A note on the stature of pianist Lang Lang

The modern pianist Lang Lang is a 'base breaker' - i.e. among the fans of classical piano he evokes extremes of both approbation and rejection. Some regard him as - either already or potentially - one of 'the greats'; others as a hyped, shallow, flashy showman.

Here is my impression, for discussion among those who care about such matters. The range of evaluation suggests a combination of significant strengths and weaknesses, and one's attitude perhaps depends on the relative valuation of these strengths and weaknesses.

His main strengths are that, technically, he seems to be able to do almost anything; and furthermore he can play with that lyrical phrasing (musicality) that is indispensable but innate (and not teachable). 

His weakness is a musical equivalent of 'short-attention span'. He cannot sustain his concentration and grasp across the long spans of music that are a feature of classical music.

Consequently, his performances consist of (often) wonderful sections, each lasting some tens of seconds; but not joined together into the larger arcs of movements and whole works. Superficially, Lang Lang seems to get bored, and 'messes around' every few bars - in reality, he probably does not musically comprehend the structure of the work he is playing.

Lang Lang is like the sculptor of a bust who carves beautiful eyes, nose and mouth - but cannot assemble them into a face.

Those music critics who are able to apprehend and appreciate musical architecture therefore rate Lang Lang pretty low - while recognising the virtuosity; those who focus on the close-up musical detail (and perhaps can't grasp musical architecture, or who don't much value it), perceive that he can do this at a top-notch level, as well as anybody. 

(If I am right) Lang Lang's weakness is rare among the highest level of pianists - an architectural grasp is something usually to be take for granted at that level; and the disagreement about stature is concerned with which performer's interpretation is the best exemplification of the musical architecture of a particular work.

In other words, I am saying that Lang Lang is indeed a technical virtuoso rather than a great musician; but he is a virtuoso who has genuine, original musical insights at the level of musical detail.

Architecture - a deeply flawed concept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beauty as an index of the *quality* of Goodness

*
Following from:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/beauty-as-index-of-godliness.html
*

Beauty has quantitative and qualitative aspects.

The Beauty of a great Gothic Cathedral such as York Minister

 is quite different from the Beauty of Briggflatts, the seventeenth century Quaker Meeting House:

Both are very beautiful; and the Beauty of each indicates - because it derives from and is an expression of - the nature of the devout Christian denomination from which each was sprung.

The richness, complexity, intellectuality, hierarchy, formality of Medieval Western Catholic Christianity (conceived in the 13th Century) - compared with the simplicity and plainness and clear-burning individualistic intensity of early Quaker spirituality.

So the Beauty of the best buildings is a precise-but-incomplete picture of the faith which enabled that Beauty to be achieved.

*

The best of modern Christian spirituality is - in my opinion - to be found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; however I have not personally explored or experienced any of their meeting houses or main Temples (analogous to cathedrals) in the way I have explored the two examples above.

But I would say that it looks from photographs as if the most beautiful of Mormon architecture reflects the quality of the LDS faith as precisely as do the above two examples.

It seems to me that the best Mormon architecture is as exact (albeit incomplete) a picture of the faith as are York Minster or Briggflatts - and therefore the gives us a picture of both the quantity and the qualities of the best Christianity which is attainable in the modern world.

*

To make a comparison between denominations using Beauty as an index, it would be necessary to 'control for' time and place: modern conceptualizations compared, and in the same locations.

There would be one question of which was the most beautiful, but the other and equally important questions would refer to the nature of Beauty, the distinctive quality of Beauty.

(For example - it is when a building is conceptualized that is most relevant and revealing - not when it is completed. Creation is very different from implementations; creation is very different from copying.)

So the comparison would need to be modern US Mormon architecture (or other form of production) with modern US Catholics and Quakers - and would involve an empathic feeling as the basis of comparison.

I think such a comparison would bring out and clarify many of the active and operative qualities in these denominations - their biases and incompletenesses, as well as their strengths and depths.

*

The same matter of quality applies to the Beauty of women.

Of the four beautiful females described in Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien - the richest and deepest Beauty is ascribed to the golden-haired wise and ancient elf women Galadriel who represents Morning - as she was born in Valinor and came to Middle Earth as one of the first High Elves; and also to the dark-haired and younger Arwen (in some sense reincarnating Luthien) who represent the twilight of the High Elves in Middle Earth and the mixing of elves with Angels and Men.

There is also Goldberry - wife of Tom Bombadil, who has Beauty of a different order: more earthy, spontaneous and primal - as befits a (probable) nature spirit (the spirit of the river, of water).

Eowyn has the fresh, ephemeral, immensely-courageous yet near-despairing beauty characteristic of Mankind - she is probably the most intensely beautiful of all these women: with the brief and burning intensity of a flame.

*

Properly understood; the quantity of Beauty is a measure of Goodness, and the quality of Beauty is an index of the nature of Goodness - and when comparing Beauty with Beauty, quality is often the more revealing comparison.

After all, if something is Beautiful, that is enough; and there is something wrong about applying a ruler to actual Beauty, or trying to put real Beauties into rank order.

*

Glasgow closed: Active cultural destruction

I revisited Glasgow recently - where I had lived for several years, three decades ago; and Oh the difference!

I knew Glasgow best from the 1980s-90s; when it was in the throes of an era of cultural construction and celebration - you could hardly switch on the TV or radio, or open a highbrow magazine, without something about Glasgow's architecture, film, art, literature and whatever; a place of galleries, museums, plays and exhibitions. A great deal of money and effort was spent on funding (and publicizing!) all this.  

Certainly, one could reasonably claim that all this 'Glasgow's Miles Better'/ 'City of Culture' stuff was greatly exaggerated, but there was no doubt that the city was trying its best. 

The Art Nouveau design and architecture of Charles Rennie Mackintosh was a symbol of this - and the craze went international. Among the buildings were the Art School - (burned down), Hill House (closed), a recreated house at the Hunterian Gallery (closed), Scotland Street School (closed)... The once famous Burrell Collection (one of Scotland's major visitor attractions) has been closed for five years. 

You get the idea. 

I walked the streets in the West End, in and around the university where I worked for more than three years; famous as the hub of artistic and cultural life in the city, and they were all-but deserted. A place that crackled with creative energy has been smothered. 

Dead.   

I use Glasgow merely as typical - a microcosm of the way that (since the totalitarian takeover of early 2020) the cultural life of Britain (and, I presume, everywhere else) has undergone an almost complete destruction by asphyxiation. 

Operas, concerts, plays, museums, galleries, stately homes etc are either closed - or else undergone a massive collapse in quality. They have imposed punitive restrictions - e.g. requiring days of pre-booking, allowing tiny numbers, with miserably intrusive conditions (eg. plastered with aggressive notices, insistent masking, one way systems even outdoors).

And these going far beyond those implemented for large retail institutions like supermarkets. 

Even such dubiously cultured places as research facilities, laboratories and universities in general are often grossly-depleted or moribund (at least from those I have walked around).  

Much the same applies to sports - who have made themselves absent altogether, or (at best) much less enjoyable by their zealous embrace of (zero resistance to) a deadly combination of 'distancing' practices and antiracist evil-propaganda. 

(I can only tolerate cricket by turning the sound off - to avoid the woke pieties of commentators; and by missing the Nuremberg Rally celebrations of 'diversity' that start each game.)

There is an enhanced zeal in the 'cancel culture'; which is deployed differentially anti-culturally, against things that have a stronger tendency to any-thing notably Good (high in Truth, Beauty and/or Virtue). 

It is now a dead-certainty that all cultural work of high quality and value is targeted, with its authors and makers. 

Any person or opus that is exceptionally Good will sooner or later be attacked; and it is certain that those bureaucrats, managers and practitioners charged with the preservation, defense and promotion of culture; will take this, and every other possible, opportunity to destroy, replace or deface it.

It seems clear that 'culture' has suspended activity; but apparently with full complicity from the cultural professionals (artists, actors, and so forth) - who seem to be solidly behind the birdemic response (and asking for more); they are apparently content to live off doles and do nothing but symbolic internet interactions; and continue without any definite end point. 

Active cultural destruction on all sides - blatant and proud - is merely one among many symptoms of a civilization in the terminal phases of self-loathing and strategic suicide - led by the demonic elites and colluded-with by the Godless masses. 

The Byzantine attitude to beauty - Steven Runciman

*

From The Byzantine Civilization by Steven Runciman, 1933

*

They loved beautiful scenery. Gardens and parks and flowers were a delight to them (...) and they would build their monasteries on sites commanding the loveliest views that they could find.

Their buildings, their stuffs, their books, all reflected the same yearning for beauty, but a beauty not quite of this earth.

Beauty had an inner meaning to them. It helped their mystical contemplation; it was part of the glory of God.

*

Life was drab and ugly; but the worshipper, the citizen in Saint Sophia or the hermit on Mount Athos was away from it all.

The human architecture of the Cathedral and the divine architecture of the Mountain alike raised him out of the ordinary world and made him closer to God and True Reality.

To the Byzantine beauty and religion went hand in hand, to their mutual advantage.

*

The alliance is the better understood when we remember the background to Byzantine life. The Byzantines lived in a hard and unreliable world. Beyond the frontiers roamed the barbarians, and all too often they would burst in across the provinces or over the sea, and their hordes would reach the gates of the capital itself. 

(***)

Beset by dangers and uncertainty, the Byzantine could scarcely fail to be suspicious, to have nerves that flared easily into fury or panic.

He inevitably sought comfort in ultra-mundane things, in union with God and the hope of eternal life.

He knew existence to be sad.

The simple laughter and happiness of the pagans was lost. Byzantine wit was acid; its humour found expression in mockery and sarcasm.

*

Indeed life seemed a mockery.

This great Empire, the last home of civilization in a dark stormy world, was continually tottering before the barbarians, and recovering only to meet a fresh attack.

For centuries the great City stood inviolate, to be in foreign eyes a symbol of eternal power and riches. But the Byzantines knew the end would come some day, that one of these onslaughts would triumph.

The prophecies written all over Constantinople on columns or in wise books told the same story, of the days when there would be no more Emperors, the last days of the city, the last days of civilisation.

***

Summary comment: We now live long after the end of civilisation. We live in an increasingly hard and unreliable world, and barbarians roam among us and around us. We know existence to be sad. We know that the simple laughter and happiness of the pagans is lost. Beset by dangers and uncertainty, we must seek comfort, not in worldly distractions, but in ultra-mundane things; in a beauty not quite of this earth to help our mystical contemplation; in union with God and the hope of eternal life.


*

Rudolf Steiner's copius blethering about initiation and spiritual training

Rudolf Steiner was a first rank genius, whose insights are all-but indispensable; but there is no mystery about why his achievement is not more widely appreciated. The fact is that the bulk of his writings are nonsense and blether.

The nonsense is perhaps most obvious - I mean the truly vast volume of material purporting to provide detailed factual information on everything under the sun - and indeed concerning the sun itself, and planets too - the universe and everything in it. Perhaps the culmination was the eight volumes of lectures on Karmic Relationships, purporting to describe the several reincarnations of famous historical figures - following each spirit through these incarnations.

Then there are systems of education, medicine, agriculture and so forth. (And architecture - but I find Steiner's architecture and sculpture to be viscerally horrible - esepcially the current Goetheanum and surrpounding buildings.) Having evaluated a fair sample of such books, I now simply avoid them. For instance, I have spent most of my life reading, thinking, practising medicine and education; and Steiner's writings on these medicine strike me as wrong at every level, while the writing on education in mostly-wrong. Both are crudely systematised in a way that Steiner himself taught me to recognise as Ahrimanic; i.e. materialistic and bureaucratic.

(However, Steiner's early writings on science are absolutely brilliant!)

So much for the nonsense - what of the blether? Well, another problem is that even in some of Steiner's most valuable books/ lectures post-1894 - works on themes of consciousness, thinking, attaining human destiny - writings that contain material I am very keen to understand, on a topic in which Steiner has unique value - there is a tendency for him to launch into screeds of blether.

Especially so concerning (supposed) initiation and his (suggested) methods of spiritual training. To be candid; I regard this material of Steiner's as being mostly a mixture of wishful thinking and dishonesty. As I read, my bullshit-detectors are continually sounding...

I shall give an extended example. The Stages of Higher Knowledge (1905) is a book that contains much wisdom and many insights - it is not a book that I can ignore. There are three main themes: Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. The lectures on Imagination and Intuition have considerable value, in my opinion. However, the lecture on Inspiration I find to be almost entirely bogus.

I would advise the reader to follow the link, and read for himself - but I will cite a few passages of the kind that set-off my alarm bells:

Occult training therefore undertakes to indicate how the human being may make his feelings and his will impulses productive in a healthy way for Inspiration. As in all matters of occult training, the need here is for an intimate regulating and forming of soul life. First of all certain feelings must be developed which are known only to a slight degree in ordinary life. Some of these feelings will be hinted at here. Among the most important is a heightened sensitiveness to “truth” and “falsehood,” to “right” and “wrong.” Certainly the ordinary human being has similar feelings, but they must be developed by the occult student in a much higher measure. Suppose someone has made a logical error. Another sees this mistake and corrects it. Let it be clear how great is the role of judgment and intellect in such a correction, and how slight the feeling of pleasure in the right and displeasure in the wrong. Surely this is not to claim that the pleasure and corresponding displeasure are non-existent. But the degree to which they are present in ordinary life must be illimitably raised in occult training. Most systematically must the occult student turn his attention to his soul life, and he must bring it about that logical error is a source of pain to him, no less excruciating than physical pain, and conversely, that the “right” gives him real joy and delight. Thus, where another only stirs his intellect, his power of judgment, into motion, the occult student must learn to live through the whole gamut of emotions, from grief to enthusiasm, from afflictive tension to transports of delight in the possession of truth. In fact, he must learn to feel something like hatred against what the “normal” man experiences only in a cold and sober way as “incorrect”; he must enkindle in himself a love of truth that bears a personal character; as personal, as warm, as the lover feels for the beloved.

I find this dishonest; because this does not describe how Steiner himself attained Inspiration - he actually did it primarily via the insights into thinking from his early philosophical and scientific studies culminating in The Philosophy of Freedom (1894). Yet when Steiner wrote the Stages of Higher Knowledge he had been involved in teaching, through the Theosophical Society, only a few years. I know of no evidence that any of his pupils at this time - or indeed at any time, achieved anything like the level of higher consciousness that Steiner achieved. Indeed, in the past century of Anthroposophy, the only individuals who seem to have attained anything like Steiner's level of insight - Valentin Tomberg and Owen Barfeld - both did so largely independently of Steiner, via philosophical study, and without this 'training'. 

As a test, he must patiently, over and over again, place before himself this or that “true” thing, this or that “false” one, and devote himself to it, not merely to train his power of judgment for sober discrimination between “true” and “false,” but he must gain an entirely personal relation to it all. — It is absolutely correct that at the beginning of such training the human being can fall into what may be called “oversensitiveness.” An incorrect judgment that he hears in his environment, an inconsistency, and so forth, can cause him almost unbearable pain. — Care must therefore be taken in this respect during training. Otherwise great dangers might indeed result for the student's equilibrium of soul. If care is taken that the character remains steadfast, storms may occur in the soul life and the human being still retain the power to conduct himself toward the outer world with harmonious countenance and bearing. A mistake is made in every case in which the occult student is brought into opposition to the outer world so that he finds it unbearable or wishes to flee from it entirely. The higher world of feeling must not be cultivated at the expense of well-balanced activity and work in the outer world; therefore a strengthening of the power to withstand outer impressions must appear in corresponding measure to the inner lifting of the feeling life.

This strikes me as just made-up-stuff; abstract and confused, over-dramatic and sensational; and nothing to do with actual students following any actual course of training. And there is this business of 'power'...

Practical occult training, therefore, directs the human being never to undertake the above-mentioned exercises for developing the feeling world without at the same time developing himself toward an appreciation of the tolerance that life demands from men. He must be able to feel the keenest pain if a person utters an erroneous opinion, and yet at the same time be perfectly tolerant towards this person because the thought in his mind is equally clear that this person is bound to judge in this way, and his opinion must be reckoned with as a fact. — It is, of course, correct that the inner being of the occult scientist will be ever more and more transformed into a twofold life. Ever richer processes come about in his soul in his pilgrimage through life, and a second world becomes continually more independent of what the outer world offers. It is just this twofold existence that will bear fruit in the genuine practice of life. What results from it is quick-witted judgment and unerring certainty of decision. While anyone who stands remote from such schooling must go through long trains of thought, driven hither and thither between resolution and perplexity, the occult scientist will swiftly survey life situations and discern hidden relations concealed from the ordinary view. He then often needs much patience to synchronise with the slow rate at which another person is able to grasp something that for him comes swift as an arrow.

Who is this 'occult scientist'? Steiner is talking as if from long experience of many people going through a prolonged, careful, closely-supervised training that has been successful - yet this cannot have been the case. And anyway, the whole way this is written strikes me as strongly pretentious; more like indirect moral self-advertisement than a genuine attempt to be helpful. 

Take, for instance, a feeling of anxiety or fear. It can be crystal clear that often fear or anxiety is greater than it would be if it were in true proportion to the corresponding outer event. Imagine that the occult student is working energetically on himself with the aim to feel in no instance more fear and anxiety than is justified by the corresponding external events. Now a given amount of fear or anxiety always entails an expenditure of soul force. This soul force is actually lost as a result when fear or anxiety is produced. The student really conserves this soul force when he denies himself fear or anxiety — or other such feelings — and it remains at his disposal for some other purpose. If he repeats such processes often, he will build up an inner treasure of these continually husbanded soul forces, and the occult student will soon find that out of such economies of feeling will arise the germs of those inner images that will bring to expression the revelations of a higher life.

This 'soul force' is what I mean by inappropriate materialism and systematisation - it is a false precision; and indeed it doesn't sound plausible that any such thing exists at all. Students promised that they may conserve, build, be able to direct and use accumulations of soul force? No, this has a distinct flavour of misleading manipulation. 

But it would not accomplish much to remain at a standstill with only such economies as those indicated above. For greater results, still more is necessary. A far greater treasure still of power to create feeling must be supplied to the soul than is possible in this way alone. For instance, as a test, one must expose oneself to certain outer impressions, and then wholly deny oneself the feelings that “normally” arise as a result. One must, for instance, face an occurrence that “normally” excites the soul, and absolutely and totally forbid oneself the excitation. This can be accomplished either by actually confronting such an experience, or by conjuring it up imaginatively. The imaginative method is even better for a really fruitful occult training. As the student is initiated into Imagination, either before his preparation for Inspiration or simultaneously with it, he should actually be in a position to place an occurrence imaginatively before the soul with the same force as if it were in fact taking place.

Initiation rears its ugly head. Steiner talks as if there are established schools of initiation, taking students through incremental steps towards higher consciousness and greater 'power'. Force and power... Yet there are no such students, and the only school of initiation is the one that Steiner is in the process of setting-up.

Now the soul powers that are stored up in the student's inner being by self-denial of “normal” feelings, as indicated above, are riches that would undoubtedly be transformed into Inspirations even if nothing else came to their aid, and the occult student would experience how true thought images arise in his soul, representing experiences in higher worlds. Progress would begin with the simplest experiences of supersensible events, and slowly more complicated and higher ones appear, if the student continued to live inwardly according to the suggested directions. — But in reality such occult training today would be entirely impractical, and nowhere is it carried out where work is undertaken earnestly. For, if the student wished to develop “out of himself” everything that Inspiration can give, he could undoubtedly “spin out” of himself all that has been said here, for example, about the nature of man, human life after death, the evolution of humanity and of the planets, and so forth. But such a student would need an immeasurably long time to do it.

Again, we are given the impression of an established, reliable, valid system - in place - indeed operating in several places; and with a large experience of the various problems and pitfalls. The student has only to follow the instructions patiently, earnestly. But if he does not - if he goes it alone, or studies with anytbody other than Steiner; then his progress will be hazardous, and immeasurably slow...

In any case no hope can be given that he will make rapid conquests in the higher worlds through any exercises whatever, unless he has at the same time set out to ponder incessantly upon the communications, purely narrative, that have been given from a competent quarter about the events and beings of the higher worlds. — Now that such communications are actually being presented in literature and in lectures, and so forth, and the first indications are also being given for the exercises leading to knowledge of higher worlds (as, for example, such indications as are presented in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment), it has now become possible to learn something of what formerly was communicated only in strictly guarded occult schools. As has been frequently mentioned, it is owing to the special conditions of our time that these things are and must be published. But also, on the other hand, it must be ever again emphasised that while it has thus been made easier to acquire occult knowledge, sure guidance through an experienced occult teacher is not yet to be completely dispensed with.

"it has now become possible to learn something of what formerly was communicated only in strictly guarded occult schools"... Well, this is a concentrated example of what I mean by blethering bullshit. Steiner is engaged in a 'soft sell' here; creating a framework of hopes and warnings, all of which point at what he, uniquely, promises to provide. Yet, a century later, we can see that Steiner could not provide what he promised (or else nobody was able to follow the path prescribed).

Anthroposophy was supposed to be a path, a way, a spiritual process - and Steiner was here purporting to describe this path. But the method did not work - and instead Anthroposophy has become the preservation, study, learning and implementation of all of Steiner's findings/ assertions.

There was no method of training, initiation was a fantasy; then, as now, we do this alone - or not at all.

Cosy corners

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defintions of 'cosy':

Positive: Of a person: comfortably sheltered, snug; of a place: sheltered, warm and comfortable, inviting; of a person or thing: warmly intimiate or friendly.

Derogatory: complacent, smug, unadventurous, parochial.

*

I have always loved, sought-out cosy places; especially in cafes, pubs, libraries, and even in the countryside (niches in old graveyards, the edges of woodland etc).

The love of cosy corners used to be characteristic of the English - and the best English architecture is often replete with cosiness: think of traditional college buildings.

Yet in modern life it is almost impossible to find a cosy corner anywhere - all is harsh light, sharp angles, hard surfaces. Modern architecture can be cramped but never cosy.

Over the century from 1850 to 1950 the English intellectual elite swung all the way around from the positive to the negative attitude towards cosy; and they imposed their adolescent disdain for cosiness on everybody else.

I mean the secular intellectual attitude which sees anything 'cosy' as complacent, smug, unadventurous, parochial - and since the secular mandarinate rose to dominance they have been eliminating cosiness from the modern environment, whether we like it or not (mostly not).

*

But in my book, to be anti-cosy is to be guilt-riddled, submissive to power, cosmopolitan, restless, distractable, empty-headed. To be anti-cosy is to be the kind of loud-mouth or show off who enjoys sitting in the middle of an open-plan office or canteen engaged in publicly broadcast discussions on their mobile phone.

I have been reading the Harry Potter books to accompany my daughter: clearly one reason for their success is their depiction of Hogwarts in terms of being an epitome of old fashioned English cosiness: soft chairs beside open fires, old libraries with study corners, dark pubs with semi-enclosed circles of chairs, trains with corridors and private compartments, schools with small, enclosed classrooms...

Only adolescents and secular intellectuals (who remain emotional adolescents) despise cosiness. Decent people treasure it.

Damnation from defending sin

*

What is damning is defending sin, not committing sin (which is inevitable, and has been paid for by Christ on condition of repentance).

What is damning about the modern world is that it engineers people into defending sin.

*

What is damning about the sexual revolution is not so much that it encourages people to sin, but that it provides an edifice of defences whereby, instead of the sinner admitting his weakness and inability to resits temptation, he is encouraged - sometimes coerced - into defending the sin: first by trivialising it, then by saying that it is not a sin, finally (and we have reached this stage) by inversion: by stating that the sin is in fact a virtue.

*

What is damning in modern 'science' is not so much that it compels researchers to lie (deliberately, strategically) in order to get funding and publish their work and obtain jobs and promotions; but that it encourages scientists to deny that they are lying. It absolves scientists of guilt at their lies, it provides a structure of rationalisations for dishonesty, first to excuse then later to insist upon the reality of the lie.

*

What is damning about modern art and architecture is not is much that it is ugly, nor even that it is deliberately ugly; but that it denies that it is ugly - trivialises ugliness, defends the necessity of ugliness, finally argues the necessity of art and architecture to be ugly.

*

A measure of the spiritual damage done by the defence of sin is that the advocates of the sexual revolution, the crooked researchers and the modern artists end up loathing, libelling, slandering and suppressing the transcendental Goods of virtue, truthfulness and beauty.

They become filled with hatred and resentment against those Goods which are contradicted by their defended sins.

*

If we imagine salvation as based upon a choice, and an act of free will; that damnation too is a choice and act of free will; then this may be a model of what happens - a model that may explain why it is that someone might choose Hell when offered Heaven.

Because he has, throughout his life, trained himself to trivialise, defend and justify sin; such that after death, when offered ultimate Good, he rejects Good and prefers sin.

*

What was good and also distinctive about Western civilization/ culture?

In discussing whether or not Western Civilization/ Culture is worth defending, saving, rebuilding; there is often confusion regarding what it is, and to what extent distinctive. 

I tend to assume that when it comes to what might be termed "the arts" - literature, poetry, visual arts, architecture, dance, music etc - there is a kind of relativity between civilizations and cultures; in the sense that each produces what it wants; and it seems overly subjective to assert the superiority of one over others. 

Looked at across time, and across history; it certainly seems that some bits of some civilizations (e.g. the music, the architecture) are better than the same bits of others; yet the cross-cultural cosmopolitanism that is able to make such comparisons is itself not really a creative or generative culture; but a second order kind of thing - an aspect of cultural criticism rather than creativity. 

At any rate; I find it unconvincing to assert any distinctive superiority of Western Civilization when it comes to the arts and humanities. There is superiority of my civilization for me, and for people like me; but I would not expect people of a different kind from different civilizations to see things the same way. 

But Western Civilization since the 17th century does have a qualitative superiority over all others (past and until the recent present) which is science: more exactly, in terms of science as a "social system".

There have been in many times and places, and still are, individual real scientists; or even duos, or small and short-lasting groups of scientists; but it was only in Western Civilization that science became a structured and multi-generational activity. 

It was only in Western Christendom that the necessary ethic of honesty; the truth-seeking and truth-speaking of and between scientists, became large scale and sustained. 

Therefore science in the West became qualitatively more powerful and wide ranging than at any other time or place. 

I think this can now be seen clearly because science is dead - or at least real science is dead. A bureaucratic professional research activity continues, now fully integrated with global totalitarianism; but this is not what used to be science, it is not real science. 

Science has died for lack of the reason it began: the ethic of inter-scientist honesty that created and sustained science has gone. So-called modern "science" is dishonest, untruthful, selectively exaggerated, deliberately misleading - from top to bottom and in external relations: therefore it is not science. It Does Not Work. 

Science as a social activity has dwindled to near-nothingness, and we have now reverted to the science of individual persons.  

  

Of course; science was always double-edged in its goodness. It was exceptionally honest; but only about its chosen subject.

Science is based on models of reality, not reality; and like all models this means it is distorted at best and deluded at worst -  yet unable (from "within" science) to recognize its own radical limitations and potential evils. 

(i.e. To stay science, science absolutely needs scientists to have an external viewpoint from which to evaluate "science", and keep it honest.) 

When the West, when scientists, ceased to be Christian and Christianity was forgotten; there was no ultimate reason for scientists to be honest - not even about science; so over several decades science became, briefly, net-evil - before it killed itself from corruption and fakery. 

My understanding is therefore that it was science that - in world historical terms - was the distinctive good of Western civilization; but that is dead and gone. While Westerners like myself love much of my civilization; after the death of real science The West no longer has anything distinctive and good to offer The World. So its demise will not be mourned by the world. 

 

Note: Although Western Civ an old topic here; this particular post was triggered by Bonald's recent reflections at the Orthosphere. 

Not even trying - Beauty edition

Some years ago I wrote a book about science having abandoned even the attempt to speak and discover the truth about reality; but the same story could be told about the entirety of Western civilisation with respect to beauty.


As usual, this has been a top down process. It began about a century ago after World War I with the advent of Modernism is art - in fine art with the likes of Picasso, in Literature with TS Eliot and James Joyce, in classical music with Schoenberg and Stravinsky, in architecture with Le Courbusier and Bauhaus...

These massively influential artists were unlike the geniuses of previous generations because they were not even trying to create beauty.


After World War II this became mainstream; ordinary local government officials, administrators and managers of all kinds became united in their indifference to beauty, even disdain for 'conventional' ideas of beauty, which was regarded as kitsch, outmoded, probably patriarchal and racist too.

The indifference to beauty was initially excused by claiming a focus on efficiency, cheapness, egalitarian social engineering; or that the pursuit was of a higher and more contemporary and forward-looking form of beauty... but it very soon became clear that the motivation was in fact a hostility to beauty. 

This can best be seen from Architecture, that most public of arts.


What is significant is not so much the ugliness of modern buildings and the built environment - ugliness has always been common, especially where there is poverty; but the fact (and it is a solid, established fact) that people are not even striving for the beautiful.

In terms of the externals; universities like Oxford and Cambridge were international magnets for students, faculty and visitors because of the beauty - yet they consistently themselves built (and allowed) the erection of vile and brutal buildings among and nearby the loveliness. e.g. the Cambridge History building from 1963:

At my alma mata Durham - similarly an architectural jewel; in 1966 the expanding university built a brutalist, grey, grime-streaked concrete box as their students union.

This has, of course, continued and increased - everywhere. In situations where there was every reason - every commercial, monetary, expedient, materialist reason to aim for beauty; ugliness was insisted-upon.

The same applies to the insides of buildings. Instead of trying to make public work and life environments pleasing, cheerful, beautiful - the choice was to aim for bleakness, oppression, noise and lack-of-privacy.

In recent decades, even when building offices for themselves - the places where they will spend many hours per day; management have created nightmarish 1984 conditions. Below is the aptly named Portcullis House, the business annexe to the Houses of Parliament, where Member of Parliament have their meetings etc. They actually made this for themselves,

This cost a quarter of a billion pounds 20 years ago: the physical manifestation of an aspiring global totalitarian regime

What can we conclude? As William Arkle said: "If the individual is degenerating then his idea of beauty will be degenerate also".

Beauty is an index of the soul; beauty(with truth and virtue) is one of the prime transcendental values, and an indifference to beauty is a sign of the canker of corruption already present and growing in a person or a group.

By the time active and sacrificial hostility to beauty has become manifest, we are deep into the inversion of values; a situation when beauty and ugliness have changed positions, and evil is being pursued purposively.

We see it all around us. This is a world where Satan rules.

The Northumbrian church project: Anglo-Saxon churches

St Andrew's Church*, Bywell

We have recently begun a project to visit old churches in Northumbria; starting by getting suggestions from a little book by the legend that was Stan Beckesall ; backed-up by a copy of "Pevsner" for Northumberland; plus whatever booklets or leaflets we find in the churches we visit.  

Several of these churches, I have visited before; but they are well worth seeing again! This time we are spending about an hour per church on locating - and trying to understand - the architectural features. 

We began with several churches that contain Anglo-Saxon features; and Bywell St Andrew's (illustrated above) has an exceptionally well preserved tower from that era. 

I am, for the first time, beginning to learn and recognize the distinctions - and gradations - between Anglo-Saxon, Norman (c1066 to middle-late 1100s) and Early English (late 1100s to late 1200s). 

Naturally, there is a technological trajectory; with older churches being simpler in construction, visibly cruder in shaping and selection of the stones, and later churches having innovations such as buttresses to stop the walls bulging/ collapsing, multi-stone round arches instead of single stone lintels over doors; then (with Early English) pointed arches (enabling greater height for the same width of supports). 

The evil Normans must be acknowledged as great builders; and their rapid impact on architecture is very evident. I now recognize at a glance the typical EE "lancet" windows - tall and narrow, often paired, usually deep set on the inside.

However, there is always a special excitement of finding Anglo-Saxon features, maybe a font for baptisms - chiselled from a single block, a lintel shaped into a slight arch, or even just a few irregular stones at the corners ("long and short" quoins):

* My new knowledge of church architecture would lead me to recognize that the lowest window in the tower - the long thin, "lancet" with a pointed top - was inserted later. This is because such windows were not done in A-S times, and are usually a feature of the Early English style; also the disturbance to the horizontal lines of the stonework can be seen. However, the window is not genuine Early English, but a later pastiche.

+++

Today we visited St Mary's, Corbridge which is mostly Early English, filled (it seems) with aisles of pointed arches; 

...and with an actual Roman (not Roman-esque) arch, later inserted into the A-S tower; having been scavenged by the medieval masons from the nearby Roman town of Corstopitum/ Coria.  

  

Romanticism and the hungering for 'depth' in life

From the age of about fourteen I became painfully aware of the shallowness of nearly-all of life - of human interaction; of literature, music and art; and especially of human aspirations. Thus I became a spontaneous 'romantic'.

I recognised the shallowness innately, by my boredom at the triviality of nearly-everything - but also in contrast to what I sometimes encountered in my reading, listening, and experience of landscapes and architecture. The clearest example was Lord of the Rings, which I read at this time - a world of exactly the depth I craved.

But the bulk and average of human interaction was by far the most frustrating shallowness. Even people who had composed deep literature or deep music; when I saw them interviewed on television would witter-away in the most superficial and glib fashion.

I wanted to be serious and earnest most of the time; but almost everybody else hated that kind of thing, and kept interaction rigorously a matter of small talk - with a permanent, reflexive under-cutting facetiousness added, especially when 'intellectuals' were involved.

(This facetiousness is a particular sin of English people.)

There were a few people with whom I could sometimes have what I termed a 'deep' conversation; and I would travel literally the length and breadth of the country to have such conversations - so starved was I.

And this has never really gone away. Nowadays - because of my family - I do not need general human interaction with the intensity and hunger of my adolescence; but I would - now as then - much rather be alone than engaged in the kind of (as it seems to me) chit-chat that constitutes pretty much the entirety of life for almost everyone*.


*Except when interspersed with emotionally incontinent sessions of shouting and weeping. If novels/ movies and TV are any guide; the pinnacle of human desire is to have a life consisting entirely of witty banter interspersed with sexual psychodrama.

When AI is as good as crap-Art

I noticed an item by Vox Day - about how a (supposedly) science fiction story magazine had stopped accepting submissions of work because overwhelmed by 'AI' (i.e. pseudo-AI that plagiarizes human creativity) simulations.

Plus I have seen scores of other recent tales and depictions of 'AI' simulations of visual art, music, academic papers... 

Clearly "They" have now added 'AI' to 'Smart' devices and the 'internet of things' as one of their core (hence Litmus Test) strategies. 

Some people have concluded that this implies 'AI' is now as good as real, human Art and will therefore (sooner or later, and rightly) replace The Arts. 

(Neglecting that this procedure is, even by its own account, merely a recombinatorial form of recyling.) 

I agree! This AI will indeed replace The Arts...  in the modified sense that what is nowadays accepted as professional and high status Art and fiction (and academic 'scholarship') is crap; and pseudo-AI can easily generate vast quantities of crap: on demand. 

If the masses continue to be happy with the crap that is consumed as current fiction, pop music, TV and movies; if the intellectual classes continue to be happy with crap literature, sculpture, architecture, scholarship and teaching; if those in authority continue to justify policies with crap science, crap ideology, and the statements of crap-artists; and if crap design and crap construction of stuff is praised, subsidized and given awards... 

Well, then so-called AI can indeed replace nearly-all of purposive human activity in a crap world. 

But even if 'AI' cannot match the crappy non-quality of The Western pseudo-civilization in 2023; it can and will still replace nearly-everything - because AI will be forced upon the masses by the Evil-motivated Establishment whenever this is expedient.

And the Western masses have shown, again-and-again for decades, that they will accept and rationalize any amount of crap fed to them; will hardly notice, and near-instantly forget how things used-to-be. 

 

Lion, Crown, St George - Bad (because Norman) symbols of England

Richard I - rapacious absentee landlord of England, in-himself epitomising nearly-all that is alien about Normanised English symbolism

For about a thousand years, England has been a nation under occupation by a hostile and alien ruling class: the Normans. 

Well... to be clear, this statement is somewhat of an exaggeration! - but it has a solid core of truth, as Tolkien attested, among others. 

Evidence can be seen from several of the the Symbols of England - which are as alien (hence spiritually hostile) as those who imposed them. 

Most countries symbolic animal, is one which actually lives in that country; but England is stuck with a foreign-dwelling creature: a Lion. At best the Lion is a symbol of Empire, not nation - but Empire was an alien project, and the near death of England... So there you have it. 

The Crown - which features all over the place as a symbol, including (alongside the Lion) the sports teams - is of course The symbol par excellence of secular and top-down imposed alien power - of Us under the yoke of Them. 

And then there is St George; a pseudo-Saint from the Middle East, wished upon England by the usual Normans in consequence of their usual Norman warrings*, in their usual Norman pursuit of overseas Empire (since Normans prefer almost anywhere else to England, and almost any other people to the English). 

The Norman-backed "George" then coercively displaced our home-grown Anglo-Saxon Saint Edmund the martyr.

Of course there are some real - albeit inevitably somewhat Norman-co-opted! - English symbols - oak tree, rose, Stonehenge, the flat cap...

But even the primary English folk hero of medieval times, Robin Hood, was distorted into being an exiled Norman aristocrat, and make to work on behalf of a disastrously-typical Norman monarch:

i.e. Richard I - Crowned King of England, "Lion" hearted, and the originator of St George's cult.        

*Normans excelled at two main things: fighting and architecture. However, they had a short-termist psychopathic tendency, so they lacked the capacity for loyalty - even among themselves. Consequently, they spent most of their time fighting each other (and forcing everybody else into it). It was not until after four centuries, when the Barons had exhausted themselves in the War of the Roses, that a monarch with administrative genius (Henry VII)  managed to impose himself on the other Normans... But after just a generation (Henry VIII) the Normans were despoiling and killing each other again; only this time it was so one-sided in favour of the Norman King as against the Norman Abbots, Priors, and Heads of Religious Orders; that the process and outcome resembled unbridled rapine and pseudo-legal execution, instead of the usual civil war.   

The English 'Pyramid' - Silbury Hill

There are some striking parallels and contrasts between the civilization of Ancient Egypt and that of Neolithic England - one being the comparison between Silbury Hill (which I visited for the first time this summer - above) -

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/silbury-hill/

Which is the about 100 feet high and nearly 5000 years old and took about 18 million man hours to construct; and was originally probably a conical, stepped, white-ish coloured, flat-topped chalky mound.

(Note Silbury is not unique - there is a nearby and contemporary 'sister' mound in the grounds of Marlborough College http://www.marlboroughcollege.org/about-us/college-history/the-mound/.)


Up until very recently (and stimulated by listening to an audiobook of Rick Riordan's Kane Chronicles teen fantasy books with my family, whilst on car journeys), I never had much interest in the ancient Egyptian culture or religion; but I have found a superb guide in Jeremy Naydler's Temple of the Cosmos (1996) which convincingly gives a phenomenological reconstruction of what religious life was probably like in that strange and wonderful civilization.

Yes, for all the marvels of that most enduring, cohesive and stunningly-well-documented of known high civilizations - its writing, formal and finished art and statuary, refined technology, magic, architecture and all the rest... my heart is with the contemporary English civilization in all its rough-hewn and blurred and partial remnants.


I envisage Neolithic, megalithic England as a kind of twin but polar equivalent of Egypt - standing in comparison and contrast - the two places and spiritual worlds known to each other and drawing on the same roots - but emerging very differently due to the different soil, climate, and peoples.

While Egypt had extreme and (mostly) predictable seasons, and a stark contrast between the Nile and the Desert regions, and clear air and skies and the sun, moon and stars always dazzlingly visible -- England has its skies dominated and blurred by clouds, mists, rain; multiple tiny streams, rivers, ponds and lakes; hills, forests and bogs; wholly un-predictable weather and little seasonality and its earth being earthy rather and sandy or silty.

My inference is that the English religion would have been less celestial and fiery than Egypt's, and more cloudy and wet! Less of a contrast and circularity about its stories, and more gradually transformative and modulatory...

Well, you get the idea...



How to recognise evil? When it impinges on us, we know

These are great days for learning about the nature of reality, the spiritual war of God and creation under assault from Satan and moral inversion; and that is what this mortal life is for. 

But it is possible, frequent, to feel overwhelmed by the task of discernment... Yet to feel overwhelmed is to fall into a snare. 

In reality things are made easy for us; if we maintain a proper (eternal) perspective, and stop trying to analyse and strategise about the specifics of this-worldly effectiveness. 

 

What we need to do is simple, albeit difficult. It is simply: to recognise evil when it impinges upon us. 

We don't need to know about evil that is abstract, absent, elsewhere, to-somebody-else we don't know or love. It is only that evil which actually impinges that we must know.  

 

So, the task is two-fold: the first to be aware of evil, to know it; the second to reject it. 

Evil knocks on our door, and asks (or demands) to be invited-inside. All that we need to do is to say No. Because evil cannot enter without permission.

 

Naturally, evil adopts disguises - It might come in the form of a kind old lady, a sexy youth, an expert professional, a charming wit, a pitiful wreck of a person. Evil might be in words, symbols, music, landscape, architecture... pretty much anything. Even worse - evil often regards itself as good, has a 'clear conscience'; and sees goodness as the 'real' evil!

But the thing is - We Always Know Evil. 

 

We all have an inbuilt, spontaneous, sensitive evil-detector; active 24/7 and that penetrates all disguises; an alarm that sounds when evil impinges, when evil requests an entry. 

Therefore we need not care about all the disguises and deceptions of evil - Our simple task is just to become aware of that inner alarm, in our heart; to recognise its warning; and to respond. 

 

Why are we blind to the evil of bureaucracy?

Well, we are not truly blind - rather we are self-blinded; which is much worse state - one immune to learning; one which is as bad as any state can be...

Everybody 'feels' the evil of materialist bureaucracy, managerialism, reductionism ('nothing but-ism', the accountancy culture) as it is applied to the workplace, the family, marriage etc. We feel it when in the presence of recent architecture and design; or when filling-in long, tendentious forms that are based-upon assumptions we oppose.

When I say 'feeling' I mean exactly that. It is a cold, suffocating or crushing feeling. We can feel the life being squeezed out of us, our humanity filtered or crystallised. Weber termed bureaucracy the 'iron cage' - that is true, but the worst of the cage is that we know it as a cage yet have chosen to inhabit it, and that we disbelieve in the possibility of a life outside of the cage.   


We all feel this - or have felt it when we were younger (the horror of compulsory schooling is a foretaste), yet fail to recognise its intrinsic evil to the extent that a large majority of people support it by their votes, their arguments, ideology - and their docile compliance.

We feel the iron cage is necessary; and by this simple choice we become self-blinded to its evil - because we are saying, in our hearts, that evil is necessary, and that this fact over-rides other.

We sense evil, but choose not to oppose evil; because we believe a System of evil to be necessary.


If you consider what this decision entails - to feel evil in one's heart, and yet nonetheless to embrace that felt-evil because we want some of its consequences - we can then understand the pervasive and increasing nature of evil in modern societies everywhere. 

The evil of bureaucracy is therefore not so much in the System itself (which is indeed evil, but this mortal life is - after all - full of evils). The evil of bureaucracy is that we have embraced its evil, and built our society, and our lives, upon it. So much that the evil has become invisible.

Is there an alternative? Yes, if we really believe that there is a larger world than that of materialist mortality - then there is no reason why we need to regard this world's 'inevitable' features as also Good.

If Life is measured by eternal and transcendent goals, then there is no irrationality in rejecting bureaucracy even if the probable consequences (so far as we can determine) were deleterious for health and happiness in this world.


The question of bureaucracy is, then, not merely a matter of optimising this-worldly gratification...

By knowing that bureaucracy is evil, by deciding it is inevitable, and then by joining-with The System and 'making the most and best of it in our lives - We have In Fact crossed over to the Dark Side, and chosen the path of active damnation and the corruption, not merely of our-selves, but of our fellow Men. 

So, when it comes to bureaucracy 'the stakes' are as high as stakes can possibly be.

A couple of musical discoveries - Yuan Sheng and Lauri Volpi

 

One cannot always be listening to Glenn Gould playing Bach; plus some of his pieces are excessively experimental and don't work over the long term. In the past, I have generally turned to Andras Schiff for a different and/but excellent way of  performing Bach's keyboard works. Schiff has a very smooth and lyrical, light and sensitive way of playing - as well as deeply thought. 

But just yesterday I stumbled upon a modern Chinese pianist called Yuan Sheng who may turn out to be (only time will tell) my back-up Bach pianist. He has a lyricism and delicacy much like Schiff, but a more clearly articulated (stunningly so!) and rhythmically secure basis. There is clearly a deep musical intelligence at work, evident bot hin the phrasing and the architecture.

Early days yet (and YS doesn't seem to have recorded 'The 48' yet) but I thought I would pass his name on, since he does not seem well known. 

 

Lauri Volpi is one of the acknowledged great operatic tenors of the recording era; but for some reason (that I cannot begin to explain!*) I never knowingly engaged with him until a week or two ago - when I heard him spoken of as The Master in an interview with one of my favourite modern tenors in the lyric Italian style: Alfredo Kraus.  

 

This is truly one of the most remarkable pieces of singing I have heard in the belcanto style - so beautiful that I get an almost reflex 'tearing-up'! 

The production of tone never seems to cease between notes; as if all the notes were linked by an inexhuastible, inaudible, 'glide' of the voice, which floats from note to note. Hear also the control of breathing, to produce effortless long phrases; and the display of what is termed "mezza di voce" in which the volume of a note is increased or diminished smoothly but without any change in tone quality, vibrato or pitch (this is apparently the single most difficult technique in operatic singing). 

Volpi also had immense power right to the top of the normal tenor range, and slightly above - which he did not unleash in this particular aria; although he easily goes up to what I think is a top C# (above top C, the normal highest note for large-voiced tenors) interpolated in the second verse; with beautiful ringing tone - but not at full voice. Apparently his top notes were, when he chose and in real life, louder and more resonant than any other great singer, ever. 

(Note, LV was apparently at his greatest as a singer in the 20s and 30; later he became much less subtle and more showy - although still with impressive power and control). 

*This may be related to the fact that my impression has been that most people, including most professional music critics, talk sheer nonsense when discussing the excellence or otherwise of singers. I must have read LV praised many times in the past; presumably by people whose judgment was worthless. But such praise from Alfredo Kraus (who singled LV out above all other tenors) is a different matter...

Iconic Bristol - the implications

I don't suppose many will recognise the above picture - but it had something of an iconic status in and around the city of Bristol when I was a schoolboy in that vicinity. It held pride of place in the city museum and art gallery and was on the cover of a small popular history of Bristol we had at home.

Yet/ And, the painting is actually a kind-of pastiche - an apotheosis of the Look and Learn illustration school although without the historical accuracy for which L&L strove. Also, I can't explain why the 'church' in the top right corner looks exactly-like the Wills Memorial Building, begun only some years after this picture was painted... maybe Board had seen the plans?...

The painting is The Departure of John and Sebastian Cabot on their First Voyage of Discovery, 1497 - and was done by a rather obscure artist called Ernest Board in the 1900s - indeed, it seems to be the only good painting he ever did.

Because this is a good painting; very pleasing in its details, colours, composition - the epitome of 'pageantry' to my mind; albeit (as was the case with the departure of Cabot) on a small scale. And a subject worthy of depiction - since Cabot discovered North America, and therefore is deserving of a significant share of the (surely?) excessive adulation given to Columbus.

In Bristol - a great and ancient city that nonetheless feels itself rather short of claims-to-fame - Cabot is still remembered; mainly through a strange eponymous tower built in a landscaped park shortly before Ernest Board's painting was done - and likely associated with its commissioning.

Presumably, the late-Victorian Bristolians had decided to emphasise their Medieval-Renaissance origins at about this time; by means of new, Gothic Revival, art and architecture.

  

Social class IQ differences and university access

Social class differences in IQ: implications for the government’s ‘fair access’ political agenda

A feature for the Times Higher Education - 23 May 2008

Also at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/22_May_2008/attachments/Times%20Higher%20IQ%20Social%20Class.doc

Bruce G Charlton

Since ‘the Laura Spence Affair’ in 2000, the UK government has spent a great deal of time and effort in asserting that universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are unfairly excluding people from low social class backgrounds and privileging those from higher social classes. Evidence to support the allegation of systematic unfairness has never been presented, nevertheless the accusation has been used to fuel a populist ‘class war’ agenda.

Yet in all this debate a simple and vital fact has been missed: higher social classes have a significantly higher average IQ than lower social classes.

The exact size of the measured IQ difference varies according to the precision of definitions of social class – but in all studies I have seen, the measured social class IQ difference is substantial and of significance and relevance to the issue of university admissions.

The existence of substantial class differences in average IQ seems to be uncontroversial and widely accepted for many decades among those who have studied the scientific literature. And IQ is highly predictive of a wide range of positive outcomes in terms of educational duration and attainment, attained income levels, and social status (see Deary – Intelligence, 2001).

This means that in a meritocratic university admissions system there will be a greater proportion of higher class students than lower class students admitted to university.

What is less widely understood is that – on simple mathematical grounds – it is inevitable that the differential between upper and lower classes admitted to university will become greater the more selective is the university.

***

There have been numerous studies of IQ according to occupational social class, stretching back over many decades. In the UK, average IQ is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 with a normal distribution curve.

Social class is not an absolute measure, and the size of differences between social classes in biological variables (such as health or life expectancy) varies according to how socio-economic status is defined (eg. by job, income or education) and also by how precisely defined is the socio-economic status (for example, the number of categories of class, and the exactness of the measurement method – so that years of education or annual salary will generate bigger differentials than cruder measures such as job allocation, postcode deprivation ratings or state versus private education).

In general, the more precise the definition of social class, the larger will be the measured social class differences in IQ and other biological variables.

Typically, the average IQ of the highest occupational Social Class (SC) - mainly professional and senior managerial workers such as professors, doctors and bank managers - is 115 or more when social class is measured precisely, and about 110 when social class is measured less precisely (eg. mixing-in lower status groups such as teachers and middle managers).

By comparison, the average IQ of the lowest social class of unskilled workers is about 90 when measured precisely, or about 95 when measured less precisely (eg. mixing-in higher social classes such as foremen and supervisors or jobs requiring some significant formal qualification or training).

The non-symmetrical distribution of high and low social class around the average of 100 is probably due to the fact that some of the highest IQ people can be found doing unskilled jobs (such as catering or labouring) but the lowest IQ people are very unlikely to be found doing selective-education-type professional jobs (such as medicine, architecture, science or law).

In round numbers, there are differences of nearly two standard deviations (or 25 IQ points) between the highest and lowest occupational social classes when class is measured precisely; and about one standard deviation (or 15 IQ points) difference when SC is measured less precisely.

I will use these measured social class IQ differences of either one or nearly two standard deviations to give upper and lower bounds to estimates of the differential or ratio of upper and lower social classes we would expect to see at universities of varying degrees of selectivity.

We can assume that there are three types of universities of differing selectivity roughly corresponding to some post-1992 ex-polytechnic universities; some of the pre-1992 Redbrick or Plateglass universities (eg. the less selective members of the Russell Group and 1994 Group), and Oxbridge.

The ‘ex-poly’ university has a threshold minimum IQ of 100 for admissions (ie. the top half of the age cohort of 18 year olds in the population – given that about half the UK population now attend a higher education institution), the ‘Redbrick’ university has a minimum IQ of 115 (ie. the top 16 percent of the age cohort); while ‘Oxbridge’ is assumed to have a minimum IQ of about 130 (ie. the top 2 percent of the age cohort).

***


Table 1: Precise measurement of Social Class (SC) – Approx proportion of 18 year old students eligible for admission to three universities of differing minimum IQ selectivity

Ex-poly - IQ 100; Redbrick - IQ 115; Oxbridge IQ 130

Highest SC– av. IQ 115: 84 percent; 50 percent; 16 percent

Lowest SC– av. IQ 90: 25 percent; 5 percent; ½ percent

Expected SC diff: 3.3 fold; 10 fold; 32 fold



Table 2: Imprecise measurement of Social Class (SC) – Approx proportion of 18 year old students eligible for admission to three universities of differing minimum IQ selectivity

Ex-Poly - IQ 100; Redbrick - IQ 115; Oxbridge - IQ 130

Highest SC –av. IQ 110: 75 percent; 37 percent; 9 percent

Lowest SC –av. IQ 95: 37 percent; 9 percent; 1 percent

Expected SC diff: 2 fold; 4 fold; 9 fold

***

When social class is measured precisely, it can be seen that the expected Highest SC to Lowest SC differential would probably be expected to increase from about three-fold (when the percentages at university are compared with the proportions in the national population) in relatively unselective universities to more than thirty-fold at highly selective universities.

In other words, if this social class IQ difference is accurate, the average child from the highest social class is approximately thirty times more likely to qualify for admission to a highly selective university than the average child from the lowest social class.

When using a more conservative assumption of just one standard deviation in average IQ between upper (IQ 110) and lower (IQ 95) social classes there will be significant differentials between Highest and Lowest social classes, increasing from two-fold at the ‘ex-poly’ through four-fold at the ‘Redbrick’ university to ninefold at ‘Oxbridge’.

Naturally, this simple analysis is based on several assumptions, each of which could be challenged and adjusted; and further factors could be introduced. However, the take-home-message is simple. When admissions are assumed to be absolutely meritocratic, social class IQ differences of plausible magnitude lead to highly significant effects on the social class ratios of students at university when compared with the general population.

Furthermore, the social class differentials inevitably become highly amplified at the most selective universities such as Oxbridge.

Indeed, it can be predicted that around half of a random selection of kids whose parents are among the IQ 130 ‘cognitive elite’ (eg. with both parents and all grandparents successful in professions requiring high levels of highly selective education) would probably be eligible for admission to the most-selective universities or the most selective professional courses such as medicine, law and veterinary medicine; but only about one in two hundred of kids from the lowest social stratum would be eligible for admission on meritocratic grounds.

In other words, with a fully-meritocratic admissions policy we should expect to see a differential in favour of the highest social classes relative to the lowest social classes at all universities, and this differential would become very large at a highly-selective university such as Oxford or Cambridge.

The highly unequal class distributions seen in elite universities compared to the general population are unlikely to be due to prejudice or corruption in the admissions process. On the contrary, the observed pattern is a natural outcome of meritocracy. Indeed, anything other than very unequal outcomes would need to be a consequence of non-merit-based selection methods.


Selected references for social class and IQ:

Argyle, M. The psychology of social class. London: Routledge, 1994. (Page 153 contains tabulated summaries of several studies with social class I IQs estimated from 115-132 and lowest social classes IQ from 94-97).

C.L. Hart et al. Scottish Mental Health Survey 1932 linked to the Midspan Studies: a prospective investigation of childhood intelligence and future health. Public Health. 2003; 117: 187-195. (Social class 1 IQ 115, Social class V IQ 90; Deprivation category 1 – IQ 110, deprivation category 7 – IQ 92).

Nettle D. 2003. Intelligence and class mobility in the British population. British Journal of Psychology. 94: 551-561. (Estimates approx one standard deviation between lowest and highest social classes).

Validity of IQ – See Deary IJ. Intelligence – A very short introduction. Oxford University Press 2001.

Note - It is very likely that IQ is _mostly_ hereditary (I would favour the upper bound of the estimates of heredity, with a correlation of around 0.8), but because IQ is not _fully_ hereditary there is a 'regression towards the mean' such that the children of high IQ parents will average lower IQ than their parents (and vice versa). But the degree to which this regression happens will vary according to the genetic population from which the people are drawn - so that high IQ individuals from a high IQ population will exhibit less regression towards the mean, because the ancestral population mean IQ is higher. Because reproduction in modern societies is 'assortative' with respect to IQ (i.e. people tend to have children with other people of similar IQ), and because this assortative mating has been going on for several generations, the expected regression towards the mean will be different according to specific ancestry. Due to this complexity, I have omitted any discussion of regression to the mean IQ from parents to children in the above journalistic article which had a non-scientific target audience.