Final Participation is a conscious consecration of this-moment to our eternal resurrected life

For the past decade or so, I have been trying (in multiple ways) to understand the implications of Owen Barfield's concept of Final Participation - as being the destiny and proper aim of our spiritual life. 

Some modern people seem wholly enmeshed in mundane materialist thinking and feel detached and alienated from the living world - trapped inside their own heads. Their only relief is temporarily to forget this in sleep, intoxication, psychosis - and in occasional moments when there is a resurgence of a child-like sense of belonging and involvement. 

These brief times are what Barfield calls Original Participation, because they were our original state of consciousness as young children, and also (it is believed) the normal state of the earliest ancestral Men.  

Original Participation is - pretty much - the same as Novalis's Sehnsucht and CS Lewis's Joy; Gurdjieff's self-remembering, Maslow's Peak Experience, or Csíkszentmihályi's Flow state are psychological reductions of the experience.  

Such moments may be pleasant, indeed there have been times and places (e.g. some of the Romantic movement around 1800, or the 1960s counter-culture... still ongoing) when many people aspired to abandon modern consciousness and return to Original Participation. 

Although this return to the spontaneous, natural, child-like, primitive, here-and-now consciousness is powerful and alluring to many people; it has always failed - and must be assumed impossible (except briefly).  

However it makes a difference how we regard these brief moments. 

If they are regarded as merely pleasant psychological states, then Original Participation can only be therapeutic - like taking a short holiday from the "real world" of mundane materialism.

Yet Barfield asserted that Final Participation was not just a pleasant interlude; but in some deep sense absolutely necessary - necessary if we personally, and our society as well, were to avoid being overwhelmed by evil.   

However, Barfield was vague about how this might be achieved (he usually advised consulting his mentor Rudolf Steiner's work - but Steiner's techniques seem obviously ineffective, and Barfield never claimed that decades of practicing Steiner medications had led to any very significant effect on Barfield's own thinking in terms of Final Participation. 

Indeed, it seems that FP is not really achievable in a lasting and dominant way. 

So we seem rather to be trapped between impossibilities! We cannot go back, cannot stay as we are - yet the destined path forward seems blocked...  

Yet anyone who conceptualizes life as bounded by conception and death will find himself bounded by exactly such impossibilities. We cannot escape the constraints of entropy (and death) and evil. 

But this is forgetting the reality that we are eternal Beings, and this mortal life can be (should be) seen as a finite transitional phase between eternities before and afterwards. 

Furthermore (and here I depart from Barfield, with his ideas of multiple future reincarnations) a Christian sees his eternal future as including resurrected Heavenly life, following after this mortal life.

My idea of Final Participation is that it is the conscious choice to consecrate those moments of Original Participation.     

So that when moments of OP happen; we choose to regard them as sacred. 

In such a "consecration"; the momentary experience of OP is consciously recognized as being of potentially eternal significance to divine creation - and is actively taken-up into ongoing thinking.

This contrasts with, say, the sixties counter-culture response - which is to stay inside those OP moments, and perpetuate them or as long as possible. 

I would regard this as akin to a religiously-contemplative response to Original Participation. Contemplative because it is deliberately passive and self-negating. The moment is primary and we intend to stay with it, dissolve-into it. 

This is analogous to the contemplative kind of meditation where people seek a "blissful" state of consciousness and try to maintain it for as long as possible. 

The ideal is of stasis in perfection.  

But Final Participation is active and creative - hence is is both dynamic - like divine creation; and aspires to join-in-with and influence ongoing divine creation.

And all this is a choice, not a surrender. It is an affirmation of the self, not an attempt to lose the self. 

It is the choice to be a Son of God, a sibling of Jesus; one who want to join with God in the work of creation, and add to to that creative work whatever is unique in himself. 

So, Final Participation is an active self-confidence; confidence that by the "process" of resurrection after this mortal life we can be transformed such as to be able, worthy, and trust-worthy of eternal participation in creation.

Thus, FP is a state of being only achievable permanently (as a normal state) after our death, and only among those who have then chosen to follow Jesus through resurrection to everlasting Heavenly life.  

But Final Participation does have a vital role in this mortal life; because it is when we can add to our resurrected life. 

FP represents our choice to learn from experience in such a way that our immortal soul is permanently transformed.

We are talking about our immortal souls, not the conditions of our mortal lives on earth - so the fact that our modern experiences of participation may be relatively few, infrequent, brief - does not invalidate these experiences... 

FP experiences are of permanent value not because they last a long time; but so long as we choose to consecrate them.

Consecration would go something like this:

1. Original Participation happens. 

2. We recognize that it is happening. 

3. We acknowledge that this happening is of potentially permanent importance to our resurrected Heavenly self. 

This needs to be done when Original participation happens - Now: here-and-now. 

Not put-off until later. 

If we do not do it at the time of Original Participation - it will (probably) not be done. 

However... An intense imagined re-living of the moment, could also be used to consecrate that moment retrospectively. Because then the moment is not merely "retrospective" but a re-experiencing here-and-now - which is perhaps one reason why we may recollect and meditate on such moments... Why they may last so tenaciously in our memories. The experiences may be re-presenting themselves for consecration. 

Maybe, if we do this on principle and habitually; then this will act as a positive feedback and establish a "spiritual reward system" - so that such opportunities will become more frequent? 

The thing is: we modern Men are terribly demotivated, prone to despair - and any spiritual advice that diminishes or delays our gratification seems doomed to fail*. 

Consecrating our moments of Original Participation generates an immediate spiritual reward as well as a hope-full anticipation. 

Instead of OP being a tragic joy; doomed to be short-lived, doomed to be forgotten and lost by age, disease, death... Instead of this; the act of consecration transforms it into a moment of permanent and positive significance.  

As far as I can understand; only a follower of Jesus Christ who lives in confident expectation of resurrection can do this; and it will not "just happen" but must be done by conscious choice. 

All then depends on making that choice. 

NOTE: It may be objected that because Original Participation is spontaneous and natural, it is not necessarily good. This is true; and if an OP experience is not good, then it cannot and shall not be consecrated to resurrected eternal life - so any such attempt will fail. Christian discernment - knowledge of good and evil, God and that which opposes God; is a necessary part of Christian life - and always applies. 

* The mass of people are (quite literally) spiritually-dying of despair, for lack of any genuinely positive purpose in life. It seems obvious that the double-negative (e.g. therapeutic) values that are exclusively propagated, including by nearly all religions (eg religions rooted in avoidance of default divine punishment), including most Christian churches - are simply ineffectual; leading to short-termist this-worldly hedonism now, and ultimate despair eventually. 

Direct Knowing or Intuition... How I try-to Do It - in practice

In the past (and perhaps still, in other cultures) men spontaneously experienced "contact" with gods or God, the divine - more generally, spirits, the dead/ ghosts, and many other supernatural/ paranormal forms of interaction such as with remote persons or animals. 

These also include sensory/ perceptual experiences such as the seeing of spiritual visions, or hearing voices and having conversations 

But here-and-now it seems that adult and healthy (or healthy-ish) modern Men - and I count myself as pretty typical in this respect - do Not spontaneously have such experiences; nor can we have such experiences in alert, healthy, and clear consciousness; no matter how we strive. 

"Contact" of this sort only happens spontaneously to modern Men in states of lowered consciousness; such as dreaming sleep, trance, intoxication; or when there is brain dysfunction in psychosis (including with brain diseases, such as dementias). 

To my mind, the difficulty or impossibility of having these supernatural/ paranormal experiences of contact and interaction, points to the conclusion that the old sensory/ perceptual experiences (while they may lead to good) are ultimately retrograde, "atavistic", and often motivated by a nostalgia and desire to revert to an earlier (less conscious, more automatic, less free) phase of the development of consciousness (which we may recall from early childhood, or have imaginatively experienced).

But given the mundane and alienated nature of typical modern consciousness, and more importantly (indeed vitally) the necessity for each of us to receive personal guidance from the Holy Ghost in particular - given these needs, we must develop other ways of establishing some kind of experienced-interaction or "contact" with spirit Beings.

Indeed, I have often said that this kind of interaction is the basis for metaphysical reflection on the fundamental nature of reality. It is the basis of that "intuition" upon which everything depends - and which I have variously called "direct knowing", or sometimes "heart thinking" or "primary thinking". 

The point is How To Do It?  

In my experience, I think this contact works by an awareness of such contact while actually speaking, writing, or thinking. 

It is a "direct" form of knowing, because (unlike the past and other cultures) there is no sensory aspect.

What it is like is a deep and simple sense of affirmation or rejection, support or opposition, yes or no. 

Such a "feeling" is indeed the deepest awareness of which I am capable. 

This does not mean the experience is infallible, but that it is the best I can do - here and now. 

Because the experience is deep, it is not reached as a result of inference from other kinds of evidence, nor does the awareness come with "proof" of itself - although naturally evidences, proofs, excuses and the like can be derived or contrived secondarily - after the guidance. 

Since this mortal life is mostly about what we ought to try to do, here and now - in these particular circumstances - the experience-of-itself suffices.

    

As an example; this is how I have developed my fundamental theological convictions. For instance, I needed to decide whether "God" was single or a dyad: more exactly I wanted to know whether God meant a Heavenly Mother, as well as Father. 

I had come across the idea of God as originally eternally-married man and woman from Mormon theology, and then later the work of William Arkle. I had felt an immediate stirring and attraction to this knowledge, an experience that proved robust to re-acquaintance.  

To discover its truth, to discover whether I ought to assume such a reality; I wrote about it. Writing for myself, in a journal; candidly and without an audience. 

I also talked, a little, about the idea. But it is very rare to find anyone with whom such fundamental (metaphysical) subjects can be discussed in a way that is an be both unselfconsciously confident on my part, and with sufficiently engaged and sustained attention on the other person's side. 

So verbal discussion is, in practice, seldom of much value - which is why writing (or indeed speaking aloud to oneself, for those who cannot or do not write) can be so helpful. 

Furthermore; I thought about the subject in solitude and quiet (i.e. I prayed, in one sense of praying) - with attention to what followed in this deep level of awareness. 

To explain further: this is something done with a high level of conscious awareness; because it is necessary to have two "things" in mind simultaneously: both our question and the inner-awareness of a response from another Being.

To me, this puts a tight limit on the kind of question that can be asked - the question must be worked upon until I have it absolutely clear and simple in my mind; and as soon as I have done this, and made the decision to seek some kind of guidance or opinion, and have attained a quietly attentive and concentrated mind-set: the answer arrives immediately. 

The source of this inner endorsement (or rejection) is varied, and something we can decide - or, at least, we can decide "who we are asking" to the extent that we can validly conceptualize another Being. 

For instance, and most importantly, the Holy Ghost is (by my current best understanding) the ascended Jesus Christ and his spouse Mary Magdalene. If I address this understanding of the HG, then the response depends to some extent on the validity of my conception. 

If instead (like mainstream traditional Christians) I regarded the Holy Ghost as the spirit aspect of the Trinity; then this might well have an effect on the shape of my question, and therefore the answer. 

Indeed, if the question is "improperly addressed" then there may be no answer. 

That has been my understanding of what is going on when I am seeking an answer to a question rooted in false premises, false assumptions. Nothing happens. 

Then there is the problem of the source of the answer - in particular whether there might be a situation where a demon was to impersonate a spirit of Good (an angel), or the Holy Ghost? 

My only answer, and I think the only real and relevant answer, is that this depends on our motivations and intentions and general stance with respect to God and divine creation.  

If (for instance) we are really seeking answers for selfish purposes; or if we a really aligned with Satan and against God; then such motives and stances are bound to distort and subvert the answers we get.  

The only conclusion is to strive for thorough honesty; and a vital part of honesty is to try and be as conscious as possible of our real assumptions, motives etc; and then as clear and explicit as possible in describing these to our-selves. 

Can we be misled and wrong? Yes of course! There is no recipe for being right. 

Should be strive to be absolutely certain, with no possibility of wrongness, doubt or change of mind? No!

In this mortal world we operate from very distorting circumstances, such that being ultimately and universally absolutely correct in all significant respects surely cannot be the most important thing from God's perspective.

What typically matters is that we personally get things sufficiently right in the situation in which we now find ourselves. 

Other problems will arise, situations will change, we ourselves will change - but that is all uncertain, indeed it is (because of the agency of beings) profoundly contingent. 

What we must deal with in our mortal lives occurs as some primary issue, here-and-now... And Christians will have faith* that sufficient personal capability and external guidance is always available for everybody to accomplish this adequately - albeit never "perfectly."

+++

*Note: Will have faith, because we can be confident that God-the-creator is also our loving Father (or our parents, as I believe); who therefore has individual concern for the salvation and spiritual development of each-and-all of his children. So we-ourselves and our circumstances have-been and are-being created that way. Since this loving God is creating all the time, we know that our situation always has an attainable positive path forwards - for as long as our lives are sustained.

Alone, overnight, in Durham Castle

I once spent the night entirely alone in the ancient structure of Durham Castle, comprising scores of empty hallways, passages and a hundred-plus bedrooms; the kitchens, Feasting Hall; and both an underground Norman Chapel with peculiarly eroded primitive cravings, and a severely-dignified 16th century chapel. 

I was, at the time, a Resident Don, living in the junction to the Victorian-restored and residential Keep. It was, I think, the Easter vacation, when undergraduates were absent; and also, for reasons that I cannot now remember, the place was also vacated by postgraduates, the other Dons, and even the college porter and her family who lived in the gatehouse at the back-left of the above illustration.  

The porter told me that I was the only person remaining in residence for the one night; and gave me instructions for locking-up and security. 

On the actual night in question, at first I was unfazed - just getting on with my work. Then it became dark, and mostly very quiet... 

But there were, in fact, many noises of many kinds, of the kind one would expect in very old buildings; especially creakings and short deep thuds.  

Quite suddenly I became afraid; and experienced an involuntary picture in my mind of the many dark, empty rooms that surrounded me - and I felt very alone.

I considered going out, but did not fancy venturing through the empty halls and courtyard, and liked even less the idea of returning. 

I did not even want to speak to somebody on the phone - since this would somehow amplify awareness of the oppressive sense of the building around me. 

In the end, I adopted the cowardly tactic of distraction and hiding; I turned the television and music up loud until I went to bed; inserted earplugs, and took refuge in the oblivion of sleep. 

By the next morning, everything seemed normal and friendly, and I rather enjoyed the interval until people began to trickle back. But I still recall how thoroughly I spooked myself -- or else became aware of aspects of the situation that were normally drowned-out of consciousness by the intrusive presence, activities, sounds of many people.   

 

The Old Vicarage, Grantchester by Rupert Brooke

Say, is there Beauty yet to find? 

And Certainty? and Quiet kind? 

Deep meadows yet, for to forget 

The lies, and truths, and pain? . . . oh! yet 

Stands the Church clock at ten to three? 

And is there honey still for tea?

These final lines of Rupert Brooke's 1912 poem are perhaps the most famous, because so yearningly evocative, expressions of Edwardian nostalgia - which seem to foreshadow the terrible losses (and in Brooke's case, death on active service) suffered by the gilded youth of the English upper classes in the 1914-18 War. 

And of all such youth, Brooke was certainly the most gilded! - since he was so perfect an example of the then-ideal of male beauty as to have become the centre of a considerable and worshipping cult (and being English upper class, this was from both sexes). 

All of which does not much endear him to me! Brooke was, indeed, a Norman among Normans...

Yet; in his longish poem "Grantchester"; Brooke achieved a marvelously enjoyable and satisfying piece of verse. The whole poem is actually of considerable complexity; having the epigraph "Cafe des Westens, Berlin, May 1912" - so the set-up is of Brooke, sitting abroad in Germany, miserable, and remembering the happiest year of his life living in Grantchester - a village situated a few miles along the river from Cambridge University where he was an undergraduate.   

What is startling after this introductory section - which contains another section that has entered common parlance:

Oh! there the chestnuts, summer through, 

Beside the river make for you 

A tunnel of green gloom, and sleep 

Deeply above; and green and deep 

The stream mysterious glides beneath, 

Green as a dream and deep as death. 

Is that there arrives a section of superb comic verse: 

God! I will pack, and take a train, 

And get me to England once again! 

For England’s the one land, I know, 

Where men with Splendid Hearts may go; 

And Cambridgeshire, of all England, 

The shire for Men who Understand; 

And of THAT district I prefer 

The lovely hamlet Grantchester. 

Yet, despite his hyperbolically expressed love of Cambridgeshire (albeit knowingly-inaccurate! Because Grantchester is not a hamlet but a village; a parish, with a church!); Brooke then (with deliberate absurdity) lists many towns and villages near to Grantchester, and waspishly (and arbitrarily) satirizes them for their various supposed inferiorities. e.g:

And folks in Shelford and those parts 

Have twisted lips and twisted hearts, 

And Barton men make Cockney rhymes, 

And Coton’s full of nameless crimes, 

And things are done you’d not believe 

At Madingley on Christmas Eve.  

Light or Comic Verse must exhibit technical perfection - and this does; and more generally "Grantchester" is remarkable for the way in which its short line rhymed couplets remain continually interesting and surprising; despite that this is probably the dullest of all verse forms - witness most of the 18th century English poets - Pope, Dryden, Johnson... who I find all-but unreadable.    

Probably my favourite humorous section of the poem comes somewhat earlier; describing a ghostly fairy-tale scene, set in the immediate surroundings of the Grantchester Old Vicarage where Brooke dwelt during his glorious year: 

And in that garden, black and white, 

Creep whispers through the grass all night; 

And spectral dance, before the dawn, 

A hundred Vicars down the lawn; 

Curates, long dust, will come and go 

On lissom, clerical, printless toe; 

And oft between the boughs is seen 

The sly shade of a Rural Dean . . . 

 

I would indeed classify "Grantchester" as verse, rather than poetry (as I understand it) - it is an exemplar of the classical rather than romantic tradition. Its considerable delights are not at the very highest level. 

And, as for Brooke himself - he is best appreciated as the original basis of what soon became an archetypal ideal. 

By contrast; I find the historical-biographical "reality" of his life among the Cambridge Apostles, the "Bloomsbury Group" and Fabian Society to be repellant, sordid, corrupt.

Best ignored; or viewed through a rose-tinted retrospectoscope!

And, of course; properly understood and responded-to, the legend is what matters most. 

***

This post was triggered by a couple of visits to Grantchester over past months; eating lunch in the Orchard Tea Garden that contains a little Rupert Brooke museum. 

And then picking-up (from a sales display at St Andrew and St Mary's church, Grantchester) a very enjoyable photographic and explanatory edition of the poem (done by a couple of the local residents) which I recommend to anyone intrigued by my comments above:

Rupert Brooke's Grantchester, by Francis Burkitt and Christine Jennings (2010).  

Great spiritual advice from William Arkle, but very difficult to follow...

So often the case, eh? Somebody writes something, and when you read it you have a sense that it could be An Answer: that if you could go-ahead and do this, then... well, things would be a lot better, for sure.

So then you try it. You try to do what the person suggested doing. And... Well, it doesn't happen; but instead you just lapse into the usual stuff. 

Example: The following striking passage is excerpted in Jon Flint's collection of William Arkle's later writings. It comes from a letter than Flint received from Arkle in 1997 (somewhat edited by me, for clarity):

Where do the succession of thoughts arise from within oneself - thought and feelings and attention? Most of the time these are conditioned as a response to what goes on outside.

But when we are alone (in the dark, or eyes closed) and there is nothing special on our mind, and we are free for a while to do as we like with out own conscious world... What do we do with our thinking then?

Do we seek other stimulus, go to sleep, or... Do we create the "now" that we most like to be with?

If we do the latter; it spreads into the future "nows", so that (in a Godlike way) we take charge of our "nows" and call to ourselves the very best ones. 

Our present attention is in fact, I believe, a Godlike command to the ethers; and our Great Friend [God] wants us to learn to use it well, beautifully, playfully - and for Him and all other delighting. And of our own fulfilling with value, purpose and joy. 

This is the only everlasting purpose after all...

William Arkle is making a very concrete suggestion here, about how we might best use our free-est moments. It is clear enough what he means in a negative way, of what we shouldn't do - that we ought not simply to seek further external stimulation of our thinking. And we ought not to seek the oblivion of not-thinking by sleeping, or doing some kinds of meditation, or maybe seeking some kind of intoxication.

The difficulty is Arkle's positive injunction to "create the "now" that we most like to be with". 

The suggestion is that our "everlasting purpose" is best served by using our thinking creatively, like God, to create in our conscious here-and-now thinking, the best "now" of which we can conceive. he goes on to say that, if this can be done, it will have a general effect via "the ethers" - which I take to refer to the world of thinking shared by many Beings, and that shapes the world. 

I can well believe this... If we can indeed do as Arkle suggests and "create the "now" that we most like to be with". 

For me, at least, that is one of those things that sounds simply and perfectly do-able, until I actually try to do it - when my thinking reverts to its usual mundane habits of responding to external stimuli, or grinding away at dull stuff; or soon begins to switch-off towards passive and dreamlike associations, or even actual sleep. 

The deep problem seems to be that I cannot get a specific purchase on my thinking, a basis for the desired way of thinking. The instructions are too vague and general; yet any specific instructions of what to think-about and how, become merely more of the usual mundane stuff. 

I find that what I am hoping-for is a positive transformation and elevation of thinking, but that I am not properly motivated to achieve this. 

Wanting it isn't enough, and may even be (seems to be) counter-productive. 

Indeed; I do not believe there is a general answer to this problem. I don't think there is, or can be, any plan for "how to do" what we most want to be done. 

Why? Probably because we are talking about creativity; which must be motivated by love - and that isn't something that can be ordered-up on demand. 

My best suggestion - which I can but seldom actually follow myself - is to locate love in our-selves, some basis of actual love; and start thinking from that love. Not by statically stopping with that love (not just contemplating it, not clinging to it); but instead thinking "dynamically", purposively, while "holding-onto" that love.

In practice, however, I just can't seem to do it; at least, not whenever I want to.  

The great (and attainable) task of becoming more conscious

It seems impossible (for many reasons) for us to make ourselves feel good, or even better, most of the time - certainly not all of the time. Indeed, to focus on our feelings seems like the wrong approach altogether. And indeed it is! (although our feelings are nonetheless always relevant). 

Higher consciousness (i.e. a more god-like awareness and perspective) sounds to be working along better lines, with better goals; but it is hardly more attainable in practice - if higher consciousness is regarded as a more divine way of being. 

It does not take much adversity to prevent us achieving higher consciousness (or even imagining that we do), or to knock us off such a perch. And our own sinful natures will do the same, sooner or later.  

Yet if we recognize that consciousness is a kind of awareness, then more consciousness is a frequently attainable goal. 

In the first place we can be aware that more consciousness is needed in general; 

Secondly we can be aware that greater consciousness is desirable in some particular; 

And thirdly; at best we might actually experience that consciousness. 

Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield both regarded this as perhaps the most important task of Western Man in the Twentieth Century - and that fact that Western Man did not even attempt that task, is a deep and primary cause of that profoundly self-hating, and self-destructive civilizational trend that continues to increase. 

Of course, consciousness is a means or a mode; and to become more conscious means conscious of something. That bit often gets left-out when people talk about consciousness. 

The first step therefore needs to be gaining an understanding of that reality of which we desire to become more conscious - and that implies metaphysical reflection which is itself a form of consciousness. 

The first goal (for most people) is to become conscious of our own primary assumptions concerning the basic nature of reality - how reality is 'structured', how things-in-general work... whatever these assumptions may be (and they are likely to be negations, about what is Not; since that is what our culture inculcates).   

Only after we are aware of them, can we decide whether or not our metaphysical assumptions should be allowed to stand, or should be changed. 

For example, yesterday I was writing that I personally want to regard (assume) reality, the universe, this world... as alive, and composed of Beings. And that I want this - because I regard it as true, and because regarding the universe as made of things leads to great evil. 

Such a recognition (a specific wanting) is at the second stage I described above; it is a recognition of some specific awareness that I desire to develop. 

Even of itself, despite that this form of consciousness is known-about rather than actually achieved, this is progress - and it potentially enables discernment and evaluation of the world.  

From this recognition, I can then strive actually to experience this consciousness of the living universe; actually to see things that way, from that perspective. 

This may be achieved to a partial degree, or for a limited period of time; and we should aim to be aware of this achieved degree of success as well. 

At this phase of Man's development; self-awareness, consciousness, is a vital concern; because without it we cannot escape from this arrested spiritual-adolescence that afflicts so many Western people so severely (and indeed - apparently - nearly everybody everywhere to some significant degree). We have painted ourselves into a corner by our fundamental assumptions - and there can be no escape until after these assumptions are revealed and challenged - otherwise we will just set-about rebuilding our own prison. 

There is therefore a necessary inward turn; rooted in a recognition that our external culture is making things worse; but an inward turn that enables and should be followed by an outward turn, whereby we strive for consciousness of this/ then that/ then the other. 

As a task; it has no obvious end point, and is the task of a lifetime potentially. 

However, what it is that we become conscious about, is a thing that will vary between individuals, and at different stages of life. 

For the young adult; love, sex, work are likely to be subjects about-which to become more conscious of our assumptions, and what we would desire our assumptions to be. Such concerns are spontaneous and unavoidable. 

Whereas for an older person; sleep, death and "the dead" may well become much more important subjects than they were for the young adult. Again; such concerns tend to arise spontaneously.  

In general, the subject matter is not chosen but presses upon us spontaneously. However, the formulation of the pressing problem or recurring question is almost certainly wrong (and therefore unanswerable) - unless the earliest stage of metaphysical reflection has been successfully accomplished. 

It may seem that the task of becoming more conscious is a futile and quietistic bit of private piety - irrelevant to the world, and symptomatic of extreme decadence and selfishness! 

But that is itself an assumption based upon metaphysical convictions that are (very likely) to be unknown and unexamined. 

Before validly discarding the ideal of increased consciousness as a valid goal - for you yourself, here-and-now - you would need to understand explicitly what you would regard as a valid goal and why - in an ultimate (not merely short-term expedient) sense. And become conscious, too, of the nature (and 'mechanisms') of relationship between the individual person and society. 

The thing is to Make A Start; from then, the next problem you ought to address will reveal itself - and one thing will lead to another. 

Do you really want to be free? Then know that Thinking is the domain of freedom (but only when that Thinking is free!)

Back in the 1890s (but almost ignored) Rudolf Steiner made clear that freedom (such as free will') is actually the domain of thinking - in other words, it is not 'will' that is free, so much as thinking. 

But not all thinking is free - nor even most thinking: but only that thinking which is free!

In other words, there is a kind of thinking in which we are free, and we know that we are free. And it is only there and then that we really are free. 

One value of Steiner's philosophical writing, and that of Owen Barfield afterwards, was therefore to inform us of this fact of freedom in (a kind of) thinking; explain why it was the case that thinking was potentially the domain of freedom - and therefore assist us in the recognition, acknowledgment, and pursuit of freedom in thinking. 

(At least, for those people who desire freedom - which is, apparently, far from everybody.) 

Active thinking of any kind is indeed rare - mostly thinking is almost automatic... Almost, but never quite... because always there is some degree of choice and will that directs thinking down one path from the possibility of others. 

This is why our thinking is always our responsibility - because we have chosen its path. 

No matter how relatively-restricted the 'input' provided by our surrounding world, and no matter how deeply inculcated are our habits of interpretation; there never a single path of thinking, but instead are always many possibilities that must be chosen-between...

From deciding what (from all of reality) to attend to, and keep attending to; through how to interpret the data that comes-in, and what (if anything) to do about our conclusions - from a positive or negative evaluation, through to what physical action to take.  

Therefore, because it is always a consequence of choice and will; thinking is never neutral, but always value-laden. 

Thinking (even when almost automatic) is never free from responsibility; but always moral, aesthetic and concerned with the truth (even when, as often, the choice of thinking is to reject virtue, beauty, honesty - or maybe to choose their opposites). 

We are always and necessarily choosing our thinking, and that thinking goes on all the time that we have any comprehension of the world. 

Because; when thinking stops, as in deep sleep, the world loses meaning. 

What actually happens is that - for most people, most of the time - chosen thinking is as automatic as possible. The choice is to align thinking with what is dominant in the external world, as it impinges upon us: official, media, and social.

In other words, people choose to direct their attention to... whatever people and powers at-this-moment are 'telling' them is important; and they think in ways (e.g. using values and methods) that they have absorbed from this same external world. 

And, although alternative paths of attending and interpreting will always be presenting themselves from the vast external world and also from impulses and intuitions arising from within our-selves; and although these alternatives will challenge the ongoing schemes of attention and interpretation we have absorbed from externally -- nonetheless, habit and expediency mean that it requires only only a little will and choice to stick-to the mainstream-approved form of thinking.

Such 'mundane' thinking is unfree - and this unfreedom has been, and continually is-being, chosen. 

We are - all of us - responsible for the mental enslavement of our own thinking.   

So... the fact that it does require even this little will and choice means, on the one hand, that we are responsible, and to-blame-for, our habitual mainstream opinions and convictions. 

Yet, because there always must be this irreducible element of will and choice; on the other hand, externally-controlled, unfree thinking can be changed: and freedom of thinking with a cosmic scope and creative power can instead emerge and be enjoyed - by those who desire it. 

The method is simply one of willing a redirection of attention, and making different choices. 

But for this freedom to be Good and not to be merely-arbitrary; and to motivate and energize the new thinking to overcome the old; entails that such redirection be motivated from that within us which is its real, true, virtuous and beautiful - because divine, and in contact with God. 

We need to discover within us (because it is typically lost or even hidden, suppressed, rejected...) that true 'self' which stands beyond all external influence, and is the origin of freedom in thinking. 

...And how do we do that? 

Well, we start by wanting it; and wanting it is the basis for changing our will, our choices, and overcoming those massively-inculcated habits that currently prevent us from attaining freedom.

If we do not want freedom then we will not have it; because we will choose to be unfree, because that is easiest, most expedient: the default. 

But if we do want freedom in thinking, then nothing on earth or elsewhere can stop us from attaining freedom; because that is precisely the nature of freedom!

Surrounded on all sides by enemies...

One thing that Western Christians find it hard to grasp - and typically deny - is that they are surrounded on all sides by enemies...

Together with an admixture of those who are either indifferent or too feebly-motivated to intervene when it is in any way inexpedient. 

The reason I say that Christians find this hard to grasp, is twofold:

1. The insatiable appetite, on a daily or hourly basis, for outraging over over Yet Further Evidence that Christians (and indeed anyone capable of common sense and learning from personal experience) are surrounded by enemies. 

People never seem to tire of seeking and experiencing this kind of outrage, without ever getting any further or drawing general conclusions about the nature of reality, the nature of the world: and the motivations of those who control our world. 

Outrage and outrage, yet without realizing that Of Course such things happen All The Time! Happen quite naturally and inevitably; because the entirety of the major cultural institutions are now (and for many years have been) net corrupted; they have adopted significant value-inversion: they have taken the side of evil in the spiritual war of this mortal world... 

Which is presumably why outrage-generating events are produced and publicized in such abundance. 

2. The tireless search for harbingers of positive change among the mainstream leadership class of politicians, journalists, Chief Executives and the like. 

There is clearly a deep-rooted expectation that the trend towards evil will - some time, soon - be turned-around by Someone from among those with power, wealth and high status. 

So - the words and actions of the rich/ famous and influential are fine-tooth-combed for any slightest evidence of common sense, realism, decency, honesty - and, when any such is found, hopes of an Establishment Saviour well-up yet again, for the hundredth, the thousandth time...  

The expectation of the return pendulum swing, the tidal reverse, the reaction against excess, the first signs of awakening from hypnotic sleep... 

It is astonishing how difficult it is for people to recognize the obvious: 

(Apart from a few family, and maybe a handful of personal friends - if we are lucky...)

We are surrounded on all sides by evil-motivated and evil-obedient enemies. 

The metaphysics of mysticism - a vital consideration

Mysticism is often defined with inclusion of the assertion that it is a primary and universal experience - common to all and no religions. 

Such definitions inevitably emphasize the negative aspects of the experience (because it is only negative aspects that are shared by many religions and no religion) - and that mystical experience is beyond normal so is ineffable - cannot (or should not) be described in words.

But that is not distinctive to mystical experience - because many, many experiences cannot be described of themselves - music, smells and tastes, love...

Another descriptor is that mystical experience includes a cessation of thinking, loss of the self - hence absorption into reality, into 'the universe'. 

But negation of what is distinctive about Man, a cessation-of Man's higher faculties, can equally be conceptualized as a devolution towards the animal...

Loss of consciousness; loss of functioning (e.g. due to disease or extreme intoxication) and the like are achievable by deep sleep, and death - at least as death is conceptualized by modernity. 

Such a mysticism tends towards nihilism and desired-destruction. 

Other - more positive - descriptions of the mystical, focus on perceptual experiences. 

For example seeing visions; or hearing voices providing inspired information, or prophecy, or answering questions. 

A person in a trance state who 'channels' what purports to be the voice of some higher being, angel or god is also in this 'perceptual' category - albeit the channeler may not be aware of what is being-said, while it is being said. 

The sense of touch may be the route for physical feelings including emotional changes, or a sense of being-controlled. Another touch-related idea is bliss - that mystical experience includes a trance-like blissful state which can be interpreted as a bodily (i.e. sense of inner sensation) experience; and indeed, mystical bliss can apparently be replicated, or closely simulated, by physical interventions includes some drugs. 

And this being physically-inducible, of course, tends to invalidate the spiritual significance of bliss  

Indeed, the spiritual significance of all such perceptual mystical experiences need to be interpreted and understood - just as any other communications in mundane life need to be understood. The meaning of a vision or a prophecy may therefore be unclear, or become contentious. 

There is always the possibility of explaining-away and mystical perception as caused by some kind of pathological state - merely an hallucination. 

Furthermore, perceptual physical experiences include a desire for passivity; a desire to be overwhelmed - and the implicit notion that validity comes from this passively being-overwhelmed. 

This, in turn, links perceptual mysticism to desired submission to power - including earthly power; especially when earthly power can provide (or claims to provide) access t perceptual mystical experiences by immersion in media. Such transhumanistic, techno-mysticism has been a subcultural idea for several decades. 

In the end, for Modern Man, these universalist descriptors of mysticism do not differentiate genuine spiritual experience from mundane experiences. 

This has several important implications. One is that mysticism is, for most people and all of public discourse - thoroughly discredited. General culture has, thus, provided multiple conceptual tools for tearing-down and dismissing any mystical experience which anybody tries to communicate to others. 

This means that henceforth mystical experience is - in effect - a private and subjective phenomenon; because the attempt to make it public and objective will almost certainly fail. 

The problem of interpreting and understanding perceptual mysticism is one that will not go away - even someone who experiences a vision, or hears a voice; may be unsure of what it really means... unless that perception was accompanied by a 'direct' (wordless) conviction of knowing, and of the validity of that knowing. 

This means that here-and-now; it is not the 'spectacular' aspects of mysticism that are most important - the visions, speaking from heaven, states of bliss, trances and channeled voices or the like. What is informationally most important is that (private, subjective, not-perceptual) strong and inward sense of knowing - accompanied by conviction that such knowledge is valid. 

But, as with the mystics of old, this is not a merely intellectual phenomenon, but is instead a whole-person phenomenon - one that includes the body, and therefore the emotions. 

Part of the 'validation', the sense of conviction, of knowing truth (constrained only by our capacity for truth; and our need and desire for truth) - is that it is part of a different and higher (i.e. more divine, more in harmony with God) conscious state - a situation that is deeply satisfying to experience. In other words; the mysticism I describe is a complete conscious situation - including both knowledge experienced without mediation, and the validation of that knowledge by conviction that is part of a distinctive emotional state. 

My overall conclusion is that mysticism cannot usefully be defined in a way that makes it apply to all religions or no religion - and such attempts fail to distinguish real mysticism from various other mundane states. 

We therefore need to accept that 'modern mysticism' is primarily for the benefit of each individual who experiences it as a direct contact with the divine; and that individual should not expect to be able to convince others of either the validity or content of his experience. 

The days of mystics having "messages for humanity" are over. And, indeed, most such mystics from the 19th and 20th centuries (even those who were not merely self-deluded or charlatans) comprehensively discredited themselves by generating too much, too specific and detailed public information; especially cosmologies and prophecies.  

On the plus side, by my understanding of what might be termed 'modern mysticism' - it is a far more common phenomenon and experience than was the old style. 

It may even be universal among Christians - it may be that all Christians have mystical experiences, and quite frequently...

However; these experiences are seldom being-recognized as mystical; since people are looking for something less conscious and more 'spectacular' (and suitable for 'public consumption') than the nature of simple, direct knowing - a knowing tailored (divinely) for the specific current needs of the recipient... And sustained by a euphoria that is not like overwhelming bliss; but more like the controlled, partly-self-generated, deep-satisfaction experienced during active creating. 

Thus mysticism is related to the divine providence which rules each and every life; mysticism is an important way in which we discover or confirm our providence. 

In a nutshell, I would advocate a metaphysics of mysticism that regards the experience as a type of creativity, and indeed of creative genius; with the understanding that this is the genius of our-selves and for our-selves - that is, our true and divine selves*. 

And I would advocate that people become aware of this experience as a possibility, and notice it as an actuality.

It will then - I think - be found that (almost) every Christian is a mystic. 

*Which was indeed something like the original meaning of genius. 

What is the significance that dream experience is relatively much more rapid than waking experience?

It is an extraordinary to realize how rapidly a dream narrative proceeds compared with waking thought - so that a detailed dream experienced as lasting many hours, may turn-out to have happened while just a few minutes elapsed during waking life (by the clock). 

In the past I have tried to 'explain' this by assuming that 'Time' operated differently in dream compared with waking. And also in dreamless sleep - which is the opposite of dreaming - because only 'an instant' in subjective experience, may have lasted several hours by-the-clock. 

My 'Time' explanation was that time ran more slowly in dreaming than awake, so that more could be fitted-in; while the opposite was true for deep sleep. 

But if Time cannot legitimately be abstracted from the living of Beings - as I argued recently - then be must explain this phenomenon differently. 

The reason why I think that so much more can be experienced in dreams is that we are then (more-or-less) cut-off from 'external' sensory and perceptual stimuli, and from real interactions with other Beings, such as other people. 

When we are interacting with 'externals' then our experience can proceed only at whatever speed these interactions occur - for example the timescale of a conversation or of physically moving through a landscape. 

But in a dream, we are 'modelling' reality using material from our memories - and our processing (combinations, extrapolations and speculations upon) memories. 

We could think of this in terms of recalled memories being the dream content; and what we do in processing these memories as the dream plot. 

So that the primary process of dreaming can move as fast as memories are-being-recalled. This central nervous system process occurs with a timescale of less than a second, maybe tenths-of-a-second. 

This is relatively much faster than interactions with the external world, so dream experience is relatively more concentrated. 

What of our emotional responses? Emotions are 'enacted' by changes in body state - and these have a timescale of approximately seconds - for example, to feel terror the sympathetic nervous system needs to be activated (taking some seconds), and adrenaline is released into blood to circulate around the body (some tens of seconds). 

Whatever the exact speeds, it is certain that emotions are enacted relatively more slowly than memories are recalled. But perhaps the emotions happen about as fast as we contrive our dream plots. 

We would therefore expect that specific dream 'events' move faster than the body can enact emotional responses; and therefore that the emotions could easily get 'out-of-synch' with the dream contents. 

But the overall dream plot might well be in accordance with our dream emotions, even when specific dream contents are not.

And this is, I think, a very common, indeed probably the usual experience of dreaming. 

We often experience a kind of mismatch between dream events and emotions - and there is often a pervasive feeling of perplexity or confusion as events seem to be coming at us too fast to understand.

On the other hand, the overall shape (or plot) of a dream does tend to match up with the emotions - e.g. scary dreams have scary plots.   

In dreaming I think we are therefore getting a kind of very concentrated experience that we ourselves concoct; and we react emotionally to these concoctions. 

Dreams are therefore potential learning experiences, just as is waking life; and probably just as necessary and valuable. 

But the source of dream experience is almost-wholly inner; and this accounts for the different subjective feeling of a dream, when compared with waking life.  

The masses are not asleep, but stuporous

In a stimulating blog post about his sense of expectation that something Big is about to happen; WmJas Tychonievich discussed the meaning of Apocalypse in terms of unveiling, awakening, showing forth of reality and such like; and went on to speculate:

My sense is that the next big event is not going to be an event at all, but a revelation of what has already been done — a revelation so clear that even those who slept through the global coup will not be able to ignore it.

On reflection ,it strikes me that we may be misled by our terminology of regarding the mass majority of being asleep - since a person can easily be aroused and awakened from sleep; and once roused they will tend to stay awake for a significant period.

But rather than 'asleep' it would be more accurate to state that the majority of the world are in a stupor. 

Stupor means that only vigorous and repeated stimuli will arouse the individual, and when left undisturbed, the patient will immediately lapse back to the unresponsive state.

Stupor fits the facts. People are only aroused from their stupor by extreme events; and arousal is very brief. Almost immediately they lapse back into stupor. 

It is Not, after all, a case of Sleepers Awake; but of first needing to cure the cause of stupor, before being able to arouse the stuporous. 

It is this immediate relapse that I find so striking (and frustrating). 

Sometimes, some-thing will 'awaken' a mainstream sleeper - some event, some piece of information, an insight... But very quickly that person will relapse into the fake-world of the Big Lies - as if their awakening had never been!

There is apparently no memory of having been awake, of having understood, of having seen. Just a reset to stupor. 

So why the stupor? Put simply: the mass of mainstream, modern, atheist, materialist, leftist people are cognitively damaged at a deep level; their thinking does not work, reasoning does not work; memories are disorganized. 

And even when their is some kind of retained representation of a vital revelation; the recall is too feeble and vague to affect behaviour or beliefs.

Deletion of God, creation and the spirit from human minds has made most Men stuporous; and Men cannot be aroused from this unresponsive state for long enough to use common sense or to learn from personal experience. 

The only possible cure is metaphysical, conceptual, at the level of primary assumptions. The mind will only awaken and stay awake long enough to benefit from the experience, when that mind recognizes correctly the basic realities of the world, its own nature and relations between the self and the world. 

Overcoming the division of sleep from consciousness (my speculation on ideas from Owen Barfield and Rudolf Steiner)

It is interesting to consider how the relationship between sleeping states - deep sleep and dreaming sleep - and the awake state may have changed through the evolutionary development of Men. 

If we start with the historical (and early childhood) conscious state termed Original Participation by Owen Barfield; then it was a striking idea of Rudolf Steiner that this is characterized by what we would consider a less complete difference between sleep and waking. The awake person was not so fully awake is the case now; and aspects of deep and dreaming sleep remained active throughout the daytime. 

This would be a more passive and unconscious form of waking; whereby we were involuntarily influenced by the sleeping states; immersed-in them. In Original Participation Man's consciousness was integrated, but dominated by sleep.  

A suggestion is that the sleep states are (in some fashion) in communication with the divine and spiritual world; and therefore in Original Participation awake Man has direct experiential knowledge of the gods and spiritual reality. This may be why all early Men and all young children assume the reality of gods and the spiritual realm - because the experience and know it; not just when asleep but all of the time.

The idea is that, as Man's consciousness evolved through history, the division between sleeping and waking states became more distinct; until with modern Man it was complete (the phase called the Consciousness Soul). We are not aware of our sleeping and dreaming consciousness while awake (although they continue); and indeed we almost never remember anything from deep sleep, and even dream memories tend to be absent, partial or uncertain.   

It struck me that presumably the same applies in the opposite direction: that waking consciousness has probably lost access to deep and dreaming sleep. Perhaps in earlier phases, waking consciousness could affect dreaming sleep, and even deep sleep; and therefore in original Participation these sleeping states were more conscious, more subject to waking motivations, and probably more memorable. 

Whereas nowadays (for many people) dreams are characterized by their own crazy illogic and irrelevance; perhaps for early Men they were coherent, useful, memorable - by the waking Man. And maybe something analogous applied even with the slower, simpler, 'tidal' consciousness-world of deep sleep. 

(Steiner suggests that in dreaming sleep, ancient Man - and children - are in communion with the lower angelic powers; and in deep sleep, the higher angels - or, I would guess, perhaps even the simple and basic aspects of the knowledge of God, Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Ghost.) 

So, modern Man's consciousness states are not integrated; but instead divided, alienated, encapsulated. 

And what of the goal of Final Participation? We might assume that the division between sleeping and waking would again become crossable, 'permeable' - but this time dominated by waking consciousness and by its capacity for free agency, for conscious choice. 

Thus we may be able to choose to bring our waking consciousness and cross into dreaming, and even deep sleep; there to both gain conscious control of these states, and to remember better what happens in them. 

So we may again become integrated in our consciousness; but this time with awakeness dominating. 

However, this state is voluntary - not automatic; conscious not unconscious; and is subject to the constraints of Final Participation - which is, after all, an attainment of divine consciousness (albeit usually partial and always temporary) even when we are mortal on earth. 

Therefore, we might be able to choose to bring awake consciousness into dreaming and deep sleep; but only insofar as we our-selves are aligned with God's purposes, meanings and mode of thinking. 

If a person has chosen the side of Satan against God, then Final Participation is not (at that time) possible. 

Furthermore sin interferes with Final Participation. Un-repented sin blocks FP in the long term (because we are not aligned with the divine); while currently-active sin in thinking will curtail FP for its duration; which is surely one reason, albeit not the only reason, why Final Participation is always temporary - indeed usually very brief.  

Nonetheless, even with all these provisos, this gives an idea of what to aim for in Final Participation how to go about it; and how to know when it has happened. That is, we can aim towards more frequent and fuller integration of the waking and sleep states; do so consciously; and within a Christian context.  

Claims of 'contact' with the dead

It seems to have been a constant factor of known history that particular living people have claimed to have some kind of direct and personal contact with specific dead people. This has various forms - including some that are perceptual such as having visions and/or conversations; automatic writing, Ouija boards and channeling; and direct mind-to-mind contact in trance states or dreams. 

Tribal peoples (especially hunter-gatherers) seem to have regarded contact between the living and the dead as both normal and significant; a necessary and valued part of everyday life. To the extent that 'human society' included both the living and the dead in a perpetual partnership and familial relationship.  

When the contact claimed is with a famous person, it may be linked with claims of special authority for the one who is claiming the contact - and this kind of 'vested interest' means that the subject is plagued with both charlatanry and self-deception. 

In other words, some people try to get fame or money from claiming a special relationship with some important dead person, while others make themselves feel important through a claimed relationship - just as people often 'name-drop' the famous living people they have met. 

Nonetheless, the ubiquity of the phenomenon through cultures and history - and the high stature of some of those who claim such contact - can reasonably sustain an assumption that contact with the dead really does happen. 

And if it does happen, then it is likely to be important. 

 

However, when the phenomenon is considered from the perspective that human consciousness has undergone a linear development through history; it can be seen that there has been a change in the nature of such claims. 

Contact with the dead seems to have begun as something that everybody did everyday, then to have become the preserve of an increasingly-professional and specialized priesthood - who might undergo training and initiation procedures, and might deploy formal methods of deliberately-induced deliberate trance states, then systems of divination.

When the spiritualist movement broke upon The West in the later 19th century (originating the USA) it used technologies such the Ouija board but also deep-trance mediums who were unconscious of the dead persons they were 'channeling'. 

Coming in the early 20th century, Rudolf Steiner announced and advocated that this era was ending, and that henceforth contact with the dead should happen in a different and fully conscious way - but he was never able to explain clearly just how this would happen - although he left many clues. yet he seems to have been right to the extent that the spiritualist-type contact has been in decline for a century - despite more and more extreme attempts to sustain it - for example by powerful hallucinogenic drugs. 

The situation now (in The West) is difficult to know - since it seems that Steiner was correct and the nature of contact with the dead has transformed as human consciousness has transformed; to the extent that contact may not be recognizable as such - may  be denied, or explained-away, or simply kept secret. 

And indeed, I think that in 2021 contact with the dead is meant to be - if not denied (because that would be dishonest) then kept 'secret' or not-talked-about; so that the actuality will not be contaminated or distorted by the actuality or accusations of status/ money seeking. 

This applies to all modern spiritual experiences; we should avoid the position of trying to defend them or of to convince other people about them. They, like 'everyday miracles', are best regarded as being For us specifically and personally - for our salvation and theosis; so that we may learn spiritually from the experiences of this life.

But in this general way; I would suggest that almost everybody could and should be having experiences of contact with the dead of some kind. And furthermore, that it is almost certain that someone of the dead is probably trying to establish contact with you at this moment. 

Who that person is is a personal matter - it could be a friend or relative, or it could be someone who was famous or from history - but I think that the initiative of genuine contact nearly always comes from the dead - and not by the desires of the living. 

It is, indeed, the desire of the living to contact specific dead persons (regardless of the needs and wants of those specific dead persons) that has led to much of the self- and -other-deception of spiritualism in its various forms. 

I think the way it works is that some person of the dead attempts to establish contact with some living person (for some reason that may never become clear) - and that the living person will become aware of this 'pressure' by the frequent, and perhaps inexplicable, recurrence of thoughts about the dead person pressing-upon their consciousness. 

I would also suggest that expectations of some kind of two-way, question and answer, call and response 'conversation' between the living and the dead be set aside. However it was in the past and in other places; that seems not to be possible or desirable at this stage of the evolution of human consciousness in The West.

Rather, I think the dead may communicate directly, thought-to-thought; but this may be unconscious (for example during sleep); and the living side of the interaction needs to bring this to consciousness and to understanding. 

Only when the living person has clarified and comprehended the thought-communication of the dead; can the dead person become aware of the living person's response. 

In other words, the interaction may be slow, simple, almost like yes-or-no in terms of information; and one-way at a time. 

The dead may also influence the motivation, interest, rewards of a living person - and contribute to discernment and creativity. 

A common example is from music; when some form of communion between a specific performer and a specific dead composer leads to an especially musically valuable interpretation of that composer's work. This seems to be very common - albeit it is not necessarily explicitly claimed to be a contact. For instance: in the case of John Lill and Beethoven it is thus claimed; in the case of Glenn Gould and JS Bach the link is powerful but implicit - but in both cases the results are objectively verifiable.    

The main potential value of such is for the living person himself; who experiences some enhancement of possibilities and the value of confirmation of the reality of the spiritual world and personal destiny.

Numenor teaches a Christian attitude to death

I am fascinated by the descriptions of Tolkien's Numenoran Men; and how one of their gifts was to know when it was that they should die. This evoked one of the most beautiful passages Tolkien ever wrote:

Then going to the House of the Kings in the Silent Street, Aragorn laid him down on the long bed that had been prepared for him. There he said farewell to Eldarion, and gave into his hands the winged crown of Gondor and the sceptre of Arnor, and then all left him save Arwen, and she stood alone by his bed. 

And for all her wisdom and lineage she could not forbear to plead with him to stay yet for a while. She was not yet weary of her days, and thus she tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she had taken upon her. "Lady Undómiel," said Aragorn, "the hour is indeed hard, yet it was made even in that day when we met under the white birches in the garden of Elrond where none now walk. And on the hill of Cerin Amroth when we forsook both the Shadow and the Twilight this doom we accepted. Take counsel with yourself, beloved, and ask whether you would indeed have me wait until I wither and rail from my high seat unmanned and witless. Nay, lady, I am the last of the Númenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift. Now, therefore, I will sleep. 

"I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world. The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of our days together that shall there be evergreen but never more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men." 

"Nay, dear lord," she said, "that choice is long over. There is now no ship that would bear the hence, and I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nill: the loss and the silence. But I say to you, King of the Númenoreans, not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive." 

"So it seems," he said. "But let us not be overthrown at the final test, who of old renounced the Shadow and the Ring. In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!"

The Numenoreans had been gifted (by the Valar, the gods) with a lifespan several-fold greater than ordinary Men; and they were also immune to both illness and the degenerations of ageing. So they would (unless killed) remains healthy and vigorous until they became aware that their proper lifespan was ended; and at this recognition they - willingly, by choice - ought-to embrace death, as did Aragorn. 

If they rejected death, the Numenoerans could indeed live about a decade longer; but at the cost of rapid decline in physical health and the onset of what we would term dementia. But more significantly, by clinging to life, they had succumbed to spiritual corruption. And this corruption itself shortened their life span.  

It was when the Numenoreans, especially their Kings and Queens, began clinging to life; that the corruption of the race began to get a grip and to accelerate. Because this clinging represented their rejection of the divine will that Men (but not elves) should naturally die and their souls would then leave the circles of the world. 

I feel that there is a deep lesson in Numenor about life and death. Our life is of value, as a time of experience and learning, and for so long as this life continues it is ordained by God. Death is inevitable for men - however, the inevitability can be accepted or rebelled-against; can be embraced at the proper time, or delayed for a while. 

There will come a time when we know that Christians ought to surrender life willingly - and more with faith and hope onto the next stage. 

But - for this choice to be a real choice, it is possible to refuse to die now and move-on - and it is possible that death can be delayed. There is no guarantee of successful delaying of death, for those who choose that path - but the spiritual crux is whether we accept timely death, or whether we strive to delay it. 

We can either acknowledge that this mortal life has now fulfilled its divine purpose and that it is now best to undergo the transformations of death and resurrection... 

Or, we can refuse death, and remain alive for some while longer - but at the cost of physical and mental degeneration and spiritual corruption. 

In other words, we can - at death - align our-selves with God's purposes; or we can turn-away-from God's purposes and hold to our own.

 

When I talk of willing embrace of death at the right time, I mean more than a stoic acceptance of the inevitability of death; and more than the acceptance of death as the least-worst of alternatives - for someone worn-down by pain and weariness. In other words, the willing embrace of death means more than death as analgesia, sleep and rest. 

Death should go beyond mere passive acceptance to a voluntary and positive choice. When a Christian follows Jesus through death to resurrected life eternal; this is an active and conscious matter - which entails repentance (recognizing and discarding the sins that are incompatible with Heaven).   

The willing embrace of death was modelled by Jesus in the Gospel accounts; but it follows naturally from a desire for salvation - which can only come via death.  

It may be of vital importance to know the point at which the price of life becomes too great. 

A Man may find himself confronted with the possibility of 'clinging to life' at the cost of doing, saying or thinking some-thing that he knows to be a deep and damning sin. At such a point; a Christian needs to be able to recognize that this is the time to die. 

Such a situation may become more frequent in the world as it has become. In this totalitarian world of surveillance and control, ruled by powers of evil; more and more Men are in a position analogous to the slave of a wicked master. 

Ultimately a slave may be compelled to do his master's will, or else die: there may be no other alternatives.

Therefore, we need to be prepared to die, prepared willingly to accept death; when what we are being asked to do is would destroy our own capacity for repentance. 

Each Man will know when this point is reached (God will make sure of this) - although he may, of course, choose to pretend that he does not know. 

Obedience and death-delayed; or refusal and death-now... 

The devil delights in presenting such a choice when he feels confident of the outcome; and he must surely be confident that most modern Men would do or destroy literally anything when they believe it may delay their own death - as the 2020 birdemic made crystal clear. 

If that choice comes to us, and when the price of obedience is damnation; a Christian needs to acknowledge the fact, and the irreversibility of the decision. To refuse martyrdom may be to embrace damnation.

It is as well to be prepared. The cost of wrong choices we can see depicted in the History of Numenor.   

Massive and pervasive dishonesty is a spiritual disease - the same disease that blinds people to its omni-prevalence

Dishonesty is a sin; thus a moral failing. But its roots are deeper.

The world is in a spiritual war - between God and his allies on one side; and Satan, demons, and the mass of variously evil-affiliated humans on the other. And Satan's side hugely-outnumbers God's side. 

That is the global state of play, as of 2020. It is a basic and essential fact of life. 

 

But, of course, almost everybody is blind to the fact; just as they are blind to the fact of truly staggering levels and pervasiveness of dishonesty in public discourse - extending from the international reach of the mass-social media and global/national government; to the level of millions of committees, and billions of interpersonal interactions. 

For such a moral sickness to have afflicted so many people simultaneously; indicates a deeper underlying cause. 

And that cause is the condition of spiritual blindness and denial which has swept Mankind over the past couple of centuries - beginning in The West, but now seeming to include almost everybody, everywhere. 

 

Consider that in the ancient past - from everything that is known - everybody perceived spirits, including 'the dead' and ghosts - who were present and active in the world around them. (The same was the case, if we can remember, in our early childhood.) 

But now, almost nobody does - and the reality of such spirits is denied, and their reality-significance is excluded from public discourse (including most religions).

Because spirits are denied, evil has no objective reality; because the nature of evil is spiritual; evil just-is to be on the side of the demonic spirits who are opposed to God and God's creation. 

If spirits don't exist, then evil doesn't exist - and therefore so-called-evil for Modern Man has been re-defined psychologically, subjectively and therefore relativistically. In effect; evil has now been explained-away.

 

Dishonesty too. Since honesty and truth are a product of God's creation - lies have no objective reality when creation is denied: when the universe is seen as value-free... just a collection of mechanical causes and mathematical randomness...

We can conclude that Men have changed. Modern Men sleep-through the spiritual reality of the world, in the same way that a sleeping Man is unconscious of what goes-on in the bedroom around him. The bedroom is still there, still effectual - perhaps dangerous; but the sleeper knows nothing of it.

However, this modern condition of innate spiritual insensibility is something we are 'born with'; it is an aspect of the modern condition. 

Modern Men are, in this respect, spiritually differently-set-up than Ancient Men. Modern Men just do not (except in altered and impaired states of consciousness - drugs, delirium, psychosis...) perceive spirits, the dead, ghosts etc. 

 

My understanding is that this insensibility to spirits is an aspect of the evolutionary development of consciousness - and happened because Men are destined to develop towards greater freedom, greater agency - and thus a more God-like consciousness. 

In a nutshell, because Modern man does not spontaneously perceive them - Modern Man is free to choose - and indeed Must choose - to be aware of spirits, the dead, ghosts, angels, demons etc. 

We cannot (and should not try) to choose to 'perceive' (see, hear, smell, touch) spirits; but must choose to be aware of them - to know them experientially.

(I say 'must' choose; because the alternative is this 2020 world of near-universal self-damnation.)

 

How does all this relate to honesty? 

Well, honesty (for all its practical benefits) must ultimately be a transcendental virtue - pursued for spiritual reasons. This is because it is so often expedient to be dishonest - and anything less than the full intention to know truth and communicate it truth-fully is dishonest. 

All forms of hype, spin, misleading, selectivity, exaggeration etc are In Fact dishonest - and indeed more morally wrong (because strategic and deniable) than many a plain lie.   

And truth-full-ness is impossible in a world in which the spiritual is not known, and is denied. The spiritual Just Is a part of our world, a very major - indeed primary - part; therefore there can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.   

There can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.

 

Or, to put it positively - to be honest we must know the spiritual realm. 

Of course, knowing the spiritual is not sufficient to salvation - since we might know the spiritual and also reject God and Creation; know the spiritual, and yet choose to fight and try to destroy all that sustains God and Creation. 

That is the demonic position - the spirits who know the reality of God and Creation yet have made an irrevocable committment to oppose God; and the devil is therefore correctly described as the Father of Lies. 

Evil regards truth as merely expedient; therefore evil is always as dishonest as is expedient - therefore the world of evil is a tissue of lies.  

(The Global System of lies, a Matrix of lies - a virtual-reality of lies...)

 

This is the deep reason why the side of evil (as represented by mainstream, world-dominant secular leftism) is incoherent: evil cannot be coherent! 

But evil does not 'need' to be coherent, because evil's purpose is to oppose God, Creation and The Good. 

Opposition need not be coherent, and it never is; it merely opposes The Good in whatever manner presents-itself; and justifies its evil using whatever excuse seems likely to be effective, here-and-now.

 

In sum - the fact of dishonesty everywhere, and all the time, is a consequence of Modern Spiritual Self-Blinding. 

Which is a product of the choice (which almost everybody seems to have made - although apart from the demons, this choice is reversible by Christian repentance) to choose Not to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual. 

Until we are again in a position where the reality - and significant, active presence - of God, angels, demons, the dead, ghosts and much else - are a part of our experience and discourse; then evil will remain dominant. 

And this is a matter of conscious choice. 

 

So every single person is ultimately responsible; there is no excuse of 'ignorance'. 

Not-choosing is not-an-option. 

You and I and everyone already-has-made a choice; but... that choice can be changed.   

In dream life, the ancient pagans lived among the starry realms - Rudolf Steiner

The following edited excerpts are from a lecture by Rudolf Steiner from 1919, which was later gathered into a collection called Influences of Lucifer and Ahriman, and which I saw in a recent collection called The Incarnation of Ahriman. 

This lecture has a great deal of interest, and I have therefore excerpted and commented on several passages (above). 

It seems to fit a pattern that Steiner gave better lectures to better audiences. This one was in Bern, and I have seen other good ones from Zurich; but the great mass-majority of lectures from Dornach (the headquarters of Anthroposophy) are the worst; probably because that was the centre of cultic worship, and because Steiner's faults were therefore amplified. 

Even in this lecture there are tractlike repetitions of his 'crazy' (and wrong) micro-detailed theosophical schemas of vast sweeps of world history and future, and tediously vague, prickly, straw-man defensiveness against those who disagreed with him; and assertions that the colossally-massive ultra-systematised complexity of the 'facts' in his later work, was a sign of its superiority - implicity contradicting with other assersions that nothing of his was valid for another person unless intuitively checked.

(It would take several full-time, full-span lifetimes intutively to check every detail of the sheer bulk of what Steiner spouted in his later years!). 

Reading Rudolf Steiner (beyond his first three or four philosophical books) is therefore sifting for gold among dross - but there is real gold to be had - especially in his books and the lectures delivered outside of Dornach - and plenty of it!    

 

The nature of pagan culture can best be understood if we realize that it was the outcome of knowledge, vision and action born of forces much wider in range than those belonging to present earthly existence. this pagan culture was such that people felt themselves members of the whole cosmos. 

Human beings living on earth within the old pagan world felt themselves membered into the whole cosmos. They felt how the forces at work in the movements of the stars extend into their own action, or, better said, into the forces taking effect in their actions.

(What later passed for astrology, and does so still, is but a reflection — and a very misleading one at that — of the ancient wisdom gleaned from contemplation of the stars in their courses and then used as the basis for precepts governing human action.)

People living on the earth in those ancient times had a kind of instinctive soul life, in a certain respect more akin to the soul life of animals than to that of present-day human beings. But it is a very one-sided conception of human life to say that in those ancient times people were more like animals. 

Those human-animal bodies were used by beings of soul and spirit who felt themselves members of the super-sensible worlds, above all of the cosmic worlds. People made use of animal bodies as instruments rather than feeling themselves within those bodies. 

When they were awake, they moved about with an instinctive life of soul like that of animals, but into this instinctive life of soul there shone something like dreams from their sleeping state, waking dreams. And in these waking dreams they perceived how they had descended, to use animal bodies merely as instruments. 

People would say to themselves: When I am outside my body at night I belong to the forces of the cosmos, of the starry heavens; when I wake in the morning I make use of animal instincts in an animal body.

Then human evolution passed, figuratively speaking, into a period of twilight. A certain dimness, a certain lethargy, spread over the life of humanity; the cosmic dreams receded and instinct gained the upper hand.

The attitude of soul formerly prevailing in human beings was preserved through the Mysteries, mainly through the Asiatic Mysteries. The Mysteries were there, into which, through the powerful rites and ceremonies, the spiritual worlds were able to penetrate. And it was from these Mystery centers that human beings received continued illumination.

 

Note: I found that Steiner's description people felt themselves members of the whole cosmos struck an immediate chord of validity. This captures what I understand of the underworld 'dwat/ duat' of the Ancient Egyptians; and it also points at what is lacking from the Collective Unconscious concept of Jung - which is about archetypal human, instinctive and animal contents - and the 'cosmic' aspects are disregarded. 

The modern ideas of draem and the unconscious - from Freud, through Jung and more recent writers; almost always devolve to being 'therapeutic' - to making people feel or function better; to reconnection with the instinctive... 

But the cosmic aspect is lacking. I think that even now (albeit weakly and unconsciously) dreams - and deep sleep more generally - have an effect of reconnecting us with the totality of being; our place in the universe. 

A further aspect of this 'astral' quality of dreams, is that it directly refers to living among moon, planets, sun, stars, and other heavenly bodies such as comets - when these are known (as they were to the  ancient, and truly are) as Beings. 

Indeed, Steiner elsewhere usefully suggests that during sleep, we 'leave behind' the living physical body; and our 'astral' or conscious self travels to a different realm along with our personal 'ego' self of human self-consciousness. Thus, that part of our-total-self which is self aware and conscious of others leaves behind the alive but insinsible, unaware body; and 'travels' in an 'astral realm' - which goes beyond the personal. I find this a broadly accurate and helpful way of thinking.  

In dreams, therefore, ancient man primarily - and perhaps even now to some small extent - we experience, we know, the comos to be 'made of' living, conscious, purposive Beings; and we live among them and in relationship with them. 

This personal and nightly experience was, I infer, the basis of The Gods of ancient man; albeit imperfectly recalled and with personal and cultural distortions. But it explains why there always were gods, why they tended to converge on certain types, and why their importance was recognised. 

And it perhaps explains the detailed, functional angelic hierarchies of the early medieval era (e.g. Dionysus), when this kind of thinking (and dreaming) still had considerable influence - esepcially in association with 'mysteries' of monastic and eremetic (hermit) life.  

And this further seems to account for the uncanny effects that the night sky (in particular; but also the sky in general) has upon people - even now. We are being reminded of what we have experienced sometimes in sleep.