Saturday, 25 April 2026

By prolonged and intensive effort; we can enhance our powers, but we cannot make ourselves better people

St Paul realized that his being a brilliant orator, high-adept, and genius were ultimately irrelevant to salvation


We are much inclined to believe that people can (and should) improve themselves by prolonged and intensive effort. In short; that strong and sustained will, properly directed, leads to better people. 

Indeed, for most people, now and in the past; this is almost a definition of "religion" - redirecting our will, training and implementing our will.  

And when people are not getting better; the answer is therefore intensification of willed-effort across a longer span of time.


I personally underwent, in accordance with my will, two prolonged and intensive efforts at self-transformation in search of new abilities: first in medicine, secondly as a scientist. 

The years-long and immersive training as a doctor had many effects on me; and I developed many abilities. But there were costs. My personality was somewhat distorted and considerably hardened; and I became prone to be negatively-motivated by the group ethos, especially by a nagging sense of guilt - that lasted several years, even after I ceased to practise as a doctor. 

The years of training as a scientist also developed new aptitudes and habits, especially in the realms of thinking. I became not just able, but also almost compelled, to adopt explicit and few assumptions; stick-to and follow-through clear and transparent lines of reasoning from them; and to exclude all other factors that were not part of the "model". 

This was a deep change, and it made me a pretty good scientist; but was bad for me as a person, overall - at least until it was understood and contained. Because it was a deliberate but also compulsive form of self-blinding.  


In sum; the application of will in a prolonged and intensive training led, in both medicine and science, to functionality and power in a this-worldly sense; but were spiritual dead-ends that impaired me in significant ways as a person. 

I believe that exactly the same applies within the realms of spirituality and religion. 

I mean that when people pursue their religion by prolonged and intense training, by exercise of will (for example in the training and initiation of a priest or monk, or the leading of a rigorous, devout, or holy life) - the result can certainly be enhancements of of the mind in accordance with will; a transformation of personality; an increase of ability, of power...

But the outcome of any sustained and focused exercise of our conscious will, is also a degree of spiritually-negative distortion of our nature.

We may delude ourselves otherwise; but this becomes obvious if we can spiritually evaluate other people, and how observe the ways they are changed by prolonged and intensive effort in accordance with their conscious will-power. 

   
This was an insight of St Paul; who recognized that he himself had been impaired by the effects of his prolonged and intensive (and high-level) initiation into Priesthood. 

Paul realized - indeed he knew, from experience - that Men could not be improved in their spiritual quality by an exercise of will...

That no matter how much we wanted and strove to become better, and now matter how genuine was this desire and effort; we are unable to accomplish this.


For Paul; this was a great insight into the nature of reality, the nature of what Jesus needed to do to help us (help genuinely and qualitatively) - and also a revelation of what Jesus actually did: 

With Jesus there was not (ultimately false) promises of positive personal transformation and enhancement; achievable by following his new prescription of attitude and activities; and rewarded by salvation... 

What Jesus offered was not a new (and better!) sort of life and mind therapy - not even a spiritual therapy; but something altogether different. 


I think Paul saw vividly the limitations of human will and effort; probably because he had himself first accomplished so much by his own will and effort, but then recognized (in a flash) that all this was irrelevant to what Jesus had done for us. 

But this truth is a slippery insight: hard to keep a-hold-of (indeed, Paul often drifted from it), such are the advantages of the kind of worldly enhancements and satisfactions we may achieve from applying our will-power in a sustained and focused way.

In sum: Training and initiation may certainly be useful in this life and world; but such achievements do not and cannot make us better people, or better followers of Jesus - and, indeed, most often our transformation and enhanced aptitude will function as a snare, a distortion, and a distraction.

    

9 comments:

  1. This is a really important point and was well made. And, as you say, it's very easy to lose sight of. "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will" is actually the definition of magic and as such is orthogonal to spirituality.

    One little correction, though: I'm pretty sure Paul was never initiated into the priesthood, and indeed was ineligible for it because of his lineage (tribe of Benjamin, not Levi). I assume you are referring to his training as a Pharisee, which involved very strict observation of the Law of Moses but was not priesthood. In general, the Pharisees were a lay sect, and most of the high priests were Sadducees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @WJT - "Paul was never initiated into the priesthood, and indeed was ineligible for it because of his lineage"

    Correction accepted! I didn't know these distinctions, but was trying to use the term "priest" in a generic and socially-structural fashion, intending to include all the major complex religions of recorded history (i.e. not shamans, or their equivalent).

    wrt Magic - That is, I think, Crowley's definition, and not necessary accepted as a sufficient or the best definition of magic by the *White* (Christian) magicians in whom I am interested. But it does have some validity - and emphasizes that magic is akin to science, rather than religion (as CS Lewis often emphasized) - and, as such, magic emerged with science entwined - as a renaissance-and-after development.

    This is obvious when it is noticed how many of the first generation of "modern" scientists associated with the Royal Society in England were alchemists, numerologists, and the like - Newton being the most eminent.

    I sometimes think that the great Saints are rather misleading if regarded as exemplars of spiritual achievement - or as models for spiritual development; because none of them (I think) claimed to be especially holy, in any kind of *objective* way - seeming instead to be sharply aware of their sins and failures.

    Of course it is possible to define holiness or spiritual progress in terms of a ladder of training and initiation - but I would argue that this contradicts the distinctive essence of Jesus's teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doesn't this veer a bit over the line into characterizing mortal life as a trick and or largely meaningless? We *have* to gain knowledge and skills and direct and train our will in order to survive. Why does a loving father put us in that situation if it inevitably net-harms us or even partially harms us?

    Though the individual points are solid. I agree this is the essence of Paul and also an essence he was not always true to. Regarding the saints, one striking thing to me is how frequent it seems that a genuinely great Saint is called upon (by earthly authority) to systematize their personal experience, to found an order or develop rules or write a treatise, and the results are not good. I can’t remember the name right now but I briefly studied a monk who founded an order and his rules and principles for his order were starkly at odds with his personal teachings and insights. I’m disinclined to make too much of Aquinas abandoning the Summa T because I assume his vision of Jesus saying “You have written well of me” was real, but it’s another pertinent example. It can both be “well” and also only a glimpse of God’s glory, but I have a hard time grasping how “well” can be a “net negative.” Except maybe in a very grim view of living in a reality with an expiration date.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >prone to be negatively-motivated by the group ethos, especially by a nagging sense of guilt

    A related point is that the System generally seems adapted to inculcate guilt in those who are not succeeding within it.

    I was always looking on decisions in terms of how things would look on my CV. We've always lived in a hostile environment but this feature is fiendish!

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Ron - I suppose it is inevitable that in a system based on double-negative values, the primary mode of control should be negative (indeed sinful) emotions such as guilt and fear.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Mia - "characterizing mortal life as a trick and or largely meaningless?"

    That's a different issue. Because I have written refuting this so many scores of times, including recently - e.g. https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2025/12/creative-engagement-is-positive-purpose.html - I don't feel obliged cover the same ground in every post!

    "how frequent it seems that a genuinely great Saint is called upon (by earthly authority) to systematize their personal experience, to found an order or develop rules or write a treatise, and the results are not good."

    The most striking example is probably St Francis, because this happened during his lifetime; when the Fransciscan order became the premier source of scholars for the medieval universities - such as Duns Scotus, William of Occam, and Roger Bacon... all with very different lifestyle from that of the Saint.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @BC No such obligation to repeat yourself of course! I brought it up though bc I couldn’t see how to square this post with your many prior posts rejecting assumptions that reduce the meaningfulness of life.

    Assisi is a good example as what it seems he was doing with his preaching and life is totally at odds with systems and scholarly pursuits, even though I assume he would not have categorically rejected those.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a very important and basic truth that really gets missed.

    I'm glad to see it pointed out here, because its a reality that many even deeply spiritual people will discover - to their dismay -- that their basic nature, no matter how improved in some functional aspects, remains in essence unchanged.

    And that it is absolutely a fallen nature.

    This can be a real cause for despair even with Christians, who strive and hope to become more and more in likeness to Christ. And to realize that in this life such likeness does not come even remotely close to even the limited human standard that many a Christian would hope for.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Cecil - Thanks for the comment.

    As you might discover if you explore here further; I do not adhere to the idea of fallen Man. Instead I believe that Man has never been other than a mixture of good (aligned with divine creation) with evil (opposed to it); and that the entropy and death of this reality has likewise been present since its beginning.

    My understanding is that this is what Jesus came to save us from - and in enabling Man to become resurrected to eternal life in Heaven, and thereby become a being compatible with Heaven - Jesus was making something new, a new possibility - changing reality to something that had never existed before.

    In other words what you call Man's "fallen nature", I regard as the innate imperfection and insufficiency of mortal existence; that has become since Jesus (and for those who desire to follow him) a transitional phase of experience and learning, leading up to the (for the first time) "unfallen" (without death, without evil) state that is resurrected life in Heaven.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. "Anonymous" comments are deleted without being read.