The Stark Dichotomy. Not-Christians who pass the Litmus Tests and negatively-discern validly, where Christians are failing en masse

In my readings and explorings, I come across people who understand the totalitarian reality of the West (and Geopolitics, generally) and who pass the Litmus Tests; and are not Christian. 

Indeed, such people may be anti-"Christian" - especially when they define Christianity as a compulsory package necessarily administered by an institutional church - a package that it is not possible or allowable to un-pick and discern-among; but a package that must be swallowed whole - or else rejected, which is what they do with it. 

On the flip-side; most self-identified Christians fail one or more of the major Litmus Tests and are substantively on-board-with the globalist totalitarian (hence necessarily lefts-materialist-atheist) socio-political agenda.

This indicates to me that - at least as of 2025 - it is possible to be negatively-correct about the nature of evil in this world; while rejecting Christianity. 

Indeed; it may be that some not-Christians are better at the negative-task of discerning evil, than are Christians - if so, how could this be?

I think the answer is quite simple: which is that both the non-Christian discerners and the church-Christians accept a stark dichotomy. 

The stark dichotomy is as follows: 

Most Christians are first-and-foremost institutionally-led; and they therefore (following institutional teaching and rules) agree with the "not-Christians Litmus Test passers" in assuming and asserting that Christianity really is a package. 

Therefore it is regarded as a stark choice between either affiliating to a Christian church and supporting totalitarian evil, or else rejecting totalitarian evil and therefore rejecting "Christianity". 

I, of course, do not regard Christianity as a package; and I do not regard churches as the ultimate authority on what it is to follow Jesus; so I reject the stark dichotomy. 

But the above analysis seems to explain how Christians have, in such large numbers, ended-up on the side of evil; and how anti-Christians have been able to reject evil - albeit they do not support positive Good. 

  

Review of The History of the Hobbit, by John D Rateliff (2007)

Over at The Notion Club Papers blog, I review the two-volume History of the Hobbit by John D Rateliff, from 2007. 

It is highly recommended. 

Unlike their best sitcoms; American comedy sketches Always go on too-long

Just an observation that my brother and I discussed recently - without any exception that I can think of - US comedy sketches always go on for too-long; taking too long to get to the point, hammering it too hard, and/or continuing for too long after they have made their point. 

I was reminded of this after seeing WmJas Tychonievich reference the "classic" More Cowbell sketch from Saturday Night Live on his blog recently - this displays the problem: the basic joke is funny; but to spin-out the joke for five minutes is just dull. 

This is in contrast with British humour, which is often at its best in comedy sketches - which are either short, tighter; or else have more than one joke to fill them. 

American humour is at its best in the Sitcom* (and movies); in which form (at least until recently) they were able to produce scores or hundreds of excellent, tightly edited, beautifully-paced shows; using the team-writing-script-editor system. 

That is, a large team of writers generate a large surplus of comedy ideas; and these are selected and assembled by one or two script editors who maintain the show's distinctive character and continuity.   

My understanding is that this is also the way that sketch-shows like SNL are assembled - in which case, I conclude either that what works for Sitcoms does not work for sketches...

Or else Americans need their jokes to be made very obvious and hammered home relentlessly...

Which latter does not seem true, in that a show such as Seinfeld is about as concise and meaty as 22 minute comedy ever has been, or could be. 

*British Sitcoms are equally good at their best, but can never achieve the quantity of American shows, because they are the product of just one or two writers.  

AI-dolatry among Christians is the flip-side of fundamentally anti-personal metaphysical assumptions

I have commented before about my dismay at AI-dolatry among so many self-identified Christians - specifically their failure to recognise and grasp that the current iteration of "Artificial Intelligence" (which was top-down launched nearly three years ago, at the end of November 2022) is primarily a totalitarian - hence evil - strategy; designed for the accelerating corruption and damnation of Men. 

But vulnerability to AI-dolatry is the other side of a coin which in practice asserts and assumes the abstract impersonality of God and created reality - despite that Christians are supposed to recognize God as a person, as our Father, and we his children. 

That this is "in practice" and almost indifferent to theological theory, is evident from the official Mormon church's positive response to AI, describing it as: "a rapidly developing technology that has significant potential to assist the Church in accomplishing God’s work of salvation and exaltation." 

This despite that the CJCLDS officially regards God as an exalted and embodied Man; indeed as two Men - a Heavenly Father and Mother; which is an explicitly non-abstract primary understanding of the creator and creation that, one might have supposed, should have protected Mormons from AI-dolatry. 

But no. 

The fact is that modern Christians get their fundamental metaphysical assumptions from mainstream society, not from their religion; and our society is bureaucratic hence fundamentally anti-personal, anti-human. 

We have, for many decades, denigrated individuals and their personal judgments and evaluations; and instead given primary moral authority to the impersonal: to system; laws and regulations; process and procedures; voting and committees. 

(And all churches operate internally by these same assumptions; all churches are bureaucratic, procedural, deploy committees and voting at their fundamental levels of decision-making etc. - which of course affects their evaluations.)

It has been a "natural" extension of this abstract-impersonal way of thinking; that the human element ought ideally to be minimized or eliminated - such that computers, robots, "AI" are by their nature potentially superior to humans... 

Supposedly superior because less prone to corruption, error, variation; and (by our false but common mainstream understanding of these terms) more informed, more knowledgeable, more intelligent - hence wiser and authoritative; than any possible human or combination of humans.  

In short: the assertion is that "AI" is potentially superior because (and insofar as) it is not human.      

In theory, Christians ought to be immune to such self-destructive and deluded foolishness - but in practice they are qualitatively as bad as everyone else! (ie. Any measured differences between modern Christians and the mainstream - e.g. in surveys - are merely quantitative, and insufficient to make a qualitative difference.) 

My understanding of this, is that Christians are now reaping the consequences of ancient errors in their metaphysics - in particular of rejecting our spontaneous knowledge that reality is plural and animated: in other words that the ultimate reality includes many living, conscious, purposive and eternal beings - and these are the basis with which divine creation has worked. 

(That is; God created from and by-means-of many pre-existent Beings.)

There was, very early, a capture of the Christianity of Jesus Christ; by a metaphysics of oneness (hence monotheism) - and the adoption of multiple abstract assumptions (which became dogmas) such as: creation from nothing; omnipotence/ omniscience, omnipresence; and the conceptualization of God's creation as including unalive/ non-living aspects such as minerals...

This metaphysics imposed itself upon the simple teachings of Jesus (essentially, the promise of resurrected eternal life in Heaven to those who followed Him) to make a complex systemic religion of this-world and its institutions - in which the essential teaching became obscured, distorted... 

(And indeed all-but denied at times and in some places, such that salvation became so complex and contingent-upon-this-world, as to be regarded as actually impossible for some/ many people.).  

Many centuries downstream; and in the unique and unprecedented actual conditions of our modern society; these have led to underpinning assumptions that dominate (often unconsciously) most Christians - and almost everybody else. 

We see physics or mathematics as the primary reality, and the unalive as existing prior to (what we regard as) living beings - and as life and consciousness as having been made-from and/or added-to dead materials.   

In a nutshell; even those who believe in creation imagine God as starting with non-living materials; then making plants, animal, then Men by adding life, movement, consciousness etc. 

Whereas we ought instead to imagine everything created as alive (and outside it, only incomprehensible chaos); spirit as coming before matter; with matter "condensing" from spirit - so that spiritual life and consciousness are basic, have always-been - and always shall be. 

I think this is how we spontaneously (but mostly unconsciously) come into this world understanding things; and that young children still think this way. And I think the reason for this is that God implanted such knowledge in us, as innate knowledge which we (nearly always) need in order to live well and attain salvation. 

The discarding of our innate animism and pluralism did not matter much when Men spontaneously retained "participation" through into adulthood. 

Because in effect these Men (e.g. in the Classical and Medieval times) continued - but unconsciously and unavoidably - to perceive the world in the same way as young children, or could return to this way of thinking via the methods of religion (ritual, symbol, scripture etc). 

But now we all become alienated through adolescence; becoming cut-off from this innate knowledge and the spontaneous sense of being part of a living world - and from this state of alienation; modern Men therefore consciously need to choose to return to our innate knowledge and understanding. 

And we need to do this conscious act of return for-ourselves, because there are no institutions - not even churches - that will teach or encourage us to do so. 

Not just for-ourselves; but from-ourselves; because it is actually contradicted by many of the actual, here-and-now dominant and mandatory, Christian church teachings. 

And therefore church-orientated Christians (those who regard a church, or any external source, as having primary authority over Christian understanding) are stuck in delusional materialism; including AI-dolatry... 

Which, unless identified and repented at some point, has the potential to lead to their self-chosen damnation.   

My take-home message here, is that anyone who hopes to escape their own self-chosen damnation - which will eventuate for those who follow external "authority" in this actual world, including church authority; would be wise to bring to consciousness, and reflect deeply upon, their most fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

 

Homing in on "honing in"

A lot of linguistic change is down to sheer ignorance - like the fact that disinterested (meaning impartial) is nowadays nearly-always used to mean uninterested (meaning having-no-interest-in) - such that to use the correct meaning is to invite misunderstanding. 

Thus a useful word is lost.

Another more recent such change is to use "honing-in" when meaning "homing-in": as with a heat-seeking missile homing in on the exhaust jet of a bomber.  

I would have thought that it was obvious that homing in - i.e. seeking its home - would be self-explanatory and the obvious usage; whereas the commonest correct common usage of honing, sharpening the edge of a knife (or, more exactly, giving the final touches to an already sharp edge) - was a little quaint, and probably known only to (mostly male) specialists and hobbyists. 

I infer that those who began to use honing in to meaning homing in, until the mistake had displaced the correct; were doing so from a pretentious form of ignorance; rather than from plain dumb ignorance. 

They were using a more obscure word derived from a verb - hone; instead of a common word derived from a noun - home; and that kind of thing is usually motivated by the desire to impress. 

On the plus side; the incorrect use of honing in has not (or not yet) destroyed the possibility of continuing to use the verb honing for its correct purpose - which is a good thing, because it's a useful term!

Distinguishing Final Participation from Original Participation

It was Owen Barfield who defined  Original Participation - characteristic of young childhood and the early states of Mankind's development of consciousness (roughly, the nomadic Hunter Gatherer stage); and Final Participation - which was the divinely-intended future development of consciousness that was posited to come after the modern alienated consciousness which is cut-off from participation. 

But Barfield perhaps never made it really clear how one might distinguish these types of participation - at any rate, confusion on this matter seems to be rife; and it seems usual, in my experience, for those who have encountered Barfield to list instances of what is actually Original Participation, with the claim that these are Final Participation.  

Here is my understanding of the distinction, as these states occur in modern Man:

Original Participation is experienced as a stillness, dreamlike, a trance-state - as if time is slowed or stopped or the individual has moved out of time into eternal simultaneity. 

As immersion in "the world" or divine consciousness - with loss of boundaries between individuals.

As a blending into "being-ness" - during which the individual "self" dissolves-into the larger or other consciousness. 

Ultimate reality is felt to be a state of oneness, unity; variation is only superficial because the deepest truth is singleness. 

For Original Participation we seem actually to inhabit an ocean of one-consciousness; from-which our individual consciousness sometimes emerges, briefly; rather like a crest among swirling waves that randomly gets shaped into a degree of illusory and temporary distinction and self-awareness - just long enough to realize this, before again dissolving-into the infinite sea. 

Final Participation is a dynamic state of consciousness, associated with directionality and movement of thought. 

The "self" is intensified, thinking is afoot; and consciousness absorbs into itself awareness of "the world", other people, other beings.

Awareness becomes wider and deeper - and this is awareness of other and different consciousnesses.

Ultimate reality is - at its best and highest - a state of friendship, harmony between different beings; between different but allied consciousnesses. 

Final Participation is likely to happen when we are enacting some strong and good inner motivation. When we are propelled by a creativity that is aligned and affiliated with divine creation. Perhaps while we are gathering insights that are being intuitively confirmed; or when actively-engaged in enchanted doing, or making. 

In summary - for us modern people: Original Participation happens in a state of rest or stasis, while Final Participation happens when mentally active; OP includes a loss of the sense of self, while FP includes an intensification of self; OP leads towards a sense of oneness and timelessness, while FP is a dynamic and connected form of "ongoing" consciousness.

Giants and Albion (the British)

Nightmare fuel for kids

I have already posted on the subject of historical Giants in relation to the British Isles - according to some classical authors Giants seem to have been the original (or first recorded) inhabitants of this island. 

I found another piece of evidence that might be taken to support this assumption; in that (according to some notes in John Rateliff's excellent History of The Hobbit) the only two fairy tales that are considered to be probably native to England; are Jack the Giant Killer, and Jack and the Beanstalk (which also has a Giant as the baddie). 

I decided I owed myself a chance to read these stories in their earliest and definitive versions; which I found in Classic Fairy Tales by Iona and Peter Opie. 

My impression of these Jack stories, especially of "the Giant Killer", was of crude and shallow narratives without any detectable trace of that faery enchantment, which is (for me) the only magic really worth reading about.   

The Giants existed only to be stupid, ridiculous, repulsive, and terrifying; their fate only to be tricked, laughed-at, tormented, and slaughtered. 

I conclude that these tales are likely to be exact examples which Tolkien referred as "impoverished chapbook stuff" in one of his letters:

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own, not of the quality that I sought, and found in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish, but nothing English, save impoverished chapbook stuff."

The Giant Killer seemed to encourage nothing more virtuous than greed and Schadenfreude; while the Beanstalk Jack larded on some unconvincing moralizing about his later repentance and reform of character.  

All I can say in defence of these un-enchanted and uniquely English Fairy Stories is that I find a similar deficit of enchantment in most other tales from other nations - such a the courtly French stories of Perrault, or the sentimentality of Hans Christian Anderson. 

It is really only the German forest stories of the Brothers' Grimm - such Hansel and Gretel, Red Riding Hood, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White - where I find enchantment of the kind I like...

A sense of faery; that parallel and uncanny, perilous, eerily-beautiful world of magic; just off the path or waiting outside of the woodland clearing. 

The hierarchy of evil seen in the Birdemic/Peck and current wars

CS Lewis's demonic supervisor Screwtape is depicted as being strategically-motivated by damnation of humans; while the junior demon Wormwood is mostly just a sadist - enjoying the infliction of human suffering. 

There is a hierarchy of evil (or "lowerarchy", as CS Lewis terms it in The Screwtape Letters) - by which I mean there are degrees of evilness. 

This was evident in the Birdemic of 2020 and the (allegedly preventive) Peck which followed later; and is evident in the ongoing West-provoked/ escalated/sustained global wars. 

The three main levels of the hierarchy of evil can be defined in terms of motivation; and are, in ascending order of evilness of motives:

1. Profit and Pleasure

2. Sadism

3. Damnation

1. Profit and Pleasure 

These are those humans (and lower-status demonic beings) whose motives are essentially selfish and short-termist. 

They cause, continue and use events like the Birdemic to get pleasure and to avoid suffering. For instance; they aim to make money, and to get rich/ famous/ powerful/ popular. 

As example: the people who got massively wealthy from manufacturing and distributing "personal protection" products and the Peck during the Birdemic. Or in wars; the corporate types who manufacture and trade armaments, the politicians and journalists who benefit from bribery and other corruptions. 

This kind of evil is widely acknowledged as a real factor in the world; indeed for most modern people selfish short-termism is in the only kind of evil they acknowledge. They will use it to to explain everything that happens and which they dislike.   

2. Sadism

These are those whose motives are sadistic and destructive. Their main gratification is spiteful: to enjoy the suffering of others, especially when they are involved in inflicting it. 

Such a motive isn't rare; and often finds expression in resentment-fantasy, gloating and Schadenfreude. 

It can be recognized as dominant when people will sacrifice their own profit and pleasure in order to try and damage and destroy those people and entities (e.g. religions, institutions, nations) they most dislike. 

In the Birdemic the sadism-motivated were evident in their eager and sustained support of "face-coverings" and the variety of "social distancing" policies. The resulting loneliness, illness, decline and despair of the coercively-isolated was their primary satisfaction.   

In war, they are recognizable by their tenacious support of policies that have (and are, by them, intended to have) the opposite effect to that claimed. Such as "sanctions" that damage everybody, but mainly those doing the sanctioning. Or military "aid" that leads to the progressive annihilation of the people and society being supplied with aid. 

 

3. Damnation

At the highest level of evil (or more exactly, the highest level at which evil-intent coheres, and remains capable of some cooperation and a degree long-termism in aim - there is a level beyond) - the motivation is to work for the damnation of others. 

In other words, the aim is spiritual. It is to oppose God and divine creation in all ways possible, and in particular to deter or prevent people from choosing to accept the gift of Jesus Christ (i.e. resurrection to eternal Heavenly life). 

Since salvation is a matter of spiritual choice (an "opt-in"); this level of evil works on trying to shape and manipulate what people want.-

To ensure damnation of souls; it is not enough to have people Do evil stuff, they must ultimately Want evil stuff. 

In the Birdemic we saw this in the propaganda that tried to make people accept, demand, and celebrate the measures that were designed to harm them spiritually (as well as physically). 

Many people were induced to desire the escalation and permanence of lock-downs, masking, social distancing; and to advertise positively their own compliance with the Peck (IRL as well as in social media). 

It wasn't just that these things harmed them; but that they wanted the harm - they agreed to being harmed, and sought more of the same. 

And we currently see this damnation motivation among those who use untruthfulness (distortion, selection, outright lying) and knowingly-false interpretations; to depicts their actually-evil-intending (anti-Good-motivated) wars as an ideological/ spiritual conflict with the worse side presented as the better. 

Among those (many) who express such sentiments - and we may infer that these such persons have potentially embraced their own damnation as a personal ideal.  

This is the ultimate success of the demonic powers - to induce people not merely to seek their own pleasure and profit; and not only to enjoy the infliction of pain and destruction - but to hate God/ Creation? Jesus and reject the hope of salvation. 

Instead; to adopt and practice value-inversion... understanding and rejecting Good as evil, and adopting evil as the highest Good.

Because value-inversion (commonplace and official in the modern West) is the surest path to damnation - as by it, the divine is mocked, despised and hated, while the demonic is regarded as heroic, fun and "cool".

And, thereby, the people shall positively affiliate themselves with the demonic agenda of damnation - to become active agents for propagating their own miserable fate.

From the highest levels of the hierarchy of evil, such was-and-is the intent and triumph of 2020; and of the subsequent and ongoing global wars.  

Note added: In case the above induces a feeling of helpless and incipient despair in face of the vast power and influence of evil in the world (and especially the West) - it may be worth reminding oneself that this is a spiritual war I am describing. So that explicitly recognizing the relevant evil motivation for oneself, and inwardly rejecting it; counts as a personal spiritual triumph; and this is exactly the kind of spiritual learning-from-experience that is such a vital aspect of our mortal lives - one of the reasons we are here, and now.  

You *Don't* need Faith to be a Christian! (Hope will suffice)

The commonly expressed view that one needs Faith in order to be a Christian, is a problem! 

First, is the Faith-Belief double-bind:

The bind is that unless I am already a Christian, how can I have Faith? 

But if I first need Faith then how can I become a Christian?

It was all very well to root Christianity in Faith, when nearly all adults grew-up automatically (often unconsciously) believing in one of the Christian churches.

Or even when people spontaneously believed nearly-everything needed for Christianity - and salvation could just be added-onto a pre-existing religion. 

But now that almost-everybody grows-up with multiple assumptions that exclude the possibility of Christianity being true, this has caused mass-majority to believe in a de facto atheism. 

It also seriously weakens the faith of professing Christians and their church institutions (as was evident in 2020).  

The second problem is doubts. 

It is nigh impossible to be a Christian in the West in the 21st century without sometimes, often, having doubts about whether it is really true. 

Our whole scientistic-materialistic-bureaucratic-media civilization tells us all-the-time, and from all directions - or, even worse, just assumes - that there is no God, creation, spirits or soul. 

In such a context, doubts are inevitable and may be crippling.

 

On top of which we are aware of multiple and conflicting versions of Christianity and particular churches - many of which assert their own exclusive access to salvation. 

Plus, we are aware of multiple other (not Christian) religions. 

In such circumstances, actually achieving the absolute exclusion of doubt requires a mental state that resembles psychotic fanaticism.

Yet doubt weakens and erodes Faith!

Another double-bind...

Luckily; Christians do not need Faith; so long as they have Hope. 

It is Hope that makes someone a Christian: Hope of his own salvation after death, Hope for everlasting resurrected life in Heaven. 

If you are a Christian currently without Faith, then so long as you remain motivated to want what Jesus offers - i.e. so long as you continue to Hope - then your salvation is secure. 

But if, on the other hand, your wanting what Jesus offers is conditional on the reality of that offer; then you will probably cease to be a Christian if and when you doubt its truth.

Or; if and when you become convinced of the reality of some other account of the universe (e.g scientistic-materialist, or some other religion), then you will cease to be a Christian. 

Or if (for whatever reason) you come to despair of your ability to choose to follow Jesus Christ - then you may well lose your Faith, and stop being a Christian. 

(No wonder - when Faith is regarded as essential; so many people have stopped being Christian or rejected it from the get-go, over the past several generations.) 

Yet there is Hope! 

I can imagine somebody who thinks that the stories of this Jesus person, and of resurrected eternal life, are merely "wishful thinking", or perhaps just a priestly-invention designed to manipulate people - but who, nevertheless, regards what Jesus offers as something he would want for himself - if only it were true. 

I believe that state-of-mind is sufficient for salvation - and that such a person really is "a Christian". 

Whereas, somebody who has Faith and believes in the reality of God, creation, spirits, the soul and Jesus Christ (and who may - if you like - be a devout and observant member of "whatever church you regard as valid") - but who does not want resurrected eternal life for himself, after his death - will not attain salvation, and is not really a Christian - but something else, instead.

In other words: someone may lack Faith and yet be a Christian; while another may have Faith, yet not be a Christian. 

And this is possible because salvation because it is Hope that is primary.  

All of which has practical consequences... 

One is that the single most-important-thing to emphasize about Jesus Christ is an understanding of what it is that he offers us.

And the second-most-important-thing about Jesus; is decide whether we, personally, would want what he offers - assuming this was indeed real and possible? 

Such is the essence of Christianity, and from it much else follows. 

Conversely, many traditional questions can be set-aside. 

We can set-aside questions such as: Is God real, and if so what kind of God? Do we live in a divine creation or does "science" describe the nature of our universe? Did Jesus really exist, and if so was he a divine Son of God (and what does that mean)? 

Instead, the focus should be on understanding the nature of that life everlasting which Jesus offers (whether it is real or not, and whether we believe Jesus could provide it)? 

And - assuming, for the sake of argument, that what he offered really was true and is available to us personally: whether that is what we desire for ourselves after death?

Even if we have crippling doubts; even if Jesus is something we "just can't believe in"; none of this matters! So long as we are sure that - if it were possible - resurrected eternal Heavenly life is what we would want for ourselves as First Choice. 

Participation in Romantic Christianity

I have found Owen Barfield's concept of "participation" - as expounded in Saving the Appearances - to be a deep and fertile insight - a gift that keeps giving, and demanding! 

This affected me so strongly because I had already recognized "alienation" as the distinctive problem of modern Man (and, especially, of me personally); and the driven-need to "cure" (or, in practice, temporarily alleviate or forget) felt-alienation, to be a core and increasing motivator of human life in our current civilization.   

In particular; I have found it necessary repeatedly to explore the relationship between participation and Christianity - having become aware that a great deal of mainstream Christianity is strongly alienating - not just in practice, but also in theory (which makes the defect incurable, without theological change).

It is important to realize that participation is the truth and reality of creation. It is not an optional extra, not merely a psychological feeling; but participation is intrinsic and unavoidable. 

Yet we modern Men are mostly unaware of the actuality of our own participation - and have erected an incoherent pretence of an external objectivity, something that supposedly exists without our consciousness, and to which we must conform - like it or not. 

So our task, as alienated modern Men, is not really to "seek participation" as such (although that is a shorthand for the process) - because participation Just Is - but to seek consciousness of the reality of our own ongoing participation. 

Mainstream Christianity often encourages participation of certain types, in specified circumstances...

For example, during prayer the person praying is encouraged to participate in a two-way and mutual communication. Something similar applies to participation in Holy Communion; or any other of the sacred rituals. 

On the other hand; the context of prayer is presented as happening in a context of objective and external fact - and something in which participation has no role. Thus; if a prayer is directed at God, then according to mainstream theology this is not a participating relationship, because God is infinitely "other", without any necessary role for human (or other) consciousness. 

The Christian is told the nature of God, creation, reality - how things work; what is appropriate ritual and symbol; what is real scripture and what it means etc... and the Christian's job is first and foremost and mandatorily to accept these "factual" (unparticipated) descriptions. 

Only after A Lot of objective, external and not-participated descriptions have been accepted, is the mainstream Christian supposed to work on participating in them. 

And, of course, such participation carries with it a more-or-less detailed expectation of what is allowed to come-out from the attempt...

In other words; the "mystical" Christian who desires participation, has already been told The Answer! 

The mainstream Christian who seeks conscious participation has been told what he will find in his mystical participation, and what it means - as a matter of objective truth; so that the seeking for participation is regarded as secondary, subjective-essentially; and an "optional extra" to the "realities" of Christianity that are objective, external - and matters about which our personal experience is irrelevant. 

Because I regard participation as necessary and intrinsic to the human condition; I regard this to be a fatal flaw in mainstream Christianity... Because participation is an unavoidable reality, thus our un-consciousness of it (an unconsciousness that is encouraged and enforced by mainstream Christianity) must be an error or an untruth. 

In sum: Seeking conscious participation in reality, including divine realities, is not some kind of optional or esoteric activity for Christians; on the contrary, it is a matter of working towards what Christianity needs to be and must become - if it is to be motivating and truthful. 

 

What is pride? What despair?

Pride and despair are sins - which is to say, all of both must voluntarily be relinquished, if we are to be fitted for Heaven. 

Pride is thinking we are "good enough", as we are - and without resurrection. 

Nobody - as-is - is good enough for Heaven; and there could be no Heaven unless this could be set right; and Jesus Christ would not have needed to die, if the problems of Men-as-is could be set right without passing-through death.

But we are not good enough, and this cannot be set right without passing-through death and re-making. 

Despair is in believing that we are essentially depraved - that is: depraved in our essence. 

Any Man, any Being, capable of love, is capable of choosing an eternal commitment to live by love, to his everlasting ruling motivation... 

No Man can make this happen by himself, from himself; nor can the commitment to live-by-love be made everlasting without passing-through death and being re-made from that which is Good in us. 

(Despair is also an eventual consequence of believing that this re-making after death is not a real possibility; or being convinced that we personally cannot have it; or of deciding that - although it is real and possible - we do not want it.) 

Tolkien dodges nomenclature bullets - but sometimes it's a near thing!

Celeborn reacts to being told his original name...

Over at my Notion Club Papers blog; I discuss how Tolkien's un-matched ability at naming, motivated by his philological perspective, would sometimes lead to silliness or tin-eared consequences in the drafting stage - but caught and corrected during revisions. 

The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren - by Iona and Peter Opie (1959, 1977)

When I first encountered The lore and language of schoolchildren, I was in my early twenties and beginning feel a solidification and increase in that characteristic and unavoidable alienation that is a core feature of the modern human condition. 

The book is a work of anthropological fieldwork by a husband-wife team; and it records the songs, rhymes and games of children of the 5-10 years age, mainly; from primary school playgrounds mostly - across several regions of Britain.

This book made me realize, probably for the first time consciously, that in my young childhood I had participated in an archetypal world - a world that was essentially universal; and in some respects went back across centuries - and perhaps millennia. 

And this world emerged whenever children gathered to play - even in that most tightly-regulated, formal and artificial world of school - where during playtimes we reverted to a mode of consciousness that was primal and spontaneous. 

What I got from this book was that the songs, rhymes and games that I had learned "orally" and by joining-in from other children, constituted a kind of national "underground", a "secret world". Shared by other children we had never met and knew nothing about. 

And not written down, not taught by adults nor approved by teachers (because they were unaware or indifferent); handed on by direct child-to-child contact - it was just there. 

It seemed, too, that this world derived from a common stock - so that children everywhere had their own versions of the same basic themes; although where that stock originally derived from was a mystery, and we weren't interested by that kind of question.

We participated in rituals that had an effect on us, so we wanted to join in and repeat them - and play them well; but whose meaning was unclear and that we did not understand - even at the time, I found this strange and compelling. 

Examples would include such rhyme/ song/ dances as "Oranges and lemons", "The Farmer's in his den", "In and out the dusty windows". 

We played such games - yet we did not know why we did it; and the effect was a kind of nagging almost-awareness of some sort of significance. 

Nowadays, I would term this Original Participation - that spontaneous, unconscious, immersive sense of participation in reality. 

But more exactly, the lore and language were a product of the phase when OP began to emerge into awareness and become systematized. 

This stage of childhood corresponds to the "totemic" era of human developmental history when symbol, ritual, story and song began to crystallize, become relatively fixed, and was preserved and disseminated by interpersonal and oral means.

And stored in memory- such that group rehearsal and repetition became a mechanism for perpetuation; and with such "devices" serving to work as as a transitional means for the incipiently isolated individual to re-enter the paradisal bliss of Original Participation.

 

I would now infer that this was what we were up to, in those playtimes - and following the enforced alienation generated by classroom schoolwork. 

In exchanging and chanting rhymes and songs, in playing ritualistic games; I think we unconsciously-sought to return - for a while - to that phase of being from-which we had so recently emerged; and where we knew ourselves to be part-of our family, a group of kids... the world and universe. 

Hence the mystery, hence the fascination.

The latest and ultimate Apple product

As a long-term serial Apple owner, I could not resist their latest product. 

One problem with being an Apple user is that one's expensive purchase so rapidly becomes obsolete and despised - since there is always another whiter, simpler, cooler and more aesthetic product coming-along to supersede that so recently bought at so much expense. 

First they got rid of the bevel around the screen, then the control buttons, then the earphone ports, then the chargers. 

It became shockproof, and waterproof down to a considerable depth. 

Incrementally eliminating the unnecessary; always in search of the plainer, the purer... 

Yet still there remained the problematic clutter of internal components - circuit boards, battery, speaker - and the screen was a vulnerability - easy to scratch or crack. 

And the fear that - just around the corner, was the next generation product that succeeded in eliminating one of the complications that remained. 

But now the end-run has been achieved; my Apple cannot be superseded because it has reached the Platonic ideal of a plain white rectangle of solid hard plastic. 

Nothing to go wrong, nothing left to eliminate. 

Well worth the vast financial outlay - especially considering the excellent block-maintenance and whiteness-tech support available from my local Apple Store.  

At last Apple have achieved the ultimate...

Or have they? 

There is something I don't completely enjoy about the shape of my homogeneous white plastic block.

And indeed I am not certain that it is in fact completely white... There remains the slightest tinge of cream colouration, perhaps? - in certain lights?

A creeping fear is coming over me that further product devolution remains a possibility; that there may be a plainer and purer and more colourless shape; beyond that of my current slab. 

And when it comes onto the market; I will just have to buy it. 

Acknowledgement to my son, who had the idea behind this post. Also (as might be guessed) neither of us are Apple-owners, IRL. 

Prophet versus Church-maker, versus Church administrator - Spirituality versus Psychology. Examples of Joseph Smith and Rudolf Steiner

I am very struck by the historically-recorded lives of people who were (to some genuine extent) Prophets, and who also went-on to found a church, or analogous spiritual organization. 

Two that I feel I know pretty well are Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Mormon who founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; and the spiritual philosopher Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) who founded the Anthroposophical Society. 

Although there are important differences between Smith and Steiner; in spiritual (and psychological) terms, both men made a transition from primarily functioning as inspired Prophets, to primarily functioning as institutional leaders. 

They both went from being Prophets expounding and teaching spiritual knowledge; to "CEOs" organizing and administering large new institutions - the CJCLDS church and the AS.  

Both organizations continued, and still exist; and in both cases their leadership became primarily bureaucratic in form and function; and primarily administrative in focus and methods - even within the lives of their founding Prophets...

("Primarily" - in both cases Smith and Steiner continued genuine and valuable Prophetic activity up to their deaths. But this was increasingly swamped and subordinated by an imperative  focus on sustaining and building-up the organizations they had founded.)

And (consequently, I would say) the CJCLDS and AS leadership soon became and have since remained; hardly (if at all) prophetic - and not-at-all creative. 

The organizational response, of both CJCLDS and AS, to the transformation from a Prophetically-inspired to administrative-in-nature; was to assert that organizational structures and standardized forms Just Do function spiritually. 

The assertion is that the bureaucracy, and the standardized teachings, and the officially approved rituals, activities, and texts - will (if properly done) link the properly-trained and duly-initiated institutional member, to that same spiritual reality as was Prophetically-contacted by the founder. 

I have italicized that verb "assert" above - because that is what such institutions; and indeed the older Christian churches, actually do. 

But whether or not this assertion of spiritual access via institutional membership, structures, and forms is actually true - is a very different matter. 

Indeed, to me, it does not seem to be true.

I do not see that the CJCLDS or AS or indeed any of the other or older Christian churches - are providing spiritual access via their institutional nature.  

What is partially true, what they do provide - to varying degrees and in various ways -  are desired psychological benefits. 

There is usually, therefore, some kind of psychological effect from CJCLDS and AS (and other) institutional memberships - and some of these psychological effects are desired and experienced as positive. 

People may feel (and this seems to be strongest) a sense of communal belonging. 

They may feel (at least briefly) calmed, reassured, encouraged.

Membership and participation may make people happier than otherwise. 

BUT - what I am suggesting here, is that such positive psychological effects of institutional membership are not (it seems to this observer) leading their members onto experience of contact with any solid and motivating spiritual reality. 

Neither the CJCLDS nor the AS are primarily spiritual in their nature, and they have not been primarily spiritual for a very long time; and they may well be (in most instances) completely non-spiritual in their experiential actuality...

If indeed they ever were spiritual organizations. 

At any rate, and in both instances; it is striking how very few prophetically-spiritual (and therefore creative-natured) people existed in the organizations after the founders died.

In the case of the Anthroposophical Society; perhaps the only strikingly original and Prophetic member post-Steiner - Valentin Tomberg - was swiftly expelled, and eventually became an un-orthodox Roman Catholic!   

The reason for all this is that - as of here and now and for (probably) some centuries at least - Institutions Cannot Be Primarily Spiritual.    

The necessities of surviving as institutions exclude the possibility of a primary spiritual focus. They can assert spirituality, but they only ever actually achieve psychological benefit. 

And indeed, in response to their primary and ruling imperatives as institutions; any occurrence of genuinely Prophetic spirituality among the membership is more likely to be excluded, like Tomberg and the AS...

Or if not personally expelled, then substantively excluded; as with Owen Barfield -- Who served as a senior officer in the British AS bureaucracy, but whose major and original philosophical spiritual contributions were not allowed to affect the teaching of a closed-canon of Steiner texts, and their institutionally-expedient interpretations. 

(As far as I can tell; the AS core teaching has always been only-texts-by-Steiner, and non-creative commentaries-on-Steiner. Analogous to the teaching of a Protestant church in relation to the Bible.) 

Conclusion: Institutions cannot be spiritual in their nature in this modern era. 

Of course a church may sometimes and for some people mediate or trigger genuine spiritual experiences; so that as a generalization, churches do continue to be potentially spiritually valuable - in some situations and with particular individuals. 

But at the bottom-line: we are all confronted by the choice between primary affiliation to an essentially not-spiritual and core-bureaucratic institution; or else pursuing experience of spiritual reality primarily from our own resources and motivations, and in accordance with out own discernments.

Therefore, a Christian who acknowledges the vital importance of The Spiritual; and who is not willing to subordinate his spiritual life to an institution that is firstly organizationally-driven and secondarily only psychological in its benefits...

Such a Christian; will need to regard any church or organization as at best only a possible spiritual resource...

But never as his spiritual master. 

 

To "follow" Jesus - an exercise

I have often argued, in recent years, that the key instruction in the IV Gospel is to "follow" Jesus, and that the best encapsulation is (probably) the Good Shepherd section of this Gospel. 

But I suggest an exercise - which takes about ten minutes: Here is the IV Gospel - do a word search on "follow, and read quickly but attentively through all the usages of this word in relation to Jesus instructing his disciples what to do. 

I think, through this, we can then begin to glimpse the simplicity of what Jesus is asking. 

To me, he seems to be saying that because he is - like us - a Man, and also a Son of God; we can do after our death what Jesus will do after his death. 

Meaning: attain eternal resurrected life, after death. 

And that Jesus shall personally make this possible, for each person as an individual.  

In other words; "follow" has a sort-of double meaning, a more-passive and more-active meaning. 

Passively, we follow-behind, in the route Jesus has made between this mortal life, via death to resurrected everlasting life in heaven. 

More actively; Jesus will help us do this, he will "come back, and help us in this "journey". And it is us who chooses to make this journey, who takes the "steps" on it - because even a sheep must choose to follow specifically he whom the sheep regards as his Good Shepherd. 

The lost sheep does not follow just-anybody; but to be saved the lost sheep must follow the Good Shepherd. 

Nor is the act of following, something automatic and inevitable - the lost sheep must recognize the Good Shepherd, and choose to follow, and actually take the steps of following.   

That's what seems to be said to me - and also what is actually true; but you may, of course, read it differently!

Why politics has become negative - loss of the unconscious, spontaneous, naturalness of communal values

If the verities of our spiritual life are things like our-selves and God and divine creation; then by contrast politics is ultimately arbitrary. In the world as it is now, and ourselves as we are now; wherever and however we draw boundaries around our categories, there is a strong element of arbitrary imposition. 

Nothing is now obvious and spontaneous; everything is contested and a matter of choice. Hence ideology has displaced nature. 

What was once unconscious and happened naturally - isn't any more. 

In the past we found-ourselves and grew up immersed in a communal situation - which became primary. 

Our values were inculcated by mechanisms that were unconscious, spontaneous, natural - this was almost unavoidable. 

Not Any More.

At least from adolescence, if not before - we experience our-selves as individuals in a world of many options. Nothing is "given" because everything can be (and sooner or later is) brought to awareness, consciousness - so that we find ourselves standing outside of questions; questions that once were simply the-way-it-is.  

The problem with all politics as-is; is that it is based upon arbitrary - ideological - categories. 

However we cut-up reality in order to discuss it and make plans - we are confronted with the need for conscious choices about what is valid, what is good, what ought to be the aim. 

Hence ideology; which imposes these top-down, consciously; and then claims that doing-this has been necessary and real. 

Consider the apparently sensible maxim that it is better for us to "mind our own business" and not to meddle in the business of others.

Once we move from the business of our own spiritual life in the context of the everything, we are confronted by intermediate levels of analysis - and questions. 

Is our family our business? Is our street, village city, nation, region, civilization our business? There are arguments for each of these levels as genuinely impacting on our own business - so why stop at our civilization - why not include the world, the planet, the universe? 

Soon it seems that either everything is our business - or else nothing but our selves... and maybe our self isn't primarily our business; since plenty of people assert that our business is to "serve" other-people (or God). 

We might therefore conclude that we our-selves have no business at all; or else that our business is everything - or we may conclude that our business is our race, nation, or ideology!   

My point is that this matter of categories, drawing lines, making qualitative distinctions Just Is a matter requiring discernment, choices, commitments - such that in 2025 and the West the categories can no longer serve as the basis or justification for values...

So, it used to be possible to have one's clan or tribe or (small) nation as the basis for values - but it isn't any more; since before we can be "a nationalist" (or whatever) we have had to decide to make this our business. 

And this also applies to our religion.  

Yet in the past it certainly seems like these categories (clan, place, religion) really did have a primary reality - they were that from-which we argued, from-which our values emerged. 

Indeed; if we assume that our primary loyalties used-to-be unconscious, spontaneous, natural and communal - nowadays, for many people, this is lost - and the opposite is true!

Politics (in its many manifestations) is a reality, but a negative reality. 

In the past xenophobia was unconscious, spontaneous, natural - and (apparently) a necessary part of our natural and unavoidable positive affiliations to peoples, places, religions...

But nowadays xenophilia - love of the "other" is more common, more valued, and apparently more influential. 

And indeed difficult to avoid! Nearly everybody, me included, has a tendency to "idealize" some or another "foreign and hearsay kind of place, religion, grouping... (And often something about which we have only superficial or hearsay knowledge.) 

So; instead of the unconscious and spontaneous values of human history; we find-ourselves in a situation of multiple-choices and chosen-ideologies. 

We therefore ought to embrace and make-the-best-of the inevitable!

We should choose, take responsibility for our choices, and remain aware that we have chosen. 

Good politics is impossible in such situations - since all possible politics entails dishonesty about the nature and implications of its conclusions and assertions; it entails hiding and denying its own roots.  

It is therefore up to each of us, as individuals, to make these choices in the best possible way that we can envisage and attain; or else - since good politics is become impossible - we shall be the ones who suffer the consequences. 

Christian theories should be understood as like scientific theories - Even when judged True, they may be improved, or replaced

A big, maybe lethal, problem with almost all of Christian theology, is the absolute conviction that there can be nothing new under the sun.

So that (for instance) because we have inherited an either/or dichotomy - such that knowledge or values are either subjective or objective - that must be all there is, and nothing more valid can ever be discovered or devised. 

Or, there is the idea that - to be A Christian involves accepting some body of already-existing knowledge as Just True - all true, now and forever. 

This blocked me from becoming a Christian for many, many years - because I had never come across any field of knowledge that was ever Just True, now and forever - or where I was expected to accept this up-front - expected to submit my judgment (now and come what may) to a large, complex, total and unalterable package. 

This is what is required of a Christian convert in most churches; there is some body of statements that you expected to promise, to swear is true, to pledge obedience, to commit to behave thus...

This is difficult for a truthful person to do, and it does notfeel right to be asked to do it. It is an act of submission - and what the convert is asked to submit to claims to be divine truth - and yet it comes to us as human, all too human - and indeed it soon turns out that nobody on the inside really believes or does all of it; especially not church leaders.

  

Of course one can do this nonetheless, and suppress the worry that one will not be able to live up to the promises. But what is hard to suppress is the conviction that this is a bad thing to do: I mean, it is a bad thing to expect people to swear and promise to stuff that nobody really believes or acts upon - and which often does not make coherent sense. 

It is maybe because I was a scientist - and a theoretical scientist - for much of my life, that I have always believed that there are indeed new concepts that may be discovered or devised, and that these revisions may be better than what existed in the past. 

Something that is "true" - a theory, a monograph, a scientific paper, a field of research - is true in such a way that it is nonetheless capable of revision, or even radical reshaping - as when Newtonian Physics was true; yet gave way to Einsteinian or Quantum Physics - which was also true, and better. 

This seems quite normal to me - and the weight of tradition (the great names of the past) in science does not have the same inhibiting - indeed paralysing - effect that it does in theology. 

Creative science is about accepting the overall validity of tradition (its honesty, and usefulness), but that any actual science always has errors, incompleteness, and incoherences; and therefore can be - often needs to be - improved, and potentially transformed - at least in principle (although this is usually difficult). 

And our guide is primarily honesty - with ourselves and with others; and honesty in the context of transcendental values; which for a Christian means (I would say) motivated-intent to live in loving harmony with divine creation, and the aspiration to salvation . 

I think this is a true and healthy attitude to any functional body of claimed knowledge, any system - including theology and any particular church doctrine. 

In real science, we engage with tradition and great scientists, strive to understand them - but any serious scientist regards himself as at least able to add something, to change things for the better. 

And, if he is any good, and has found "his problem"; he ought to strive to make new discoveries (or reveal past neglected discoveries) - when these are needed. 

For instance; nobody in 20th century biology is, or would regard would regard himself, as an equal to Darwin - or as his superior as a scientist. 

But Darwin's mechanism for his theory of evolution by natural selection did not make coherent sense; because Darwin did not know about genetics.

 

To combine natural selection with genetics (the "Modern Synthesis") was a colossal intellectual achievement that took several decades, and involved work by several people; such as Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous), Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernest Meyer - none of whom have a reputation as great as Darwin, and who (despite being genuinely creative and major scientists) are essentially unknown outside a group of specialists. 

If the scientists of the Modern Synthesis had shared the attitude of church-serving Christians; they would have said "Darwin may be incoherent, but Who Am I to try and improve on what such a toweringly great scientist did? How can little old me possibly succeed, where Darwin failed?" 

They would have given up without trying! And thereby the synthesis of Natural Selection and genetics - a theory that nowadays is understandable by innumerable normal school children (and even by most biological science majors at university) - would never have happened. 

Instead, if science had been like theology; Darwin's much more partial and incoherent theories would still be taught as the best that can be known by humans. 

In sum: the first and most famous of past scientific theories can be, and often have been, improved by other and later humans - even by those far less great that the originators (or not great at all); because it is so much more difficult to create a theory as Darwin (and Wallace) did, compared with being able to comprehend and improve a theory as Huxley et al did; compared with merely being able to understand and repeat a theory - like any 18 year old who has studied the theory of natural selection. 

Christian theology is stuck at the level of understanding and repetition. 

Well, by my reckoning; Theology consists of human theories. Theories about things like the nature of reality, the nature of God and what Jesus did; and human theories are prone to human incompleteness and error. 

(Analogously, church doctrines, principles, and rules are in-effect human theories about matters such as how best to become and stay a Christian, and how best to attain salvation.) 

In principle - so long as someone is honestly motivated to live in loving harmony with divine creation, and committed to salvation; then I see no reason why he needs to be a theological genius of the stature of Abelard, Scotus, Luther, or whatever is your idea of a definitive theologian. 

But with theology, as does not happen in science; this matter gets mixed-up with assertions of spiritual authority of churches and church-endorsed theologians. 

We are stuck at the level of repetition; because anything else is regarded as blasphemous pride - as if anyone who understands and tries to improve on the human theological theories of the likes of Paul, Boethius, Augustine, Aquinas - must be setting himself up as greater than them!

The point is that the issue at stake is - for each of us - my life in this world and my salvation. 

What matters crucially is whether I am satisfied with the truth and coherence of given theology, the implicit theories of church doctrine, or whatever is important to my situation in this world. 

In seeking to do better than what is inherited - or, more exactly, what current authorities interpret and assert has been inherited; I don't need to convince anybody else - than I need to satisfy myself. 

I should keep striving for something better until I am honestly satisfied.

And if I later stop being satisfied with what used to satisfy me, and this is making an adverse difference; well, then I should be prepared to start striving all over again. 

NOTE: This post is adapted from some comments I made at Francis Berger's blog.

Romantic Christianity is not Only negative and reactive...

The cultural era (commencing in Western Europe in the late 1700s) known as Romanticism, is usually described in terms of being a negative reaction; partly against the newly dominant "rationalism" and scientism - reducing divine creation to a contrivance of clockwork wheels; and then fuelled by the beginnings of urbanization, noise, regimentation and pollution from the Industrial Revolution. 

And much the same applies to those of us "dissident" Christians whom I have termed Romantic Christians - they/we are usually understood as reacting-against. 

As I say - this is correct, so far as it goes - but it is not the whole story. 

But Owen Barfield (following Rudolf Steiner) clarified that Romanticism also had a positive agenda; it tended to regard "nature" as much more significant, alive and purposive than did Medieval or Reformation Christianity. This included an interest and seriousness about "the supernatural", and the "magical".   

There was a strong focus on the value of more intense personal states of awareness, intuition, revelation and the like - a "poetic" perspective on life. 

There was a new high-valuation of individual creativity including genius. 

In terms of Christianity; these might briefly be translated as striving for a faith rooted in direct personal experience and responsibility. 

Altogether; Romanticism - and this includes Romantic Christianity - has now been around long enough that surely it ought to be accorded more than the usual dismissive condescension - or quasi-puritantical abhorrence - that is its fate among orthodox and traditionalist Christians?

As I understand it; Romanticism among Christians is partly a negative and reactive rejection of the corruption, dullness, triviality, and superficiality of the churches; but when it is serious is has a more motivating and positive agenda: which relates to an inner conviction that a better Christianity is possible than that resulting from the primacy of church obedience - a Christianity that is more honest, more coherent, more inspiring, and more responsible. 

This refusal to subordinate ones primary religious convictions to the external authority of a church does not - Of Course Not - mean that a Romantic Christian is obliged to live a solitary and isolated life of abstention from all ritual, music, scripture, tradition...

It merely means that these come second, and not first; and the Romantic Christian's engagement with the forms and symbols of Christianity are subordinated to his direct and personal relationship with the divine - which is given primacy, as his motivating ideal. 

Parasitic destruction - Increasing local order, by increasing total entropy? The Neo-Darwinian assumption of Western geopolitics

Deep theorists of biological evolution since Schrodinger, have (by ignoring his speculations on negentropy) mostly assumed that it is a parasitic process; which exploits already-existing order. 

This is inevitable in an atheistic context, where divine creation is rejected. 

In effect; because entropic change (and death) is unavoidable; modern secular societies must theoretically derive order from chaos - because nothing else is conceivable, must derive adaptive evolution from a tendency towards random disorder combined with zero-sum competition, positive from negative, good from evil.

In a nutshell; local creation is seen as only possible by net-destruction.   

What happens (in ultimate terms) from this mainstream secular "Neo-Darwinian" point-of-view is that an organism maintains or increases its own functional order by increasing total entropy.

(When the existence of a positively creative force/ tendency/ purpose has been ruled-out by assumption, and only negative/ destructive/ entropic tendencies are allowed for consideration - then some version of this "getting positive outcomes from from negative inputs" must be the case. Neo-Darwinian evolution is the best known version of such reasoning; Adam Smith-type "free market economics" is another.)   

For instance; the functionality of an animal depends upon them consuming (using-up) the energy and organization of plants; and plants use-up inputs of solar energy to construct high energy molecules that are used by animals to remain functional. 

All the time; no matter the level or organization achieved by organisms and their social structures; overall entropy is increasing, net energy is being used-up by the existence of organisms - and societies.

This model has, over the past century and a half, become the basis for the fundamental value-system of first Western, then global, society. 

To put it differently; all that is "good" (i.e. functional) in a society - effectiveness, prosperity, capability, law and order, consumer goods, entertainment... All this necessarily and ultimately derives from a parasitic exploitation - by a process of extraction. 

Such parasitic exploitation typically including other societies. 

Because every such transformation of order is always less than 100 percent efficient (usually much less) then every time there is extraction there is loss of order, i.e. increase of entropy. So that the more finance, industry, trade, exchange, complexity of organization is generated and sustained; the greater must be the increase in disorder which is its price.

Indeed, such processes are not zero-sum (whereby the positive/ good/ creative is merely a re-arrangement of what went before); but less-than-zero-sum - because we always end-up with less of the good stuff than we began-with.  

Such a less-than-zero-sum world view is (I infer) explicit among the leadership classes - it is (I think) a "dirty secret" about geopolitics; something shared among the social strategists in private; and a secret by which they are initiated-into the power club.

And because this class of people have either excluded the divine and creative as unreal, or else (at the highest levels) explicitly joined with the demonic alliance against God; these people "know" that they "themselves" can only thrive - can only be prosperous, powerful, comfortable, and have pleasurable lives -  by destruction of others. 

The conviction is that - in an ultimate and absolute sense; "their" well-being (both physical and psychological, and indeed spiritual) is only achievable via actual destruction of the well-being of others. 

They "understand" that to generate what "they" desire, necessarily entails a greater volume of destruction of what "other people" desire. 

This is the dirty secret by which they operate. 

And this is what is happening, all the time and all over the place - it is the world-view that drives Western strategic policies of all kinds - although this is covert, except among the higher human leadership class (i.e. many national "leaders" and CEOs of big corporations are ignorant of this reality - believing in ideological nonsense and serving only as manipulated puppets).  

Western Geopolitics is a combination of the (Ahrimanic) totalitarian desire for control and social order as primary goal; with the recognition that this can only be achieved for a small and shrinking minority and by means of (Sorathic) destructive-exploitation of the majority. 

The driving belief is that the greater the destruction of the mass majority, the more "order" and "energy" will be liberated for exploitation...

The greater the scale of mass collapse into social dysfunctionality - the greater the scope there shall be for generating small islands of order and purpose; by transmutation of the energies and potentialities of a collapsing world, into that which they desire for themselves. 

At the highest level of anti-God, anti-creation evil, the demons understand that this vastness of destruction consumes itself, and the number of those who "benefit" from parasitic destruction will necessarily always be shrinking, and as matters proceed that shrinkage will be more rapid; and that the end can only be a kind of universal death. 

But meanwhile, they derive vast satisfaction from covertly engineering the process of exploitation - and especially that the masses who are destined (if plans go right) to be consumed and annihilated, in order to extract their positive energies are consenting to this. 

In sum - there is a duality to the current nature of global evil; by which those whose desire is to maintain order and functionality - i.e. the Ahrimanic totalitarians, bureaucrats, managers etc - operate on the basis that this is only possible by social destruction elsewhere. 

The basis of current geopolitics is that the survival and thriving of The System (and "my" place in that system) is achievable only by increasing overall chaos - because order must consume order, always at the cost of increasing total entropy. 

Because they believe that parasitic destruction is fundamental to reality; the Western leadership class is therefore purposively creating chaos all over the world, as well as within their "home" societies - as the "fuel" they need to maintain their position - for a while, anyway. 

And this is done with a clear conscience, and indeed a sense of virtue; since "they" regard parasitic destruction as an unavoidable reality - and themselves as superior by knowledge of this tragic reality - hence most deserving to be the "winners" in the inevitable process. 

And they also recognize that this process must of its nature accelerate, as the negentropy of the masses is consumed; and recognize too that the membership of the parasitic ruling class must shrink - which is why there is so much, and accelerating, "civil war" among them. 

Is all this true and inevitable? It parasitic destruction that nature of ultimate reality?

Of course not! 

This demonic world view of the necessity and desirability of parasitic destruction; is a product of fundamental assumptions, of personal commitments to the metaphysical principle that there is no God and no divine creation...

Or, at a more advanced level of evil; the personal conviction that God and Creation are evils that should be opposed; and joining the side of those who oppose these. 

The way out (the only way out) from the "imperatives" of this mainstream, global geopolitical alliance - which regards destructive evil as necessary and "good" - is to know the reality of God as personal, good, loving, the creator - and to join our-selves to the side of the divine. 

Note added: To put it another way... Because our society and civilization has no belief in the reality and primacy of God and divine creation - it cannot be motivated by any concept of positive good. Any and all apparent public examples of generally accepted good; turn-out to be double-negative in form. this means that "doing good" is ultimately, bottom-line, a matter of destroying (or otherwise eliminating) "evil" - so destruction is baked-into modern ethics, that is all there is. Furthermore; all evil is defined in negative psychological terms; in terms of pain, misery, suffering... To a remarkable extent, therefore, ethical behaviour, "doing good" is a matter of eliminating whatever makes "me" and "us" happier or less unhappy. Doing good on a global scale, therefore becomes the business of weakening and destroying any nation or groups by which we personally (and those of whom we approve) feel threatened. And this is what we find.  

Why engage with mass media At All?

People writing (online) often claim to be disengaged from mass media (in which I include social media) - or having a "fast" from it. But in reality this (much lake fasting from food) this does not mean a total cessation of contact, but actually means being selective and cutting down the amount of what is consumed. 

This is because the mass media is so pervasive and attention-grabbing that one could only avoid it by ceasing social (and economic) activity. 

Furthermore, and increasingly, participation is mandatory - for example in the dissemination of official and corporate information, and access to restricted services, it is assumed/ insisted that people have smart phones with them at all times. 

I notice this, because I don't have an SP - but that is only possible because I have retired from work, and am prepared to do-without some permissions and conveniences. And also because all my family have smartphones, and I sometimes substitute my eight-inch "tablet" computer.

But for most people, significant levels of exposure to the mass media is literally unavoidable - so the best and most that can be managed is (as I said) to be selective and reduce the amount and time-spent in usage and consumption. 

To have significant chunks of time away from it. 

Is there any positive reason to engage with mass media? 

Well, of course - like almost everything - the media are only evil overall, and not in every respect. So selectivity can - in principle, lead us to engage more with good stuff, and minimize severely the bad stuff. 

Yet, the bad stuff cannot altogether be avoided; partly because it is everywhere (including in public spaces) and partly from our own inevitable weaknesses that will prevail at times, and probably often. 

One other thing I would mention as potentially helpful, is to get an idea of what the totalitarian Establishment are trying to do to us - what is their overall and long-term strategy for Mankind; and what is their current propaganda preparing us for? 

We get this, pretty much, from observing our own spontaneous responses, and the responses of people around us, to this kind of media manipulation. 

By asking how does this "story" or "information" make me feel - and how does it affect people around me? 

That is, probably, pretty-much what it was intended to do. 

Since the Litmus Test issues (large and smaller) are strategic, they include easily-detected unsubtle and direct attempted manipulations, as well as indirect and subtler "soft sell" aspects. 

These can be picked-up and self-monitored quite quickly, without need for sustained engagement - and the initial harms they will do us, can be dealt with - and made the basis for spiritual learning...

If we are ready and willing to repent our own inevitable and frequent sins - which as Christians we always ought to be!