Traditional Christianity damns marriage by dubious comparisons, faint praise, and pragmatic functionality

In a world where marriage has been, over several generations; purposively and systematically weakened, subverted, and finally rendered meaningless; it is tempting to yearn for the comparative situation of traditional Christian marriage - for its legal clarity and moral strictness.  

Yet the Christian churches (excepting the CJCLDS) have, in my opinion, seriously trivialized the spiritual potential of marriage.  

And for a very long time. 

I take my example from The Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England Solemnization of Marriage: 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church;

This is absurd! To justify marriage between two individual persons in terms of a (to my mind) exceedingly dubious and opaque comparison with a supposed "mystical union" between Christ and "his Church"! 

This is to "explain" the simple with the complex; the experiential with abstraction; the clear with the opaque.  

I cannot imagine that anybody who was doubtful about the validity or necessity of marriage would be persuaded by this - or would even understand what was meant by it. The analogy merely opens a can of worms rather than explaining anything. 

After all; what is this supposed mystical union of Christ and Church (which does not feature in the Fourth Gospel)? Exactly who is the MU between - I mean, what counts as "his" Church, and what is excluded? To be specific, which actual people of which particular Church can confidently be asserted to be parts of this mystical union? 

And given the gross corruption and dissent of all the Christian churches - who and what self-identified Christian institutions, and which parts of which institutions - ought to be ignored, and in what respects? 

...which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; 

This is bizarre. Is it seriously suggested that the institutions of marriage is justified because Jesus attended a wedding, and there performed a miracle? 

Using such an argument, all sorts of things might be justified. 

..and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: 

Commended by St Paul? Well, if at all, only in the most grudging and negative way. Paul regards celibacy as the highest state, and did not allow marriage any positive spiritual value.

and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. 

Prudent advice, and nothing to disagree with here, but it would apply to life in general (e.g. eating and drinking) and any major life decisions (like choosing a job or purchasing a house) - and does not help explain why marriage might be "a good thing"

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. 

The difficulty is that this is first a biological justification merely; and secondly a sociological one - and alternative arrangements for procreation and raising children might be (and indeed are) proposed. 

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. 

See above. This is an appalling non-justification - and contains the assumption that the avoiding sin (double negative theology) ought to be our primary motivations. 

If this were true - ultimately, it were better not to have been born, or to die before having the chance to sin.   

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Unobjectionable, so far as it goes; but nothing spiritual about it - merely a matter of expediency; nothing to do with salvation or theosis. 

I regard such feeble advocacy and rationalization of marriage as a symptom of very deep and widespread spiritual problems. 

This represents a pitiful and significant inability to explain or advocate a thing that has been so obviously, to for so many people, as one of the most wonderfully positive and desirable things in human existence. 

It strikes me as evidence of a grossly inadequate theology that (even) rigorous and honest traditional Christian churches at their best have failed so badly to make explicit the spiritual value and desirability of something that has often been directly experienced and known.  

This-world is for those who choose to follow Jesus

This-world is for those who choose to follow Jesus. 

"Follow" literally, that is: follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven.

But for everyone else, this-world really is that meaningless and miserable waste of time which modern 'culture' supposes it to be. 

Yet for those who shall follow Jesus (no matter how small and obscure they may seem to be); insofar as it was loving and creative - mortal life will be known in retrospect to be an endlessly challenging, exciting, and heroic business.

Architecture - a deeply flawed concept

The centre for UK PSYOPS and subversion - MI6... What else could it be?

There are certainly exceptions; but most of the best buildings in the history of the world were built by members of "craft-guilds" (such as masons) - and without "architects". 

And, for sure, over the past century since Art Deco; architecture has had a powerfully malign influence. 

The deliberate anti-beautiful impulse of the past century of architects is evident from the difference between the housing of recent domestic buildings - which are merely practical-without-beauty*, and those that were architect-designed with big budgets.

(*Or, at least, houses were mostly functional; until the allegedly "anti-Carbon" and "environmental" regulations began to inflict complex, expensive, dysfunctionality on all construction work.)  

Whereas the large, "showcase", private and public buildings - those that employ high-status architectural corporations or individuals; are anti-aesthetic, anti-human, anti-God monstrosities. 

Such that the purposive, actively-evil turn of our civilization is advertised explicitly, unambiguously, indeed shamelessly - more by its architecture than by almost anything else.  

The centre for UK surveillance and blackmail - GCHQ. Evidently, not a nice organization.

Subversive/ gimmicky UK coinage is a sure symptom of civilizational self-destruction

I can't remember exactly when it was (twenty years ago, maybe?) that the Royal Mint decided to start making a jigsaw from UK coinage, such that each lower denomination coin made no sense; because the "tails" side was henceforth just a fragment from a larger picture. 

Given the symbolism and core historical function of coinage; such a childish gimmick was clear evidence of the covert self-loathing of the Establishment; and of the purposively self-destroying motivation of that Western Civilization in which Great Britain played a foundational role.  

This is the mockery of a servile managerial class who have given-up even the pretence of legitimate authority; and instead express their sense of smug superiority to the masses by sneering, subversion, and stunts. 

Finding the Black Swan - a favourite study from my empirical researches

Much of my work as a scientist was theoretical in nature; but I published quite a few empirical (i.e. experimental and observational or statistical) papers as well. 

One particular favourite of mine, and which seems to have been somewhat influential too, was done with a student called Florence Walston who was intercalating a bachelor of science degree into her medical studies, and who did the actual "leg-work" and analysis; and Richard Blennerhasset - a clinical psychiatrist, who provided access to the subjects studied.  

I liked this paper because it was as clear an example of "Black Swan"-type - Karl Popper-esque - research as one is likely to find in medicine. 

So, what do I mean by "Black Swan" in relation to science? 

Well, to state the matter more "softly" than did Popper (who wrongly regarded it as logically definitive of "science"); the idea is that it is not possible to "prove" positively the "hypothesis" that "all Swans are White" by gathering observations of White Swans - no matter how many examples of White Swans that we discovered and counted... 

But it may be possible to dis-prove negatively the "hypothesis" that "All Swans are White" - by finding even just a single example of a Black Swan.

In other words, if there is one Black Swan, then all Swans cannot be White*.

The asymmetry of this logic, the power of that single necessary observation, is recognized by using the definite article "the", in referring to The Black Swan whom we ought to be seeking.   

In this research, we aimed to refute the theory that persecutory (also called "paranoid") delusions are caused by defective "theory of mind" (ToM) ability. 

In other words that when someone falsely and firmly believed that he was being persecuted by some person or group of people; this was caused by a fault in his ability to infer the thought and intentions of those other. 

The "hypothesis" was implicitly that all people with persecutory delusions, must exhibit defective "theory of mind ability. 

All we needed to do was find a single clear and un-ambiguous example of a person with persecutory delusions but with normal ToM; and we had found our Black Swan and refuted the hypothesis. 

So, to refute this theory, we sought-out examples of people who did have definite persecutory delusions, but did not have anything wrong with their "theory of mind" ability... 

On the basis that if someone actually suffered persecutory delusions yet also displayed normal theory of mind functioning, then the delusions couldn't be caused by defective ToM. 

“Theory of mind”, persecutory delusions and the somatic marker mechanism. Florence Walston, Richard C Blennerhasset, Bruce G Charlton. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry. 2000; 5: 161-174. 

Introduction: Pure cases of persecutory delusions can be interpreted as “theory of mind delusions”; using a model that equates the theory of mind mechanism with the “somatic marker mechanism” as described by Damasio and colleagues. Three predictions were tested in a case study design: that pure cases of persecutory delusions could be found, that such cases would retain normal theory of mind reasoning abilities, and that delusions would be encapsulated to a specific group of persecutors with hostile intentions. 

Method: The caseload of 17 psychiatrists and 4 community psychiatric nurses was surveyed for “pure cases” of persecutory delusions. Cases were excluded when there was evidence of other psychopathology, intellectual impairment, abnormal reasoning, “psychotic” features, or diagnostic syndromes. Selected cases were evaluated for the scope of their delusional beliefs and the nature of their social relationships using a detailed semistructured interview that was transcribed verbatim, and putative “theory of mind tests” as devised by Corcoran and Frith. 

Results: Thirty-four potential cases were referred among which four pure cases of encapsulated persecutory delusions were eligible for the study. All were men, aged between 32 and 43. Apart from their persecutory delusions, cases were free from other detectable pathology in their reasoning processes, affect, or social interactions - and scored highly on the putative “theory of mind tests”. Identified persecutors were males, and delusions involved false beliefs concerning the threat of violence from gangs of strangers. 

Conclusions: Pure cases of severe but encapsulated persecutory delusions can be found, and such cases demonstrate intact theory of mind reasoning ability. The nature of persecutory delusions is understandable in terms of the somatic marker mechanism, and the content of delusions is consistent with the nature of hostile threats to men in the ancestral human environment.

In sum, Florence found, interviewed and tested not one but four "Black Swans" (actually five, but one withdrew consent to being included in the write-up); the Black Swans being men had such severe persecutory delusions as to have required admission to a psychiatric ward; yet who passed the Theory of Mind tests "with flying colours". 

That is: five men with severe persecutory delusions who demonstrated no measurable (or indeed inter-personal, conversational) evidence of impairment in their ability to infer the motivations of other people. 

In simple terms; outside of the specific subject of their severe delusion; these men thought and reasoned normally - so far as we could judge. 

From which it seems reasonable to infer "negatively" that all persecutory delusions are not caused by defective theory of mind abilities -- although, of course, some persecutory delusions might nonetheless have this cause. 

*Note. In practice, a single observation will very seldom have this power; usually argued on the basis that the Black Swan is either not-really Black, or else not-really a Swan. 

The future of spiritual effort - means and ends

First religions, then later spiritual systems, always demand effort of some kind - but the nature of effort could be very different - maybe these could be termed relaxation versus concentration; which corresponds approximately to contemplation versus imagination.  

At various times in my life I tried to follow both of these distinct paths - of "opening" versus "closing" the mind. 

However, the distinction between these is blurred by the potential difference between means and ends; because there is often an implicit assumptions that we can or should pursue one kind of end by a training of another kind - whereby the means is distinct from the end. 

My assumptions is that originally the means and ends were identical - that an immersive and contemplative spirituality (such as that of our nomadic tribal ancestors, and still of young children) is something that people Just Do - means and ends are identical. 

But when religion became established; it became usual to pursue contemplative spiritual ends by means of rigorous, prolonged, and intensive training that was not - of itself - contemplative and spiritual. 

In summary, a personal would learn a symbolic and ritual system, would learn its proper meanings and responses - and by effort, concentration, and repetition would learn to experience the desired subjective and imaginative responses. 

The goal is that an individual learns develops a new kind of spontaneity - so there is an element of paradox, or even contradiction in the fact that the means are often dry and mundane, while the end-point aimed-at is transcendent. 

This is the nature of traditional religion even at its best and highest; there is a necessary alienation and functionality and mechanical experience; that is "sacrificed" in order that for each individual at some times and places - or, a minority of people for most of the time - there can be a spiritual participation with the divine.  

Thus we "pay" for the spiritual, with the secular - as individuals, and socially (e.g. several peasants mundane labour pays for each monk's spiritual experience). 

I have a strong intuition that the future of spiritual effort is one in which we return to the primal situation in which means and ends are again identical; in which what we need to do here-and-now, is exactly the same as what we are aiming to do in future.  

Love baths, hate showers...

Baths v showers? No contest... 

Baths are great - deeply-relaxing, deeply-cleansing; and you can read - or sleep - if that way inclined (and I often am). 

And very traditionally English!

After all, Samuel Pepys's wife once had a bath; so he complained (admittedly Pepys himself never did). 

But showers? - Pah!

You Have To Stand Up! 'Nuff said. 

But also; unless the house is very warm, there is an unpleasant always contrast perceptible between the water warmth, and the colder air around. 

Baths are like rapping: Americanization of the worst kind.

(In an act of silent protest; I had daily baths during my sweltering month living in Texas one September). 

And the expense, my dear boy! 

Across three decades, I have spent... well, I have lost count; but some tens of thousand quid on having showers installed, re-installed, re-re and re-re-re installed - and repaired, and not-repaired - and still they leak. 

Once the house needed major surgery due to a long-term undetected leak that had caused "structural issues". 

Properly accounted; each shower taken in our house therefore costs at least several pounds each (at the worst eras, many tens Sterling per drenching)... never mind the price of hot water. 

And all this time I have been lolling in my baths and therefore don't receive the (dubious) benefit of being-sprayed.  

Our yearning for a life of continual enchantment

The "romantic" search for an escape from the mundane nature of life in this-world - that is, for enchantment - takes many, many forms; and is pursued by different people in widely varying ways. 

A very incomplete list of the themes would include by religions/ spiritualties/ ideologies; through reading, TV and movies; by personal relationships such as intense friendships and sexual relationships; through the appreciation and making of crafts and arts; by meditative, paranormal and supernatural encounters and experiences; via drink and drugs and other derangements; by holidays and travel; pursuit of personal or formal education; from performing drama and music... 

And so on - fully considered, there are only a few people who are not implicitly pursuing the enchanted life. 

All of these methods and others are at-least somewhat effective and may lead to enchantment: for some people, to some extent, and temporarily...

Because with time and the changes in our-selves, all methods and pursuits always lose effect: 

The once-enchanted becomes mundane. 

In other words, in our  failure to become and to stay enchanted; we are here dealing with the ultimate fact of entropy. 

We are up-against the inescapability of entropy in this-world we all inhabit. 

We are up-against this primary creation where all changes, loss is inevitable, and every-thing ends in its death. 

But this-world and primary creation is not all; because (by Jesus Christ) we all have the the opportunity to undergo the transformation of resurrection after death through following Jesus, and move on to the Second Creation that is Heaven: where the state of enchantment is everlasting. 

It is the state of everlasting enchantment in Heaven that Jesus is describing in the Fourth Gospel - when he uses "metaphorical" examples such as water, food and meat - and compared the inevitabilities of their incomplete, temporary, entropic nature in this-life-now; with the eternally present and gratifying fulfilment in the life-to-come:

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat... but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever... I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you... 

When Jesus says that he brings "life", life-everlasting, eternal-life; people nowadays wrongly interpret this as meaning an offer of (merely) continuing mundane life: the (mere) persistence-forever of life-as-we-now-know-it...

Merely the continuance of this entropic life...

But Heaven comes after resurrection, and resurrection is a transformation by-which not only evil, but also entropy, is eliminated...

Or, to put matters positively; when all the denizens of Heaven have made a permanent commitment to live forever wholly by love of God and divine creation and their fellow resurrected humans (and other resurrected Beings)...

Then this is a situation both of eternal goodness, and also of everlasting enchantment. 

Just as we can now, in this mortal life, know the desire for a wholly good world (without evil); but we cannot attain it. And Christians know that full goodness can only be attained after death and by resurrection...

So also we can know that our yearning for a life of continual and complete enchantment (without entropic change, decline, annihilation) - while impossible to achieve here and now - is attainable.

And/but attainable after our death - and by resurrection. 

Yuzvendra Chahal returns: It's the Indian Premier League again!

"Yuzi" Chahal's unique celebration after taking a hat-trick (three wickets in three balls) in last year's IPL 

It is the IPL again - the Indian Premier League; which means the highest overall standard of T20 cricket in the world; with a match (sometimes two) for us to view every day, and for many weeks. 

The team I have supported recently is the Punjab Kings, who come from the north (including several Sikhs in the team) and play in one of the most beautiful Test Match grounds in the world: Dharamshala, nestling beneath the Himalayas:

 

There is something about the atmosphere and camaraderie of PBKS that I like, and several players - including my current favourite: Yuzvendra "Yuzi" Chahal. 

Chahal is something of a legend, having taken more wickets in the IPL than anyone else; and having won the coveted "Purple Cap" in 2022 for the highest number of wickets in a season (27 wickets in 17 games, bowling a maximum of four overs per game). 

He usually looks very un-healthy - rather like an emaciated and renegade "street person" - being very short, gap-toothed, extremely underweight, and with many tattoos. 

Yet he is respectably bespectacled off the pitch, and was an India youth international chess player. 

So Chahal is that best kind of of all good cricketers; a vivid and unique character; who I suppose to have the high intelligence/ low conscientiousness traits that often go-with creativity, and maybe a touch of genius.      

But the main reason I like Yuzi, is that he is a master of that most difficult and entrancing of cricketing crafts: leg-break, wrist-spin bowling. 

Yuzi has such command of varieties of pace, length and line - plus direction and degree of spin; that he is able to bowl six different deliveries per Over - the ball landing pretty-much where and how he wants. 

When he is bowling well (as at present); each of these deliveries is individually and psychologically-tailored to confuse or deceive the specific batsman Chahal is facing - a batsman who, in T20 cricket, is under constant pressure to score quickly. 

Thus cricket becomes a mind-game, the bowler striving to out-think and anticipate the batsman; and each Over a mini-drama of character - and a microcosm of Life. 

Mary Magdalene at the tomb and after: Two presumed later excisions from Easter Sunday in the Fourth Gospel

Mary and the resurrected Jesus at the tomb

Where I presume later excisions is marked: [...]

John 20: [1]: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. [4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. [6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, [7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. [8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [11] 

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 

[...] 

[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 

[...]

It seems evident that there is something missing between "Master" and "Jesus saith" - because we have no explanation as to what Jesus meant by "touch me not" - in a context that the Gospel is nearly always self-explanatory and indeed detailed with respect to observed, recorded or experienced action - such as the detailed descriptions of how the author and Simon Peter ran t the tomb, and what they saw. 

And also because I am prepared to assume further excisions (and insertions) by a later hand; in the (not-very many, as a proportion) other places where the Gospel is not self-explanatory, nor is "poetic" in form.

And then there is the fact that the Gospel, as we have it, leaves Mary unaccounted for: having been so very important throughout - her story is just "left-hanging". 

This is marked as my inferred second excision.

But I think it can be inferred what is missing in these instances, and why. 

Such inferences derive from the basis of an assumed fact that Mary was married to Jesus; and that the Fourth Gospel tells us this by implication in several places. 

But later hands have removed all explicit references to this, for what may be theological reasons. Presumably they were deleted on the basis of assuming that, because the Mary relationship was (later) regarded as theologically impossible, such references must themselves have been erroneous.

Somewhat as I wrote: The exchange of words between Jesus and Mary at the tomb may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended. 

After all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. 

My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.

Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God the Father has become Mary's Father-‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. 

So, we are being-told, by Mary's brother Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel; that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband.  

However, it seems - I assume, that such further explicit and explanatory reference to Mary Magdalene was deleted by some later hand. 

I also assume that this Gospel reference was removed because seen as contradicting metaphysical-philosophical - but not genuinely Jesus-derived - assumptions of a "Trinitarian" and Monotheistic nature; assumptions that seemed to entail that Jesus could not have been married.

Or maybe that, even if Jesus was married, this could be of no theological significance; i.e. marriage could have no relevance to Jesus's divine work.

At any rate; when marriage to Mary Magdalene is not regarded as by-prior-assumption impossible, and when the Fourth Gospel is acknowledged as our first, only eye-witness, and most authoritative source - then the Good Friday encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at the tomb; emerges as of something close-to primary significance, in our understanding of Jesus's life and work. 

The significance of Good Friday

For me, the significance of Good Friday is that this was when Jesus died; which he needed to do in order to fulfil, to complete, his core mission. 

He did not need to die in the way he did, because any mode of death would suffice; and death was inevitable one way or another, sooner or later, for Jesus as for all mortal Men...

But Jesus did need to die; in order to resurrect, and ascend to Heaven. 

I believe that Heaven as a state-of-being already existed before Jesus died, and that Lazarus was probably its first inhabitant - albeit Lazarus returned to dwell on earth, for a while. 

But in order for "everybody" who thenceforth desired resurrection and eternal life to be able to achieve these; Jesus himself needed to die, be resurrected, ascend. 

That salvation for "everybody" includes those who had died before the time of Jesus - and who resided as spirits in Sheol/ Hades, or had reincarnated, or were ghosts, or even demons who were not fully corrupted...

Which is what "the harrowing of Hell" on Easter Saturday, represents in a symbolic but distorted fashion. 

Strong individual motivation cannot be scaled-up

Amidst our civilization characterized by extremely weak motivation - probably the weakest in the history of the world - there are individuals who are strongly motivated. 

But these commonly make the mistake of assuming that their own personal motivation is something that can be scaled-up: the mistake of assuming that - "What motivates me is something that could - and perhaps should - motivate the masses". 

Yet each individual who has reached a situation of being highly-motivated, has reached that position as a consequence of an unique spiritual journey; starting-out with different innate character, abilities, situation - and then following a trajectory determined by previous choices and particular circumstances. 

There is really nothing to suggest that this unique pathway - or its particular end-point - ought to be, or could be, an effective template for motivating everybody else.

Nor even that any number of such personal odysseys will add-up or average to a formula for mass motivation. 

Quite the contrary: all actually-existing group-level motivations continue to be extremely feeble and to decline; no matter when or if individuals within these groups are genuinely powerfully motivated.  

Of course; it is impossible to prevent highly motivated individuals from assuming that some future mass and motivated group can be extrapolated from his own experience...

But in practice such assertions will continue to be treated as idiosyncratic, as eccentricities or hobby-horses. 

Because what worked for him, (almost certainly) will not work for me. (There are just too many differences.)

So, we shall, and increasingly, have small numbers of highly motivated individuals; but not highly motivated groups. 

And, if we are to have realistic optimism, it will need to depend on a confidence that individual persons operating "alone" (in a material sense) can indeed make a positive overall difference.  

In other words; confidence for a better word depends on the reality of "the spiritual", and its ultimate domination of "the material". 

The unacknowledged genius of simple breakthroughs: the wheel, the arch, the bottom buttonhole on shirts...

 

If I look back on the technological breakthroughs of my life, and reflect on the genius required to make them; none are more impressive than the bottom buttonhole of shirts. 

I mean, of course, the idea of rotating the bottom buttonhole by ninety-degrees compared with those above it - to make an horizontal slit, instead of vertical.

The functional benefit is qualitative and decisive - a problem utterly solved: bottom shirt buttons used to come undone all the time, nowadays they never do!

The simplicity of the idea is simply stunning! No technological breakthrough was required - the horizontal buttonhole is pure concept: like the wheel or the arch. 

And like all the most fundamental inventions; as soon as discovered, it could be - and was - copied everywhere, and by everyone. 

The idea was simple, the method had always been possible: yet it took an unsung, indeed unknown genius to "see" this for the first time, after centuries of blindness.

 

The Easter problem, the fake-virtue of humility; and the false ideals of obedience and altruism

Easter seems to be a time when the confusion, incoherence, and errors of mainstream Christianity become most evident; as mainstream Christianity finds ever more way of being wrong, of misdirecting attention, and sowing confusion! 

Perhaps one root of this is the un-Christ-like, fake-virtue of humility.  

This leads to the preaching of two kinds of error:

1. Unselfish ego-annihilating obedience to God's will

2. Unselfish altruism 

Mainstream Christians are always saying things on the lines that all good which they enact is "not from me, but from God-in-me.". They claim that the highest Christian aim is for us to become nothing-but a channel for God to work-through. As a commenter put it: "I did nothing on my own God did everything". 

Christians repeat this without considering its implication that such an attitude depicts humans as unthinking and utterly-obedient slaves of deity; and what is worse, slaves to the kind of God who wants humans to desire nothing higher than to cease being themselves - and instead become mere tools. 

Such an attitude ultimately renders the creation of free and creative Men utterly futile - a divine mistake. 

Mainstream Christians are always preaching that we cease to be selfish and instead live to serve; that we ought to set aside considerations of self-interest, and instead help other people. 

But this is merely utilitarian atheistic materialism under a Christian disguise!

Of course, it can easily be seen what the preachers are getting-at: they are trying to combat sins such Pride and Lust. 

But the problem is that humility Just Isn't a virtue; and indeed is something close to the worst possible attitude to inculcate in a pervasively evil world of totalitarian domination of all social institutions - including the mainstream religions and churches. 

The opposite of Pride is not anti-pride; the opposite of selfishness is not doing what other people want (or "need"). 

The opposite of psychopathic gratification is not to become a non-person, one-with-God: a hollowed husk in human shape, an instrument rather than a divine Son of God, and a participant in divine creation.   

To recommend humility and living for the "benefit" of other people; is therefore to preach something other-than what Jesus did and taught - it is to preach another religion. 

There are Religions that are rooted in the oneness of God and the delusional unreality of The Self. There is a religion based on negation of the self, and absolute submission to God will. 

But these are not Christianity. 

From a Christian point-of-view; to recommend humility and altruism is, in the context of The West in 2026 - pretty much to guarantee a chosen damnation via assimilation to evil societal norms. 

Instead; the proper virtues by which to resist sins such as pride, selfish-short-termism and so forth; are the Christian virtues: 

Love of Jesus in thanks for his divine creation of Heaven, and his continuing guidance and comfort; Faith in his offer of the possibility of resurrected eternal life beyond death; and confident Hope that this shall be our personal "destination".