tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46839708268957554802024-03-19T09:08:19.758+00:00Bruce Charlton's NotionsBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger7887125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-1381654021658688222024-03-18T11:48:00.008+00:002024-03-18T12:54:44.982+00:00Some aphorisms on How To Proceed from a baseline in materialistic modernity<p>The only valid place from which to proceed, is a conscious apprehension of the real self: a direct-knowing without words, pictures, symbols, feelings, or logic. </p><p>Negative learning can never point in a positive direction. </p><p>Disillusion is only valuable when it leads to <i>reality </i>- not to another illusion. </p><p>Cynicism causes demotivation, which leads to external control by short-term environmental stimuli. </p><p>However things may have been in other times and places; there is now an absolute need, and no substitute, for living with conscious purpose in a meaningful reality. </p><p>The starting point for discovery of meaning is the purpose of everything; which entails recognizing reality as A Creation. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-41132345993113667512024-03-17T14:27:00.001+00:002024-03-17T14:27:04.025+00:00IPL (Indian Premier League) - a concentrated study in character <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCuC2DXxmCsrxNiYm1nb-mLIy8ENB5BrAGBtCfLjj6NJ4G-s08qztKypFzpI-YsL65X4xsCiaT-nPuXgFZvQ_cQj7ULfGD4-4EytXh7XpsapOdYrq-8QT9BpH4qqRmWuFwi_BHUZ0nQ34qo9nycM6JXpVgtvXAfaTdffuOrY6dTzY0hVOqelHALS5_-_dX" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="446" data-original-width="670" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiCuC2DXxmCsrxNiYm1nb-mLIy8ENB5BrAGBtCfLjj6NJ4G-s08qztKypFzpI-YsL65X4xsCiaT-nPuXgFZvQ_cQj7ULfGD4-4EytXh7XpsapOdYrq-8QT9BpH4qqRmWuFwi_BHUZ0nQ34qo9nycM6JXpVgtvXAfaTdffuOrY6dTzY0hVOqelHALS5_-_dX=w640-h426" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">Maheesh Theekshana - The Sri Lankan who is Chennai Super Kings's resident "mystery spinner" - </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;">in the midst of bowling one of his incomprehensible deliveries</span></div><br /><p></p><p>Last year, my most enjoyable cricket included watching almost all of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2023/05/leadership-and-cricket-ipl-indian.html">the IPL - Indian Premier League</a>. </p><p>It is quite surprising how much I enjoy this, but I think I understand some of the reasons. There are many <i>characters </i>on show - and, while Test Match cricket is the ultimate revelation of character in sport - character become <i>concentrated </i>in the shortest form of cricket. </p><p>Each bowler has only a maximum of 24 legal deliveries - so that every single one counts for something. With only 120 deliveries per innings; each batter is under immense pressure to score quickly, yet too much haste leads to disaster. </p><p>Thus, after each delivery there is a significant shift of probabilities. And as the match reaches its close, the probability-shift per-delivery increases - so that there can be wider and wilder shifts on a ball-by-ball basis.</p><p>All this is enhanced by the <i>stakes.</i> The IPL is by-far the biggest-money competition in cricket; indeed on a per-hour basis, IPL cricket is among the highest paid of all sports. And India is a nation both in-love-with and obsessed-by cricket; and a nation that can flip from euphoria to utter misery, adulation to vilification, in the space of minutes. </p><p>The escalating ball-by-ball pressure is <i>squeezed</i> against the skills of the player - honed by years of practice, but prone to the vagaries of form and the unique match situation. </p><p>At the end of all this, it is character that often shines-through. Some characters break, others transcend the situation. </p><p>And there can be only one winner.</p><p>Yet, on another day - in another situation, the personnel may be reversed: the once-mighty may be brought low, and the recently-humiliated may triumph. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-26482236262409014282024-03-17T09:13:00.006+00:002024-03-17T09:55:07.911+00:00Self-improvements must now come from the True Self. Problems of attaining both goodness and higher consciousness<p>It used to be almost universal that becoming more-good, a better person, was a thing that was imposed from externally. </p><p>Society <i>imposed </i>values in a mandatory and exclusive fashion; or maybe the individual's role was to <i>choose </i>(from available external options) what set-of-values he would impose on himself. </p><p>And when (with the advent of "romanticism") the increasingly-alienated people of The West began to become concerned with attaining higher consciousness; the solution was presented in similar terms: as externally-defined methods or techniques that were practiced until habitual. </p><p><br /></p><p>But we cannot, anymore, impose goodness from outside; neither can we achieve a higher, more spiritual or romantic consciousness by learning techniques. </p><p>Both goodness and higher consciousness need to be be <i>discovered </i>within - and their sources are different, albeit related. </p><p>They are related because attaining higher consciousness requires that our selves simultaneously be aligned with divine creation: only from a basis of harmony with God's creative intent, can we "connect" with our <a href="https://www.francisberger.com/blog/the-dangers-of-magnifying-and-amplifying-false-selves">True Selves</a> within, and with The World all around us. </p><p><br /></p><p>All of which explains both the failure of all systematic attempts to raise human consciousness, and also the failures of Christian (and other) churches to attain their goals. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are, it turns out, serious problems with what used to be standard procedures for self-improvement. </p><p>First that we are unwilling to leave-off from seeking external solutions. We want answers to come from public discourse, and be applicable generally. </p><p>Another problem is that we are not spontaneously <i>conscious</i> of our True Selves; and are instead conscious of a variety of superficial and "false" selves that have been constructed by our net-evil society interacting with those of our values that are dissonant-with or opposed-to divine creation. </p><p>In other words, our consciousness (that from-which we are aware) is not located inside the True Self, but needs to discover and become aware of it. </p><p><br /></p><p>Since we are creatures of mixed motivations, it is difficult for this state of awareness-of-True Self to be sustained - we are easily distracted by mundane considerations that seem to promise current gratifications, or seem more urgent. </p><p>After all, during this mortal life <i>almost</i>-anything can seem in the here-and-now - and in a way it <u>is!</u> - more urgent than the meaning and direction of divine creation - including our death and resurrection.</p><p>Furthermore, the True Self cannot be discovered by the exercise of Will Power - if (as is usually the case) <i>that </i>Will is located in a an external-false self!</p><p><br /></p><p>So, to escape the Normal Human Condition of alienated consciousness is alliance with the powers of this-worldly evil, turns out to be a completely new and <i>different kind</i> of problem than anything else we are ever likely to have heard-of or tried!</p><p>To <i>genuinely </i>improve ourselves is not just difficult (that has always been the case) but traditional-methods diligently pursued - indeed "methods" as such! - are at best useless, and may well make things even-worse. </p><p>Which helps explain why genuine self-improvement (whether of goodness or higher consciousness) seems only rarely and temporarily to be achieved. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-21136752687539802992024-03-16T08:34:00.001+00:002024-03-16T09:28:33.317+00:00The utter uselessness of hedonic pragmatism as moral discernmentA couple of days ago I devised another new name for the almost universal basis of moral discourse and assertions of moral behaviour in the world today: <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/03/hedonic-pragmatism-is-not-christian.html">hedonic pragmatism</a>.<div><br /></div><div>What is striking about this, is that - although almost everybody talks (almost all the time) about practical measures to improve human happiness or reduce human misery; the whole business is absolutely useless and goes nowhere. </div><div><br /></div><div>Obviously. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is no objective or coherent way of reasoning about such matters as whether political change/ social policy X, or the leadership of person Y, is likely to lead to greater overall happiness or reduce misery - and, more strikingly, no way to discover this even in retrospect. </div><div><br /></div><div>The outcome of moral discussion is almost wholly predicted by assumptions, and observations about what has happened or might happen seem to make no difference whatsoever. On the basis of assumptions and <i>not </i>of observations, X or Y is either good or bad, the consequences are (or have been) good or bad. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are apparently no limits and no agreed discernments. After some political change a nation might rapidly descend into a maelstrom of starvation, theft, rape and murder - even civil war - and there may be a majority consensus who will argue that the change was nonetheless a <i>very</i> good thing. Examples abound. </div><div><br /></div><div>Vast resources and effort of time are expended on discovering, generating, and propagating "facts" - but they make no significant difference to moral evaluations - the more people talk about "evidence", the more irrelevant it becomes. The more people talk about rational decision making, the greater the tyranny of ideology. </div><div><br /></div><div>Rather than deploring this state of affairs, we ought to accept it as a fact of our time and place; and act accordingly to withdraw from the utter futility and uselessness of hedonic pragmatism. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">**</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Note added</b>: This is another in a long series of posts here about <i>the primacy of assumptions</i> - which ultimately are <i>metaphysical </i>assumptions; and how <i>these </i>- not experiences, not facts, not evidence - are what shape our relationship with the world. And Therefore how we need (yes <i>need</i>) to become aware of our own basic assumptions, and need then to examine them. Because <b>if the assumptions are wrong, then <i>everything </i>will be wrong</b>. </div>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-79596994097492575712024-03-15T08:31:00.004+00:002024-03-15T09:13:12.735+00:00Not Even Trying is the new normal, and represents mass affiliation to evil<p>A while ago I wrote a little book about the corruption of science for which I devised the title <a href="https://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/">Not Even Trying</a> - with respect to scientists and truth. </p><p>But, except at the highest levels - where the agenda is actively evil - the strategic and inbuilt attitude of not even trying to perform one's designated function; is absolutely normal, mainstream in The West. </p><p><br /></p><p>Mainstream politicians of all ideologies and parties claim to favour economic growth, or military strength, or law and order - but none of them are trying to achieve these at the level of strategy - no matter how much low and micro-level efforts are put into such goals. </p><p>In practice, all positive working level initiatives are long-term undermined and overwhelmed by the middle managerial indifference to designated functionality. </p><p>Thus an individual doctor or nurse may have genuine concern with the health of patients, but health systems are not even trying to improve the health of people - but instead pursue a mixture of middle managerial power-seeking and careerism with the deep agendas of totalitarianism, or spiteful destruction. </p><p><br /></p><p>Or consider transport, which is mostly by roads. At the low level and short-term of businesses attempting to establish good deliveries and logistics, there may be a genuine focus on functionality. </p><p>But local and national politicians and the civil service are not even trying to improve transport; instead using their control of resources and regulatory means to degrade and close roads and slow communications; and to render vehicles inefficient and ineffective - especially by means of the fake-environmental agenda linked to "carbon" and "climate change". </p><p>And above this level are the Western-based global establishment whose evil agenda is conscious and deliberate; who are now not even trying to enable their supposed totalitarian policies to operate. "They" are instead using the overall power to create generalized chaos by multiple means: mass migrations, race war, inter-national war, the destruction of agriculture and international trade, encouragement of disease and mass poisoning etc. etc. </p><p> </p><p>What we have is a world where those who have power, wealth, high status; are <i>not even trying</i> to use these resources to attain positive functional goals. </p><p>Yet they are <i>not </i>instead, as through much of history, instead using their control of resources for long-term self-enrichment of their clan or people. We are <b><i>not </i></b>dealing with "normal" human incompetence , errors, or mere corruption. </p><p>Instead, there is a profound <b>malaise of values</b>. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are active, <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=leftism+double-negative">double-negative</a>, <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=value+inversion">inverted</a> ideologies at work and dominant; which is exactly why such trends are not self-correcting but instead robust and still-increasing. </p><p>What we are witnessing is, in other words, the all-but unopposed (because invisible or denied) <i>triumph of evil on a very large scale...</i></p><p>Evil in the hearts of Men is always present; but now it is manifested in allegiance to a multi-level Satanic alliance in opposition to God... And to divine creation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Because, ultimately, it is Men's opposition to divine creation which leads to deliberate dysfunctionality and bureaucratic indifference - to the phenomenon of Not Even Trying to perform one's designated role. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-59041432973840860592024-03-14T22:28:00.004+00:002024-03-14T22:45:04.362+00:00Optimism is Not a Christian virtue!<p>That's it really... </p><p>(Just a <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2021/04/christians-have-to-hope-but-what-does.html">reminder</a>.) </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-56150748930268353682024-03-14T09:21:00.006+00:002024-03-14T12:18:09.788+00:00Why does the problem of evil lead to loss of Christian faith - but only in the "modern" era?<p>It has become a commonplace observation that Modern people tend to lose faith when they experience pain, suffering - in a word evil. </p><p>It is therefore assumed - and this appears to be true quite often - that such experiences as bereavement, illness, famine, war... will tend to induce Christians to lose their faith on the basis that these are incompatible with a God supposed to have created everything, and be both Good and Omnipotent. </p><p>The reasoning goes that if mortal life is suffering from evil, then <b><i>that</i> </b>idea of God cannot be true - therefore Christianity must be false. </p><p><br /></p><p>My point here is that <i>this reason</i> for loss of Christian faith is a Modern and "Western" phenomenon -- something that seems to have been a feature only of the "modern" era, which might be asserted to have begun (in Western Europe) around 1500, become common (in some groups) in the middle 1700s - and socially-dominant from the later 1800s; until nowadays it is all-but universal. </p><p><br /></p><p>Nowadays in the West it is quite normal for previously devout churchgoing Christians to experience that their <b>faith is At Least <i>strongly challenged</i> by extreme adversity</b>; by personal experience of the evils of this mortal life. </p><p>Yet, there really is very little evidence of this happening in the first 3/4 of Christianity - it is recorded, but exceptional - despite at-least equally great (perhaps greater) human suffering. </p><p>Indeed <i>the opposite</i> was more usual: the assumption that the more humans suffered, the more devoutly Christian they became. </p><p>For instance; in a medieval work like Piers Plowman (c 1380-1400) the starving and diseased poor were generally regarded as better Christians (on average) than the idle and luxurious rich. </p><p>It was indeed a commonplace that peace, prosperity, and comfort were the main enemies of Christianity. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words; with the advent and spread of Modernity, there has been a <i>reversal </i>of the effect of evil experiences on people. </p><p>I believe that the reason has been that <b><a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=development+consciousness">modern <i>consciousness </i>has changed from the pre-modern</a></b> - "consciousness" meaning (roughly) our degree of self-awareness, and the way our minds spontaneously interpret the world. </p><p>Modern consciousness apparently <i>began </i>in the upper and educated classes, giving the earliest inklings and examples among the likes of poets and writers; and spread progressively downwards through almost-whole Western populations - albeit probably less-so in <i>other </i>places and cultures. </p><p>But it is <i>modern </i>consciousness that has led to our explicit and personal awareness of the "problem of evil". </p><p><br /></p><p>This seems to me one of the major ways in which our basic situation in the world has changed. The experience of evil has always been part of life; but the <i>response </i>of people has almost inverted; exactly because modern Man experiences <i>himself </i>qualitatively differently from pre-modern times. </p><p>Adult modern man is spontaneously (almost universally) cut-off and "alienated" from God, spirits, indeed the world of the spirit which <i>used to be</i> either spontaneously apparent in ancient times - or (later) was easily evoked by religious symbolism, language, ritual and (in general) Christian societal organization. </p><p>What is obvious - indeed apparently unavoidable - to modern consciousness; was invisible or insignificant to most people in the past. </p><p>Insofar as modern man is <i>passive </i>he does not experience God, and is atheist - hence unChristian. </p><p><br /></p><p>The particular power of the experience of the problem of evil in losing Christian faith is that modern Man surveys the claims of Christianity <i>from outside</i>. </p><p>Pre-modern Man was spontaneously "inside" Christianity; hence he mostly <i>did not even notice</i> the contradiction between the existence of evil and assertion of a God who is both Omnipotent and Good.</p><p>Nowadays - surveying Christian claims "objectively", modern man can hardly fail to notice the contradictions. It seems merely rational to abandon belief in a contradiction. </p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, there are innumerable long and complex rationalizations as to how it is possible for God to have created everything, and also be omnipotent - and yet there be evil in the world. </p><p>Yet these arguments have, for many and various reasons (including that they are, in my opinion, all of them fundamentally incoherent!), <b>failed to convince</b>. </p><p>In practice; the stark and observable experiences of evil powerfully refute the idea of a personal, all-creating, omnipotent and wholly-good God <i>in the context of modern consciousness</i>. </p><p>In this context; so long as Christians <b>Insist </b>that God <b>Must Be</b> creator-of-all, <i>and </i>omnipotent, <i>and </i>wholly-Good - for so long will the experience of evil lead quite naturally to the abandonment of Christianity. </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: small;">Note: The answer, as I see it, is to abandon the idea of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=omni-god">an Omni-God</a>. In other words, now that we recognize the incoherence of a wholly-Good God as all-creating and omnipotent - it is the attributes of all-creating and omnipotence that should be discarded. The alternative path of insisting-upon God's omnipotence and all-creating nature is - in practice - to move Christianity towards the mind-set of Judaism or Islam - where God is <i>not </i>argued to be "good" by Man's evaluations - but rather the argument goes in the opposite direction: that whatever God <i>does</i>, is what counts as good. It is the difference between "God is Good", and "Good is God" - <a href="https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2012/03/arthurian-torso-cs-lewis-on-charles.html">as Charles Williams put it</a>. In other words, when Christians find themselves asserting - whether explicitly or implicitly - that Good is God, then they have moved out of Christianity and into the theology of strict monotheism. </span></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-1173460222563272512024-03-13T08:47:00.006+00:002024-03-13T14:23:08.980+00:00I share in some Oscars for Poor Things (sort of...)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsbJDE6WgTWN39xGQgQQ0t_q7QJFCpzZVvTjeImKcNVzZVp7mHkAXYC8-HSDuUvvJGUBBtLU7tsnBgaxGziBEvUqM1orRxST_okKGTAyS9spIdHy9bViSEhj8UjZiUk3m5e_YYL80GsFMzddAAhOZeb8PaW7tgZamWS0rJ1r8HFqR02YiEhJTTBBnqV-85" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1000" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsbJDE6WgTWN39xGQgQQ0t_q7QJFCpzZVvTjeImKcNVzZVp7mHkAXYC8-HSDuUvvJGUBBtLU7tsnBgaxGziBEvUqM1orRxST_okKGTAyS9spIdHy9bViSEhj8UjZiUk3m5e_YYL80GsFMzddAAhOZeb8PaW7tgZamWS0rJ1r8HFqR02YiEhJTTBBnqV-85=w640-h360" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">She's crying because <i>I </i>wasn't invited - presumably </span></div><p></p><p>I noticed, rather belatedly, that <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/01/poor-things-my-first-hollywood-movie.html">"my" movie</a> (which I haven't actually seen) seems to have scooped-up most of the <a href="https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2024">2024 Oscars</a> that were left-over from Oppenheimer (which also I haven't seen). </p><p>Since the movie was based-on the work by Alasdair Gray that I had <i>most </i>to do with the writing-of; clearly my contribution must have been decisive. </p><p>I should add that nobody from the film's production team has yet been in contact to thank me for making them so much money and prestige. </p><p>Ingrates... </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-47958454435283433252024-03-13T07:43:00.008+00:002024-03-14T09:24:10.077+00:00Hedonic pragmatism is not Christian morality <p>It is <i>understandable </i>that people would want to do practical and maybe-effective things intended to make themselves (or other people they care about) happier, or suffer less - this could be termed <i>hedonic pragmatism</i>. </p><p>Understandable... But this isn't Christian morality - it's just what any animal would do. In an appropriate environment, either instinctively or by learning from experience; animals will tend to do what gives pleasure or avoids pain.</p><p>This <i>Not Christian Moral</i> status is unaffected by translating hedonic pragmatism to politics and social policy - e.g. by discussing how to make ourselves (or those we care about) happier, more functional, wealthier, more secure, higher status, more attractive (to those we desire to attract) etc etc.</p><p>...I emphasize that hedonic pragmatism is not <i>Christian</i> morality; but it is the moral basis of <b>materialistic leftism</b> in all its many varieties - which include socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, healthism - also (supposedly "right wing") conservatism, republicanism, libertarianism, nationalism - and indeed all liberal-Christianity and (<i>de facto</i>, if not in theory) all mainstream Christian churches. </p><p>(Thus all the large, powerful, wealthily, or high status Christian churches prioritize Not Christian Morality above Christian aims: they run their churches within, and supportive-of, most of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=Litmus+tests">the core strategic priorities of materialistic leftism</a>.)</p><p>All of these isms and weak-religions place this-worldly gratification as first priority. </p><p><br /></p><p>And therefore all the rival forms of hedonic pragmatism - such as the debates, battles and wars of mainstream politics - are just <i>inter-departmental infighting about the best methods to reach the same general goal</i>; or else about the <i>priorities </i>within that general goal; or sometimes disputes about <i>who </i>ought we most ought to cared about.</p><p><br /></p><p>Only a very few <i>individual persons </i>(not institutions) who are serious religious people, of whom only some are Christians, have as genuine life-priority something that is Not hedonic pragmatism. </p><p>And these are focused on life-beyond-life, life after biological death - the fate of the soul/spirit following the death of the body. </p><p><a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2023/06/water-and-spirit-this-world-and-next-in.html">Jesus's Kingdom is <i>not</i> of <i>this </i>world</a>. </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">Note: This post was stimulated by a couple of <a href="https://www.francisberger.com/blog/please-refrain-from-criticizing-the-unrepentant-liars-and-manipulators-on-our-side">satirical</a> <a href="https://www.francisberger.com/blog/the-unrepented-lies-and-deceit-of-our-side-are-acceptable-and-necessary">rants</a> from Frank Berger!</span></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-9967092160677558872024-03-12T12:02:00.006+00:002024-03-12T16:31:05.535+00:00Blacksmith slave to an evil Lord: a parable for here-and-now<p>Assume you are a blacksmith and slave to an evil Lord...</p><p>(If it helps, you might imagine yourself a Saxon under the <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=Normans">Norman yoke</a>.) </p><p><br /></p><p>The Lord is evil in the sense that he organizes his entire estate to provide-for a gang dedicated to theft, arson, rape, torture and (just plain) murder. </p><p>(Pretty much your standard Norman, in other words.) </p><p><br /></p><p>As a slave you are dispensable to the Lord, and your two options in life are therefore: </p><p>1. To do what you are told - or </p><p>2. Be killed. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, your freedom of moral action is restricted to refusing an order and getting killed for it. </p><p>It can further be understood that if <i>you</i> do not do what you are told, there will be another who shall take your place and do it instead. So your refusal to do an evil act is <i>purely </i>moral (i.e between you and God) - it does not have any material effect. </p><p>And let us further assume that you have a beloved wife and children, and if you are killed then they will die of starvation. </p><p><br /></p><p>The above scenario is not terribly far fetched, and there must have been many millions of people throughout history who lived in a way that approximates to the above. </p><p>Furthermore, to anticipate; I would like you to draw out the <i>moral analogies</i> between the above situation; and the conditions under which you and I live. </p><p><br /></p><p>As a blacksmith, much of what you do is of general value: you make ploughs and sickles and the like. </p><p>Yet anything and everything you make is <i>ultimately</i> (even if indirectly) used to sustain the evil Lord and his purpose. Much of the food grown goes to sustain his murderous gang, and so forth. </p><p>But let's say, you feel morally OK so long as you are making ploughs and household goods, because they have at least a <i>dual </i>usage - good as well as evil... </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Then </i>the Lord instructs you to make <i>nothing but</i> weapons - swords, halberds, spears... These are only going to be used for intimidation and violence. </p><p>(But they also have some kind of defensive role - keeping away the other evil Lords who would slaughter you, and your family.) </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Then </i>the Lord says that you must make iron instruments of torture, of various types. </p><p>(These devices have no use but to inflict pain: they are <i>for </i>evil and evil only.) </p><p><br /></p><p><i>Then </i>the Lord requires you to use your expertise in metals to assist in the process of torture - you will in fact become the Lord's expert torturer. </p><p>(Now you are <i>personally </i>required to take an <i>active </i>role in the evil Lord's evil work.) </p><p><br /></p><p>The question is: <i><b>at what point in this escalation</b></i>, if any, is it right and necessary to refuse, and to be-killed, and your family also be-killed?</p><p><br /></p><p>And, however you answer this; the <i>moral </i>point of this parable I ask you to grasp; is that <i>these are all points on a quantitative scale</i> - because <i>whatever</i> you do, you are materially assisting the work of evil. </p><p>To close the loop: in this global totalitarian world that you and I inhabit; although the situation is less extreme and clear-cut: we are all the blacksmith slave. </p><p>And I suggest we all ought, at some level, to acknowledge the moral facts and take personal responsibility; <i>not </i>in order to change the world for the better - but in order that we may <i>repent</i>. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-37264753133649048942024-03-12T08:44:00.002+00:002024-03-12T08:44:23.246+00:00From where we now are, all valid reforms would destroy The System<p>If we are honest; we know that our civilization is <i>so</i> deeply rotten, in so <i>many </i>ways, that it cannot be reformed. </p><p>Not only is their no significant desire for Goodness (for virtue, truth and beauty - for honesty and coherence); but even if there were, effectiveness changes to reform our kind of society - to base it upon goodness rather than evils - would necessarily destroy it. </p><p>This is important: genuine attempts to improve our society morally, and in terms of truth and beauty - will tend to destroy it*. </p><p>And when our civilization goes-down, most of the people in the world (<i>billions</i>) will die, and probably over a timescale of months or a few years. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words; the vast population of the world is enabled and sustained by <i>intrinsically </i>evil practices that are <i>fundamental</i>: by all kinds of tyranny, depersonalization, rule by torment and fear, bribery by hedonic corruption. Man is subordinated to abstract Systems which are inhuman and anti-human. </p><p>The reality of the human situation is, indeed, so horrible that a majority will ignore or deny it. And indeed I am not suggesting that we should be aware of it in any kind of frequent of continuous fashion - that is <i>not </i>how Christians ought to be living! </p><p>And of course we are not wholly evil, and there is much goodness in the world; yet the nature of things is that we do depend on evil to survive, and for many of our comforts and joys. </p><p><br /></p><p>It has always been thus, in an ultimate sense - which is why thoughtful and wise Men have always known that this mortal life is insufficient, it is <i>not good enough</i>. </p><p>And God agrees! - else God would not have found it necessary to enable Jesus Christ to offer the only real and possible answer to the inadequacy of the human condition in this world. </p><p>But what we have here-and-now is different from past situations in many ways. For the first time in history, religion has been reduced to insignificance or deleted altogether from the lives of vast numbers - and especially those with the greatest power, wealth and influence. </p><p>The scale of things is larger than ever; the evils are more extreme - in that multiple value-<i>inversions </i>are world-wide, strategic, and imposed top-down; and because overall trends are strongly adverse. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think all this needs candid acknowledgment, and ought to form a framing-background to more mundane and everyday concerns. But having-made such an acknowledgement of reality, we each have a personal quest in life; and <i>that </i>should be our primary concern. </p><p>Things are what they are, and that is not a reason for despair - because to despair is to lack faith in the goodness and power of God the Creator.</p><p>Ultimately, this mortal world is not an end-point, and never could be. We are visitors; and our job is to love and to learn <i>while we are here</i>. Our world exists for <i>that</i> purpose - not to be or become perfect. </p><p><br /></p><p>The fact that this world is intrinsically and inescapably bound-up with evil is just one of the facts of life. But <i>our </i>destination lies beyond this world; and any who desire it can look forward to inhabiting a world which does <i>not </i>depend on evil for its functioning. </p><p><br /></p><p>*<span style="font-size: small;">Note: On the other hand; our civilization has-been and is purposively and strategically <i>destroying itself</i>; with the active connivance of the globalist totalitarian ruling class. Destruction is inevitable on both sides; and whether we stick with the present System, or change in in the direction of Good. </span></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73798497389237746222024-03-11T13:13:00.004+00:002024-03-11T13:13:38.205+00:00Is Douglas Adams overrated? <p><a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=douglas+adams">Douglas Adams</a> - of <i>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy</i> fame - would have been 72 today, if he had not died in 2001. </p><p>Is he overrated? <i>Yes </i>- in the sense that he is regarded by many people as one of the <i>great </i>comic <i>writers</i>. </p><p>My evaluation is that Adams was only <i>great </i>in Hitchhikers Guide, all his other work being second-rate (or worse) - therefore he is essentially a one-hit-wonder, rather than "great". </p><p>Furthermore; it is only <i>the first and second BBC radio series</i> of Hitchhiker's Guide broadcast 1978-80) that were truly, unsurpassably, great - and all other versions and variations of HHGG are significantly worse. </p><p><br /></p><p>Yet, Adams cannot take all the credit for the greatness of the radio HHGG. </p><p>It is instead a masterly collaboration; in which actor Peter Jones (as The Book) is vital; and so are the BBC Radiophonic Workshop; and - in general - the producers and directors responsible for creating the "soundscape" which was marvelous and unlike anything else. </p><p>Of course Adams's radio <i>scripts </i>are absolutely superb. I tuned into Episode Five of Series One, Sunday 5th April 1978, shortly after the programme had started. And, knowing nothing whatsoever about what I was listening to - I was immediately stunned by the sheer brilliance and originality, and captivated by the world Adams had created. </p><p><br /></p><p>So I do not under-rate Douglas Adams - far from it!</p><p>But The LP recording (which I bought in 1979) was somewhat less good than the radio version; the novelizations (beginning from 1979) were nothing like as good as the radio; the 1981 BBC TV show was worse than any of the above... and so forth. </p><p>After the arc of the radio series one and two had finished in 1980, Adams's work described a progressively <i>downward </i>trajectory in quality. The later books were almost embarrassingly thin on ideas - it felt like the authors was squeezing harder and harder, to extract ever-fewer drops of inspiration out of ever-staler old ideas. </p><p><br /></p><p>We ought to judge artists by their <i>best </i>work. As such, Adams best work was his earliest radio work, and he maintained that level for two years, that is six hours of radio. </p><p>Having experienced his best work before reading the novelizations; my evaluation of Adams <i>as a writer of books</i> was that he was always <i>less </i>than first-rate. </p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, insofar as Douglas Adams's books are regarded as first-rate - he <i>is </i>indeed overrated. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-47212177052605849292024-03-10T10:15:00.006+00:002024-03-10T10:15:47.656+00:00Abraham gets only 60% for "obedience" with respect to sacrificing Isaac; because God Most values "un-obedience"<p>William Arkle distinguished a <i>way </i>above and out-from the traditional dilemma of obedience <i>versus </i>disobedience to God; by considering the question from the larger perspective of God's creative intention with respect to Men (discussed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGEgN1pe-D8">in the post following this</a>). </p><p><br /></p><p>In an letter to Jon Flint* (that I have slightly edited below), William Arkle discusses the Bible episode in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=KJV">Genesis 22</a>; when Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his son Issac - and obeys this instruction; but God intervenes and stops this at the last moment. </p><p><i>When Abraham "passed" his test over his son's killing, to my mind he only got 60% for obedience. </i></p><p><i>If he had said to God "This is not like you, I won't do it", he would have got 100 for unobedience. </i></p><p><i>Thus God could foresee problems with the Jewish people</i>. </p><p><br /></p><p>Arkle explains that un-obedience to God arises-from the black and white of disobedience and obedience being in conflict. </p><p>In other words; what God most wanted was not that Abraham would obey, or disobey, a <i>specific </i>instruction that he regarded as coming from God; but that Abraham would instead recognize that the real and proper question was at an altogether larger and more general scale. </p><p>Neither dis-obedience nor obedience was required, but un-obedience. </p><p><i>What arises from this conflict is unobedience, which is a condition beyond the relatively automatic stages of dis-obedience or obedience, and has become autonomous and calculated and chosen.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>Both disobedience and obedience are sub-optimal. </p><p>Arkle suggests that dis-obedience to God can become addictive, leading to a psychotic condition where the disobedient person becomes <i>driven</i>, and almost unable to choose - like a junky. </p><p>I think Arkle partly means that disobedience is usually done for short-term and <i>hedonic </i>reasons, and that an hedonic (immediate-pleasure-seeking) attitude to life carries all the lethal consequences of heroin addiction: its hedonic effectiveness always diminishes; getting pleasure gets to be all-consuming; life, thought, motivation become focused around blindly serving the agent of pleasure. </p><p>Disobedience to authority is therefore self-destructive, like the negativism of a young child who does the opposite of what he is old - something which would rapidly be lethal, unless loving parents were available to step-in. </p><p><br /></p><p>But on the other side; while obedience is necessary and good in children; for grown-ups too much obedience can also be harmful; as seen in Abraham obeying an order that (if he truly understood and knew God) he <i>should </i>have realized was incompatible with God's Goodness - hence <i>could not</i> truly have come-from God. </p><p>Arkle comments that "<a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=oneness">oneness</a>" teachings (so common in New Age spirituality) lead towards oneness becoming a form of "super-obedience", in which the individual is taught to regard himself as "a nothing" - incapable of discernment. </p><p>In other words, with oneness, the individual disappears-into the divine so that "obedience" is utterly impersonal, unchosen, automatic - not so much obeying as annihilating all possibility of anything else, and becoming an unconscious cog in the divine-mechanism.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thus obedience, taken to the ultimate, tends to an un-Christian (more Hindu or Buddhist) ideal of the goal of consciousness and free will (and being itself) being dissolved-into the immanence of the divine. </p><p>To put it another way; obedience to God should not and cannot be the highest ideal without becoming unChristian or anti-Christian. </p><p>Obedience is only valid within the larger and modifying context of knowing and loving God; and God's ultimate wish for us is that we should transcend obedience to become an un-obedient <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/03/mans-creative-freedom-is-part-of-gods.html">participant, and eventual collaborator, in God's creative work</a>. </p><p><br /></p><p>*<a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2023/05/review-of-divine-friendship-by-william.html">I have reviewed a selection from these letters</a>.</p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-28493208619366620772024-03-10T08:43:00.004+00:002024-03-10T08:43:35.104+00:00Those Arkle moments... Something I do when threatened by incipient angst-despair<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifYmxJvVwXqpLVWZctAX_ESbSDMsFMUFqYluEba2KJhFhUB2BPiHYXl5gTCHauCuXlqzSpTv_avepFrd1wkG72DOARl4XcELoygKGfKJZCTCFCnJXyiACHZsCXpfuMco97MgoP7h_unEYNlSKkXkxjli4rWv4MUATe7pgKr736G6CK2ELMZiStxQ_pDgjq/s2048/Arkle%20facing%20mouth%20closed.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1366" data-original-width="2048" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifYmxJvVwXqpLVWZctAX_ESbSDMsFMUFqYluEba2KJhFhUB2BPiHYXl5gTCHauCuXlqzSpTv_avepFrd1wkG72DOARl4XcELoygKGfKJZCTCFCnJXyiACHZsCXpfuMco97MgoP7h_unEYNlSKkXkxjli4rWv4MUATe7pgKr736G6CK2ELMZiStxQ_pDgjq/w400-h266/Arkle%20facing%20mouth%20closed.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />It is more than a decade since I engaged seriously with the work of <a href="https://williamarkle.blogspot.com/2014/11/william-arkle.html">William Arkle</a> - at first on this blog and the archive blog previously linked, culminating in writing sleeve notes for <a href="https://williamarkle.blogspot.com/2017/12/sleeve-notes-to-music-of-william-arkle.html">a CD of his music</a> and an introduction for <a href="https://williamarkle.blogspot.com/2019/09/bruce-charltons-introduction-to.html">a new edition of his first book</a>. <p></p><p>As usually happens with writers who have made a significant and lasting contribution to my philosophy of life; I have pretty much ceased to re-read entire works by Arkle - but have instead "assimilated" some of his special qualities into my memories; where I can get access to them, and benefit from them, by thinking. </p><p>I have always - since I first heard of Arkle back in 1977 - had an inkling of this potential benefit, as if I sensed it there but just out of sight, around a corner. I needed to spend some time marinating in Arkle's writings (and, to a lesser extent, his pictures) before I "caught" this quality for myself. </p><p>Among Arkle's particular, indeed unique, qualities that I value; is a positive and quietly confident attitude to reality. This has been something that has <i>often </i>lifted me from an oppressive mood of one sort or another - from existential angst about "the human condition", or fear about what might happen, or despair over the direction of the world; or small scale things like confusion over what I ought to be doing or ruminations over "wasting my time". </p><p>Arkle's approach to life - which, according to those who knew him well, he seems personally to have exemplified to a considerable degree, is one that cuts-free-from and rises above such negative broodings, disappointments, and the sense of being trapped by external circumstance. </p><p>Indeed, there are few others who are able to do this for me, and nobody else so strongly - perhaps because Arkle goes beyond the double-negation of palliating life; and sets the whole thing into an eternal adventure of what might be termed deification (or theosis, sanctification, divinization... but with a particular meaning). </p><p>In other words, the idea that the primary purpose of God's creation was to enable each of us who wants this, incrementally to develop towards the same nature and level of God* - so as ultimately to become not only a <i>participant </i>in divine creation (which we already are) but a friend of God, and a <i>co-creator</i>. </p><p>There aren't many other thinkers or theologies who can inspire me in this very practical and immediate way - and so I continue to value and refer to William Arkle. </p><p><br /></p><p>*<span style="font-size: small;">Arkle's point is that although God is prior to all other Beings, because the primary creator within-whose creation we dwell - this is analogous to the relation of parents with growing children. When a child has fully grown-up, the <i>ideal </i>loving relationship between child and parents <i>should </i>have changed from the authority/ obedience-based relationship of early childhood, to one of harmonious "collaboration" between mature individual persons. That possibility is what Arkle envisages as God's goal in creation - not so much as an end-point, but as a step towards qualitatively greater and ever-expanding creative possibilities. </span></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-7450513713748847222024-03-09T09:09:00.003+00:002024-03-09T09:39:45.328+00:00Saturday morning music - Soave sia il vento from Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkYnfu30q08" width="320" youtube-src-id="lkYnfu30q08"></iframe></div><br /><p>A sublime and heart-breaking trio for the rare combination of Soprano, Contralto and Bass-Baritone; from Mozart's opera to a rather cynical and heart-less libretto by Da Ponte: <i>Cosi Fan Tutte</i> - meaning "all women behave like that" (i.e. they are fickle and unfaithful)*. </p><p>This is as good as it gets in opera. Things to notice (on a second listening) include the wonderful orchestral accompaniment on mostly strings with a "murmuring" violin figure throughout and plucked double basses; interjected by subtle woodwind chords. </p><p>Mostly the two female voices harmonize and interweave, while the man's voice forms a kind of <i>basso continuo</i> (like the bass part in baroque music); except for a point near the end when the women hold long notes, and the man rhapsodizes underneath it. </p><p>Austrian conductor Karl Bohm was one of the greatest Mozartians of the 20th century (<i>The </i>premier overall, I would say), and these singers were among the very best of their era in this repertoire. </p><p><br /></p><p>*<span style="font-size: small;">Looking at <a href="https://infogalactic.com/info/Lorenzo_Da_Ponte">Da Ponte's life</a>, you can see why he would believe this about "all" women; and also perceive the self-justificatory reasons for the essentially subversive nature of his libretti. This is a flaw underling all the work he did with Mozart but especially Don Giovanni and Cosi Fan Tutti (considerably less so in the Marriage of Figaro, albeit the plot is distinctly <i>seedy!</i>). Mozart's music can, and does, rise-above, transcend, this underlying hedonic nihilism; nonetheless the tawdry stories sometimes undercut the music. This is one reason why I generally prefer to listen to <i>excerpts </i>of Mozart's Da Ponte operas, rather than listening to the whole piece. By contrast, it is the earnest goodness of (most of) The Magic Flute libretto (by Schikaneder) that helps make it the greatest of all operas; and one that is profitably consumed-whole! </span></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-50095689853798342842024-03-08T08:31:00.021+00:002024-03-08T11:23:53.823+00:00Man's creative freedom is part-of God's "plan of creation" - not an impediment<p>If we consider God's Plan of Creation; the usual descriptions are extremely "top-down" - and have the form of a plan of God's, with each Individual Man's proper role being<i> to choose-to-follow that plan</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>This kind of description implies a <i>negative </i>view of Man's free agency, or at most an ultra-restricted understanding; because (at root) there is <b>only one predetermined answer</b> to the question of "what should I do?" to fulfill God's hopes; and therefore Man's freedom becomes little more than the ability to choose wrongly! </p><p><br /></p><p>Thus if we take a top-down view of God's creation; with Goodness and truth coming from above; Man is assumed to have an essentially negative potential. Men can <i>fail </i>to do what is needed, what they ought to do; but Men cannot succeed creatively. </p><p>(Because God is omnipotent and created everything-from-nothing; Men can add nothing that could could not otherwise be provided by God.) </p><p>Therefore, by traditional Christian theology; Men are not supposed to have the potential to participate positively in creation. </p><p><br /></p><p>Furthermore - because of the idea of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=original+sin">Original Sin</a> - Men will have at least a very strong tendency to do evil; which understanding points either towards each Man's withdrawal and contemplation; or else points towards an attitude of <i>self-negation and obedience. </i></p><p>Obedience to... well, whatever is generally supposed to constitute religious authority (e.g. church leadership, scripture, tradition etc). </p><p>If God is regarded as analogous to an absolute monarch, with a complex and detailed "blueprint" for our betterment, we are at-best God's servants - and each Man's job is to choose to obey God's comprehensive instructions, follow the plan in all respects (even though we do not and cannot comprehend it) - and then (so the theory goes) things will work-out in accordance with divine intentions. </p><p><br /></p><p>Such views may have been normal in the past, and were very-probably correct for Mankind, as Mankind was constituted <i>in the past</i> - when individuals regarded themselves as only semi-differentiated from their social group: their clan, people, nation etc. </p><p>Yet ultimately, and now that we primarily self-experience as <i>individuals</i>; I would say that this traditional understanding has become a profoundly <i>anti</i>-Christian understanding. </p><p>(That is: What was right and inevitable <i>then</i>, has become wrong and avoidable <i>now</i>.)</p><p>Indeed; a religion based-on obedience and the self-image of a servant (in its effect) <i>leaves-out the work of Jesus Christ</i>; consequently it seems much closer to a purely-monotheistic (e.g. Jewish or Islamic) understanding of Man's role and destiny. </p><p><br /></p><p>(To me, <i>that</i> is almost-exactly what A Lot of "modern but trad." Christians seem to be <i>yearning </i>for: I mean, their religion is a version of ancient Judaism, or Islam, in deep essentials - with a superficial top-dressing of Christianized language, and a Jesus that does nothing essential.) </p><p><br /></p><p>A Christian understanding should instead (surely?) take into account that this is a universe where Jesus is also divine, and Men are each - like Jesus - sons or daughters of God; and therefore one in which Men can follow Jesus to divine status. </p><p><br /></p><p>My understanding of God's creation is much more participatory - a "joint-project" of God and Men - and has a <i>necessary </i>and positive creative role for all Men who are capable of conceptualizing it. Here's how I see things: </p><p><br /></p><p>Creation relies-upon Man's freedom for its success. <i>Our</i> creative contributions are vital elements to The Plan; although none are indispensable. </p><p>The set-up is such that we are intended to participate and add-to creation; and every-thing we do in that line is a plus. </p><p>(Despite that the plan continues even if we do nothing to help it.) </p><p>This is because the Plan of Creation is <b>not</b> really a "plan" as such, it is <b>not </b>like a blueprint aiming at a fixed and specific outcome; but creation is instead something that God sets-up and sustains; and this creation is inhabited by Beings (such as Men) each with agency. </p><p>Not by accident do Men have agency!</p><p>Ongoing creation is <i>continually being re-shaped</i> - taking into account the creative activates of Beings. </p><p><br /></p><p>God's creative <i>intentions </i>are quite simple in their general direction: God desires as many as possible Men (an other beings) to choose salvation - that is, to choose resurrection into Heaven after death. That means, ultimately, to choose and commit to live By Love - wholly and eternally. </p><p><i>And also</i>, as a consequence of this attitude, during this mortal life; God desires that as many Men (and other Beings) as possible, should <i>join-with the work of creation</i>, participate in creation, <b>whenever possible</b> - which is done by thinking and acting <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=heart+thinking">from our deepest, real, potentially-eternal "selves"</a> <i>in harmony with</i> divine creation.</p><p>If it is to be genuinely <i>creative</i>, then all thinking and acting from our eternal selves will be in harmony with divine creation - if it is <i>not </i>in harmony with God's creation then real-self-thinking is something that is either without effect, happening only "inside" us; or it acts against divine creation - is <b>evil</b>. </p><p><i>That </i>possibility is, presumably, where the fear of creativity, and the mistaken attempt to avoid it, comes-from. But <i>avoiding </i>creativity is not a "safe option": there are no safe options. </p><p>Here-and-now, with Man as He is; we must be creative and participatory with divine creation, <i>if</i> we are to avoid assimilation to the <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=Litmus+Tests">world-dominating Agenda of Evil</a>. </p><p>In this mortal life; such creative participation is something we can only do relatively-briefly, and in a modest fashion; but it is-happening whenever we are living <i>from </i>our True Selves (not our superficial personalities) in a state of conscious commitment to Love of God and Fellow Men. </p><p>(i.e. The two Great Commandments.) </p><p><br /></p><p>Every time this happens, creation is enriched (and permanently); and we also learn from such experiences <i>what it is to live in Heaven</i> - which experience can be a strong (perhaps decisive) <i>encouragement to choose salvation</i>: Because; only to those who follow Jesus Christ to resurrection can such loving, creative participation become full and everlasting. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-76804112343691078612024-03-06T20:49:00.000+00:002024-03-06T20:49:12.716+00:00Kronenberg lager - an old favourite TV advert<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rfo61QYhTc8" width="320" youtube-src-id="Rfo61QYhTc8"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">[The answer to a riddle and a perfect microcosm of the life of the Viennese musical genius, in 30 seconds...]</span></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><i><span style="font-family: arial;">Hey Schubert!</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">What?</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: arial;">Coming down to the Bierkeller?</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I haven't finished my symphony...</span></p><p><i><span style="font-family: arial;">Come on! - a little Kronenberg will loosen your chords. </span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Now you struck the right note. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>[Cut to Bierkeller]</p><p><i><span style="font-family: arial;">Here Schubert - what about your Unfinished Symphony?</span></i></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">What about my unfinished Kronenberg, eh?</span></p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-8103651642432394652024-03-06T17:04:00.000+00:002024-03-06T17:04:05.260+00:00The movie of Dune Part Two (2024) - good, but a falling-off of quality<p>I have now seen the second, and concluding, part of the 2021 movie of <i>Dune</i>, which I reviewed <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/03/notice-avatar-last-airbender-live.html">a few days ago</a>. </p><p>While <i>Dune Part Two</i> is a mostly-enjoyable movie, and certainly worth watching (although, take ear-plugs if you are going to watch at the cinema - it is <i>painfully </i>loud in parts) - it is significantly-worse than the superb <i>Part One</i>, and does not end in a satisfying way (a very bad fault in any movie). </p><p>If I gave <i>Part One</i> 9/10 (with only a handful of movies such as <i>Return of the King</i>, <i>When Harry Met Sally</i>, and <i>Blade Runner</i> having a perfect-ten score) - I would award <i>Dune Part Two</i> <b>7</b>/10. </p><p>I could list the <i>problems </i>(overlong with slackened tension and interest, too-many too-similar fights, too-much <i>action</i>, too consistently noisy); but the basic fact is that <i>Part One</i> was <b>masterly </b>- and gave-off a sense of continuous control and pacing; <i>Part Two</i> just-isn't. </p><p>It's a shame, but it is very difficult to sustain high quality in any of the arts; and a two/ three year gap certainly cannot have helped. </p><p>Plus, whoever decided on the nature of the ending; made a <i>deliberate </i>sacrifice of <i>this </i>movie to facilitate some (presumed) future sequel... </p><p>Never a good idea in my book: and a deliberate slap-in-the-face of the audience. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-10167237249379211712024-03-04T08:38:00.002+00:002024-03-04T08:38:29.346+00:00Romantic Christianity is Not a "movement", nor does it aspire to form a denomination or church...<p>I have noticed that some traditionalist Christians project-onto "<a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=romantic+christianity">Romantic Christianity</a>" their own notion that it aspires to be some kind of denomination, or church, or - at least - is a would-be organization seeking "recruits". </p><p>Ah well... It does not seem to matter how often I or others make explicit what Romantic Christianity actually <i>is </i>about. </p><p><a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=projection">Projection</a> is, after all, rooted in self-understanding and self-motivation; and it is therefore <i>impossible </i>to overcome unless there is an honest act of empathy - and a wee-bit of sustained <i>effort</i>. </p><p>To understand some-thing entails that we are motivated to... <i>understand </i>it! When our motivations are otherwise, then the inevitable outcome is that we will Not understand it; but will create some kind of bogeyman or straw-man suitable for us to reject, ridicule, or otherwise attack. </p><p>And sufficient honest empathy to grasp what the other chap is actually saying, is - apparently - something that too-many traditional Christians find impossible - or at least undesirable. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-53968381362743961252024-03-03T17:07:00.003+00:002024-03-03T17:07:48.185+00:00An even better archer than Legolas (in the movies) <p>Literally incredible - but (apparently) authentic:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BEG-ly9tQGk" width="320" youtube-src-id="BEG-ly9tQGk"></iframe></div><p><br /></p><p>Indeed, I have only seen one <i>better </i>war archer: Baahubali...</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/riw9U73BBYI" width="320" youtube-src-id="riw9U73BBYI"></iframe></div><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-37980805533760552172024-03-03T12:15:00.004+00:002024-03-03T12:15:26.385+00:00Happy 77th Deathday Aunt Grace Tolkien<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhYPqhQPGJ4qekk0AS6JX69pdZWS5FOMFZ-LxkfIeeBT_w1J2wS2dARMmcqcmIPpVOP32fGyKUDYRy5y5OrpMTC8QnhCjeKp0y6Nhyn23NwzeRZO4ZEdvGH6LrYUAYvj3HY23yzRPfp6LZOuwkiS28FWz7wy6-E24OWzkYE8Ps4lyVQGBIrf8nR8o5bZDwN" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="3672" data-original-width="4896" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhYPqhQPGJ4qekk0AS6JX69pdZWS5FOMFZ-LxkfIeeBT_w1J2wS2dARMmcqcmIPpVOP32fGyKUDYRy5y5OrpMTC8QnhCjeKp0y6Nhyn23NwzeRZO4ZEdvGH6LrYUAYvj3HY23yzRPfp6LZOuwkiS28FWz7wy6-E24OWzkYE8Ps4lyVQGBIrf8nR8o5bZDwN=w400-h300" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi22IYfl5QAlxRIoGGQYos4lRmnQ7McxdPDwa_hPWdAg2HNJFXB7IGnCcRB3bShCr3DtSaxST6RHD_nLR1tIAdOBtYxOvejhxleEaAgrIf-BZ2ZzSf1N6uV0qVZcVUc_b28G2QzQ2JRNDZ2OYxTTUxPUcQmNDCYSlSMLJRWIZMCYdNihudyKxWzBhIoZ8hN" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="3672" data-original-width="4896" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi22IYfl5QAlxRIoGGQYos4lRmnQ7McxdPDwa_hPWdAg2HNJFXB7IGnCcRB3bShCr3DtSaxST6RHD_nLR1tIAdOBtYxOvejhxleEaAgrIf-BZ2ZzSf1N6uV0qVZcVUc_b28G2QzQ2JRNDZ2OYxTTUxPUcQmNDCYSlSMLJRWIZMCYdNihudyKxWzBhIoZ8hN=w400-h300" width="400" /></a></div><br />My wife and I "pay our respects" at the grave of JRR Tolkien's Aunt Grace on something like a weekly basis - and today is the 77th anniversary of her death on 3rd March 1947 - which date <a href="https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/search?q=grace">I contributed</a> to Hammond and Scull's "<a href="https://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/guide.html">Addenda and Corrigenda</a>" to Tolkien's Companion and Guide. <p></p><p>So - <i>Happy Deathday Aunt Grace! </i>- the repository of the Tolkien family's history, and source for the etymology of the surname "Tolkien" as meaning "foolhardy" or "rash-bold".</p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-14170276294064441462024-03-02T11:44:00.001+00:002024-03-02T11:44:35.329+00:00Notice: Avatar the Last Airbender (Live Action TV Series 2024) - and Dune Part One (2021) <p>Just a heads-up for those, like me, who loved <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2015/04/avatar-last-airbender-review-of-tv.html">the 2005-8 cartoon version of <i>Avatar</i></a> - rather surprisingly, the new live-action TV series series of the same story is <i>excellent </i>so far (despite being made by Netflix of 2024). </p><p>I've watched two episodes and am thoroughly enjoying it. </p><p><br /></p><p>I also re-watched the first part of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/"><i>Dune</i>, from 2021</a> (currently also on Netflix); which is confirmed as being (for me) a genuine 5-Star (i.e. top-rated) movie. </p><p>I find it absolutely magnificent, completely gripping, and with a sense of mystery and depth that makes it feel like more than just entertainment. </p><p>(Note: I have <i>not </i>read the book of <i>Dune </i>- it just doesn't grab me.) </p><p>Part Two of <i>Dune</i> has been released this week in the cinemas; and I intend to go - despite its rather extreme length of more than two and a half hours (I watched Part One on TV in <i>three </i>segments, despite its being a bit shorter). </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73298139587340961392024-03-02T11:32:00.001+00:002024-03-02T11:44:54.626+00:00Nationalism versus Globalism? Merely totalitarianism versus chaotic evil<p>At present, it seems that there are no <i>primarily</i> Christian nations in the world.</p><p>(With the probable exception of the Fire Nation - but none in The West) </p><p>Therefore - all <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=nationalism">nationalism</a> is evil: as are all secular polities. </p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, the only good nationalism is one that is secondary to Christianity. Which means that the nationalism must function within Christian priorities and a Christian framework. In other words, to be good, nationalism must be part of a Christian <i>theocracy</i>. </p><p>Yet, I believe that a Christian theocracy is not desirable in the West (as well as being in practice almost-certainly impossible). </p><p>This undesirability/ impossibility of Western theocracy is for reasons I have discussed <i>ad nauseam</i> on this blog, to do with the changed nature of Western Consciousness - that is changed motivations, a changed mode of thinking, a changed relationship to divine reality etc. </p><p>Western people don't want it, cannot be made to want it, will not choose it, and would not tolerate it if it were imposed. So that the result of trying to impose theocracy would not be a Christian society, but merely secular totalitarianism using Christianized language and excuses. </p><p><br /></p><p>In the Western World now, the nationalists are would-be totalitarian bureaucrats, exponents of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=ahrimanic">Ahrimanic evil</a> (whether they espouse "Christian values, or not). </p><p>The nationalists oppose the globalists who are <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=sorathic+evil">Sorathic</a> agents of <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-globalist-totalitarian-system-is.html">spitefully destructive evil</a>. </p><p>And that is <b>the choice </b>within the political arena. A choice between variants of the dominant globalist destroyers, or a backlash of nationalist totalitarians: there are no Good choices available. </p><p><br /></p><p>Disillusion is not wisdom; because dis-illusion (as the name implies) is a <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=double+negative+leftism">double-negative</a> - <i>not </i>a positive - value; and Good comes only from a positive affiliation to God and divine creation. </p><p>At present I perceive increasing numbers of disillusioned totalitarian bureaucrats among the national leadership class - people who have noticed that their worked-for totalitarian New World Order is being destroyed by strategic chaos imposed by the dominating multi-national globalists. </p><p>So we are getting (and indeed have been getting, since around the millennium) some of the more intelligent and insightful adherents of totalitarian-Ahrimanic evil embracing a nationalist agenda to some extent. Putting themselves forward as a "common sense" alternative to literally-insane inversion of the Sorathic globalists. </p><p><br /></p><p>But nationalism is evil. <a href="https://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.com/">Historically, nationalism arose after the decline of Christianity</a>: nationalism was the ideological basis of the first truly secular states. </p><p>What the globalists call the "far Right" - or populist Right, often tacitly supported by a majority of Western population - are actually "local totalitarians": those who want to have what they regard as a strong, productive, efficient nation - more like the Western societies of the middle 20th century. </p><p>This agenda would entail some sensible and common sense controlled and reduced immigration, a degree of meritocracy (instead of "inclusion" or "equality"), a protected and planned economy, coherent laws, effective military and police etc. </p><p><br /></p><p>Sounds great, you say? Not so. </p><p><i>From where we are now</i>; such a society is not just impossible, but would anyway be evil - because inevitably totalitarian. </p><p>It would not have Christian foundations, would not be organized in accordance with God's will and divine creation, nor would it be Christianly motivated. </p><p>Therefore <b>what we would </b><i><b>actually get</b> </i>would be a version of "the Great Reset" - but on a national basis; and without the self-destroying elements such as "sustainability", antiracism, and the rest. </p><p>At best and temporarily, such a society would assert justifications that are this-worldly, and utilitarian. But since such abstractions are both humanly-feeble and irredeemably subjective - very soon selfish, short-termist corruption among the leadership class would <i>inevitably </i>take-over. </p><p>(Which is why They are keen on the idea!)</p><p><br /></p><p>What I am saying is that "nationalism" is a delusion or a deception for The West, arising only as a consequence of in-fighting among the demon-serving ruling class. </p><p>Serious Christians should be wary of falling into the trap of supporting nationalism - since it will inevitably be unmasked as local totalitarianism - hence <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=totalitarianism+evil">intrinsically evil</a>. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-23170227722613543442024-03-01T12:58:00.011+00:002024-03-01T17:53:15.569+00:00The globalist totalitarian System is collapsing into chaos: pros and cons?<p>I am continually surprised at how few people seem to have noticed that the globalist totalitarian System - which, just about four years ago looked to be just a few steps away from its goal of population omni-surveillance and total-control - is much weaker and less complete <i>now </i>than it was at the height of the birdemic - those months when They were so hyper-confident as to reveal the fine-print of Their Great-Reset plans. </p><p>It's not that They have given up on the plans - obviously not! The plans continue as before. </p><p>It's just that the System is perceptibly and incrementally self-destructing on so many fronts, that it seems just a matter of time before positive-feedback sets-in and rapid System collapse eventuates. And I mean - collapses without any outside intervention. </p><p><br /></p><p>Just as people in general seem to have learned little or nothing from the birdemic-peck, or from the suicidal insanity of antiracism; so those who dissent-from or oppose the System seem not to have noticed the qualitative difference between the world here-and-now, and that of 2020. </p><p>Although it is still far-from dead, and many indeed have a considerable while to run (since nobody understands or can predict the robustness of this unprecedented world); I venture to say that The System is irrevocably ending; and totalitarian globalism should <i>not </i>be regarded as <i>the </i>major problem over the medium to long-term. </p><p>What is increasing is chaos; and chaos is (obviously) dysfunctional - so that the negative aspects of System failure and collapse, will be exacerbated and accelerated by the deliberate, actively-destructive evil of chaos. </p><p><br /></p><p>More explicitly: the Big Problem already and from-now is <i>not</i> that the world shall be locked-down into a permanent <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=black+iron+prison">Black Iron Prison; created from the Empire That Never Ended</a> - but that the Horsemen of the Apocalypse will return in force. </p><p>Looking at the Western leadership class, I see no sign that they are <i>overall </i>working towards implementing a Big Brother/ Brave New World dystopia; but instead I see the evidence of spiteful, destructive (i.e. <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=sorathic">Sorathic</a>) evil that delights in human terror, despair, disease, starvation, violence, misery and death. </p><p>Delights, indeed, in destroying animals, plants, the soil and the waters... Not in exploiting these for greed or to enhance power; but in destroying them for the sake of the pleasure that destruction brings. </p><p><br /></p><p>The top-level leadership consists of the adult equivalent of kids that like best to torment and torture other beings. They are unrelenting in their effort to start, escalate and spread wars. Prevent or break marriages and families and friendships. Destroy economies and trade. Smash farming and permanently wreck farmland.</p><p><br /></p><p>Those who <i>still </i>continue to regard The System as <b>the major evil to be fough</b>t, are - almost all of them - (know it or not) attacking The System by encouraging chaos. </p><p>The are attacking one great evil, by encouraging another - and (even-) greater!</p><p>However these System-wreckers rationalize it to themselves (as working for "freedom" or in hope of personally gaining from a collapse over the short-term) - negatively-motivated attacks on The System cannot achieve any net-positive results. </p><p>Protest voting, demonstrating, boycotting, sabotaging, rioting etc. will lead nowhere better (indeed, maybe, such will serve to scare and energize the ruling-totalitarians into more urgent yet futile attempts at oppression). </p><p> </p><p>Looking at the situation and trends with a degree of detachment that, in my case, can only be temporary-insensibility <i>masquerading</i> as objectivity (since I would presumably perish miserably, albeit maybe not rapidly, in any System-collapse) - what are the pros and cons? </p><p>It could be (and often is) argued that the collapse of the global totalitarian System - if not necessarily good in-itself - "clears the decks", or creates a power vacuum, that offers opportunities to "build something better" afterwards. </p><p>Indeed this <a href="https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-worldly-pride-of-some-christians.html">fantasy of a fresh start </a>(whether explicit or implicit) seems to be pretty common; but I regard it as a kind of "Pollyanna" unreality - optimism without reason. </p><p><br /></p><p>It seems clear to me that genuine, overall Good <i>only </i>comes from good motivations; and not from a combination or compromise between evils. And it is the absence of real and strong good motivations that prevails in The West, and that will ensure that we-here will <i>not </i>see good outcomes from the collapse of totalitarianism. </p><p>"In theory" System collapse would "allow" residual Good to establish, grow and thrive; but that assumes such Good motivation both exists and is strong enough to overcome this-worldly temptations... A situation that I see no evidence for (although I remain on the look-out!).</p><p>In sum: the pros of System-collapse are weakly-theoretical, while the cons seem inevitable; which means that - as things stand, <i>culturally in </i>The West,<i> </i>we are in a lose-lose situation...</p><p>And therefore reliant for valid hope upon the personal not the social, and the spiritual not the material - like it, or like it not. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-32714541285477049012024-03-01T08:45:00.004+00:002024-03-01T08:47:33.022+00:00Review of The Letters of JRR Tolkien (2023 edition)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi7vtJjsVKVd2AKUwCegWuOITNA4Tlx6yP9FAZOcg2Q03ErCB7QW03krOgJpcDjmokyRvCs9M-RCA56AhqyOeYo-rwy4Z6yzEsa56PLBGx3_ZRJoL0f-7CNy1Gg4wrYHT4eDDwuv2-SRtsoXpmQVWry2nICQbUMSH_qO7jczTDZ6Sl4jwnm5ofWyDVhIGHe" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2693" data-original-width="1819" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi7vtJjsVKVd2AKUwCegWuOITNA4Tlx6yP9FAZOcg2Q03ErCB7QW03krOgJpcDjmokyRvCs9M-RCA56AhqyOeYo-rwy4Z6yzEsa56PLBGx3_ZRJoL0f-7CNy1Gg4wrYHT4eDDwuv2-SRtsoXpmQVWry2nICQbUMSH_qO7jczTDZ6Sl4jwnm5ofWyDVhIGHe=w432-h640" width="432" /></a></div><i><div style="text-align: center;"><i>What a delightful cover photo!</i></div></i><br /><p></p><p>I review the recent but not-really-<i>new</i> edition of Tolkien's selected Letters over at my <a href="https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2024/03/notice-of-expanded-but-underwhelming.html">Notion Club Papers blog</a>. </p><p>My conclusion is that the 2023 Letters is <i>better </i>than the 1981 Letters; yet disappointing, and a missed opportunity. </p><p><br /></p>Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.com0