also talked, a little, about the idea. But it is very rare to find anyone with whom such fundamental (metaphysical) subjects can be discussed in a way that is an be both unselfconsciously confident on my part, and with sufficiently engaged and sustained attention on the other person's side. 

So verbal discussion is, in practice, seldom of much value - which is why writing (or indeed speaking aloud to oneself, for those who cannot or do not write) can be so helpful. 

Furthermore; I thought about the subject in solitude and quiet (i.e. I prayed, in one sense of praying) - with attention to what followed in this deep level of awareness. 

To explain further: this is something done with a high level of conscious awareness; because it is necessary to have two "things" in mind simultaneously: both our question and the inner-awareness of a response from another Being.

To me, this puts a tight limit on the kind of question that can be asked - the question must be worked upon until I have it absolutely clear and simple in my mind; and as soon as I have done this, and made the decision to seek some kind of guidance or opinion, and have attained a quietly attentive and concentrated mind-set: the answer arrives immediately. 

The source of this inner endorsement (or rejection) is varied, and something we can decide - or, at least, we can decide "who we are asking" to the extent that we can validly conceptualize another Being. 

For instance, and most importantly, the Holy Ghost is (by my current best understanding) the ascended Jesus Christ and his spouse Mary Magdalene. If I address this understanding of the HG, then the response depends to some extent on the validity of my conception. 

If instead (like mainstream traditional Christians) I regarded the Holy Ghost as the spirit aspect of the Trinity; then this might well have an effect on the shape of my question, and therefore the answer. 

Indeed, if the question is "improperly addressed" then there may be no answer. 

That has been my understanding of what is going on when I am seeking an answer to a question rooted in false premises, false assumptions. Nothing happens. 

Then there is the problem of the source of the answer - in particular whether there might be a situation where a demon was to impersonate a spirit of Good (an angel), or the Holy Ghost? 

My only answer, and I think the only real and relevant answer, is that this depends on our motivations and intentions and general stance with respect to God and divine creation.  

If (for instance) we are really seeking answers for selfish purposes; or if we a really aligned with Satan and against God; then such motives and stances are bound to distort and subvert the answers we get.  

The only conclusion is to strive for thorough honesty; and a vital part of honesty is to try and be as conscious as possible of our real assumptions, motives etc; and then as clear and explicit as possible in describing these to our-selves. 

Can we be misled and wrong? Yes of course! There is no recipe for being right. 

Should be strive to be absolutely certain, with no possibility of wrongness, doubt or change of mind? No!

In this mortal world we operate from very distorting circumstances, such that being ultimately and universally absolutely correct in all significant respects surely cannot be the most important thing from God's perspective.

What typically matters is that we personally get things sufficiently right in the situation in which we now find ourselves. 

Other problems will arise, situations will change, we ourselves will change - but that is all uncertain, indeed it is (because of the agency of beings) profoundly contingent. 

What we must deal with in our mortal lives occurs as some primary issue, here-and-now... And Christians will have faith* that sufficient personal capability and external guidance is always available for everybody to accomplish this adequately - albeit never "perfectly."

+++

*Note: Will have faith, because we can be confident that God-the-creator is also our loving Father (or our parents, as I believe); who therefore has individual concern for the salvation and spiritual development of each-and-all of his children. So we-ourselves and our circumstances have-been and are-being created that way. Since this loving God is creating all the time, we know that our situation always has an attainable positive path forwards - for as long as our lives are sustained.

The needs of the early Christian Church

The simple, personal and next-worldly offer of Jesus Christ - for resurrected eternal Heavenly life to those who followed him - had-to-be, and was, fitted-into a scheme that:

1. Required a Church. 

2. Operated at a group-level - because, in that time and place, individuals we groupish in consciousness, and could not conceptualize themselves as autonomous, agentic, individuals*

3. Prescribed a complex and detailed set of this-worldly behaviours. 

But now that Men have a different consciousness; 

one in which much that was spontaneous and unconscious is conscious and must be chosen;

a mode of consciousness that is spontaneously autonomous, alienated; and both able- and compelled- to be free...

We can, and probably must - sooner or later - recognize that The Creator has (because he loves us each as individual persons) arranged this creation such that we can all - as individuals, and whatever our nature and circumstances - avail ourselves of Jesus's gift and offer. 

After all; why would a good and loving God do otherwise? 

Why would such a God make salvation indirect, mediated, circumstantial, contingent upon social factors and individual personalities? 

The answer is He Would Not!

We now can realize what Jesus did and said, from the beginning; but only recently have we been able to know and act upon it. 

First Creation salvation is groupish - Second Creation salvation is individual

The contrast can be seen between the Old and New Testaments. 

In the Old Testament, the salvation hoped-for (e.g. from the Messiah) is groupish - of Israel, the nation.

It is not individual - the individual is mortal, disposable, and will die; and after death his depersonalized remnant will be go to the shadowy, ghost-filled, underworld of Sheol. 

Only the group - Israel - is potentially everlasting.

(If it pleases God; if Israel is obedient to God). 

In the New Testament (most authoritatively and clearly in the Fourth Gospel), the salvation offered by Jesus Christ is personal, individual; it is a choice/ decision/ action of each specific person. 

 

The First Creation is groupish; but the Second Creation is individual. 

Why have "pilgrimages" become popular?

In the UK, at least, "pilgrimages" (including to "Recognized" Christian sites) have in recent decades become popular among churchy people and the secular-intellectual middle class more generally, and are often depicted in the mass media. 

Since Christianity continues its steep decline and top-down destruction; this phenomenon could only be happening if pilgrimages were - or, at least, were expected to be - "a bad thing" and to do spiritual harm. 

And indeed, this largely seems to be the case. 

For a start; modern people are simply incapable of responding to symbolic phenomena such as pilgrimages, with the kind of spirituality-sustaining and motivating power that was possible (indeed apparently usual) in medieval times. 

For instance, the premier healing pilgrimage site of Lourdes was closed during the Birdemic; so clearly real belief in the power of place and pilgrimage thereto was absent. 

Indeed, nearly all Holy Places (including all churches) were locked-down and the public excluded; with the expressed approval of the pious - evidently, there is nowadays negligible actual lived-experience of a Holiness linked with place and artefact.   

So modern pilgrimages (whether by the explicitly materialist-secular majority, or by the minority of self-identified Christians) are inevitably more of the nature of a holiday/ lifestyle-thing than anything resembling a real pilgrimage. 

This is evidenced by the give-away of recording and depicting pilgrimage photographically and "sharing" these images and narratives on social media - whether serially "as it happens", or "curated" retrospectively. 

It is obvious that extremely few "pilgrimages" would happen if the participants were forbidden to record and later boast... I mean talk - about their "experience". 

In sum, modern pilgrimage is more like a do-it-yourself form of that populist literary genre "travel writing", than they are a sign of anything in the remotest degree "spiritual". 

Insofar as pilgrimages do "work" - that is, insofar as they actually have a positively transformative spiritual effect; then this is nothing to do with official, recognized, popular, fashionable, photogenic pilgrimage sites; but a matter of individual significance. 

It is most likely that nowadays a special place of pilgrimage would be almost unique to a person or a few people; as a consequence of sharing an unusually similar outlook and experiences. 

And, even when a pilgrimage "works" spiritually in the desired and intended fashion; there is still a hazard to the fact of linking the experience to a place. 

Life away from the place is perhaps thereby devalued; or else if the pilgrim was to relocate and move to dwell in the place of pilgrimage - then would occur the problem of over-familiarity, habituation; of building-up "tolerance" to the spiritual benefit.

In a nutshell: even a spiritually-successful pilgrimage may be alienating - that is, the mediating role of place may distance us (temporally and spatially) from a direct apprehension of the divine in life.  

In sum; it seems to me that, in our era, pilgrimage should be regarded as at best providing a spiritual clue, perhaps an epiphany; and an effective pilgrimage needs to be used as a kick-start towards something else that comes after; rather than leading to the more usual pilgrimage-addiction, or the recycling of the primary act of pilgrimage - whether in discourse, memory, or in practice. 

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" - Satan's favourite slogan. And why there are so many Litmus Test fails

Every time the demon-serving Establishment come up with a new Litmus Test for The West, there are a lot of new fails that follow a standard pattern of self-justification by a this-worldly-expedient, materialist, Satanic trope of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". 

We saw it with the Birdemic: the lockdowns, social distancing, masking, pecking policies - were seen as backed by the entirety of the Establishment, therefore irresistible in this-world, inevitable here-and-now...

And the inference was drawn that since these seemed inevitable; "therefore" on "pragmatic" grounds we "might as well" accept these policies...

Argument was apparently pointless "therefore" we should make the best of things and go-along with them without (probably) self-harming argument or fuss...

So (in the end) we might-as-well approve these policies, and make the best of the situation for ourselves - since there was "nothing we could do about it" in practice.  

If we leave aside the arguments about probabilities and practicalities - what is truly inevitable; and also leave aside the question of lack of courage, and merely making excuses for cowardice...

Then we can focus on the deep issue at stake for Christians; which is that by focusing on this-world, "effectiveness", and pragmatism in the here-and-now - they have ended-up supporting the wrong side. 

They have switched sides in the spiritual war: they have taken the side of purposive evil - they have become advocates on behalf of Satan's strategies*.  

This happened again in relation to the self-styled "AI" that was suddenly (at the end of 2022) world policy, top-down implemented, and emanating from the Establishment institutions of global totalitarian 

This is a Litmus test issue that has (so far, apparently) been failed by some of those who had passed previous Litmus Tests including the Birdemic-Peck and the Fire-Nation War; who now engage-with, explore, and advertise what they say are the possibilities of AI for "Good": for spiritual and/or Christian purposes...

This superficially seems bizarre - since the evil nature of AI ought to be obvious from its provenance (i.e. who developed and is pushing it), and the focus and nature and stated goals of propaganda in its favour. 

Yet the usual pattern of spiritual corruption is evident - and with same-old usual "can't beat 'em. join 'em" justifications.  

The root of this repeated pattern of failed discernment; Christian apostasy; and changing sides from God to anti-God, from Christ to Antichrist in the spiritual war of this world - is failure to understand and live by the fact that the kingdom of Jesus Christ really and truly is Not of this world.  

What this means (or should mean) is the practicalities and probabilities of this world should mean Nothing when it comes to discerning Good from evil, and choosing our sides. 

Ultimately; who cares what you or I feel about what is and is not possible in particular circumstances? Who cares whether we are courageous or cowardly. 

(Jesus came to save sinners - and cowards certainly are that - but it does not matter to salvation.)  

The point is that salvation is not about what is practical or possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and neither does it depend on exceptional personal qualities. 

But salvation does depend on wanting what is good, on wanting salvation - which is everlasting resurrected life in a heaven that is wholly good, and which excludes all evil.

Salvation does depend on knowing and choosing The Right Side. 

Therefore, when we fail a Litmus Test and as a result end-up by innerly supporting the side of evil; then we have made an actual choice against salvation - and this inner decision is typically very evident from the perspective of those who have made the choice for salvation. 

People start-out by trying to calculate this-world expediency; and end-up by picking their spiritual alignment on that basis. 

The Litmus Test fail has actually merely unveiled an un-Christian mind-set. 

It does not matter what are the (real or guessed) worldly probabilities and practicalities - if we are choosing our spiritual alignment on a this-worldly basis, then we are behaving un-Christianly. 

What we should do is clear, simple, and within the capacity of everybody in all possible circumstances. 

(Jesus opened an achievable path to salvation for everyone.)  

We should discern Good from evil - which in the case of Litmus tests is easy - as easy as such discernments ever have been. 

(Evil here-and-now is as obvious as evil ever gets.) 

Then by inward act; we choose the side of Good, recognize and reject the side of evil. 

That's it, that is all! - yet little as it seems; it's too much for most people to do. And that is because their eyes and minds and aspirations are overwhelmingly and ultimately fixed on this world, and not the next. 

 +++

 *NOTE: It has always seemed clear to me that advocating sin is much worse than practising sin. This, because we cannot help but be sinners - that is, unaligned with divine creation - and almost all the time. While to act as an advocate for some sin is voluntary and purposive. 

(This also entails that "hypocrisy", in the sense of pretending to be something we are not, or better than we really are, is of itself less-bad than defending and arguing in favour of a sin. The main evil of hypocrisy is, in fact, simple dishonesty.)

The reason why we ought Not to engage with "AI", is the same reason we ought not to engage with demons

Whatever you say or do: AI just keeps-on coming at you...

I don't know whether you have ever felt that somewhat despairing sense of the weariness of mortal Men, when engaged with simulated-human/ pseudo-intelligent "AI" programming - mechanisms that, very much like demons, do not fatigue, and always comes back-at-you -- again and again, with no end point...

This is what chess Grandmasters reported feeling, when they first engaged with powerful chess computers - a "Terminator"-like relentlessness; needing neither rest nor sleep.

We humans use-up attention, energy, motivation on these interactions - but AI does not. 

We cannot go on-and-on; but AI can and does. 

If we persist in engaging with AI; we shall sooner or later be worn-down and yield to it...

Perhaps inwardly acknowledging its "superiority", or (whether consciously or unconsciously) conforming to its mode of operating, its materialist and mechanical cognition. 

This is Of Course one of the primary reasons why we have had AI gratuitously inflicted upon us by the demon-affiliated Global Establishment, why AI is made to be addictive...

And why the spiritual-corruption of those human beings who gratuitously engage-with and write-about AI approvingly, is so very obvious and frighteningly rapid.

***

Note: On the other hand... 

Every single time we discern this demonic reality of AI, when we recognize the evil temptation, and inwardly reject it - we have learned a spiritual lesson; and we have made spiritual progress. 

So our current situation is not All bad!

Not if we take the opportunity to discern, and repent when needed, and learn-from experience. 

(Such is the nature of this mortal life... Unlike The Borg, our resistance to evil is not futile, because resistance is part of the point of this phase of existence.)

Frodo Baggins: "an intellectual" among Hobbits.

 

An observation on the unusual character and taste of Frodo; over at The Notion Club Papers blog.

The absurd Secular Right delusion that the reason for the triumph of the Left was a strategic blueprint for the "long march through the institutions"

Following on from my earlier post; I'd like to add a comment on the absurdity of that oft-repeated claim or insinuation that the (undoubted) triumph of the New Left in the West; was planned and driven by some kind of blueprint for a "long march through the institutions" - a scheme devised by intellectual theoreticians such as Gramsci, Marcuse and their disciples. 

This is nonsense of a kind that this only possible to those with an inverted understanding of the world. 

I mean the kind of people who believe that "the history of ideas" is something caused by top-down influences from the words of philosophers - for instance that the subjective-objective split in modern minds derives from the publications of Descartes; or that the pronouncements of Professor Kant in Konigsberg led to the common belief that reality cannot be known directly and therefore "everything is relative/ a-matter-of-opinion".

The kind of people who see the Left as a Christian heresy, as caused-by Christianity! Rather than the truth that the rise of Leftism reciprocally mirrored the decline in Christian faith; and that the triumph of Leftism was completed only after Western apostasy from Christianity, and the establishment of fully secular social institutions and discourses. 

The non-religious opponents of mainstream New Leftism, or the Secular Right, are very keen on attributing the triumph of the Left to theories and plans; because radical Right theorists intend, or at least hope, to use the same kind of strategy to impose their own ideas. 

That is, the Secular Right believe that if only they could come-up with the correct theoretical strategy, disseminate it sufficiently widely, and then get it implemented - they will be able to influence the West in the direction that they desire. 

In other words - and this is often stated explicitly - the intent among at least the more radical members of the Secualr Right is to to use what they suppose to be the methods of the Left, but to redirect them to supposedly "Right Wings" objectives: Leftist means to Rightist ends. 

Aside from the fact that this is an instance of the Boromir Strategy - or Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron! - and therefore will inevitably have the actual effect of promoting the Left; this theoretical, top-down, Rightism is based on false understandings of the reasons for the triumph of the Left. 

This false understanding of the Left derives, ultimately, from the fact that the Secular Right actually is itself of-the-Left in that it is based in materialist non-religious assumptions, and rooted in values that are psychological - in some version of a utilitarian and hedonic calculus of gratification and suffering. 

The only true opposition to the Left is religion; and the only true religion of salvation is by following Jesus Christ. 

But this is a religion "not of this world" in its essence... 

Therefore; socio-political theories rooted in denial of a personal creator God, materialism, and exclusion of the spiritual from life, can only do net-harm.  

How is it that successful, feted, mainstream Establishment people nonetheless regard themselves as "radicals"?

The phenomenon by which people who (perhaps) began life as cynical radicals or supposed-revolutionaries; later become successful and highly rewarded and decorated bureaucrats, managers, executives, politicians, and committee people - yet still regard themselves as radical - has been noticed (and sometimes mocked) for many decades. 

It was first apparent after those who had engaged in activism (demonstrations, sit-ins, etc) as students; later went on to join the Establishment, to gather prestigious jobs and positions, money, power, awards and medals (and, in the UK, titles such as Sir/ Dame/ Lord/ Lady)  - but often maintained their younger styles of self-presentation (hair, clothes, sexual lifestyle and the like); but always trumpeting their self-image as anti-Establishment, radical, leftist, altruistic, engaged etc. 

This is now so normal and near-universal as to be expected and largely unremarked. 

It is now so usual for Heads of Corporations, Professors and Presidents, doctors, lawyers, teachers, executives and managers express themselves as radical and leftist - that this has become mandatory and monitored; part of job applications and promotion procedures, and compulsory training...

Anyone who is not explicitly radical and anti-Establishment is indeed intentionally excluded from positions of high status, fame, power and wealth. 

As I said, when this is noticed it is usually to mock, or else to point-out the hypocrisy. 

Yet this phenomenon is, in truth, quite extraordinary and historically unprecedented; therefore we are dealing with a fundamental and significant phenomenon which demands a structural explanation.

To be clear: in the past Establishment people supported the Establishment. 

It is very strange indeed that in The West, now and for many decades Establishment people desire - and are indeed required - to subvert, destroy, and invert the Establishment (starting always with whatever is most good, or most functional, about the Establishment)!

This at first seems like a paradox or contradiction, for people to be destroying the basis of their own success; but it can be explained quite simply at a motivational level.  

If you imagine that you are a member of an alien civilization, "an alien", who is motivated by resentment against another civilization "the Establishment". 

Then it makes perfect sense for the alien to both do the best for himself here-and-now, within the Establishment, and also to do so in a way that tends to weaken and destroy the Establishment. 

Personal success is achieved by strategic destruction. 

If you regard yourself as an alien to the civilization that is your "host" which you fear and despise, then the best strategic route through life is to behave as a parasite that feeds-off the host. 

Although successful parasites weaken their host, and tend to destroy their own niche, and kill themselves; but if the parasite can evolve faster than the host and has foresight; then each parasite can be continually seeking new niches to exploit. 

For example, a path to success as a manager is to suck the blood from one organization to ones own advantage, then - just before the institution expires - move-on to vampirise another. 

That is precisely how the modern Establishment operates: both subjectively, in terms of their motivations - and also objectively in terms of the way that society has become structured as ruled by a managerial bureaucracy-mass media. 

(This is what lies behind the so-called "long march through the institutions" of the New Left. It was not achieved by tens of millions of middle class people all over the world following the blueprint of an obscure theoretician; but is the natural and inevitable consequence of implementing the inner motivations of the niche-seeking, parasitic post-1960s Establishment.)   

Such an explanation makes perfect sense of the self-image and actions of the Western ruling class. 

So, in what sense are the Western Establishment actual and conscious parasitic aliens - given that we are talking here about a large segment of the population?

My answer is, in the sense that the Establishment are atheist, materialist and hedonic in their fundamental nature and motivations - which means they are opposed to God, Divine Creation and Jesus Christ in the spiritual war of this world. 

In simple terms: by adopting ultimate assumptions about reality that are materialist/ spirit denying, creation-denying, god-rejecting, utilitarian - almost the entirety of the ruling class have joined the Devil's Party, adopted the world-view of demons, and are therefore quite naturally doing the work of Satan.   

The odd, superficially hypocritical and risible, apparently paradoxical, way in which cynical radicals develop into pillars of the Establishment while retaining their self-image and lifestyle as cynical radicals -- is actually a diagnostic symptom of the takeover of the West by those who are affiliated to the powers of purposive evil.  

It is from understanding things in this way that I conclude these are the most evil times in the history of the world. 

Notice: Barbara Pym continues

A decade ago-plus; I wrote a couple of posts about the English novelist Barbara Pym (1913-1980); and this is just to say I have continued to re-read these on an approximately two-year cycle ever since. 

I never seem to tire of her early novels; and every new reading brings a delight all the greater for being sure and certain. 

My present encounter is to hear the main five of the earliest novels on audiobook - currently Less Than Angels - which would probably be a good first try for anyone interested in exploring her work; since many of the  major "themes" are there (these include High Church Anglicans, anthropology, middle-aged spinsters, "distressed gentlewomen", and curates) and a large cast of younger people as well. 

Pym's alter ego (there is always one in each novel) is this time a writer: the bohemian, thirty-something author of women's magazine stories. 

Pym is very much a minority and specialist taste as a writer; it's "comedy of manners", based on close observation of foibles and reactions in the minutiae of everyday living. 

Not much happens: a church jumble sale or a seminar on African languages counts as a Big Event. 

But for some people in certain mood; BP is just what is wanted - a real treat.  

What would be better than what Jesus Christ has to offer?

God is an answer to the problem of our existence in reality. 

The Christian God is a personal creator; and as such provides the possibility of purpose and meaning, if we choose to align with the divine. 

This God loves us each as a parent loves his or her child; and therefore we may have a personal role in creation - as a member of God's loving family. 

Jesus Christ is an answer to the problem of our life in this world. 

This actual experienced world is a mixture: life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil, joy and despair, love and fear...

Jesus offers the possibility of a life of creation, good, joy and love - forever and unmixed. 

It seems to me that Jesus's offer is the best I know of, that I can believe.  

It has one disadvantage, which is that Heaven lies on the other side of death: we must first die and be resurrected if Heaven is to become possible: if we are to be fitted for Heaven, and if Heaven and our-self is to become eternal. 

The only offer that I can imagine which would be better than that of Jesus is if it was possible to provide Heaven on earth now and without dying. 

I don't believe that this is possible*. I believe that the nature of this mortal life and world is such that entropy, death and evil are always going to be present.  

But I imagine that someone who could believe that real, unmixed, everlasting Heaven on earth and on this side of death was a genuinely possibility; would probably prefer it to what Jesus offers.    

 +++

* In case anybody is interested why I (personally) do not believe Heaven on earth is possible (others will reason differently, of course); the main reason is that I regard the free agency of Beings as primary. 

Unless each and all of the Beings on earth and in this universe (i.e. every single Being, including the mass of non-human Beings - animals, plants, "minerals" etc.) were to choose to live wholly by love; and allow the elimination of everything about themselves that was incompatible with Heaven -- then there would still be evil present in this world, and Heaven could not be made on earth.   

So much for evil: what of entropy and death? 

I regard "chaos" (of autonomous, uncoordinated, unaware of each other Beings) as primal; and God's creation as being imposed upon that. While there is no end to God's create-ing, there is a constant tendency to revert to the primal state, which is termed "entropy". So the harmonious cooperation that is creation, is always tending to degenerate; and "death" is the end of all earthly "things", forms, structures, Beings. 

In other words this is a mortal universe, everything changes, decays, "dies"; and everlasting life cannot be imposed upon it (cannot - because otherwise, with the creator as good and personally loving, eternal living would already have happened and be normal). 

I regard it as a fact of life that we all must therefore die, before we can be re-made eternally; from scratch, on the basis only of love (i.e. resurrected).  

I state my reasons, not to defend or debate them; but because I find them compelling. The point is not to argue about it, but to discover what You find compelling. 

In search of courage/ motivation

Ever since I began regularly blogging some 15 years ago; I have cycled around this distinctively modern problem of demotivation. Modern Western people are strikingly lacking in powerful motivators, compared with earlier generations - and this is the reason why we are so lacking in courage, so cowardly. 

The deep reason is obvious enough - our atheism, materialism, our systematically built-in cultural assumption that there is neither purpose nor meaning to life.

In a word: our nihilism. 

In seeking to escape such nihilism, some people turn to ideologies - but (lacking a personal and loving God) these always turn out to be rooted in negative values - hence incoherent; and incoherence cannot provide us with strong and lasting motivations. 

This is why people just go long with (what they perceive - as manipulated by the mass media) to be "the flow". 

Lacking inner motivation, they seek to conform to externally structured and short-termist goals relating to personal gratifications. Lacking inner motivation and ultimate purpose, they have no reason to be courageous. 

The answer is, of course, Christianity - but exactly what this implies is unclear. 

All of the major Christian churches are, and nearly all of Christian discourse is, nowadays so overwhelmingly corrupt and distorted in emphasis; that to become "a Christian" is only a very small start down the path of discovering a strong, valid and good motivation for life. 

One problem is that Christians are told to seek the truth in "a church" (i.e. to discover and obey a/the "true" church) - yet Christianity is replete with discourses placed at a level of "idealization" and detached abstraction; such that whatever was resolved by such procedures could never motivate a flea - and doesn't! 

This applies to the vast structure of logic and legalism, complex doctrines and dogmas, wranglings over language and translation, ancient history and context; and endless bitter disputes over the valid structures of hierarchy and authority.  

Consequently, lacking strong motivators, the actual motivations of Christians are just "whatever is socially and personally expedient": whatever is most rewarding, least risky, and in-general easiest in their particular societal niche. 

The would-be Christian falls into such mire because he is told always to seek truth (and motivation) in some external and objective - yet always and necessarily human at the interface - persons and institutions. 

In other words, there is an assumption built-in (from the history of religion and culture) that truth is a thing-out-there, and that truth ought to impose upon us - our job being merely to let this happen.

This assumption talks as if human experience, consciousness, awareness, intuition and insight - had not existence except as distractions. 

Actual people (particular human individuals) are edited out from it, except as a source of interference. 

The picture it accepts is one of a human passivity that excludes the essential "presence" in the description of our distinctive existence as living beings. 

What people don't realize is that this not how things are, but it is a theory of knowledge and behaviour and life and spirit. As long as we allow ourselves to assume such a theory, then we will always be alienated (because we are not actively participating in the process), can never know truth (because it is out there), and shall never be strongly motivated of our-selves - but only secondarily following some external source of guidance. 

Even when someone escapes (for a while) from the deadly assumptions of our civilization, and recognizes that the world is not out-there but participative; and that motivation must derive from our primary involvement in the creation of reality - then the actual daily/ hourly business of being motivated to Good remains a present problem...

But at least it is a real problem, in which we are primarily and personally concerned; and a problem that involves both us and the world; both us and God...

And, after all, this mortal life is a transitional phases - not a thing to be solved. 

What we should seek is the courage and commitment to keep engaged and keep learning; guided both from within and by our real and creative participation in divine creation. 

Ultimately, there is no possible division between inner and outer, subjective and external - reality is inconceivable without a basis that includes both. Yet at the same time we are not immersed in unity, but distinct beings. Our picture of reality should explain how this works. 

And like the knowledge itself, this is something that is learned by inner participation and engagement in creation. 

Learning this is not possible when the self is self-expunged; it is not something learned-from any conceivable external source.  

Our selves must be engaged and participate in the reality outside ourselves. 

Such knowledge is motivating because we personally and actively know it, and such motivation gives courage. 

Note added: Motivation/ Courage are therefore a by-product of solid (Christian) conviction - and not something that can be sought directly. If sought directly, then all that will result is "psychological courage" - which is a product of external causes interacting with internal disposition - and will only be as strong or lasting as the stability and strength of those external causes and internal disposition. The way to get motivated (and have a reason for courage) is to discover meaning and purpose in a way that is underpinned by personal conviction of personal destiny. 

Perhaps a womanly and procreative aspect of God is necessary for a solid belief in eternal life?

I am re-reading Geoffrey Ashe's fascinating study The Virgin (1976), which is focused on Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ (Ashe was a Roman Catholic) - but takes in the broader perspective of goddesses throughout history, in a non-hostile - indeed sympathetic - fashion. 

He makes the stimulating suggestion that a Goddess was primal in ancient spirituality, because she was the assumed basis of the procreative hence creative; and that some form of female deity is needed for Men really to believe in a life beyond life. 

The idea is that a supreme male deity cannot sustain belief in a full life beyond life. So that when the ruling Goddess goes; the afterlife becomes very partial, ghostly, and all-but irrelevant. 

Male deities could never bestow life of their own nature as the Mother had done. Zeus and his colleagues were immortal, but they did not transmit that quality to their human subjects... 

Through most civilized and semi-civilized lands... death ceased to be a passage to a future life... the dead were no longer pictured as significantly existing. They were reduced to feeble, bloodless shades in a gloomy underworld. For the Greeks this was Hades...

With the fading of the Eternal-Womanly, with her cutting-down or anathematisation, [for the vast majority, with extremely few exceptions] death had become the end with no prospect of rebirth. 

Israel's shift was similar... The Old Testament has no doctrine of survival or return... the dead become shades. They do down to an underworld called Sheol, The Grave.

The sole Israelite immortality is collective... God's chosen community...  

I think it likely that Ashe is "on to something" here. 

In the book; Ashe is preparing the ground for an attempted explanation of the rise of Mary the mother of Jesus as a more and more important focus of Christian faith - recognizing that this phenomenon cannot be accounted for by Scripture, or by the practices of the earlier generations of Christians. 

With Mariolatry (Ashe says) we seem to be dealing with some kind of deep and direct apprehension of spiritual reality, probably coming from grassroots, bottom-up, the "masses". Christian leaders and theologians seem merely to have been trying to explain and validate theoretically something that already was beginning to become important in practice. 

From my own experience; I find it striking that Mormonism included a very strong element of the "Eternal-Womanly" with its dyadic deity composed of Father and Mother in Heaven. 

And - perhaps in consequence? - the "Mormon culture of salvation" was (at least until fairly recently) probably the most vividly lived and believed-in form of Christian afterlife among the major Christian churches. 

The spiritually unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature of one-sidedly masculine, Christianity is something I find very striking. I mean the monochrome hardness, negativity, heartlessness, legalism and this-worldliness of Mary-rejecting forms of Protestantism is something I feel is very evident. It is one reason why England ceased to be "Merrie" with the reformation.

But there is something of this in all of Christianity. 

(And this defect has not-at-all been ameliorated, let alone cured, by the dominant trend towards secular materialism in all the Christian churches, which comes-in on the back of leftist ideology. Spiritual problems can only be made worse by "liberalization" - which is actually and always covert apostasy.) 

Insisting upon the non-sexual nature of God does not work either - this is just an attempt to escape contradictions absences and by raising abstractions; which has the effect of confusing people - and thereby impairing motivations.

Furthermore, the idea and ideals of ultimate transcendence of sexuality point away from Christianity (rooted in Jesus, the divine incarnate mortal Man) and towards Oneness spirituality, where (eventually) every-thing merges with everything else - in a timeless stasis.   

The problem is that it does not really make deep theoretical and theological sense to insert Mary alongside the (masculine) Trinity; and she is therefore always accorded an ultimately secondary and intercessionary" role in creation - no matter how central is her position in everyday worship (eg. devotion to the Rosary, or Marian icons). 

But even worthwhile degrees of habitual lifestyle and provision of psychological comfort are insufficient motivations in a world so dominated by evil-affiliated institutions. 

In our unavoidably self-conscious era; these inner contradictions about Mary have become nigh-lethal to strong Christian faith - as is evident all around us.

 

This is why I regard Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Mariolatry as "on the right lines" but ultimately insufficient and unsatisfactory. 

And, as Ashe described , this requisite kind of development can only come from directly apprehended knowledge - it is not already existent. 

To emphasize: what is required is not something that can honestly be derived from existing Scripture, theology or history.

Furthermore it needs to arise bottom-up; which means from individuals, not institutions.  

If modern Men are to grasp and retain the needful structuring-focus on resurrected eternal life; if we are to live-by knowledge of Heaven; then we will need explicitly to discover and embrace what will be new truths of eternal verities concerning women in relation to creation and salvation. 

Let me be clear - Traditional Christianity is now always and all-the-time dishonest

By my evaluation, traditional Christians are being consistently dishonest about what their faith actually entails. 

They talk and write that real Christianity is about humble obedience to the obvious and necessary truth of that external authority which is The Church. 

Meanwhile, all the time, top to bottom they are making personal subjective choices. 

They have chosen their church, chosen to regard it as the real church, the true church, the necessary necessary church. 

They have chosen the evidences by which they argue for all these - they have chosen how to interpret these evidences. 

They have chosen which among the leaders and administrators and practitioners of their church they will regard as true and worthy of obedience - and conversely they have chosen which voices are heretical, wicked, foolish etc. 

They have chosen what is vital and significant among sins and virtues, and one a daily basis they choose how to live their Christian lives among the almost limitless possibilities. 

These are just facts about religion, about Christianity, here and now, as it actually is. They have been and are exercising personal choices all the time. 

And speaking and writing about the need for humble obedience to the obvious truth of their Church - as if that was possible - makes any difference to the facts. 

It is therefore dishonest, in-denial, and grossly misleading. 

To have an honest and relevant discussion, it is first vital to acknowledge the realities -- and the reality is that not a single person in The West actually practices the humble, obedient, Church-led religions so insisted-upon by Traditionalist Christians. 

They do not, and neither does anybody else - and it is impossible. 

Such plain facts of Christian living ought to be the agreed and basic starting point; if what is desired is coherent and helpful discussion.