Another tranche added to Bruce Charlton on Music

I have added (and compiled) some more entries for the Bruce Charlton on Music blog - including an extended piece on Music in my Early Life.

This is how it begins:

My first musical instrument, at age ten, was a ukelele - the one that looks like a little guitar - and it cost one pound and one shilling; bought for me on impulse by my Dad, unplanned, from a shop in Bristol. It came with George Formby guide on how to play it.

Within days or weeks my then group of friends had formed a 'pop group' which we called The Shades. We wore sunglasses (naturally!), flared trousers and brightly coloured nylon shirts with cravats.

The Shades comprised an electric and pneumatic reed organ (which sounded like a motorised accordion), a steel strung acoustic guitar, ukelele, and maracas - we had no amplification.

With such a bizarre line-up, I can only attribute our success to the musicality of the organ player - who could compose, arrange, and improvise a bit; and also that we must have had nice treble voices - because it was not long before we were playing 'concerts'.

...

I visit Saint Mungo's Holy-stain in Simonburn Church, Northumberland

Saint Mungo (aka Kentigern) meets, debates and baptises Merlin (aka Lailoken) as depicted in Stobo Kirk, Scotland 

Saint Kentigern (aka Mungo) was one of the great missionaries to the Ancient Britons (including Picts), founder of the Cathedral and Patron Saint of the city of Glasgow; and has many churches named after him in Scotland and the North of England. 

One of these is in the remote-isolated Northumbrian church of Simonburn, just north of Hadrian's wall; whose Parish covered the largest area of any in England; and was also/therefore one of the very richest "livings" (i.e. the priest got an enormous "salary") from Medieval right through to Victorian times. 

As you can see from the above inscription; after St Mungo was driven from Glasgow, he went South to the Lake District, then East along Hadrian's Wall - doing missionary work as he went. 

In Simonburn; Mungo baptised in a particular spring of water, upon which the current church was built.

And to this day, the spring wells up at the end of the aisle; creating a damp, stained-patch on the flagstones that has been regarded as Holy ground - as I point-out below:  

"If Jesus Christ is King, then why isn't he doing a better job?" This is not a trivial quip...

Christians (of various denominations) often make a good deal of the assertion that Jesus Christ is King of the world, and the Universe - everything. 

The intent is, obviously, to emphasize that Jesus is divine, is a god - and (for Trinitarians) that Jesus is The One creator God. 

The intent is to make sure that everybody recognizes that there is no-thing, no-person, no-god that is greater than Jesus, or more powerful - that Jesus can do anything that Jesus wills. To make clear that - because he is the King of everything and always - Jesus not only should-not, but cannot (coherently) be ignored by anyone. 

When Jesus is King of the Universe, then anyone who believes otherwise must be ignorant or insane; or else purposively evil. There can be no rational choice against Jesus.   

But if Jesus is the actual ruler of every-thing, now and forever (and indeed always has been, from eternity) - then why doesn't he do a better job ?

This is not just a rhetorical quip - it is an unanswerable, knock-down refutation of Christ is King.

Because if Jesus rules everything, then either King Jesus is making a mess of things (and always has done); or else Jesus's idea of being a Good King is so different from my idea, and your idea, of a Good King; that most decent people would want nothing to do with such a monarch. 

It is simply not-good-enough to point-out that most things "work" for most of the time, else we would not be here to discuss anything. It is not enough to point out all the good stuff that happens. 

When such absolute claims are being made for Jesus's rulership, claims that include omnipotence, omniscience and the rest of it; then quantitative arguments are irrelevant: qualitative claims require qualitative consistency. 

If Jesus is King of Everything and Jesus is Good, then everything should be Good. 

It is not enough to wave at the "Free Will" of Men, and blame freedom for everything that goes wrong; because that just kicks the can onto why the creator-King made Men such that they want bad things; and why the King doesn't run his realm with all possible inducements to Good and excluding evil.    

Indeed, the presence of exceptionally evil people, some of whom have been that way from early childhood, is the King's fault; and so are "environments" that (we believe) cause so many people to become evil during their lives. 

The more powerful Jesus is claimed to be, the more Jesus's rulership and power is emphasized; the bigger such contradictions become. 

My point is that such Justifications of Jesus Just Will Not Do! 

And insofar as Christian belief in Jesus genuinely depends on this kind of Justification - faith is a house built upon sand. 

It will not do - so, Christians Must Do Better!... 

And this will require reaching a better, more coherent, less complex and abstract, understanding of who Jesus Christ was (i.e. his nature, what kind of person he was), what he did; and what it means for each person, individually. 

And this when attained must satisfy each of us; so as to provide a solid basis for faith; and afterwards Must Be (and it then will be) explainable briefly and clearly to non-Christians. 

How to escape the reductive-corrosive "So what?"

Although an irritating affectation among adolescents; there is more to the "So what?" attitude than is first apparent. 

To respond to information thus is a form of reductionism; and reductionism (aka. scientism, materialism, positivism) has been and is the ruling reality of our civilization - hence the world. 

"So what?" expresses the conviction - and the fear - that nothing really matters; with the possible temporary-exception of how I personally feel in the here and now...

But actually that doesn't really matter either; because how I happen to be feeling is brief and unstable, and a matter of indifference to the mass majority of "Who cares?"  

"So what?" encapsulates the characteristic, all-but inescapable nihilistic-hedonism and hedonic-nihilism of the modern West - manifested as pessimistic selfishness and immersive distraction - occulted by vast, soaring, ineffectual abstractions; such as universal altruism, planetary peace, cosmic environmentalism... 

From inside; the attitude expressed by "So what?" finds that the two extreme replies of "Everything what - i.e. everything matters, or "Nothing what" - i.e. nothing matters; are equally un-tenable as a basis for living - which is all about discernments, choices, motivations and the like. 

In practice, the problem of answering the "So what?" question is ignored, because of its difficulty. The difficulty is that any valid answer would, itself, need to be stable to the repeated question of "So what?" - and this is very difficult to achieve, even to our own satisfaction (leaving aside the impossibility of finding an answer acceptable to "other people")!

The fact is that in this mortal life on earth, everything material is subject to entropy, to death; and therefore is easily dissolved by "So what?". 

If we desire to answer this question, we must move beyond the material world, we must consider the world of "spirit", and tackle the questions of "eternity"... Indeed, we must consider whatever will lead to an answer. 

For most people, such philosophical questions are regarded as irrelevant, unanswerable - indeed meaningless. 

But in this matter, if we decide to seek an answer; our civilization provides no help. Indeed it is the basis of the problem. 

Worse than this; we find inadequate, misleading assistance by looking behind our civilization into the past. 

We find answers that are incoherent, based in arbitrary or dubious values; and we find possibly-helpful answers to be packed inextricably with all kinds of other stuff that is said to be mandatory. 

And we find the modern people who assert these old answers, actually are assimilated to modern values - so the traditional answers seem to be little more than just-another lifestyle option.   

In sum: we cannot find anybody to tell us a good answer to "So what?" If we want an answer, we will have to find it for our-selves. 

So our civilization (and nearly-all of its members) is self-trapped in a down-spiral of compulsive distraction and underlying futility; trapped, on the one hand, by its own assumptions...

And, on the other side, doomed by an overmastering mental laziness.

Rather than admit that it is important for each one of us to be able to answer "So what?" - each to our own solid satisfaction; people find it easier to pretend either that the question is trivial and does not need answering, or else that the question is un-answerable - hence best left-alone. 

But who suffers from such a dishonestly slothful attitude? 

The answer is that every-single-person suffers, who has not found an answer.

He suffers necessarily; because for people like us, in a society like this; the question of "So what?" will not go away, and is inescapable.  

God cannot make us Good - The State as an analogy for Heaven

In a universe consisting of eternal Beings, the question arises: When God made divine creation, what could he do with these already-existing Beings, and what could he not do. 

 

God could do many things - such as giving attributes to the Beings, and enforcing upon Beings a passive cooperation with divine creation; but God could not make Beings Good. 

Because, Goodness is living from Love, and in harmony with divine creation. Therefore; for a Being to be Good, it must want to live in-harmony-with divine creation, it must be living from Love. 

(i.e.  Love of God and other fellow-Beings)

And, Love cannot be imposed - it must come from within each being. Ultimately, a Being cannot be made to want anything (induced, encouraged... Yes. But not forced). 

The motivation of "wanting" comes from the nature of a Being and its freedom (with "freedom" being conceptualized as the existential fact of Beings as the prime components of reality: Beings Just Are).

God can, in various ways, compel cooperation on Beings (God can structure reality such that "things work" harmoniously, overall). 

Analogously; a State may force its citizens to cooperate sufficiently that the State is sustained. 

But God cannot make Beings want to cooperate, cannot make us to love God and creation. 

Analogously a State cannot compel its citizens positively to embrace that State's nature and policies (no matter how Good the State's nature and policies may be)... A State cannot compel its citizens to love the State.  

People often call-upon God - in effect - to make everybody Good. But this is not possible. 

God can make some people behave well (overall) by establishing a powerful System of incentives (rewards for Good behaviour, punishments for bad) - but of course Good behaviour isn't the same thing as being Good.  

And a System of powerful incentives isn't what is meant by Heaven!

 

Furthermore; whatever system of incentives is deployed; there will surely be individual Beings (and groups of such individuals) that resist or reject some or many of these incentives (for a variety of reasons); and these Beings will therefore be less-well-behaved in the case of divine creation -- less compliant in the case of citizens of a State. 

The more force that is applied by the System, the more resistance the System is likely to evoke. The System will not be able to enforce complete passive cooperation.  

And some Beings may become rebels against the whole System. 

This can be interpreted, by analogy, as an explanation for the presence of evil in divine creation, the resistance to Good; and the motivation of demons. 

It is because God cannot compel us to be Good, that Jesus Christ was needed. 

What Jesus did was make it possible for those who wanted it, to become fully-Good; via death and resurrection. 

Jesus thereby made Heaven possible: heaven understood as analogous to a "State" of fully-Good citizens. A State without compulsion (or propaganda) because it is comprised of citizens who completely and permanently embrace the goals and methods of the State. 

A State of citizens who from-themselves, and freely: love The State.   

Substitute God for the State; and Beings for citizens; and that is an analogy with Heaven.  

Metaphysics and the Marriage of Jesus - or, how fundamental assumptions shape and determine Christianity

Our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. our "metaphysical" assumptions) have a decisive effect upon our perceptions and interpretations - such that when our metaphysics rules-out something, then that thing is often unperceived - or, if perceived, then regarded as impossible. 

This is, I presume, why the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene (who is the same person as Mary of Bethany) is either unnoticed by readers of the IV Gospel (called "John"), and/or why each mention of it is interpreted-away - despite that there is ample and coherent reference to the marriage and its profound spiritual significance in that Gospel.  

The reason is not far to seek; because most Christians have the fundamental assumption that Jesus cannot be married, because Jesus is mystically conceptualized (in an Athanasian-Trinitarian fashion) as one of the three persons of the One Godhead. And, as such, a cosmically-significant marriage of Jesus to a human being is so impossible as to be absurd. 

Consequently, each and every mention of the marriage of Jesus and Mary must mean something else; and the only task is to suggest what these references might mean. Since humans are natural experts at explaining-away whatever they regard as impossible, this is an almost automatic process.  

The same applies to reading the IV Gospel itself. As I described at the beginning of Lazarus Writes; when mainstream, orthodox, traditional Christians read this Gospel; they do so by implicitly-but-decisively subordinating it to the numerical majority "consensus" of the rest of the New Testament. First to the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Gospels I, II, III; but especially Matthew and Luke), and/or the Epistles (especially Pauline), and to some parts of the Revelation/ Apocalypse.

(Almost as if spiritual authority was determined by majority vote!)  

My understanding - that the IV Gospel is the only eye-witness, earliest, and qualitatively most authoritative source concerning Jesus - is regarded as idiosyncratic, and indeed arbitrary. 

Therefore; the New Testament, and whole Bible, are being read in terms of fundamental assumptions concerning the weight and validity of its components, and how this question ought to be determined; that washes-away anything stated in the IV Gospel, or omitted from it, that is regarded as significant but contradictory to the majority of Books (or to other sources such as Matthew, Luke and Paul; that are treated as de facto more authoritative). 

By assumption, therefore, the IV Gospel must be explained in terms that harmonize it with other parts of the Bible; those parts that have, through history and as maintained by the churches, been accorded an assumed primacy. 

Another assumption relates to how we personally (each of us) ought to read The Bible - including the IV Gospel. 

It is assumed that we ought to defer to and obey some external authority in allowed ways of reading or understanding the Bible. 

Which particular authority we ought to defer to is a matter of contention between Christian denominations and churches (e.g. church tradition, or current authoritative church teaching as a whole or of specific persons, or some version of theology, or current linguistic and historical scholarship...). 

Among among those Christians who state that the Bible is primary, and its own authority, and ought to be understood as inerrant and literally true; there are always prior assumptions as to whether this means the Bible as a whole is true, or else the New Testament primarily, or particular parts of the New Testament. 

And the "correct" way of understanding the Bible is likewise a prior assumption. Should its ultimate meaning be understood in an overall sense of mutual cohesion - including all Boks in both Old and New Testaments? Or understood one Book at a time? 

Or does truth reside in the Bible verse by verse - or even word by word? 

And/or do those words ascribed to Jesus (spoken by him, as recorded), have the highest authority?

Even those denominations that assert we ought to read the Bible for ourselves by personal revelation, invariably insist upon some particular interpretations; at least for key doctrines, and for church members we aspire to have good standing in the institution. 

My point here is that our understanding of what is significant and what it means, is structured by assumptions that we all have before we embark on Christian exegesis; and before we read The Bible - or indeed seek guidance from any external source.

This is just a fact of things: our fundamental metaphysical assumptions have structured our Christian faith, determine what counts as evidence, and shape what that evidence means.  

We cannot choose not to have fundamental assumptions. 

Therefore your choice and my choice as Christians; lies in whether we acknowledge and become aware of the fact of prior assumptions; or - as is more usual - to deny and refuse to discuss the fact.  

 

NOTE ADDED: A further example of a prior-to-Christianity and fundamental structuring assumption is the nature of God-the-creator. Most theologically-minded Christians insist that God is and must be an Omni-God that created ex nihilo. Such a person's entire Christianity is built within such assumptions; such that (for example) "God is Love" is conceptualized within the metaphysical assumption that the loving God must be the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God; such that whatever Love means to them (their conceptualization of the nature of Love) is subordinated to the imperatives of the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God. Yet, such persons usually refuse to admit that their metaphysical assumptions regarding God Just Are prior-to, and therefore not derived-from, Christianity. 

Should we be spiritually engaged at all times and in all situations? Or stick to a schedule?

From the classical and Medieval eras, during which Christianity was established, the ideal was an overall religious basis for society, with a religiously approved monarch - but in practice life was divided between religious and secular activities.

In essence; there was a prescribed (minimum) ritual and ceremonial religious life; and the rest of a personal and community time was de facto engaged in all the other necessities of living. The proportions of secular and sacred varied, but the division was necessarily present (in practice) even in monasteries. 

This division was also (usually) reflected in terms of individual subjective experience. In general, people strove, and were perhaps often able, to achieve a properly spiritual, devotional attitude during daily prayer and formal church services and the like; but accepted that this level was impossible to sustain.

And indeed, from whatever combination of character and circumstances, it was often impossible to be spiritual at all. The main thing was to "do it" in the prescribed times and places. 

Indeed, as the centuries passed, it seems that even the minimum frequency of experienced religious participation was increasingly difficult to achieve. People could conform to all requirements in "the letter", yet "the spirit" became feebler...

More and more often, "the spirit" was altogether absent. 

Against this backdrop of enfeebled faith and increasing apostasy; were those (from the late 1700s, but much more so later) who advocated (and sometimes claimed to achieve) a continuous and unbroken spiritual life. 

They claimed, indeed, to strive for what they saw as the real possibility of living all life (from waking to sleeping, and ultimately even during sleep) in a state of devotion, spiritual awareness, religion. Conversely, they poured scorn on the ideal and reality of "Sunday Christians" - who switched-off religion, in between their required church attendances. 

Such people included Christian revivalists of various kinds  - and often these claimants were not Christian. Often enough they were atheists (spiritual but not religious), or neo-pagans of a wide range of types. For instance a serious Buddhist told me that a Zen Masters' whole life was one of continual spirituality, even when doing the most routing chores. More generally, it was claimed that this could happen by the continuous and habitual effect of prayer (i.e. a "mantra": this is also one of the expressed ideals of the Jesus Prayer.) 

As of now, in The West, these two religious ideals still dominate:

On the one hand, a Medievally-rooted ideal that aims at serious spiritual participation in relation to a finite series of discrete and pre-specified practices, times, and places; usually of a formal and prescribed nature. 

And, on the other hand, an ideal of qualitative "enlightenment": the idea that a person can break-through to a permanently transformed nature; a life that is always and everywhere spiritual. 

My belief is that neither of these ideals actually work - for different reasons...

But that they don't work just seems a fact of observation. 

Therefore we ought to seek for something that does work. 

We need another ideal for our spiritual life. 

One might be that we try various possibilities, and do more of whatever works for us... Meanwhile monitoring the situation for how things are progressing (with an awareness that any activity or plan may do us - personally - harm, as well as perhaps good). 

Another notion is that we strive for a higher self-awareness, and by this aim to recognize and "seize the moment" for spiritual activities - not to put them off. 

And also we might strive to hold-onto the insight that - whatever we do in this mortal life - it cannot be sufficient; because this mortal life is not, and is not intended to be, The Whole Thing. 

If we are (as I believe) eternal Beings, then we lived (as spirits, IMO) before this incarnated mortality; and also we will continue to exist (in some form, about which we have a choice) after we die mortally. 

This life is therefore a finite phase between eternities. 

Therefore, instead of deluding ourselves that there is any possibility at all of an ideal life during this mortality; our best bet is to regard our task as trying to have the right kind of helpful experiences; and learning the right kind of lessons from whatever actual experiences come our way. 

This mortal life is intended to be transformative; but the intended (and perhaps, in significant ways although not completely,  achieved) transformation is not for this mortal life; nor is eternal qualitative spiritual transformation even possible in this world of change, of entropy and death. 

Therefore, as with any kind of intentional development, such as the following analogy of school or college work; we may realize that:

On the one hand that we cannot always be studying and practicing. And if we seriously attempt this, we will not only be wasting our time - but indeed sabotaging the possibility of that focused and intense (therefore necessarily brief) learning which really works. 

And, on the other hand; that one secret of effective learning is to be aware of any moments when the opportunity for some really special experience has arrived. 

When that moment is here; we should be able to set-aside the routines, plans and programs devised to get us through dull-dry times; and, seizing the opportunity, take the chance, here-and-now.

And learn from it that which is divinely-intended for our benefit. 

If at all possible.  

Project Hail Mary, the 2026 movie

Project Hail Mary is a 2026 movie which I would recommend watching, because it is (overall) very well-made (well written, scripted, directed, edited, visuals etc) and also enjoyable - often funny, and emotionally powerful in several points.

Note: The movie is adapted from a book of the same name by Andy Weir, author of The Martian, which I regard as a first rate work of "hard" sci fi and in a new genre. However, I have not read the book of PHM; so this is a review of the movie qua movie.  

Further note: There are some generic spoilers here; so I would recommend watching the movie naïve to what I (or anybody else) says about it - which is what I did.  

**

No mistake, Project Hail Mary is a successful movie, an impressive example of the craft.

Nonetheless I give it four, not five, stars; because it is too long, employs too much "Pork Pie peril", and ends... well, if not exactly badly, then it ends significantly sub-optimally given the implicit and unavoidable requirements of the story.  

Nonetheless; when a very expensive mainstream movie is strongly-hyped and accorded unanimous mainstream critical praise, we can be sure that this accolade is not because of the film's virtues, but because it is believed to progress the Establishment agenda in one or several ways. 

The main way this is accomplished is in PHM presenting a wholly artificial, un-natural, representational, computer-interfaced, "AI" virtual-reality Life - as not just adequate, but capable of being the basis for a Good Life. 

So, PHM "shows" the watcher the "sufficiency" of a materialistic non-spiritual life consisting of only things that we enjoy and give us pleasure - a life-experience tailored, indeed, to suit our individual preferences in a way that "real life" never is. 

Clearly, this is supportive of both the Great Reset/ Agenda 2030 globalist totalitarian plan...

Or not so much "plan" as "incentive for willing compliance"; because (of course!) the reality of "15 minute" "pod-person" permanent-lockdown cities is not honestly being offered. Even this miserable not-life confined-to-barracks is a lie; and something much worse is the covert intent. 

And the movie, overall, just assumes as a fact the vast functional benefits of the "AI"/ Robots that are (since late 2022) being tera-dollar subsidized and coercively-imposed; top-down and at mega- and micro-levels pervasively; in By Far the biggest and most expensive totalitarian project of all time. 

Part of this was the false picture of Big Science as meritocratic, functionally-directed, well-motivated, and highly competent; in its aims and actuality. 

Whereas the reality of Big "Science" (here-and-now and for several decades) is one of extreme dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence; driven by inverted-values.     

Secondly; PHM represents a Man without partner, family, or friends on earth; who yet finds a genuinely loving friendship with an alien being. 

Thereby offering this "possibility" (or, the "thought-form" of this possibility) as an optimistic yearning, a positive day-dream, to the alienated masses of (especially) Western Men... 

An optimistic day-dream for those many who regard themselves as lacking any satisfactory this-world loving-relationship with an earthly (or Heavenly) being - whether human, animal, plant, or whatever... 

(The direct relevance of this fantasy may become evident if/when a suitable alien contact or invasion is simulated by the globalist totalitarians - as has often been suggested may be Their genuine intent.) 

Such are some reflections on Project Hail Mary - not so much while I was immersed-in the world it created, but afterwards - looking back on it, and the ways it "made" me feel.

My attitude towards the better examples of mainstream popular art is not one of strict avoidance, because there may be much to enjoy and to learn; but to enjoy and learn with awareness of the fact (and I regard it as A Fact) that those who funded, produced and disseminated such Big Movies have absolutely-malign reasons for doing so. 

In conclusion; IMO there is a genuinely-sinister covert agenda here, at the level of assumptions, framing, and in the distortion involved in imposing the actual ending - i.e. replacing the ending that the deep nature of the story truly implied ought to be the ending. 

But - exactly because Project Hail Mary is an effective and pleasurable movie - there are (there must-be, else it world not "work") plenty else going-on that is positive and wholesome, and fun; which I why I recommend it for "people who like this sort of thing".    

Explaining precognitive and synchronistic experiences

The doyen of precognition, fictional and IRL, is perhaps Philip K Dick: so much so that psychologist Anthony Peake wrote an entire book about this aspect. I didn't particularly like or agree-with much of the theorizing; but the subject matter certainly seems valid. 

As has happened before several times, a question or query from William James Tychonievich has extracted an answer; the production of which made me think a bit harder and more specifically than I wanted. 

The context was a discussion at his main blog, concerning the nature of Time; and the class of experiences that get termed "precognitions" - but also (relatedly, as it seems to me) synchronicities. 

I first put forward the basis of my explanations: 

In a nutshell; I think that most experiences that contradict modern concepts of clock time, are explicable on the basis that all Beings are eternal. We (and they - all other Beings - including God the Creator) were always around, and always will be around - and Beings have potential for direct inter-Being knowing, and communications. This (I think true) assumption has vast potential implications - and may serve as the basis for alternative (but mostly unconsidered) explanations for many paranormal and supernatural experiences to do with time, precognition, reincarnation, destiny etc.

To which William responded:

"Bruce, I'm not sure how that would explain most instances of apparent precognition." 

To which I produced the following reply:  

The difficulty with precognition is that most definitions of the things are (from my POV) metaphysically impossible - so that what is being explained is the experience, and the experience is (more like) that, sometimes, something, with some very specific similarities, is fore-seen by somebody. 

IMO The precog experience relates to a tiny and discrete slice cut from the continuum of a reality whose only Real division is between Beings - all the other divisions being hypothetical "models" designed to "save the appearances". 

A precog experience might be caused by one Being (as it were) announcing to another that he knows about something specific that will be encountered, or that he will be creating/ making some specific change - at some point in the future. And then the Being doing something like engineering the specific encounter (as best he may, typically incompletely, by influencing "behaviour") or making that thing happen (as best he may, usually approximately, by similar means). 

This raises the question of "why?". There might be an intent to harm, or to provide some worldly benefit - but I tend to think that most of these attributions are secondary and after the fact, and to the extent that they are true they are at least somewhat manipulative. 

The primary Good impulse behind two Beings interacting is more like the desire/ need for relationship. 

In other words Love is the impulse - when "Love" is seen as dynamic, purposive, and having "creating" as intrinsic to it. 

This is a gross overgeneralization of what may be a multitude to relationships between many specific Beings - but precogs and synchronicities could be understood as rather crude and ineffectual forms of attempted relationship between other Beings, and oneself... Perhaps a way of getting attention, an intended start-point to something more. 

I am pretty sure, however they are explained, that synchronicties and precog experiences are meant to be (as they were for me) a means to an end, not an end in themselves; the Start of a process of re-orientation, of challenging false and harmful metaphysical assumptions. 

In other words - "the medium is the message": it is the form rather than the content of precog/ synch experiences that matters. 

(Which also fits with the fact that the experiences are nearly always "useless" - in this-worldly pragmatic terms. People who get them a lot don't usually thrive in a this-worldly and social sense - indeed, often the opposite. The intended benefit of a typical specific experience of precog - if any benefit is intended - is directed at the experiencing person and his spiritual development, assumptions, motivations etc.)

Jerome K Jerome's second-best book

Many people know of Jerome K Jerome's timelessly funny and period-charming account of a trip on the River Thames - Three Men in a Boat. 

And, those who seek more of the same are usually disappointed by its official "sequel" Three Men on the Bummel. 

But there is another book by Jerome that - while somewhat narrower in appeal, and different in tone, comes near to matching the comic excellence of Three Men in a Boat; and that is the (rather unappealingly-titled) Diary of a Pilgrimage.  

DoaP is the story of Jerome's visit with a friend, to watch the (once a decade) Passion Play at Oberammergau in the Bavarian Alps of Germany. 

The comic writing of DoaP has a quite different quality to that in Three Men. AT times, it is as if we are getting the subjective stream of conscious, and the humour comes from this being stated as "fact". 

A point-of-view on events asif from inside Jerome's frequent travel-induced perplexity, seasickness, half-asleep drowsiness, struggles with foreign languages etc.

Once the reader has tuned-into this; Diary of a Pilgrimage is very funny, and exudes an improvisational freshness. 

And the satire and a bizarreness is pleasingly underpinned with Jerome's special personal character: his likeability, human fallibility, and ultimate decency. 

   

Bruce Charlton On Music - a new archival blog

I have begun to compile a blog of my postings on music over the past sixteen years, selected from pieces published here; called Bruce Charlton on Music. 

So far, I have included some early stuff, from up-to about 2012.