Evil is a subtype of Entropy, in this Pluralistic-Animistic divine creation

I have often written about the twin ultimate-problems (ineradicable insufficiencies) of this, our mortal life; under the headings of Entropy and Evil. 

My understanding of reality is that its fundamental divisions or units are eternal Beings, i.e living-Beings; such that (to modify the title of William James's book) this is an Pluralistic Animistic universe; i.e. there are many fundamental entities (not one); and these fundamental entities are alive, purposive, with agency and other attributes of Beings.  

Because things began with many Beings; God's divine creation (that we inhabit) is the primary source of cohesion: in a crude sense, by creation God imposed harmony on pre-existing and originally autonomous Beings. 

For creation to be sustained (insofar as it is sustained) there must me harmony/ cooperation/ cohesion etc between the Purposes and motives of the many Beings which constitute creation. 

Otherwise, divine creation will tend to fall apart - with different Beings pursuing different goals, or living by different values.  

It is this tendency for divine creation to fall-apart into a chaos of competing directions and behaviours that is the essential cause of the tendency named Entropy: i.e. the tendency of all life, order, organization, forms, functionality etc to decline towards chaos, with time. 

The primary source of Entropy is therefore the disharmony of Beings.

Therefore we need to stop thinking of Entropy abstractly, as if it was a branch of physics, as if it was some kind of force (or anti-force) that broke-up stuff... 

Instead, we should think of entropy as a consequence of the fact that the Beings of divine creation are imperfectly aligned in their nature and purposes. 

Our situation is that we may find ourselves loving God and experiencing profound desiring to live in harmony with divine creation; but we simply cannot do this in reality as we experience it, in this mortal life - because of our innate nature, because of the way we are (and have been) eternally.  

We may want to live in harmony with divine creation, but we cannot. 

But not all Beings want to live in harmony with divine creation, and some Beings hate God; and these are Beings that have chosen (or, at least, are currently choosing) Evil.

So, Evil can be defined as a kind of chosen Entropy; when the inevitable disharmony between our-selves and divine creation is made into the positive choice our-selves to oppose divine creation.  

From this perspective we can see that Evil is a type of Entropy - in a sense a worse type of Entropy: a positive decision to pursue negative outcomes. And worse than non-evil-Entropy; because Entropy is universal and unavoidable, whereas Evil makes the personal choice to oppose divine harmony....

Motives for Evil are various, but perhaps some kind of resentment or grudge against God and the imposed aspect of divine creation, might be the most basic motivation.  

Aims of Evil, too, are various. 

Perhaps the aim is to exploit divine harmony in pursuit of personal gratification or other selfish benefit; perhaps (more extremely) to oppose divine harmony simply from a desire to see it destroyed, taking spiteful pleasure in the destruction. 

This was the unavoidable human condition, blighted by ineradicable Entropy, and worsened by chosen Evil; and the situation for all Beings, until the advent of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus was a mortal Being, incarnated into this world of imperfect harmony between Beings - but Jesus himself loved God wholly; and was himself (at least, at the time of his ministry, after his Baptism by John) wholly-aligned with divine creation. 

Jesus was himself mortal: which is to say he was subject to Entropy. And Jesus was subject also to Evil. However; because Jesus was perfectly aligned with God and creation he knew that after death he could (and would) be remade as himself but "perfectly" - in other words, resurrected into eternal life, freed from Entropy. 

Resurrection takes our aspiration to live wholly in harmony with divine creation, and rebuilds us from that basis.

Furthermore, Jesus knew that if or when others had followed him into this eternal (because wholly-aligned, Entropy-purged) state of resurrection - which remaking process would be guided by Jesus himself - then a world of such persons would be a world without Evil.

In eliminating Entropy, resurrection also eliminates Evil, as a subsidiary effect. 

And this wholly-harmonious and wholly-God-aligned post-mortal world would be Heaven: in which the deepest and ineradicable problems of this mortal life are eliminated; and free and creative Beings live spontaneously in harmony (loving God and each-other), and from common aims and motives. 

 

Too many Mainstream Orthodox Christians are "universalists" when it comes to "the resurrection of damnation"

There is a sentence in the Fourth Gospel that contradicts the argument and multiple statements of the rest of the Gospel, and which I assume was a later and alien addition...

But which (with, perhaps, a terrible and malignant inevitability) became standard orthodox compulsory dogma in many Christian churches (at least among theologians):

John 5: [28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The alien-ness of this passage is that, through the rest of the Gospel, it is evident that resurrection is A Good Thing, Good News, the great gift that Jesus offers to all Men who "follow" Him.

This is the real Christianity: one that recognizes that Jesus offered a great gift...

A gift that any mortal man (whether he be good or bad, as evaluated by This World, and after all we are all "sinners". Sinners both in the primary sense that we all shall die, and the secondary sense that nobody lives in full harmony with divine creation). 

Thus, a great gift that all may choose to accept - by following Jesus through death into resurrection and Heaven. 

What I regard as True Christianity, takes-up Jesus's many statements in the IV Gospel and its overall argument; that has resurrection linked with Heaven: resurrection is the needful transformation by which we are "born again" in a form suitable for Heaven. 

So; salvation properly means saving us from death, and the default fate of becoming ghostly spirits, barely our-selves.

Saving us into an eternal life in Heaven. 

Yet here, in the above quoted sentence, there is raised the spectre that Jesus's work was to raise the barely-conscious gibbering ghosts of the underworld Sheol into an everlasting incarnated state in which they would suffer the eternal torment of Hell.

Add to this horror; the statements in some other Books of the New Testament that only few - probably the very few who have "done good" to a sufficient degree, can or shall ever attain the resurrection of life.

And we get that truly horrible depiction of Jesus Christ as cosmic sadist that is so vehemently insisted-up and enforced by so many churches...

I mean the common and horribly inverted picture of a "Jesus" whose "great work" as a "saviour" was to implement a system of alleged-salvation, by which the majority of Men (probably a very large majority) were resurrected from death in order that they could be tortured forever. 

By such means, a large number of self-identified Christians - past and present - chose to make themselves into "Universalists". 

But not the kind of Universalist who assert that Jesus's work was to compel everybody to resurrect into Heaven; whether they wanted it or not...

Instead the kind of Universalist who believes that Jesus made things so that everybody gets resurrected, everybody gets brought to consciousness forever; and afterwards, for most of them, their eternal life will be one of inescapable and ultimate misery. 

Both "universalisms" are wrong: Resurrection is a choice and Heaven too is a choice, therefore neither is for everyone. 

Why is that so hard to grasp? 

And why are self-identified Christians so stubborn in refusing to grasp the Good News, or (worse) insisting that they do not even want it? 

There is a Direction to reality - but what is its nature and cause, and the implications?

Before I became a Christian - and on the basis mainly of my academic work in biology - I was convinced that there was a long-term Direction to reality, at least to "reality" on earth since its presumed formation; and that the direction was towards increased "complexity". This led to a strong focus on complex systems theory. 

However; further work revealed that complexity cannot be detected or measured in any genuinely objective manner. Which means that - insofar as the above is true - the study-field of complex systems has smuggled-in human consciousness, unacknowledged. 

I was eventually more-or-less compelled to acknowledge that the Directionality came from a divine source, and that the long-term Direction was more of the nature of consciousness than complexity. 

Which insight I got mostly from Owen Barfield, and also some aspects of Rudolf Steiner.

So I am convinced there is a strategy to reality over the very long term, and that it is of divine origin - and has to do with working towards higher consciousness. 

Yet I still do not feel that I have a sure grasp of what is going on, nor how it works - except negatively; by which I mean that the direction does not come wholly from the top-down, but derives also from the nature of "things"; by which I mean that "things" are actually Beings - and there is a Direction (an irreversibility) intrinsic to the very nature of Beings.  

And because I understand Beings to be eternal, alive, purposive, conscious in origin, capable of self-sustenance - I am inclined to believe that the Direction of reality comes from the (in essence) divine nature of all Beings - rather than something entirely-externally-imposed on reality by God.  

This apparently helps clarify the nature and scope of divine creation; that it is (as Joseph Smith described it) a matter of organization of the pre-existent. 

It clarifies, also, how it is that increase in consciousness is not, of itself, Good. Increasing consciousness is intrinsic to Beings, and therefore it is something that God works-with. 

Increasing consciousness is Not something that leads towards increased fulfilment of God's creative. Thus a being with higher consciousness is Not thereby more-Good.  

(Consciousness is "orthogonal" to Goodness.) 

In terms of morality; increasing consciousness is a thing that happens, like it or not, over the long term, for any Being. 

Being Good, that is living in harmony with God's purposes (living in and from Love) is a separate thing. 

However there is an interaction between consciousness and Goodness, which arises when the reality of increasing of consciousness is denied, or when the attempt is made to reverse the state of consciousness. 

This falls under the category of an evil; because it is a false (untruthful) understanding of reality - and there cannot be harmony with God's plans, when there is dishonesty - or the attempt to distort or invert reality in conformity with the individual will of any Being. 

In sum: we (as individual Beings) have no obligation to seek higher consciousness, but we do have ano obligation to acknowledge that consciousness we actually are. 

Since divine creation incorporates the reality of Direction; it is Good to acknowledge reality and work-from the reality of divine creation; and evil to deny reality and work against divine creation. 

Explaining the origin of irredeemable, never-incarnated, demonic spirits

Following from yesterday's discussion; I shall put forward here an explanation for those beings who are traditionally regarded as demons in orthodox Christian theology:

The definition of which is that they are spirit-beings, that have never incarnated, and which are eternally committed to evil such that they cannot be redeemed or saved. 

There are several other kinds of being that might be termed "demons"* - and these might include currently-incarnated beings, or beings that have previously been incarnated and died (analogous to evil ghosts)...

But here I am focusing on beings that have always been spirits - and I am trying to understand and explain how any being might be outwith the scope of the salvation of Jesus Christ.   

I will first outline my metaphysical assumptions: those who want to cut straight to the explanation of demons will find this after the break: indicated +++

My metaphysical understanding of reality is that it comprises beings in relationships; and that beings have attributes such that they are alive, conscious (to some degree), purposive, self-sustaining and so forth. 

Beings are eternal, always have existed - including before creation.

All beings are unique: that is important. Some Christians (perhaps influenced by oneness spiritualty) assume that all Men are originally equal, and diverge - and then spiritually develop and converge towards becoming very similar, or even identical. 

But in contrast I assume that all beings began as unique (and un-cooperative) and God's plan of salvation is a matter of progressively achieving harmony. At first a partly-imposed and temporary harmony, but a process that is completed by the Second Creation, of Heaven; where each resurrected being has chosen to be remade such as to live wholly from-love, and harmony between unalike beings is then innate and spontaneous**.

That is: living-beings are the primary unit of reality; and "beings" include humans, animals, plants, as well as what are usually considered to be "mineral" entities and materials. 

Everything primary in reality is thus either itself a being, or part of a being. 

A further assumption is that all beings were originally spirits. 

Only later, and only for some beings, there may be incarnation into some material form. 

Many spirits have never been incarnated.  

Originally (before creation) beings may have been aware of each other, to varying degrees, and with varying attitudes - but each being is assumed to have been autonomous, separate, pursuing its own goals. 

Before creation, reality was a "chaos" of beings. 

Divine creation happened when God's love became the means of "coordinating" or harmonizing these already-existing beings. 

However, to become a part of divine creation, a being must first be capable of love; then secondly a being-capable-of-love must choose to live by, or from, this love.

(Because it is love that harmonizes the disparate beings, and this harmonization is creation.)

Hence the formulation "God is love", and the great commandments to love God and fellow Men - which can be interpreted to make the choice to embrace the loving purpose of God as ideal, and to aspire to live wholly from love of other beings. 

+++

Now I will explain the origin of demons:

All beings are unique. To participate in creation, a being must be capable of love; but not all beings are capable of love. 

A love-incapable being happens to be constituted that way. Such a being will not be part of creation, and cannot ever become a part of creation. 

Demons are here regarded as spirits that are incapable of love. 

For a being to be saved or redeemed includes death and resurrection such as to live entirely from love. 

It follows that any being constitutionally incapable of love, cannot undergo salvation, indeed, such a being cannot even want salvation.

Some love-incapable beings might remain passive, detached from creation. But demons are assumed to be those love-incapable beings who have chosen to oppose creation - for various motives. 

For instance; demons may aim to exploit creation, or may seek to destroy it. They may be motivated by their own pleasure, by negative resentment, or sheer spiteful desire to inflict suffering. Or mixture of motivation; and demonic motivations may change over time. 

But although capable of changing their behaviours; a love-incapable demon can never become part of creation, and can never seek or attain salvation through following Jesus Christ. 

The above scheme may explain the occurrence of those demons - traditionally-defined: demons that are spirits, have never incarnated, and are eternally outwith even the possibility of salvation. 

*(And some of these are capable of choosing salvation.)

**(An analogy is that the first creation is like a State ruled by a loving creator God with a mixture of coercion and consent; while the Second Creation is a perfectly loving family.) 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

And some Beings may become rebels against the whole System. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why entropy is inevitable in this mortal incarnate life

Why is entropy inevitable, unavoidable in this mortal incarnate life?

The answer is because, in this transitional phase between a purely-spirit pre-mortal life, and resurrected eternal incarnated life in Heaven; our bodies are made from the substance of other Beings. 

Because ultimately there are only Beings. 

Because these Beings are eternal - the materials from which our bodies are made are only "lent" us, for a while, by other Beings.

Therefore we incarnate by a contingent, always-changing, inevitably temporary, alliance of Beings.  

There are no inert "minerals" - all "chemicals" are actually parts of Beings. 

And of course there are actual Beings incorporated into our bodies - such as many individual cells, for example the phagocyte white blood cells are essentially autonomous amoebae. 

But these (and other cells) exist in a dynamic kind of symbiosis, living and reproducing in the environment provided by our blood; (temporarily) controlled by our regulatory systems, which also include other Beings and parts of Beings.  

So; the innate tendency with time, is for the allied Beings and parts of Beings to revert to the purposes of the Beings themselves.

In other words; for these other-Beings, from-whom are bodies are made, to become autonomous agents with a divine destiny; at some point they must regain that primary agency which has been temporarily suspended in forming our bodies.  

In this Primary or First Creation that we all inhabit; the ultimate identity of Beings has not changed - even when one Being 9or some part of a Being) is "being used" by another. 

This is why entropy is a part of the Primary creation - inevitable, unavoidable. 

And this is why Jesus Christ was necessary to create a form of incarnated existence without entropy, without death. 

We can understand that resurrection entails a re-creation of our incarnate selves, purely from our own Beings. 

And therefore without a tendency for the components to revert to other Beings. 

And therefore we - because of the Second Creation of Jesus Christ - may choose Life Everlasting; without the entropy and death which are intrinsic to this Primary Creation...

A creation formed by the eternal commitment of whole-Beings to live in harmony, by love. 

Totalitarian PSYOPS are literally black ritual magic

PSYOPS are regarded as top-down mass psychological/ sociological manipulations; and they are all evil by nature; because they are not motivated by love - not in harmony with divine creation. 

Also, since they aim to change "other peoples" behaviour in pre-determined ways, PSYOPS are intrinsically evil in that they are strategically un-truthful. 

In practice; all large scale top-down PSYOPS are also intentionally evil - even if/when those human-tools who implement the PSYOPS (the bureaucrats, managers, professionals, labourers) are ignorant of this evil purpose. 

In 2026 our lives are full of PSYOPS, and have been for decades, accumulating. 

These include the highly prevalent, major totalitarian strategies that I call Litmus Tests - such as class and inter-sex warfare, climatism, antiracism, the Birdemic, and currently "AI"-dolatry.   

There are no good PSYOPS. Supposed good intentions are fake excuses for evil. 

PSYOPS are like The One Ring, a tool of The Enemy, that and cannot be used to fight The Enemy. So, when PSYOPS are used purportedly for "altruistic" purposes - such as Health Promotion or Public Health - supposedly to "help people" in a scientific and medical spirit; if followed through they result in strongly net evil outcomes. 

But to what extent are PSYOPS actual ritual magical practices, performed by black magic techniques? 

In other words, are the methods and intended effects of PSYOPS all operating at the cause-and-effect level of human behaviour and thinking, using quasi-scientific models?

Or, are there spiritual methods at work, with intended spiritually harmful consequences?

Yes, there is a spiritual agenda. Despite that the masses of modern people deny and are ignorant of the spiritual world; nonetheless those at very very top of the totalitarian system are spiritual operatives. 

At the top of the power systems; the ultimate and primary agenda is spiritual warfare; and naturally spiritual methods are deployed - ritual, symbol, charged language, music, "modern" architecture and art, ... the works. 

The phenomenon termed "gaslighting" is pure spiritual warfare: it prepares the way for the necessary invitation for evil to enter the soul. 

Gaslighting induces people - by systemic methods - legal, economic, religious, social, physical (coercion) etc. - to espouse/ support/ propagate/ endorse false assumptions, false logic, stark contradictions, nonsense, paradox... 

Meaninglessness is made to be treated as interesting, amusing, wise; destruction is celebrated as creation; resentment and Schadenfreude are praised as morally exemplary. 

All these are ways by which people are brought to voluntarily open their souls and invite external corruption, occupation - ultimately to hand-over control of the soul to external spiritual authorities.

Black magic is not effective unless it is - to some extent - invited-in. 

Once inside a receptive environment; entities of evil tend to become self-amplifying, by a positive feedback process. 

Therefore spiritual PSYOPS are not effective, unless the masses welcome them... 

However it is apparent that they/we do welcome them! 

Every major new PSYOP has been (at least, to all appearances) - and continues to be eagerly welcomed by large swathes of the Western population. 

People are controlled partly by acknowledged psychological-material techniques; but also - and more effectively - by magical-spiritual methods that harness and direct the malign will of those at high levels of strategic influence. 

It is difficult to resist materialist manipulations, but these are very resource intensive, and limited in effectiveness when they go against human nature. 

By contrast; magical-spiritual manipulations need to be met by open souls, and received with positivity; but when this offer and response happens; black magic is a highly  efficient and powerful malign influence on human behaviour, thinking and feelings. 

 

Fake fights, fake wars - and when the reason for real enmity is calculatedly mis-described.

That we spontaneously take sides is evident whenever we watch any kind of contest - such as a sport...

We find-ourselves rooting for one or another person or team - even when we know nothing about that sport and have no reason to care who wins, one way or the other. 

We are all and often manipulated by our instinctive propensity to Take Sides; including in evolutionarily-novel situations where we have no need or reason to take sides, and where we have zero reliable information concerning what is really going-on. 

Thus, we frequently - almost automatically - find ourselves supporting some entity engaged in deliberate and strategic evil - wanting them to win, and excusing or denying the harms they are doing. 

In the public domain - in inter-national or within-nation conflicts of all kinds, including wars (of all kinds) we seldom know - are seldom told - what that fight is really about, what really motivates the two sides who have created, sustained and escalated the fight. 

My best guess is that almost-all real wars at present are about something quite other than the explicit, publicly proclaimed, reasons for war. 

And indeed there may not be a real fight! 

Plenty of the "conflicts" reported and analyzed in the mass media and among politicians are utterly fake. 

I mean; both parties are on the same side, and merely putting on a drama of fighting each other. 

"We" are manipulated into taking sides; but "They" are all on the same side, and against "Us"!*

Our best hope in resisting psychological (and spiritual) manipulation by the powers of evil; is to become conscious of our own innate tendency to take a side; and deliberately to disengage mentally from the given-choice.

To take neither side; but because we must do something, we need to push out the wrong with something right. 

Instead we ought to support some other side. Support a third side. And make sure that side is in-harmony-with the purposes of divine creation.

*Note added: That should be our default assumption - whenever presented by the media and officialdom with some conflict. In other words; we should assume that They are being untruthful - either about the reality of conflict, the causes, the real sides... or something. We may occasionally be wrong - a stopped clock sometimes tells the right time, and They will sometimes tell us something factually-correct - but even then the interpretation of the facts will surely be false. Detection (of what is happening), disbelief, and disengagement, should be our default response - if we can manage it! We can seldom know what really is happening; but we can be sure it is never what They are telling us is happening.    

I am the way, the truth and the light... (Explained)

John 14: [3] And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. [4] And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. [5] Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? [6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

My understanding of this report of Jesus's teaching is that he is implicitly contrasting the new dispensation with the old. 

In the old dispensation "the way" was a highly literal "way" - it was single path (the Law) - a single life-pattern of beliefs and behaviour that every man needed to follow if he was to be favoured by God in this mortal life. 

But the old "way" made no difference to what happened to him after death - the ghostly realm of Sheol was the common destination for all Men. 

When Jesus says that he himself is the "way" this is at first a paradox - because a person cannot be a path. So Jesus means he himself is replacing the old idea of a single and specified path-through-mortal-life.  

In future, in Jesus's new dispensation; to "do the right thing", to live well; we ought to think of our relationship with the person of Jesus, because Jesus is now "the way"...

We should therefore have a relationship with Jesus instead of trying to stick to "walking" along a semi-literal, and single, legally-pre-specified, "track" through the choices and chances of this world. 

By my understanding; "the truth" seems to refer to "reality" - or how-things-are with respect to what is important. In other words; our relationship with Jesus is the most important thing, from now...

All this is assuming that we ourselves want what Jesus is offering in his new dispensation; which is described as "the life". 

The life is, in other words, being used here as shorthand for "resurrected eternal life in Heaven"; Heaven instead of Sheol. 

(And also instead of any other other alternative post-mortal situation or state - such as annihilation, depersonalized bliss, or some kind of reincarnation.) 

 

The phrase "cometh to the Father" is less clear, and may (I think) be a later interpolation. 

But "the Father" could be taken to refer to the nature of divine creation; such that "coming to the Father" would mean coming to live in perfect harmony with divine creation which is Heaven - that is to say living by love always and wholly...

Therefore being with the father might be living in the Heavenly state which is by love and without evil; and Life without coexistent death meaning something like "entropy" - i.e. disease, damage, ageing, etc.  

A loving relationship with Jesus, and intention to accept what Jesus offers, is now replacing the old conceptualization of the "way"; it follows that following Jesus is the only "way" to Heaven, there is no other "route" through life to resurrection; "no man cometh to the Father" except by the nature of his relationship with Jesus.   

Note: As background: I also understand that our relationship with Jesus is by "the Holy Ghost" - which is the spirit of the ascended Jesus as we may know it in this world and mortal life. And I also assume that although we can and should commit to love and follow Jesus in this mortal life; the actual following Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven must happen (and can only happen) after death; i.e. post-mortally. 

Evil? Don't let it into the heart. If evil is already inside, then label it as evil

The problem with the most prevalent forms of mainstream, normal evil - such as the Litmus Test issues - is that they are invited into the heart; and once inside the heart they are regarded as good. 

There are many incentives - immediate and long-term, psychological and social-material - for supporting the net-evil totalitarian strategies that I call Litmus Test issues; there are many rewards for support, and many sanctions against failure to support. 

And when we inhabit a decades-old and pervasive-intrusive totalitarian ideology; almost all of public discourse is inhabited by one or another (or several - of all!) of the strategies of evil; such that it becomes all but impossible to survive and thrive without going-along-with one or many of the strategies of evil. 

Such is the nature of the human condition in a world where evil is dominant; and where that dominance of evil reaches down into the detailed workings of (almost-) every significant nation, institutions, organization, corporation - and nowadays penetrates even into friendship groups, clubs, hobbies, and the family itself. 

How can we inhabit such an evil world, without ourselves taking the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world? 

The (Christian) answer is very simple, I believe; because it "simply" involves that we recognize evil, and inwardly reject that evil. 

This recognition-rejection sounds easy, and it can be easy (a child can do it) - but in practice is apparently so difficult as to be not just impossible but incomprehensible. 

One difficulty is that "we are all sinners", as the phrase puts it; that is to say, we all practice evil. This is unavoidable not just because this is an evil-dominated world, but because we ourselves can only sometimes and partially desire and live-in-harmony-with divine creation. 

For much of our lives we cannot resist thinking, wanting, and doing evil.  

Therefore, to recognize and reject evil entails that we recognize and reject many aspects of our-selves, and those whom we most love...

And also that we recognize and accept that this situation will not (because it cannot) change: for all of mortal life on earth, we are and shall-be stuck-with our own and other people's deficiencies and wickedness. 

If the above is a broadly correct account of human life on earth; and if evil ought to be dealt-with by recognition and inner rejection; then we can see that it is a Big Problem - perhaps the biggest of all current spiritual problems - when people invite evil into their hearts and call it good. 

Instead, we should strive not to invite evil into our hearts. 

But when, inevitably, we do invite evil into our hearts - when we (inevitably) find ourselves supporting some evil strategy... then we must resist doubling-down on our sin, and calling that evil good. 

We must, especially, resist defending intentional strategic evil; or promoting it on the grounds that is a lesser evil than something else; or on the grounds that - like all evil, everywhere, ever - the strategic-evil contains some good, or potentially good, aspects. 

No - instead we must do that which is simple: recognize and reject. 

And when - and it is a case of "when" not "if" because everybody is a sinner, all will fail and fall; and fail frequently... daily, hourly - we are compelled, or cannot resist, going-along-with or even publicly-supporting some evil strategy...

Then inwardly, in the privacy of our souls, we need to make a clear act of recognition and rejection. 

Don't invite evil; and when we have already invited it into our hears; ensure that the evil does not become a familiar, habitual, acceptable, friend and companion. 

Ensure instead that the evil we have already invited, accepted, and already supported in our hearts; then gets acknowledged and labelled in accordance with its true nature: as an evil we inwardly reject. 

Spontaneous "clairvoyance" and symbolic transcendence are unreliable, unconvincing and/or impossible for many - so it is in Thinking that we attain contact with the divine and the spiritual

Modern people are no longer (since their young childhoods) able to live spontaneously and naturally (and mostly unconsciously) in the realms of the divine and spiritual - as seems to have been (mostly) the case for our tribal ancestors. 

Neither does the intermediate symbolism and ritual of religion "work" as a pathway to the divine and spiritual in the way it did throughout most of history - the effectiveness of such intermediaries is either much weaker, much less consistent between people, or doesn't work at all. 

Therefore Modern Man has a problem!

I owe to Rudolf Steiner the insight that the proper mode in which "Modern Men" (such as you and me) can and should achieve contact with the divine, and the realms of spirit, is Thinking. 

But most of our thinking, most of the time, is utterly mundane in content and carries no necessary meaning. 

So, it is apparent that only some kinds of thinking can do what is needful - and these I have variously-characterized as Primary Thinking, Heart Thinking and Direct Knowing. (All these are intended to refer to the same phenomenon; variously approached and conceptualized.) 

Experience at trying to become aware of such Thinking (and observing the experiences of others) leads me to infer that this kind of Thinking can only happen when motivations are of the right kind - and that generic or abstract aspirations to be or do "good" do not suffice to produce the right motivations. 

So this kind of Thinking cannot be done by just wanting and trying; our motivations must really-be such as to align in harmony with divine creation. 

And when this happens; then Primary Thinking is what we are doing - if we can but recognize it. 

I also infer that exercises and techniques do not work when it comes to achieving the right motivations to contact the divine and the spiritual realm. 

Steiner himself produces great swathes of tedious and tendentious nonsense when he was wrongly motivated - despite his high mastery of meditational methods; and despite that he was genuinely motivated to "be loving to everyone" and to "help other people" - albeit in a necessarily generic and abstract way. 

Steiner seems to have supposed that his benign feelings towards the Anthroposophical Society; or his desire to help those such as teachers, doctors, agriculturalists who approached him for guidance; would be a sufficient motivation. 

But the results demonstrate that this was in practice insufficient to prevent his outpourings on these (and many, many other) subjects including a lot of memory regurgitation and sheer invention; and failing to rise to the level of reality (or even objective validity).

 

What can be done? 

Lacking a valid blueprint of what it is to Be Good, or even to Want Good - how can we proceed?

As usual, when there is no positive formula; we can only try to avoid that which is negative and preventive; seek and embrace our personal inspiration and aspiration in concrete situations, wherever it may be found; and then recognize and "go with" Primary Thinking when we are aware that it is happening. 

Distinguishing Final Participation from Original Participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creative artist envy is a mistake

This is the creativity of ecstatic engagement - 

which is valid regardless of its communication or appreciation 

I have been re-engaging with the work and person of Glenn Gould recently - a recurrent activity in my life ever since I discovered him in autumn 1978. 

Something that crops-up is that Gould, in some sense, "wanted to be a composer"... but never quite got around to it (producing a small handful of apprentice or light pieces merely); despite circling around this idea for some thirty-off years, and despite being par excellence somebody who did what he wanted the way he wanted.

And despite "re-composing" many of the pieces he played; at least in the sense of sometimes ignoring performing traditions and composers markings (e.g. for tempo and dynamics) alike.  

This could be regarded as an example of "composer envy" - a condition that afflicts many of the more thoughtful performing musicians - including the greatest conductors; who perhaps get nearest to composition without actually doing it. 

There is, it is often assumed, a scale of creative activity, in music that has the great composer at the top (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc); great conductors next (e.g. Toscanini, Stokowski, von Karajan); and then the great performers of the various instruments - with piano pre-eminent. 

But this is the top-end of another common assumption among those who appreciate the arts; that to be any kind of creative artists is intrinsically "more creative" than... anything else. 

So that being a musician is intrinsically a creative activity - as is novelist, poet, painter or another of the arts. 

So there is an "artist envy" among those who are not artists - on the basis that artists are more creative than non-artists. 

However, none of this is really true at the individual level. 

By my judgment; Gould was actually a far more creative person than any of the classical composers of his era. Great Classical music was not being composed in the second half of the twentieth century, nor since (although there has been a fair bit of good and worthwhile classical music.). 

I mean that the actual, recognized and prestigious, classical music composers from the 1950s onward, do not succeed in their creating to anything like the extent of Gould himself. 

Creatively-speaking; Gould really had nothing to envy among his contemporaries among composers. 

A similar situation exists with respect to poetry. I think there still exists a kind of "poet envy" among writers - I mean the idea that "everybody really wants to be a poet"... 

(Or, if not a poet, then a novelist or playwright.)

And yet, the actuality is that there has not been (IMO) a great poet in our Anglophone Western culture in the past half century and more (and very little real poetry of any kind or quality) - so what is there to envy? ... 

Nothing; except an unearned reputation for creativity in poets. 

To circle back to Gould; what his example teaches me is that our greatest creativity is found by pursuing our personal gifts and motivations - and not by trying to fulfil society-wide notions of creative activity. 

Gould succeeded in leading an exceptionally creative life- - mainly as a performer, but also there was a mosaic of other and complementary creativity in his radio documentaries, his rhapsodic essayistic writings - and even in his interviews. 

That is one thing. 

Secondarily; Gould was able to communicate his ecstatic states, insights and perspectives to a very high degree. That is why he the fascinating figure that he is; among those in sympathy with his nature and ideals.

This ability to communicate was rooted in Gould's exceptional abilities as a pianist, which were both technical-pianistic, and also expressive of a very high aptitude as "a musician". 

By saying that Gould was "a musician" at a high level; I refer to Gould's capacity to understand music - as contrasted with the ability to play it. 

It is possible, indeed usual, to have the one without the other - and to have both musicianship and performing technique at a high level, is very rare

The lesson from this secondary aspect of creativity is that high aptitude is not generalizable (almost by definition). 

That is: we can learn from Gould's primary creativity, because there are aspects of unique and valuable creativity in everybody - but we cannot learn from Gould's rare gifts of deep musicality and technical accomplishment, which are those aspects that made him a great communicator.   

The capacity to communicate primary creativity - to share one's own creativity with others - is something that cannot be depended-on: or, more accurately, something that we ought not to build our creative endeavours around.  

In other words: is not a matter of particular activities, jobs or roles; but instead something that is an aspect of our real selves. 

Everybody ought to be creative, ought to live-creatively - and creativity is a reality. 

Creativity is, ultimately, to live from-oneself in harmony with divine creation. 

It is a matter of contributing the consequences of our uniqueness of nature to divine creation.

What that actually means - for you and me, in actual practice - should be calibrated inwardly. 

Half-baked - yet pervasive - notions of artist-envy must be seen-through and set-aside; because creativity is not a social role; 

To be-creative is not (or, not for many people, and only for a few people) to be one or other kind of socially-recognized artist or other creative type. And even within creative types (musician, writer, visual artist) there is no objective hierarchy.

And we need to realize that the whole business of "living creatively" is often, I would say usually, muddied and corrupted by conflating it with the business of being appreciated and recognized by other people. 

In sum: We can and should all aspire to be creative, which all can do; but only a very few can ever be - or should ever be - publicly acknowledged as a creative artist that can communicate his vision.   

In the Western civilization now and for several generations; to be a recognized and prestigious "artist" of some kind, is close to being a guarantee of low-level or utterly-absent creativity of living; when creativity is correctly understood. 

Real-inner creativity and acknowledged-outer creativity are almost wholly dissociated: one exists usually in the absence of the other. 

The psychology of "creativity" is distinct from the sociology: the private from the public. 

This fact needs to be recognized if we are each to live as well as we might. 

  

NOTE ADDED: On reflection: This post doesn't seem to make its point very lucidly! I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in pursuing creativity, we ought not to be guided by cultural ideas of what constitute legitimate creative activities. Nor should we aim-at or push-for public recognition for whatever creative stuff we decide to do. Insofar as this happens naturally - fine. But the more we are trying to promote the product of our creative work, the less here-and-now creative we will become. In other words; what really mattes is active and aware creativity today (in whatever domain we intuit to be destined) - not praise and accolades for some-thing we feel to have been insufficiently-appreciated (a picture, poem, novel, performance - or whatever) that we did last week/ month/ year, or in our youth. And we should strive to be pleasing to our deepest selves and to God - or a handful of people we respect; rather than to focus on hopes of material or cultural rewards. 

In theology, it impresses me to find evidence of active thinking - rather than defensive parroting

Its a sad, but inevitable, fact that almost all of Christian theology - is merely defensive parroting. 

Which is to say that the discourse is just people expounding arguments and evidences they have learned from sources approved by the church to which they have chosen to affiliate. 

It is awareness of this parroting quality (on one or both sides) that may produce that sense of frustration at lack of engagement, of unseriousness, of insincerity - or even cowardice; which has been so off-putting to so many modern people who are considering becoming Christians, or who are expressing genuine (not merely expedient) doubts about aspects of their church or Christianity generally.

I suppose there must have been some people who were actively thinking about Jesus Christ and Christianity at some point in history! Indeed, I suppose that the letters of Paul are evidence of this kind of grappling. 

But there has been in Christianity, and very early, and for most (not all) of subsequent history - probably as in most other religions - a strong tendency to draw a line under this thinking for oneself - and a switch to stating (dogmatically) that this primary engagement has been done, the results are in - and the answers are as follows...

From which point the idea is that good Christians need to understand and believe, to learn and rehearse, and to parrot. 

At which point there is no point in talking to them! Arguments are futile! Debate is simulated!

Unless - that is - you are merely curious about such people; or if your goal is to become like them, and be guided in all your fundamental life understandings, motivations and choices - by an institution. Which is, evidently, still a popular aspiration - although almost-never actually achieved.   

  **

Further Note: I have often myself engaged in this defensive parroting! So I know it by inner experience. 

For instance, in medicine, doctors explanations are of this kind, because the doctor has never himself been through the background to medical facts and claims, but is merely repeating what he has been taught or otherwise learned. 

And, of course, most enquiries and dissenting directed at doctors is (almost inevitably) itself shallow and ignorant, or selfish or manipulative... and is not motivated by a genuine desire for discovering truth. 

But Not Always! And then it is maddening to have one's one direct enjoyment met with parroting merely!

At other times, after becoming a Christian, I sometimes found myself in the same situation. I accepted the truth of some external claim - but did not really know it for myself or from primary experience - and indeed such experience tended to refute the external claim, but I deferred to authority on the basis that cleverer and better informed people than myself had been deemed to have sorted-this-out long ago. 

It was really when I - almost against my will - was nigh-compelled to dig deeper and deeper towards the most fundamental aspects of Christianity; that I began to find it ever more obvious that this would Not be how God would set-things-up! 

I mean; I began to feel clear and sure that God would Not create us and the world; such that we were supposed to pick some particular social institution (a church), then adopt an attitude of obedient service and trusting credulity to that institution. 

That would be an absurdly unreliable, fragile, contingent way to plan a system for the salvation of Mankind!  

At around this point, I began to notice when I was parroting about Christianity, and to dislike myself for doing it; and instead felt a necessity to discover the truths by my own thinking and spiritual experience.

And to regard such personal engagement as the bottom line for my understanding of reality - rather than regarding Christian faith as deference-to and parroting-of any particular external source. 

*

Another Note: Why has it become necessary (at least, I would say so) for us actively to think about theology; when in the past it seemed to be not just adequate but often desirable to parrot good authorities? 

My short answer is that we Now live in a totalitarian atheist-materialist world, where all institutions (including all churches) are part of a multi-linked-bureaucratic system that is intrinsically evil: by which I mean intrinsically in-opposition-to God, divine creation and salvation. This was Not the case in the past; and churches were (at least, in some times and places) overall in-harmony-with The Good; such that obedience to the church was sufficient - and probably the safest path.

(Furthermore, In the past nearly-all Men were communal, and substantially lived in a group-consciousness; such that individual and agentic thinking was rare and difficult; whereas now it is the spontaneous default - and indeed difficult to escape, even when we desire to immerse in a shared consciousness.)   

Owen Barfield's concept of participation provides the basis of what is needed for Christians, as of 2025

Owen Barfield's concept of participation provides the basis of what is needed for Christians, as of 2025 and going forward. 

Barfield assumes that participation in Divine Creation is both our nature as created beings; and also the proper aim of created beings. 

Creation is in the direction of developing participation in the direction of freely creating in greater consciousness. 

More exactly, that this is our proper aim as Christian beings who have chosen to live by love and therefore in harmony with God's creative will. 

The reason why participation is so centrally and vitally important to Christians, is that it is by participation that there is creation in the first place. 

Creation is itself (if properly understood) a matter of participation; because creation is (as all Christians acknowledge) primarily a matter of love. 

For there to be love in this "relational" and personal Christian sense; there must be distinct beings each with the capacity for loving - and then love needs to be mutually chosen.

The cohesion of divine creation should therefore be understood as an ongoing process of harmonizing the motivations of beings; harmonization through the love between beings. 

In different words; divine creation is (partly) a matter of once indifferent beings, coming to participate-in the creative direction of God's loving nature; through loving God and loving one-another. 

It is this love between Beings that is the basis of the harmony that is creation.

But divine creation is also living, dynamic, continuing, increasing... And by the Christian understanding it is God's intention that Men become fully (and divine) Sons of God; share in the work of creation, and who each contribute something unique (because from themselves), new, and additional-to creation. 

Therefore, the direction of creation is towards greater consciousness and choice among beings - towards an increasingly-active participation - which change must be freely-chosen by each being. 

That is to say; there is a change through time from a mostly passive, mostly unconscious, harmony of creation in which individuals largely serve the divine will and each does not bring much new and additional to the whole...

And towards what must necessarily be a more collegial participation in the work of creation; by which every single being that chooses to live by love, is consciously enabled to contribute that which is unique in himself and which he learns to the totality of creation.

More on the "contact" aspect of Primary Thinking

Continuing from yesterday's post:

The idea that Primary Thinking will only happen if it entails contact with another mind, another being, another Real Self - fits with some other stuff. 

For example, if thinking is Not in contact - then it is purely personal and subjective - because thinking is something that is done by beings: thinking is an attribute of beings. 

Thinking isn't an energy or electricity, a physics-like thing or chemical changes - but even if physics/ chemistry/ biology were a good analogy for thinking, these also require beings. The notion that there can be an autonomous domain of "science" without regard to living and conscious beings is incoherent: see Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances. 

(When there is knowledge, there is no escaping consciousness.)

So, you can't have abstract thoughts floating-about in reality, without beings to think them.

A being that thinks without contact is in a pre-creation situation. 

Pre-creation there were beings (as it were...) floating around in chaos - either unaware or indifferent to one another. It was one of the events that went with divine creation that thinking began to be shared, began to happen as a direct contact between beings - and this, I presume, as a consequence of love. 

I envisage God (the prime creator) as primordial parents, whose mutual love initiated - and itself was - divine creation. 

This could also been seen as the beginning of primary thinking - which fits with m conviction that Primary Thinking is a direct form of participation with ongoing divine creation. 

Also; if primary thinking is, as I believe, a participation in the work of divine creation - then primary thinking cannot be private - cannot be confined to one mind. This also confirms that primary thinking must be something that is happening in more than one mind. 

Creation can be considered the loving harmony of many beings in such terms as the aims and methods of creation - just like an ideally loving family that remain in harmony through time: the mutual love makes the family cohere, and ensures that aims and methods are sustaining of love. 

It seems that, if we want to engage in primary thinking; then mind to mind, direct - and loving - contact, is a pre-requisite.  

The mind-to-mind contact of primary thinking is always mutual, shared; involving two (or more) beings

For some years I have been trying to understand the distinction between what might be termed primary thinking and mundane thinking...

In which primary thinking is assumed to come from our real/ eternal/ divine selves and is objectively real (primary thinking affects reality, and does so in a direct way - i.e. without needing physical modes of communication)...

While mundane thinking is the ordinary subjective stuff that grinds-away (sometimes unconsciously, sometimes as the stream of consciousness) in response to memories, outer perceptions, external manipulations etc; and in accordance with psychological mechanisms. 

Mundane thinking is "merely" subjective in the sense that it is inner, personal, cut-off; and (of itself) does not directly influence any other beings or the world in general. 

For me; this is a matter of absolutely core interest and concern - fundamental to my life and its purpose. It's a subject I cannot leave alone, nor do I want to neglect it 

Following-on; I have often explored why primary thinking is so difficult, so rare, so hard to initiate and continue. 

Yesterday it struck me that the answer may be implied by the fact (or assumption) that primary thinking is not private and subjective; but that primary thinking, on the contrary is linked-with, actively participates-in, ongoing divine creation.

This implies that we are not doing primary thinking unless we are in direct contact with another Being. 

Put negatively; we cannot do primary thinking unless our thinking is being-shared with another being. 

Or, positively expressed, we are thinking primarily when we are in a situation that I've sometimes called direct knowing. 

What is meant by "direct" is that there is no intermediary. Normal mundane knowing works by communication - by a message being sent, received, interpreted etc - but there is (indeed there must be, for there to be any knowing at all) potential for a direct, mind-to-mind way of sharing thinking, of simultaneous thinking. 

But it wasn't until yesterday that I realized this implies, or rather it entails, that primary thinking can only be done "in collaboration". 

We cannot do primary thinking on our own ("in our own heads"), which is perhaps why primary thinking so often seems impossible  no matter hard we strive for it... 

Indeed the striving for it often seems to block primary thinking; presumably because it merely intensifies the cut-off and subjective nature of mundane thinking. 

What I'm saying is that primary thinking happens, and only happens, when we are in "mind to mind" and direct contact with another being - which might be a living human being, or some other kind of being.

This "other kind of being" could be almost any kind of being; e.g. a deceased and resurrected human, animal, an angelic spirit, the Holy Ghost...

But (as I've said elsewhere) primary thinking is intrinsically good in the sense that it is a participation in divine creation. 

So, the "other kind of being" could not be an evil-affiliated being; at least not while such a being, is currently-actively rejecting-of or hostile-to God and divine creation. 

In sum, primary thinking is a dyadic activity at minimum - or could involve more than two beings that are actively, currently, in real time - actually sharing thinking directly and without mediation. 

To do primary thinking we must first be aligned with God's creative will, and secondarily must mutually be participating in thinking with another God-aligned being. 

(I'm not sure; but it might even be that primary thinking is only possible when there is some degree of a love relationship between beings.)

This could explain why primary thinking is rare and tends to be brief; but also suggests how it might become more frequent and sustained - in that our striving should be aimed toward discovering the right kind of "contact" with the right kind of other beings - and this contact essentially needs to happen at a spiritual (not material) level. 

I'm not suggesting "a recipe for primary thinking", and I don't possess one...

Indeed, since I am saying that primary thinking is rooted in fundamental mutuality, harmony with divine creation, and indeed perhaps love; it cannot be attained by any standard method or procedure! It is another kind of thing altogether. 

But maybe this "dyadic" perspective will stop me from pursuing futile and counter-productive efforts; and perhaps point me in the right direction. 

Learning, understanding, awareness? What should Christians do in daily mortal life?

I've said elsewhere on this blog that we each need a purpose for this mortal life; and that for Christians (followers of Jesus Christ) our individual purpose in this mortal life should be "framed" by the confident expectation of  resurrection into Heaven. 

That still leaves-open the question of what we are supposed to be doing on this side of death; given that we would not be sustained alive by God unless there were reasons that were good for us - meaning eternally good for our immortal souls. 

I have expressed what we should do using the term "learning" - learning now for a "pay off" in post-mortal life; and this can be further expanded by the concepts of understanding and awareness.

(This presumes that God, by the continual action of creation, "engineers" the kind of learning-experiences that we each need, or could benefit from.)  

It seems to me evident that Christianity includes a great deal of emphasis on the positive value (and perhaps even essential nature) of understanding and awareness. 

So, it is not enough (or at least it is sub-optimal) for Men simply to experience mortal life unconsciously, passively, and without reflection - because that is unfree: such an "automatic" life does not entail the needful positive decision to align with God and work in harmony with divine creation. 

What is required then is a kind of learning that has risen to some level of understanding of what has been learned; and this understanding of what has been learned should rise to a level of awareness. 

This is what enables freedom to have its vital role. 

(And such freedom can most profoundly be understood as a bringing to bear of our own divinely creative selves - such that God's creation is expanded and enriched by the creativity of individual beings in voluntary alignment with God's aims and methods.) 

With respect to the need for understanding; it would, of course, be unrealistic (if not impossible) to suppose that we can attain anything much like a final and comprehensive understanding of this world - not least because the reality is of a world massively causally-interlinked; such that any specific understanding is bound to be deficient and distorted to some degree. 

Nonetheless, I think many will know by experience a kind of understanding that might be called an epiphany, an insight-into or showing-forth-of reality; a creative moment underpinned and endorsed by intuition. 

This seems to be close to the kind of thing we most need. 

Now, it is also essential to realize that the constraints of this mortal incarnation mean that - at least in our physical and material manifestation - this kind of epiphanic insight can be misremembered or completely forgotten in a bodily sense; we might suffer all kinds of accidents, sickness or degenerative disease. 

It would (after all) be pretty worthless if our needful spiritual learning/ understanding/ awareness depended on such fragile things as the functionality of human brain and body. 

Therefore, we must assume that true knowledge is never forgotten in a spiritual sense; that our intuitive epiphanic insights are permanently stored as part of our spiritual-person, our immortal soul.    

A further constraint that needs acknowledging is that most actual people most of the time, are "victims of" (in thrall to) their innate personality, abilities and circumstances. Such that they (we) will mostly be making bad choices and leading lives that are not just un-virtuous - but considerably more sin-full than they "ideally" might be. 

The message I get from the Fourth Gospel and other confirmations; is that this does not matter ultimately; and that a Christian life is possible for everyone capable of love, who value love most highly and who desire above all to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

Ultimately, it need not matter how weak, mean and corrupt such a person might be, or what terrible kind of life he leads. Jesus came to save (even) sinners - not perfect, nor even better-than-average Men*.  

It is crucial to note and absorb that Any bad circumstance of this world, including the self-inflicted, can be (and actually is) overcome by faith - sustained by hope and driven by love. 

But although all manner of spiritual guidance and support are available when needed; none of this happens automatically, nor can it be achieved by any external power. We cannot be "made" to live in a worthwhile way; just as we cannot be compelled to salvation. 

The crucial aspect is always in our-selves, in our freedom (properly understood as the creative agency of our real self, in chosen-alignment with the divine); and the basis of freedom includes learning, understanding, awareness. 

There is always something eternally-valuable to be learned from any person's actual life here-and-now; and/but this learning always requires to be driven primarily by the free spiritual life of each person...

Indeed by the free spiritual life of each being of any kind; since Heaven is populated by those Beings of all kinds who - after their mortal deaths - commit eternally to live primarily by Love.  

*It is not really relevant here - but I suppose that I need to comment on the fact that none of this is meant as an excuse for being selfish, sadistic, spiteful - doing evil. But the usual problem with those who do evil is that they deny that what they are doing is evil, or (nowadays, invertedly) say that the evil they are and do is good. The take home message is not that utter impossibility that we should cease from sinning, nor that "real Christians" are better (more ethical) people than others on average, nor that becoming a (real) Christians entails becoming a "better person" -- but that Christians need to acknowledge and repent the evil that they (we) inevitably do; and that (in principle) nobody is so bad in their behaviour that they cannot become a Christian. What excludes so many modern people from salvation is not that they are worse than past people in their behaviours; but that modern people Do Not Want Salvation.  

The magic of human institutions: Now absent, once always present; but never wholly sufficient

For most of recorded history until recently; many human institutions (organizations, formal groupings) were magical * - to some degree. 

The further back we go, the more magical they could be. The earlier in our life we go, the more likely that we would ourselves experience this magic. 

However, there were also not-magical groupings; and, no matter how magical the institution - there have always been those people who do not participate in it; being either immune to that magic, or susceptible but reject it. 

Furthermore, the innate magic of pre-adolescent childhood; means that - even now - groupings of such children often have a strongly magical ambience. 

The big difference across the generations relates to adult institutions - which used often to have a significant magical quality - but now are likely to be (almost entirely) soulless, dead, mechanical - and indeed purposively anti-magical... Zealous in their active destruction of any such qualities - typically by means of abstract and generic systems of bureaucracy and computerization. 

For instance; many educational institutions used to be strongly magical in their nature. This applied especially to small and localized institutions, or those with a mutually-selective character (i.e. both selected and selecting). 

Through my adult life I experienced educational institutions with considerable variations in the magical qualities; although I was also aware that most people were not consciously aware of such differences even when they spontaneously responded to them. 

Most people would speak against the reality and significance of such institutional aspects; and would cheerfully erode or eliminate magical aspects whenever this seemed expedient, from abstract ideology; or sometimes from sheer resentment-driven spite. 

Looking back; I could see that this institutional magic had, overall, been both more pervasive and common, and stronger (at least potentially stronger), the further back one went. 

Yet institutional enchantment was never complete. Human life was always and for everybody to some degree - marred by the "mundane" - this being the nature of our mortal state. 

The magic of institutions was therefore at its height (as I understand it) probably the major source of enchantment in human existence; while at the same time the very nature of institutions (plus the human beings who constitute them) meant that this magical quality was always both incomplete and contradicted.

 

And, through may adult life (from the 1980s) I could also see that this magic was innately ebbing - while also being purposively-expunged - from the educational institutions of which I knew. 

The difference across the decades was extreme. In my childhood and early adulthood the magical quality of (for instance) universities was (to me) palpable. By the time I retired from academia, the magic had been very-completely destroyed. 

Perhaps most evident when a soul-less, and indeed actively soul-destroying - institution, would attempt to cloak itself in the enchanted mantle of earlier generations. 

This would dishonestly be attempted using the mind-manipulating procedures of modern advertising and public relations; and would therefore fail to attain magic, but reduce enchantment to ideology, false promises of hedonism, fashion, and covert-appeals to status snobbery.  

While I devoted considerable energy to fighting this anti-magical trend, I now believe that a decline of that kind of spontaneous, largely unconscious, institutional magic was inevitable - due to the innate developments of human consciousness. 

When the human beings of an institution themselves come to lack spontaneous and unconscious magic; then enchantment is bound to wane from all institutions. 

The analogy with adolescence (nowadays) is close. Many children are spontaneously and unconsciously susceptible to enchantment; but the innate process of adolescence will abolish this; after which the capacity to know and live magically, must be the consequence of a conscious choice.  

In the later twentieth century, Western adults reached an "adolescence" of consciousness, so that spontaneous and unconscious magic receded - and if we were to continue to live any kind of enchanted life in our institutions; magic would need explicitly to be acknowledged as good, and purposively pursued.  

In sum: as we approached the millennium, magic needed to become self-conscious and consciously valued; or else there would soon be no magic.      

We know by now which of these happened! So complete has become the disenchantment of institutions, that (it seems) most people deny that things ever were otherwise! Most people assume that all institutions were always as they are now: spiritually-dead, exploitatively manipulative, habitually dishonest...

But such retrospective denigration is projection of our evil onto others; as can be seen if historical sources are experienced sympathetically. 

From where we actually-are; I find it hard even to imagine how institutions can be re-enchanted; because there is neither recognition of the problem, nor will to solve it. 

Furthermore; I am pretty sure that (from here, from now) institutional re-enchantment can happen only on the basis of Jesus Christ. 

Yet this needs to happen in a context where the churches are themselves very-thoroughly disenchanted - including by assimilation into the ideological materialism of totalitarian bureaucracy. 

This means that any future source of enchantment must primarily (i.e. as a first step) be sought outwith the Christian church institutions - and Christianity (plus/ minus specific churches) regenerated from that basis. 

From the spiritual place we now inhabit and the people we actually are; I cannot see any way that a Christianity rooted primarily in institutional affiliation (to any kind of institution, no matter how idealized) can succeed in doing what needs to be done.

On the other side; the attempt to do without enchantment; to construct a religion that operates at the level of institutional power, rooted in the mundane, rational, functional (e.g. a religion designed to implement a particular kind of society) - well, this will surely fail. 

Fail because it will inevitably assimilate to the existing mundane, pseudo-rational, quasi-functionality of that system of totalitarianism that characterizes our civilization. With Men as we are; any possible church-based, institutionally-rooted Christianity will be secular and materialistic, totalitarian and political, and spiritually dead.  

The only path ahead, is the right path ahead. 

**

*"Magic" does not mean Good - since there is black magic (intended to manipulate people and creation), as well as white (in harmony with God and creation). But magic is, of itself, good; in the sense that it recognizes the reality of our participation in creation; and by enchantment we are aware of this participation. Whereas the exclusion or elimination of magic is intrinsically an evil because rooted in falsehood, and the intent to cause spiritual harm.