Current-wave AI ("Artificial Intelligence") is just simulated humanness

The current wave of Establishment-styled AI ("Artificial Intelligence") is a fake and a cheat, designed and implemented for the malefit of Men - as must be the case given its provenance.

(i.e. Given the sources that have funded, devised, advertised and imposed these technologies). 

Current-wave AI is not, of course, intelligence; but what is its relationship to intelligence? 

Current-wave AI is a simulation of human intelligence, it is a set of computer programming technologies specifically designed to mislead human beings into supposing they are dealing with another human being. 

Current AI is, in other words, designed to be a way of successfully cheating at the Turing Test.  

But for current-AI to be an effective simulation, for it to fool humans as successfully as it does; entails that humans are operating in such a pervasively reductionistic and computerised environment that this cheating becomes almost undetectable; and that such humans have habitually assimilated computer-like patterns of thinking*. 

The success of AI entails that the full scope of the natural human world has become stripped-down to such a minimal level - for instance; that the fullness of Man's sociality has become brief and hurried interactions with de facto strangers on restricted themes, via type-written media. 

So impoverished, so unnatural, have become our worlds, our relationships with other people and with nature and the cosmos; that within-this-context, it is possible for the outputs of computers to be indistinguishable from the real people who are hamstrung in multiple directions, by the compulsion to operate in such constricted and artificial situations. 

As a thought experiment, imagine current AI technologies being introduced to historical societies - even just a few generations ago, but more obviously some centuries in the past - and then ask yourself whether in such a total-context AI technologies would have been able to pass for human beings? 

Of course they would not; and considering this fact brings to the surface the extremity of reductionism of culture, within which current AI is making its claim of intelligence.   

*See Jeremy Naydler's In the shadow of the machine. 

If the digital world (internet, computation, AI etc) are indeed a demonic incarnation - What then?

William Wildblood has brought to my attention a pair of articles entitled Four Questions Concerning the Internet, part one The Universal and part two The Neon God; written by Paul Kingsnorth, in which he independently converges on a theme explored here (also in related blogs and by Jeremy Naydler) over the past few years. 

Kingsnorth also reaches the same general conclusion (Which William Wildblood has articulated lucidly; which is that 'the internet' and computers generally may (in some circumstances) provide a vehicle for the incarnation of demons. 

If this is regarded as a possibility (which mostly depends on one's metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of this reality and the relationship of 'life' and 'matter') - then the hypothesis of demonic incarnation in 'computers' explains a great deal, and has extensive implications.

For instance; technology is usually presented as value-neutral, and whether it is a Good Thing or an Evil would therefore depend on the use to which it is being-put. 

Yet, if demonic incarnation is a reality, then technology may itself become an active and purposive evil; in other words, technology may seek the spiritual harm - including destruction - of Men. 

If we accept this as probably true, in some real but imprecise sense; then what are the implications?

Kingsnorth (a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy) focuses on the potential for asceticism; for rejecting, denying-ourselves (as much as possible) usage-of and contact-with these demonic entities. 

Such a strategy has the practical limitation that people Just Aren't doing this - not even the most ascetic. Kingsnorth describes that even the famously-ascetic monks of Mount Athos are, albeit belatedly, often carrying and using 'smartphones'. 

Then there is the more general problem that it is almost impossible to function in the modern world without a significant level of usage of these possessed technologies.      

But there is also - and most importantly - the ultimate limitations of asceticism: the deep question of whether this is the proper or best Christian response to the evils of this world. 

My approach would be rather different. I see the problem of a demonic internet as an extension of the very general problem of evil-affiliated social institutions, a problem that characterizes All major social institutions in The West and 'globally' - including the (self-identified) Western Christian churches (and a Western convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, still counts as Western). 

This means that the Christian inescapably lives in a demon-dominated and evil-orientated society; from which there can be no escape while remaining alive and socially-functional. 

But this has - to some significant extent - always been the case; and was surely the case for Jesus himself during his earthly life. 

Thus Christianity has always, properly understood (e.g. in the Fourth Gospel), been rooted and aimed beyond this mortal and social life - and therefore the task for Christians is to deal-with the presence of pervasive evil. 

As I see it; the primary problem of 'the internet' is that people spiritually surrender their values and attitudes to it; and by this they invite evil into their hearts. 

Evil needs to be invited - and this invitation of evil has become not just a personal corruption, not just a 'means to ends' as in the past; but in Western Society here-and-now evil has been given positive evaluations; officially, by the mass media, legally, economically etc. 

We are, for the first time in human history, inhabiting a world where transcendental values of truth, beauty, and virtue are substantially and increasingly inverted.

Since this situation is almost-everywhere and cannot be escaped; we must recognize it, and deal with it. 

Dealing with the internet, computers and digitalization is part of this; but only part. Evil needs to be discerned, identified, recognized - and spiritually rejected (and repented when we have failed to do this) wherever it is encountered.  

Some of this will surely entail avoidance of internet, computers, AI etc; but as a specific tactic, not as a general strategy.  

Such a Christian life is not to be envisaged negatively, as a state of siege; ended only by death or the triumph of evil. To accept this understanding would itself be a surrender to the demonic perspective. 

Because the Christian life is positive, not negative; thus discernment is a by-product of faith, and faith is 'about' spiritual learning during this life ('theosis'), as well as resurrection after this life ('salvation').

In sum; life may be regarded as what it spiritually is; that is, an adventure and a quest. 

We must therefore engage-with evil, and the business of identifying and rejecting evil is a by-product of our positive spiritual goals. 

Since God is the Creator, and is Good, and Loves us each as His child; our personal life-situation has been set-up so that nobody can be defeated except by his own choice, and we can all succeed in the end - if that is what we really want to do.  

So, we should strive not for an ideal of asceticism, but for an ideal of high-hearted and hope-full confidence; with faith that, no matter what the demon-dominated world throws-at-us; we are equipped to beat it.  

So - who is the Greatest Living Englishman Now?

Since the deaths of Geoffrey Ashe and then Gareth Knight earlier this year - I am scratching my head over who I should now regard as the Greatest Living Englishman? 

To qualify, a person (man or woman) would need to be broadly-within the Romantic Christian ideal - and his work should be 'about' England - or, more accurately, the mythic land of Albion. 

That is, he should contribute - through his work, mainly - to a romantic, spiritual and Christian awakening, revival, renewal of Albion. 

If I first exclude (because of my positive biases) the (English) members of the circle of bloggers of which I am a part - so I cannot propose William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald, Ama Bodenstein (or myself!) - likewise I exclude members of my family... Then, who is left? 

Jeremy Naydler is a strong candidate - but he does not focus much upon 'the matter of Britain'. Susanna Clarke is a possibility, since I regard Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell as a work of genius, and it is exactly about Romantic Christian England; but I feel that more than a single work is required. 

So that leaves Terry Boardman as the outstanding possibility.

Does anyone agree? Or can readers think of someone else more worthy of the GLE mantle?  

Why Rudolf Steiner? (despite everything)

I need to keep explaining the importance of Rudolf Steiner, and why it is that - for example - so many of my recent posts have been about or inspired-by him... Despite that almost-all of his advocates and followers, and the Anthroposophical Society itself, are anti-Christian, Satan-allied Leftists (whatever and despite their self-identification). And despite that most of what Steiner wrote and spoke is just plain wrong. 

In the first place 'almost-all' Steiner's advocates misses-out that among the small handful of The Most valuable, insightful and important Good Guys at work today; there are several Steiner followers such as Terry Boardman, Jeremy Naydler, Amo Boden; and the editors of New View and The Present Age. 

These are among the extremely few people and venues currently worth reading; where, for instance, you can see a solid understanding of the world historical events of 2020, and what led-up-to them. Or of the long-term purpose and effects of the sexual revolution; the computer/ internet revolution - the 5G mania; or the strategy behind the climate change agenda.  

But the core of what Steiner supplies the discerning reader - above all other authors and sources - is his insistence that the core task of Men in this time and in The West - is a new-restoration of the spiritual to our thinking. 

 

A 'new-restoration' (both restored and new) because what's required is something on the one hand unprecedented in world history; and also a restoration - because it represents (in several respects) a return to the basic, original, primal way of knowing. 

As a brief summary, Steiner advocates (in vital respects) a return to the 'animistic' world-view; that saw the universe as alive; composed of multiple Beings - each with life, purposes, and a distinct nature that develops through time. But this primal animism was unconscious, unchosen, passive. Men were simply immersed-in this spiritual reality, and (pretty much) passively and instinctively responded-to it. They were swept-along by the thoughts of spiritual Beings - to the point that Men's thinking was itself the thinking of spiritual beings. 

When Men (in Ancient Greek times) first began to become aware of this situation; it was captured by the idea of 'inspiration', in its original sense; that we 'breathe-in' the spirits of Heavenly beings, which are all around us, as-it-were in the wind. But there was almost no freedom, and life was passive, responsive.

Steiner's idea is that mainstream Modern Man incrementally has become detached from this primal situation. Man can now originate his own thinking and is free to choose; but until now has rejected the reality of the spiritual. He has becomes an isolated and alienated consciousness, and feels his own thoughts to be sealed inside his mind (=brain) and thereby disconnected from external reality. For Modern Man; 'subjective' means private, and unreal. 

 

Steiner advocates that Modern Man needs to move to an unprecedented primacy of intuition; where intuition means a creative, generative thinking; that originates from our real, true and divine self. A 'heart thinking' that takes primacy over both primitive unconscious instinct and current conscious materialism.

By 1917; Steiner saw very clearly that Modern Man - trapped in his own consciousness and rejecting of the spirit - would inevitably and inexorably degenerate. That the paradoxes of materialism would tend to destroy everything of positive value. That, for example, pervasive materialism would destroy even that autonomy and agency of human thinking which generated materialism in the first place! That a consciousness disconnected from the spiritual, would end by denying consciousness itself!

Steinr saw (among other things) how the consequences would include the (now mainstream and mandatory) value-inversions of the sexual revolution; and he saw that this corruption would be 'validated' and supported by an increasingly corrupted materialist 'science'. He also foresaw a 'healthism' that destroys actual health and causes death; along with destroying basic human needs and freedom. And he described a society in which technology became organised towards totality of mind-control by an integration of the electronic-technological with the demonic. 

 

In sum, Steiner expicitly foresaw the essential features of 2020 if we did not restore the spiritual to thinking, to life-in-general. And he further described what we need to do, what we should aim-at; which is - as individuals - developing (in our-selves) a qualitatively-different and spiritual way of thinking, living, and being in our own lives.

Now, much of the detail Steiner described about what exactly we should do - such as his prescribed mental exercises designed to train concentration, visualisation, imagination; and a large role for 'initiated Masters', and a major role for the Anthroposophical Society itself - almost all of this I regard as mistaken - or even counter-productive. 

But in terms of what we most need to accomplish (aside from the suggested methods of doing it); Steiner was solid, vital and unsurpassed. 

 

I completely agree with Steiner's core teaching, which is that our primary urgent task - here and now in 2020 - is to choose consciously to live by-and-from the spiritual (including to discover what that means for us, as individuals). 

This should be what we think about when we awaken each morning, and when we look back on our day each evening, and as we settle to sleep at night. 

This should be a focus of our meditations and prayers. 

Nothing is more important than this: here, now; for you - and for me. 

Note: The Spiritual must be Christian - that comes first; but Christianity without a newly-developed return to spiritual-based-thinking/living is Not going to be sufficient. Indeed, it is not even a working possibility; as can be seen by taking a clear look at what has happened to the mainstream - including traditional - Christian churches this year of 2020. Christian Churches are in essence Gone, Finished, Closed - have ceased operations. 100 years after Steiner, and of refusing to follow Steiner's advice; Christians Now have 'Hobson's Choice' - i.e. no choice at all. Either they follow Steiner's direction of developing personal spirituality, or else they they will de facto cease to be Christian (unless that has, indeed, already happened). In this necessary transition; the West might have followed a gentle path of gradualism - but did not. Having rejected multiple opportunities over the past generations; Christians now have a sudden, massive spiritual shock, applied by external events; and the prospect of being compelled to choose-between either an almost instantaneous, and 'mind-blowing', transformation - or else passively going over to the-other-side (which the majority have already done). 

Rudolf Steiner on the Sub-Nature we now inhabit

At the end of his life, Rudolf Steiner dictated a summary of the key ideas that he wished emphasise. These were not finished, but the very last things he wrote about - in a posthumously published book entitled Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Collected Works number 26) were some of his most insightful and prophectic statements - although difficult to understand without some background knowledge. 

These have been made much clearer by a 2020 book from Jeremy Naydler The struggle for a human future, which I recommend reading.  

The following blog post, written earlier today, is my current understanding of what Steiner is implying, but did ot live long enough to formulate and state explicitly.

Anyway, here is an edited excerpt from these final words, which can be seen in full here.

 

By far the greater part of that which works in modern civilisation through technical Science and Industry — wherein the life of man is so intensely interwoven — is not Nature at all, but Sub-Nature. 

It is a world which emancipates itself from Nature — emancipates itself in a downward direction. 

 

Entering the purely earthly element, Man strikes upon the Ahrimanic realm. With his own being he must now acquire a right relation to the Ahrimanic. 

But in the age of Technical Science hitherto, the possibility of finding a true relationship to the Ahrimanic civilisation has escaped man. He must find the strength, the inner force of knowledge, in order not to be overcome by Ahriman in this technical civilisation. 

 

He must understand Sub-Nature for what it really is. This he can only do if he rises, in spiritual knowledge, at least as far into extra-earthly Super-Nature as he has descended, in technical Sciences, into Sub-Nature. 

The age requires a knowledge transcending Nature, because in its inner life it must come to grips with a life-content which has sunk far beneath Nature — a life-content whose influence is perilous. 

 

Needless to say, there can be no question here of advocating a return to earlier states of civilisation. The point is that man shall find the way to bring the conditions of modern civilisation into their true relationship-to himself and to the Cosmos. 

There are very few as yet who even feel the greatness of the spiritual tasks approaching man in this direction. 

Electricity, for instance, celebrated since its discovery as the very soul of Nature's existence, must be recognised in its true character — in its peculiar power of leading down from Nature to Sub Nature. 

Only man himself must beware lest he slide downward with it. 

 

In the age when there was not yet a technical industry independent of true Nature, man found the Spirit within his view of Nature. 

But the technical processes, emancipating themselves from Nature, caused him to stare more and more fixedly at the mechanical-material, which now became for him the really scientific realm. 

In this mechanical-material domain, all the Divine-Spiritual Being connected with the origin of human evolution, is completely absent. The purely Ahrimanic dominates this sphere. 

 

In the Science of the Spirit, we now create another sphere in which there is no Ahrimanic element. It is just by receiving in Knowledge this spirituality to which the Ahrimanic powers have no access, that man is strengthened to confront Ahriman within the world. 

How to use Rudolf Steiner for your own good

Rudolf Steiner was a genius and one of the most important writers of the past couple of centuries; furthermore, he was someone who directly influenced other great writers such as Owen Barfield and Valentin Tomberg; and who continues to inspire some of the most important thinkers of today such as Jeremy Naydler and Terry Boardman.

But there are many serious problems about Rudolf Steiner the man and his legacy, which tend to render him beyond the pale, a 'hopeless case' for most serious Christians - even Romantic Christians.

So, here is some personal advice about how to 'tackle' Steiner in a way that does the most good - based upon about seven years of intensive study and thought concerning Steiner's work; but as an independent outsider to his movement.

Importantly, you can booth read and listen-to All of Steiner's major works (plus most of his minor work) free of charge at Rudolf Steiner Archive and Rudolf Steiner Audio.

You can start Now...


1. There are several books from you can take Steiner whole - his philosophical books and the history if ideas, where he is absolutely brilliant and fascinating. 

A theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's world conception - 1886
Truth and Knowledge - 1892
The philosphy of freedom - 1894
Mysticism at the dawn of the modern age - 1901
Riddles of philosophy - 1914

2. Moving on from here, a different method is needed. Steiner is capable of tremendous, vital insights on a wide range of spritiual matters - especially to do with consciousness. Such gems are embedded all over the place, in the other books and the various collections from his thosands of transcribed lectures.

But these embedded gems (that you would not want to have missed) will be surrounded by a variable - sometimes a very large - amount of rubbish, nonsense, tedium; misleading and bad ideas.  And much of the bad stuff with be very complicated, dry, systematic - bureaucratic in style and tendency. I find this particularly the case when Steiner is writing about practical, applied, social questions - politics, medicine, education, agriculture and so on: this comes across to me as essentially pseudo-academic and pseudo-science.

3. When Steiner addresses individuals - one man speaking to another, across time - then he is at his best. But when Steiner addresses groups of people, or is focused upon matters of groups, or speaks as a The Doctor - leader/ guru/ administrator/ would-be man-of-action - then I think he is at his worst. Often you can tell when he switches from one mode to another.

4. Beyond the books on philosphy and history of ideas; I would therefore advise exploring - he is well worth reading. But read following Ralph Waldo Emerson's own practice, and practice skimming for 'lustres'; dance-across the text or swim-through the audio; seeking what speaks to you personally - and setting aside the rest.

Could demons inhabit the omni-surveillance micro-control electronic system?

You can't say we weren't warned... from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer

A fascinating post called Computers and Demons from William Wildblood . He opens up a discussion on whether demonic spirits may, in some way, be using the electromagnetic mass media as a way of influencing the world.

I think that the computer revolution has been driven by demons. It has certainly been captured by them but it was probably instigated by them too... If the IT revolution is demonically inspired the question is why? The immediate answer might be to distract people from the spiritual and make them more susceptible to evil using that word in its broadest sense to mean anti-spiritual...

But is there more? It seems to be the case that the demons cannot take physical form except under certain very particular circumstances and for brief periods... Demons would probably like to incarnate directly on Earth because this would give them greater power over us. There might also be something about being in a body that they covet. 

Might the drive towards artificial intelligence, quantum computing and developing computers that are carbon-based actually be all about enabling demons to incarnate? ... What if the true purpose of the computer revolution, the end game so to speak, was to enable the incarnation of demons in this world? Is this a possibility we should start taking seriously?

This looks like an important insight. For example, it seems to fit with the frantic urgency with which the global Establishment are pushing ahead with 5G. Perhaps the aim is that 5G, potentially via the network of interconnected, externally-controlled and -monitored 'smart' devices that has infiltrated and been forced-upon so many homes and workplaces, is to be subject to some relatively direct demonic influence?...

I am unclear about the mechanism with which this might work; indeed I don't think we need to know such details. However, (according to the historical delvings of Jeremy Naydler) there has been a traditional understanding of electricity (going back millennia) which regards it as an inhuman and sinister phenomenon.

It is possible that such ancient wisdom had more truth in it than is apparent from a reductionistic scientistic perspective which sees electromagnetism only in terms of its potential convenience, usefulness - and as a means of amusement and the medium of virtuality. 

In a time when things are coming to a point, it seems likely that our choices will be stark; and the cost of avoiding damnation (after two centuries of collusion) may be extreme.

Jeremy Naydler on the impending 5G

In November of 2018, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorised the rocket company SpaceX... to launch a fleet of 7,518 satellites... 

The satellites will operate at a height of approximately 210 miles, and irradiate the Earth with extremely high frequencies between 37.5 GHz and 42 GHz. This fleet will be in addition to a smaller SpaceX fleet of 4,425 satellites, already authorised earlier in the year by the FCC, which will orbit the Earth at a height of approximately 750 miles and is set to bathe us in frequencies between 12 GHz and 30 GHz...

There are at present approximately two thousand fully functioning satellites orbiting the Earth...

Other companies... are each launching their own smaller fleets, bringing the total number of projected new broadband satellites to around 20,000...

The introduction of 5G will require hundreds of thousands of new mini mobile phone masts... in urban centres throughout the UK, and literally millions of new masts in cities throughout the rest of the world, all emitting radiation at frequencies and at power levels far higher than those to which we are presently subjected. 

These masts... will be discreetly attached to the side of shops and offices or secured to lampposts. The 20,000 satellites are a necessary supplement to this land-based effort, for they will guarantee that... not one inch of the globe will be free of radiation.

Edited from an article by Jeremy Naydler in New View magazine.

Regular readers will know of my respect for Jeremy Naydler; so I take his warnings seriously.

My understanding of the 5G phenomenon is that it part of the Global Totalitarian (and transhumanist) agenda - it appears to be, in its urgency and almost wild desperation and over-reach, a last and largest grab at achieving that centrally-directed omni-surveillance and micro-control that the demonic powers apparently regard as their best strategy for mass damnation.

Since - in this post Christian, materialistic world or hedonic nihilism; there is near-zero resistance to the totalitarian agenda and its aspects such as a 5G-irradiated-everything - indeed, there is far more of keenness and approval; the race is on between opposed trends: one towards the collapse of social order/ technological capability; and the other towards the waking-nightmare of Global Transhumanism.

Which will come first? Collapse or the Brave New-1984?

Which would you, personally, prefer?

Note: By my understanding 5G is not an issue of business profits versus mass health - as most of those who oppose it seem to suppose (after all, with this level of infrastructure, the only 'profits' will come from truly-massive hidden subsidies paid-for by taxpayers: it's basically a government-funded project). The issue is whether or not we want a quantum leap in Global totalitarian surveillance and control versus rolling this back at whatever cost it takes.

Gods under the ground, in the sky, in consciousness...

There are many prehistoric monuments in England - the earliest seem to be under the ground - such as West Kennet Long Barrow of some five and half thousand years ago, perhaps the centre of the religious landscape of that time...

While somewhat later are the more famous stone circles such as Avebury (near to West Kennet, and part of the same 'ritual landscape')

In general, through human development it has become more and more difficult to contact the divine. And this may be related to the assumed whereabouts of the divine.

Probably (there are no records), the earliest humans lived always 'in' the divine world - there was no separation between divine and mundane. Later, among the recorded simple hunter gatherers - contact with gods and spirits was more difficult; only attainable intermittently by a minority of specialist 'shamans' - who had to undergo some training, or else learn to use altered conscious states.

I would guess that the next stage - after the development of agriculture, and corresponding to the early Neolithic as at West Kennet - involved a professional priesthood, each of whom would experience a prolonged initiation. And also sensory deprivation and isolation - hence the underground sacred places.

(The Pyramids of Ancient Egypt are likely a highly developed version of this - the inside of the pyramid being the sacred space.) 

Under-ground was also the place of the divine - corresponding to the intuition that the divine was 'within' everyone and every-thing.

The monument Seahenge had an upside-down oak tree at its centre - roots above the surface, trunk and branches projecting deep into the earth - perhaps linking the divine underworld with this mundane surface world...

In the later neolithic, and into the bronze age - it seems likely that the contact with the divine became even more difficult - such that the gods were no longer experienced 'inside' - but in the sky, far away, imperceptible - and only indirectly and abstractly contactable by such methods as divination.

Hence the great stone circles (and pyramidal 'mounds' such as Silbury) were 'sky temples' - astronomically-shaped and aligned. I also assume that there was a supreme single god, by this time (henotheism); corresponding to centralised priestly government. 'Heaven' also means sky.

(The gods-under-ground, and god-in-the-sky temples seem to have co-existed for a long time - perhaps catering to different types of person; but the distinct impression is that the sky temples to the supreme god had the highest status, at least among the ruling group - since the greatest efforts were put into these structures.)

By this point, the kind of knowledge-based, abstract, priest-led religion was established which survived (gradually changing, becoming more theoretical and less direct) right through to the Reformation, and (somewhat modified) into modernity - after which it declined.

Until, from the advent of modernity (?1500s) increasing up-to nowadays, most people cannot contact the divine at all, under any circumstances - and deny its reality.

The idea of Romantic Christianity is that - starting with a few people from about the middle 1750s, and increasing, modern people are implicitly aware of the divine in a different, and individual, way; but which is not recognised as divine contact.

This is the process of conscious intuition, which I have often tried to describe on this blog. My understanding is that it happens to many (or most) people - but that nearly-always its validity is denied, and it implications ignored.

The modern sacred space is each Man's consciousness.

Note: If you are interested by the above line of argument, although not the specifics, you can find it superbly explored in Jeremy Naydler's The Future of the Ancient World, 2009.

The lineage of Romantic Christianity in England (a sort-of manifesto: a testimony)

To define Romanticism with precision has proved impossible - because it is a movement, a phase in human consciousness; but those who feel it will recognise it when we see it.  

To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):

William Blake
William Wordsworth
ST Coleridge

Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.

Charles Williams
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Owen Barfield

William Arkle

Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.

Comments:

The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.

The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.

It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.  

There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).

However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.


Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.

But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.

Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.


The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.

Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.

The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.

Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary. 

Review of Jeremy Naydler's In the shadow of the machine: the prehistory of the computer and the evolution of consciousness

Published in the current issue of Oxford Magazine – by Bruce G Charlton

Review of: Jeremy Naydler. In the shadow of the machine: the prehistory of the computer and the evolution of consciousness. Temple Lodge Publishing: Forest Row, Sussex, 2018 pp xi, 373.

Oxford residents might have come-across Jeremy Naydler; since he often guides tours of the city and has given lectures to a wide range of local groups over recent decades. He is also a Fellow of the Temenos Academy, and teaches at their London headquarters. Or perhaps you have come-across him looking after flowers and vegetables in the suburbs? Because Naydler’s main lifetime job has been as a gardener.

He read PPE in the nineteen seventies and then pursued scholarly interests independently before completing a PhD in middle age; on the subject of the pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt. Since publishing books on this subject and on Goethe’s science in 1996; Jeremy Naydler has become, in my judgment, one of the most interesting and original living writers in Britain.

Naydler’s central concern is the interaction between human consciousness and human culture; and he is of the opinion (which I share) that changes in human consciousness have been a driving factor in cultural evolution; as well as cultural evolution having affected human consciousness. Hence the subtitle of this book: The prehistory of the computer and the evolution of consciousness.

What makes this book distinctive is that it is a prehistory of computers. In other words, it is about the stepwise change in human thinking and technology that led, over a span of thousands of years, to the situation in the late 20th century in which - suddenly – computers became first possible, then developed with astonishing speed, and then swiftly took-over first the material world and, increasingly, human thinking. For this progression to happen in just three generations from the first electronic computers until today, was possible only because all the necessary pieces were already in-place.

In the Shadow of the Machine is thus a work in the genre History of Ideas, and as such it is exceptionally thorough and carefully argued. The argument is broadly chronological, describing many steps in the development of each significant component necessary for the computers of today. And as well as describing the specifics of the technological changes; these are related to the necessary conceptual change in the people involved, without which the technological progression could not have happened, and would neither have been understood nor implemented.

Naydler starts with some of the most simple of technologies from the oldest societies of which we have record; such as the Ancient Egyptian methods for raising water; or, as another example, medieval clocks and renaissance calculating devices. He explains why there were periods when apparently-valuable technologies were known-about but not used; then quite rapidly, something changed and the technologies became widespread.

But computers are software as well as hardware; so Naydler also lists and discusses the changes in symbolic notation, language, numbers, logic and so forth – and how these were implemented in physical form – via cogs, punched cards, switches etc.

Then there is electricity; without which computers would have remained exceedingly simple and slow. One of the most fascinating themes of this book is the discussion of the mysterious nature of electricity (and electricity turns-out to be much stranger, and much less well understood, than commonly realised); and the way that its ‘reputation’ began as something dark sinister, alien, inhuman – but later took on increasingly positive connotations until it became so pervasive as to be all-but invisible.

In the Shadow of the Machine takes us right up to the early years of modern computers and the threshold of our current era, and concludes with some wise words about the implications of computers for the way we think – and the established and increasing degree to which our own thinking is entrained to being computer-compatible; such that we habitually think like machines, and tend to disregard any thinking that does not conform to this reduced mode.

In sum; this is a book of ancient history that is of crucial importance for the present and future.

Our Ahrimanic computer consciousness

I was rewatching a marvellous video interview of Jeremy Naydler in relation to a review I am writing of his new book on the 'ancient' history of the computer concept: In the Shadow of the Machine.

I should say that I regard Naydler as one of the most insightful people thinking and writing in modern Britain, and this was confirmed when I visited him a couple of years ago. Anyway, at 22 minutes he begins to talk about the Ahrimanic influence on modern consciousness; and how computers and bureaucracy are training/ compelling Men to think like machines.

That's an alternative way to conceptualise the failure of modern consciousness that so obsesses me; the way that Western Man did not take up the true Romantic Revolution around 1800; but instead - for what were basically sin-full reasons to do with the pursuit of worldly pleasures - we embarked on the continuing project of reducing and assimilating the human mind to the machine; with Luciferic, mainly sexual, interludes for R&R.

Jeremy's books and publications are listed at: http://www.abzupress.co.uk/webcat.htm

Everything Naydler writes is at least interesting, and some of it is exceptionally original and important - my favourite is probably The Future of the Ancient World (2009).

What is Time?

A recent post by William James Tychonievich has made me start thinking again about Time, and how to understand it. I first began considering Time some 20 years ago, after reading a book called Ceremonial Time (by JH Mitchell).

Furthermore, I am currently reading a new book by Jeremy Naydler (In the Shadow of the Machine), in the course of which he discusses the effect of the invention of the clockwork-clock on the mind of Men of the Middle Ages.

Naydler argues that the clock began as explicitly a model of reality (early clocks often had moving models of the planets). But soon the mechanical model usurped consciousness, so that it became regarded as real reality - and that situation continues today, in a modified form. This was a major step in the abstraction that utimately led to The Computer (or Information) - which nowadays provides (for many people) the 'reality' to which human minds can only aspire, can only subordinate themselves...


We naturally think of Time as a kind of 'physics', and tell time by engineering. Originally; this 'Objective' Time was astronomical, based on the day, lunar month and year; but now we regard astronomical time as deficient, because (by our engineering definitions) astronomical days, months and years do not fit together in neat fractions.

We moderns regard Time as abstract, external and Objective - to such as extent that we try to assert that Time has nothing to do with individual Men's consciousnesses; and it is impicit that we are each ideally and properly subordinated to Objective Time. In effect, Men make this Objective Time by our culture-bound philosophy, science, engineering... project it onto the Universe... and then regard ourselves as utterly bound-by-it!

In fact, this modern Objective concept of Time is incoherent (as demonstrated by advanced physics, as well as philosophy) - and in reality our Time is merely a practical expedient for the coordination and control of our kind of civilisation.


What strikes me (since reading Ceremonial Time) is that for young children, and for 'hunter-gatherer' early tribal Men, Time is a psychological concept - in the sense that it is something that exists in minds.

However, it is vital to remember that the 'psychology' of children and tribal people includes what would be regarded by modern science as religious, spiritual or supernatural aspects. Ceremonial Time could be termed Subjective Time; but the current divorce between Subjective and Objective is not a necessary aspect of reality; rather, it is a product of our materialist metaphysics.

To be more exact, we Westerners are currently but very temporarily inside an alienating delusion; the effect is that we try to live by an absolutely artificial, unnatural concept of Time.But if we are able to develop a more honest and coherent metaphysics, then Time could again become Subjective and Objective both. 


So what ought we to do about it? I believe that Men should live by Subjective Time - and that this is how Men live in pre-mortal and post-mortal life. Christians can look-forward to living by Subjective Time in Heaven.

But how about now? What ought we to be aiming at?

Well, I think we should be aiming at an adult version of that Subjective child state we all (presumably) went through. The child was immersed-in Time, unconscious of its existence, swept-along by it. Children share a unified subjective Time because they are unaware of its separate existence - it is like an invisible ocean inside of each child - each inner ocean connected with all others. Children are moved-by the tides and waves of this sea. 

In our striving we should not be trying to live by any different concept than the child's; rather striving to become aware of Subjective Time, to stand apart from it in thought, to contemplate and interact-with Time.

So, the reality of Time is in each of us; we can be aware-of and know the inner ocean; we can know our-selves to be distinct from it; and we can interact with it consciously - indeed, we cannot help doing so. We can re-connect with Time.


If Objectivity is that which makes a world shared and public and universal; then modern Man understands Time as something external that is imposed-upon everybody. All we can do as individuals is recognise this brute fact.

But our aim should be to understand Time as something that cannot be separated from the minds of Men, and therefore as something that with-which we each interact.

We are part of Time, whether we recognise this fact, or not - the child lives as part of Time but does not recognise the fact; the adult may recognise reality; if he so chooses. And in this recognition is freedom: divine freedom.

True Intuition, Divination and Final Participation

Divination enables us to become aware of the subtle psychic and spiritual forces that are at work in the background of our lives, determining the events that arise. Contemporary divinatory systems [e.g. Astrology, Tarot, Runes, the I Ching] are by no means atavistic throwbacks to an age long since surpassed, but are underpinned by a new and subtle understanding of the subtle energies that are active behind the scenes of our conscious knowing...

Nevertheless, divination does need to be approached in a different way from how it was approached in antiquity, because although it may reveal to us the spiritual and archetypal condition that lie behind a given situation, our relationship to these factors cannot be the same as that of people in antiquity...

We fail to realize our true human potential to the extent that we do not act freely... If, therefore, we practice divination, we do not do so to submit ourselves to the will of the gods, but rather to gain greater insight into our situation in order to come to a freely chosen decision as to how best to act. 

From pp 180-1 of The Future of the Ancient World, by Jeremy Naydler, 2009.


Throughout my life, and including my younger days, long before I was a Christian, I intermittently tried various divinatory practices. In my mid-twenties I bought Jung's book about the I Ching and tried to use it with coins; later I tried using runes drawn from a bag, and Tarot cards. I never persisted long with any of these things and never reached any conclusion about them - indeed, it was the lack of any validating intuitive feedback which made me give up so easily.

It now seems to me that I was self-blocked from getting attached, or addicted, to divination on the basis that I was trying to use it for the wrong reasons and with the wrong underlying motivation. For me these were technologies of power and/ or evidence of underlying 'atavistic yearnings' (yearning for the past un-conscious and immersive participation in reality, characteristic of childhood and hunter gatherer states).

Rudolf Steiner provides some clarification of this in his repeated cautions and strictures against the deployment of altered states of consciousness as technologies of clairvoyance - his insistence that the modern and future mystic should be alert, awake and purposive: that the modern clairvoyant (as a general rule, although there are exceptions) would work-from the 'consciousness soul'; and not therefore from 'passive' experiences and states such as dreams, dreamlike trances, sedating or hallucinatory drugs; not characterised by visions, hallucinations, speaking in tongues or similar signs; and we should eschew automatic writing, Ouija boards, unaware channelling and so forth.

(Probably - ultimately - excluding therefore the likes of astrology, the I Ching, runes and Tarot - excluding them, that is, as routine or focal spiritual practices - although presumably these could be acceptable and valuable as occassional, educational and remedial practices.)  

As a generalisation I believe Steiner was correct and making an important point - that the destined spiritual future is not one that incorporates technologies of divination; but that regards them as at most temporary expedients: ways of moving to the next step, means to an end.

What we ought to be aiming-at is simply to know - but to know from the basis of our alert, awake, purposive real selves (our souls).

This is true intuition - not the act of 'looking within', but the act of locating, then living-from our real selves. 

Why are so many modern spiritual people left/ liberal in outlook?

This is the question addressed by William Wildblood in a recent blog post to which I have contributed a comment:

http://meetingthemasters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/question-on-justice-and-mercy.html

It is an important observation that modern spiritual people are indeed notably left/ liberal in outlook; because it leads to the recognition that they are left/ liberal with greater intensity and conviction than they are spiritual. Their spirituality is eclectic, flexible, changeable - their leftist politics is dogmatic, solid and often fanatical. It is easy to see which they are most serious about. 

I became interested in New Age type spirituality from the late 1990s (i.e. before I was a Christian), in the sense of reading some of the recent and still active US writers. Up until then I had read a great deal of CG Jung, upon which much of New Age is based; and a lot of Colin Wilson - who never quite fitted into this category but overlapped with it. But from 1998 I read John Hanson Mitchell, James Hillman and some of his 'disciples' such as Daniel C Noel and Thomas Moore; and a smattering of others across the field, including most of the best known writers. 

At that time I was a libertarian centrist in politics - and would have been a Republican if I was American; and I noticed in interviews and personal reminiscences that these and other writers came across as fanatical Democrats of the most partisan type for whom even the mildest libertarian or conservative ideas were demonised - and on the other hand openly advocating seedy, corrupt, dishonest careerist Democrats as if they were spiritual exemplars leading the world to a higher future (e.g. the likes of Al Gore!).

And New Age writers were typically, almost universally, utterly in thrall to New Left concerns - and structured their theories inside such a world view. For example Ecopsychology (look it up) was supposed to be a fundamental biological-spiritual perspective on the earth - but in practise made all kinds of recent and ephemeral leftist socio-political assumptions - and seemed to operate as a Left Wing pressure group. 

A book that I read with great attention - the Soul of Shamanism, by Daniel C Noel - structured its entire analysis and argument within a context of politically correct 'sensitivity' to the imagined perceptions of 'indigenous peoples' - with an intensely moralistic inflection to this demand that stood in complete contrast to the 'amoralism' of the spirituality being advocated. I mean, those individuals who were deemed to have behaved disrespectfully to the supposed sensitivities of American Indians (by 'appropriating' their spiritualities and adapting them for modern Western usage) were 'damned' pretty strongly!

This happened so often that I eventually realised that it was structural to New Age spirituality; and undercut the depth and validity of that spirituality. The New Age was, in fact, being led by people whose own spirituality was at best shallow and insincere; and at worst merely a front for their primary aims which were Left-political. 

Nowadays, I see one of my main tasks as resynthesising spirituality with Christianity, in a Christian frame - i.e. with Christianity as primary but spirituality given full value as a necessary modern priority. 

And in this task I realise that very little of modern spirituality is relevant, because very little is worthwhile. Those authors who are worthwhile are those for whom politics is a very secondary concern - the likes of William Blake, ST Coleridge, Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield; and more recently William Arkle, Colin Wilson, Jeremy Naydler, and William Wildblood himself. 

By no coincidence these are also those whose spirituality is honest, sincere, often deep: and primary.
                                             

If Rudolf Steiner is essential - then what is his essence?

Thinkers I respect such as Owen Barfield and Jeremy Naydler have stated that Rudolf Steiner is essential to our time. But given the truly vast volume of his work, its range, as the problematic nature of his legacy this leaves open the question of just what it is about Steiner that is essential? (In contrast with what is of perhaps important but lesser status: as well as what may better be neglected or ignored.)

Steiner himself gave a clue in the importance he attached to his earliest books, especially those about Goethe's science, his doctoral thesis published as Truth and Knowledge and (in particular) The Philosophy of Freedom. In other words, these were works of a metaphysical nature rather than being concerned with Steiner's specific or detailed 'findings'.

Steiner's modern legacy, by contrast (as far as I can determine) is focused around these specific findings - for example in relation to education, medicine and agriculture. There is also a considerable and commendable publishing and dissemination activity with respect to the vast number of works and the scholarship of summarising, systematising and analysing these works. Beyond this, there is the activity of teaching and supervising a specific technique of meditation.

My feeling is that none of this captures the essence and none is 'essential'.

(In one paragraph) What seems to me essential is what Steiner called monism and modern people might call holism - in particular, the bringing of imagination into the realm of one, single mode of thinking that can be called true 'science'; so that the perceptual ('objective', external) world of the natural sciences is united (again) with the conceptual ('subjective', inner) world of imagination; and this in a way that both heals our personal alienation and also creates a realm of public and shared discourse - a realm which is variously referred to by Steiner as Spiritual or Occult or Esoteric Science. 

This making of a science of the imagination, and the possibility that each of us participate in it; requires, first, a proper understanding of the nature of science. This comes from the Goethe books - but has, I think, been lost underneath a focus on the Steiner-described and recommended technique of meditation as if this was the science.

As I argue in my book Not Even Trying

http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk

real science cannot be defined by technique but only by aim and ideals - science is, descriptively, nothing more specific than a truthful sustained examination of some rather specific class of phenomena, done in such a way that it is a social activity - which entails group production of some kind of public, communicable, evaluable content.

Thus, spiritual science cannot be captured by any particular technique of meditation, but only by the aim of some (perhaps small) group of investigators studying the imagination (presumably mostly by introspection, but in principle by any helpful method); honestly and in a sustained manner, and inter-communicating and critically evaluating their findings.

If this description of Steiner's essence is correct, then we can see that his essence is a mid-level activity, as appropriate to any science - it is not an ultimate activity like a religion.

This is confirmed by Steiner's biography - he was himself a Christian (albeit of a very unusual type) but did not require of his followers that they be Christian. But, and this is important, Steiner's philosophy presupposes religion of a certain type - it only makes sense within the metaphysical context of a religion that enables his work to have meaning.

Steiner's work does not make sense in a secular, atheistic context - with the nihilistic metaphysics that entails - because in such a context it is no more than a large number of bare assertions.

In sum, a true follower of Steiner must be religious (within a restricted range of deistic religions) - if he is not to be engaged in a self-refuting and ultimately incoherent activity; but he need not necessarily be Christian as Steiner himself was.

What makes Steiner essential (or, at least, nearly so) is that he uniquely offers the possibility of a Science (which modern Man seems to require) of the Imagination (which Modern Man to desperately lacks); and as an active, fundamentally-engaged participant (not merely as a passive observer, consumer or obedient follower).

In this sense, therefore, the essence of Steiner is as necessary for modern Christians and other religious people as it is for the secular majority.

The year's reading in review

While I read much less than I once did - I am delighted to have made some significant 'discoveries' both in fiction and non-fiction through 2015.

1. In fiction the main discovery was Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke (2004) which was certainly one of the best novels I have ever read - and within my favourite adult fantasy genre. I was put onto this by a BBC TV adaptation which was significantly flawed, but whose first two episodes conveyed enough of the novel's virtues to get me to read it.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=norrell

2. The other discovery was another fantasy-genre writer Brandon Sanderson. This is very recent - I read the teen-fantasy The Rithmatist a few months ago

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/book-recommendation-rithmatist-by.html

And just a few days ago finished a very long and extremely enjoyable audiobook version of the first version of a projected ten-volume adult fantasy called The Way of Kings.

Sanderson strikes me as an exceptionally deep and knowledgeable writer - he is also highly prolific and only about forty years old, which is particularly pleasing.

3. After many years of trying and failing to get onto his wavelength, the writing of Owen Barfield was unlocked for me by The Fellowship, a new group biography og The Inklings

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/review-of-fellowship-literary-lives-of.html

Since then I have had great benefit from reading some of Barfield's philosophical books and individual essays.

4. Barfield was an Anthroposophist which again pointed me at Rudolf Steiner, which led to the discovery of Jeremy Naydler - a modern English writer on spiritual and philosophical themes who has particular expertise on Ancient Egypt. Convergently listening to an audiobook of teen-fantasy writer Rick Riordan's Ancient Egyptian Gods series The Kane Chronicles with the family (as in-car entertainment) led me to want to read more about Egypt.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=Naydler

5. I have also continued to read slowly, and reflect considerably upon, the writings of William Arkle - but strictly speaking, that was a 2014 discovery...

http://williamarkle.blogspot.co.uk/