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. 

"Good Intentions" - Yes, but...

In a world where there are too many interacting and unknown causes for effects to be predictable from actions; then Good Intentions are crucial... So long, that is, as the intentions are Real (not merely excuses for self-interest or spiteful destruction), and are really-Good (and not double-negations, for instance).

Because genuinely Good Intentions, is a way of describing being consciously on the side of God and Divine Creation... 

And because it is only GIs that will take into account how things are working out in practice (which may be very different from what was hoped) and can made adjustments, and will (because genuinely Good in Intent) continue monitoring the developing situation. 

(That this is so rare, is indicative of the rarity of genuinely Good Intentions.)

So, real Good Intentions are vital - they are, in this meaning, the only way of doing-good in this world. 

Yet if intentions are good only when God-aligned; then genuine GIs are pretty-much restricted to situations when love is the motivator - actual, real love, between particular persons (or beings), and therefore not some generalized abstraction of love. 

General but vague benign-attitudes towards individuals or groups, or the favouring of abstract causes - do not suffice. 

Which analysis wipes-out almost all (but not all) of what passes for Good Intentions in public discourse. 

What is the relevance? Well, it is intended to explain the wrong-headedness of a good deal of the kind of thing that "groups of spiritual people" (whether in a church, or some other society, whether Christian or not) get up to. 

For mainstream Christians, this refers to group-prayer, when it it directed to specific personas and worldly outcomes - but when those persons and outcomes are not loved - for instance when they are remote and abstract. 

Group prayers can and may avoid such things - but there is a prevalent idea that a group of people can, by pooling their "good intentions" in prayer (or indeed some other form of ritual activity), achieve positive results in the world-at-large - for instance in praying for peace, or relief of some current sufferings. 

This is part of a generally "therapeutic" and this-worldly tendency of current religion and spirituality - the basis of which is that suffering is the worst thing, and the best thing is to relieve or (better) prevent suffering...

At the end of which goal, lies a nightmare dystopia of consciousness obliteration, including suicide and murder; done with a "compassionate" rationale. Western civilization is approaching this situation with considerable rapidity. 

I think it is worth remembering that thoughts are actions, and thoughts therefore have consequences; so such ideas as group interventions by prayer are not absurd. However, it is not true that groups are more powerful than individuals, nor is it true that the intentions of groups are usually genuinely good.

The point to remember is responsibility. 

Who is spiritually responsible for the outcome? The big problem is that groups almost never accept, or even consider, this matter - and (in this modern era) there is apparently no genuine way by which most groups can learn from what happens as a consequence of group intentions and actions. 

As usual, the conclusion seems to be that the individual is primary when it comes to genuinely Good Intentions - and (here-and-now) truly loving groups are rare outside of the family situation. As of 2024 in The West; it is nigh impossible for an institution (including a church) to be Good.  

And that part of goodness is a continued and responsible engagement with "the loved" - so that what we supposed to be Good does not, instead, turn-out to emanate in evil. We need to love, and continue to love - if we want to do good. 

Good Intentions cannot be plucked from the branches of external public discourse - but need, instead, to be derived from our own capacity and direction of love. Only that kind of Good Intention will align us with divine creation, and have the best chance of doing actual Good. 

If every person is innately different, then how come some people strive to be different?

The history of whether people are - or are meant to be - essentially the same, or essentially different, is a matter of metaphysical assumptions and cannot be determined from observations and evidence -- although observations and evidence may be more, or less, consistent with the metaphysics - in different times and places. 

(Men and women, and people of different ages, have always and everywhere been regarded as qualitatively different, at least in this mortal life - until 'officially' the-day-before-yesterday, in a few Western nations...)

From what I can gather of hunter-gatherer spirituality; they regard each person as different and unique; because an unique combination of ancestors (and perhaps animal spirits). 

This is how I feel about people, 'instinctively', spontaneously. Each person that I get to know seems to be unique, with resemblances. There are, for instance, distinct likenesses between my mother, sister, and daughter - such that they are obviously relatives and have an (hereditary, presumably) affinity; but each is a very different person. 

So, from this perspective, everybody is primarily an unique individual - but some people have secondary, more-superficial similarities. 

In this primal set-up; we assume difference; and explain similarity. For example, similarities may be explained in terms of innate attributes (intelligence, personality, size, strength...), heredity, or having had similar experience. 

Traditional religions in agriculturally-based societies posit a very different set-up, however. Such societies tend to regard groups of human beings as having an essentially-identical nature, and from this assumption of sameness they explain differences. 

This goes-with - although not entailed by - the idea that souls are created from nothing at conception - i.e. because souls come into life with no baggage, it is easy to think of souls as starting-out this mortal life identically; only gathering differences throughout life. 

All people may be regarded as essentially the same in origin, or they may be divided into groups such us Us and Them, or castes - aristocrats and peasants, for instance. 

Perhaps more exactly, in agrarian society there is an ideal of sameness. 

For instance; all priests, or all members of a religion, or all citizens of a nation, may have an ideal type toward which they are encouraged to strive; and from which departures are disapproved, and perhaps punished.  

In such religion; it is often stated or implies that Men are created the same, and differences emerge later; and again in the afterlife there is either an identical state for everyone (Sheol, Hades), or else categories of particular people (Valhalla for warriors, saved and damned) within-which there is a single ideal type. 

Traditional Christian Heaven is often depicted and imagined as containing hosts of angels, and of the saved, with little or no differentiation between the individuals - as if ideal Men have returned to a primal and intended sameness. 

In modern society there is an incoherent mess on this issue, as about most things of importance; and I will not attempt to summarize the contradictory nonsense that constitute feminism, or the official views of homosexuality, or the transagenda. 

These are all destructively-motivated power ploys and PSYOPS - not attempts to describe reality. 

In brief, modern society demands total sameness - but the sameness demanded varies according to time and situation. On Tuesday race divisions may be treated as mandatorily homogeneous and primary, but by Thursday it may be about the need for sameness among (biological) men and women - while by Sunday the demand for sameness may related to chosen-identity of men and women.

Overlaps and contradictions between mandatory beliefs are ignored, because the requirement is for obedience to arbitrary whim. More more obviously arbitrary and dishonest the requirement for obedience; the more deeply corrupting such obedience will be - which is the purpose behind it.   

What is important is that - at each momentary demand to regard X and Y as the same - there be total-obedience to the asserted opinion. 

I regard the fundamental truth to be that we are all different in origin and as far back as we existed (which is eternally), and sameness is something either imposed or achieved. 

In traditional society sameness was mostly imposed; and in modern society likewise, with respect to those areas in which the rulers wish the masses to be the-same: eg in terms of obedience to Litmus Test issues.

The situation is that difference ought to be taken for granted, because it is innate; yet at the same time both traditional and modern societies depend on treating groups as de facto identical. So there is an innate tension.   

The modern idea of wanting to be, and displaying, personal difference; is a consequence of society imposing sameness on what are in fact fundamentally-unique individuals - and this desire typically emerges at adolescence, when the child is psychologically detaching from parental control. 

The adolescent therefore feels this innate tension between actual individuality and imposed uniformity most keenly. 

In traditional societies the adult role is more of an externally-imposed 'stereotype' then childhood; and innate individuality rebels against this artificial uniformity. Adolescence is a short phase during which the child is channeled into one or another of the 'uniform' and finite adult roles, as demanded by society. 

Modern ideology pretends to support individuality against this channeling, but actually demands uniformity on key (destructive) issues. The stereotypical roles have been subverted, demonized, and indeed eliminated. 

The consequence is a psychological state of perpetual adolescence - with all the contradictions that implies. The adolescent cannot grow-up, and doesn't want to.   

   

So we get the result that all means of large-scale and and coordinated societal organization tend to - indeed must, operationally-speaking - treat individuals as groups, as categories, as all-the-same. But underneath this is the experienced fact that - when we get to know people - they are all essentially different!

People then feel that they need to assert individuality; and (since these are social-functions) the asserted individuality gets channeled into a finite range of fixed categories...

Leading to the absurdity of standardized patterns of 'rebellion', standard 'rebellious' fashions and behaviours - yet all being claimed as 'self'-expression!

*

I find that I continually need to remind myself that we are all unique individuals, and that therefore - in an ultimate and spiritual sense - we each will have an unique destiny in a world created by God, our loving parents - who regard us each as uniquely as all good parents do of their children. 

A good parent does not want all his or her children to end-up as identical; but for each to fulfill his or her own specific destiny. 

A good family is not held-together by externally imposed uniformity; but by he mutual love of its members, all pointing towards the same loving future in harmony with God's creation. 

We begin and (after resurrection) end as real, unique, individuals; and Heavenly harmony is an achieved product of love - not a state of of imposed uniformity. 

Of course, the defects and practicalities of life on earth mean that this ideal is not attainable on a large scale, or permanently. 

Nonetheless, the ultimate reality of individuality is worth remembering, and that harmonious cooperation of individuals is something striven-for not spontaneous... 

But that the harmony of love is a higher, and happier and more creative, form of cooperation that the imposition of sameness.

We can thus experience Heaven on earth - but not permanently nor continuously. But that experience can (and should) motivate us towards inhabiting Heaven after death.      

Given the gross inadequacy of what most people believe; why don't more of them become Christian?

It really is amazing how so many modern people cling to a world view that offers them literally nothing!

...A world view that describes a universe without purpose or meaning - where things happen only from some mixture of rigid determinism with randomness. 

A human life that comes from nowhere and ends in utter extinction; and where 'morality' is (somehow!) both a thing that has no objective basis and gets made-up and changed at will - yet at the same time is overwhelmingly important, such that anyone who breaks "today's taboo" deserves to have his life destroyed. 

Clearly, nobody could actually want such a world view to describe reality; yet (probably) a billion and more people operate on that basis (whatever superficial religiosity they affect) - presumably because they have become convinced that it is and must be true. 

This is the nature of sin for modern Man. 

Sins are the consequences of turning-away-from, rejecting, God's creation and destiny for the world and oneself. 

Modern Man is hardly aware of 'traditional sins' - especially not those related to sex. He is also unaware of his own habitual and strategic dishonesty, unconcerned about greed, sloth, etc.

But modern Man is made miserable by consequences of sins such as loneliness (alienation, cut-offness from life and the world), fear (angst, mistrust of the universe), and despair (hopelessness). 

Modern Man does not recognize these as sins - but he is made deeply miserable by them; and one might have supposed that such intractable misery would lead him to seek relief in the positive and optimistic world view of Christianity.  

Instead, however, modern Man seeks relief from what he perceives as a multitude of specific miseries - with tactics such as forgetting-himself by immersion in work or social life (travel, tourism etc); in relationships and thoughts of sex. 

And especially the mass media; and in a therapeutic attitude to life ('healthism') that hopes for relief from (a multitude) of physical and psychological problems, from a range of medical and other therapeutic sources (including psychotherapies and social engineering). 

The globally-mainstream atheist-materialist world view is a kind of Leftism for this reason: its morality is rooted in the double-negative purpose of alleviating-suffering - my means of a vast spectrum of socio-political, inclusive of 'health', interventions.  

One of the deepest and most urgent reasons for opposition to religion, is that religious restrictions and prohibitions are regarded as interfering-with these above tactics for alleviating the miseries of life - thus the fear that religion would make life unbearable. 

In sum: People have painted themselves into a corner where they have pre-defined life and reality as futile; and then they are trying to prevent themselves from remembering and realizing this! 

Understandably; these tactical palliatives are not fully effective all of the time. Distraction is unable to make life feel worthwhile, given the underlying and pervasive conviction of hope-less-ness.

Yet it is a fact that this whole 'modern problem' is self-created; because we each choose our own fundamental convictions (i.e. our metaphysical assumptions) - or else we choose not to choose, and to accept whatever society feeds-us! 

Either way; whether we acknowledge our own choice, or passively choose to follow orders - ultimately our choice is still our personal responsibility. 

 

So, the situation (as I well recall it from the decades when I was a believer in the mainstream modern world view) is of being-in a nihilistic situation, in which - once nihilism has been internalized and accepted as reality - there is apparently no possible theory or evidence that can convince us of anything better. 

Because, in a purposeless and meaningless universe, nothing means anything, and everything means nothing. 

What is a possible escape from this inevitable despair, and to a better world view?

That is the situation of one important type of the potential modern convert; and I think it can be seen that The Church (any church) - with its mandatory and complex "package deal" combination of beliefs and doctrines, requirements and rituals - is not an answer to the modern Man's deepest and most intractable problem. 

What modern Man actually needs; is a different fundamental set of assumptions, regarding the nature of reality (i.e. a different metaphysics). 

If Christianity is to be recognized as a possible and valid escape from known-sin and into positivity and hope; then it needs primarily to be concerned with the world-view of the individual Man; and this needs (certainly initially) to be distinguished from the package-deal offerings of any actual or potential Christian Church-ianity. 

In other words; modern Man needs to be able to look-out-from his alienated despair and perceive a pure, simple, clear and metaphysical Christianity.   

A choice of Church may, or may not, come later. 

But metaphysics is the first and essential step.  

Meditating towards Christian Final Participation

Final Participation is primary thinking - and can only be attained by one who is thinking from his divine self and in harmony with divine creation. 

Primary thinking is desirable because by it we escape alienation and participate in reality; and can also attain to direct knowing by communion of thought - unmediated by language and communications. 

In other words it is not the kind of thing that can be done as a technique, not practiced as a method; nor is it at all likely to be a frequent or lasting state - for the simple reason that we are seldom wholly aligned with God's purposes and providence.

(In other words; in this mortal life we cannot for long avoid sin - the turning-away from God's ongoing purposes - and sin blocks Final Participation.) 

However; I think there are some things that might be helpful in attaining, while other things tend to inhibit, Final Participation. 

Most (or all) of our normal everyday thinking is secondary, not primary; that is to say it is thinking driven (caused) by external stimuli or internal associations (as in dreams or clouded consciousness). 

So, removing or reducing secondary thinking is probably helpful. For instance reducing external distractions. 

And staying awake and alert, too. 

As a first step, self-remembering may be valuable in setting us along the path: that is, recognizing "Me! Here! Now!"

Or, by making a deliberate effort to consider one's physical sensations - touch (feet pressing the ground, wind between the fingers etc.); vision - noticing surroundings that are normally taken for granted, such as the sky or small details; hearing - listening beyond the obvious to background and environmental sounds. 

This may lead to an opening-out, a coming-to, an awakening of awareness simultaneously of the self and surroundings. Plus, especially, awareness of the presence of the Holy Ghost - everywher, invisible, but a person whom we can know.  

Secondly, to allow the real, primary self to come to awareness - our conscious will can perceive and recognize that thinking that comes from the divine in us. 

We are equipped (by God) to detect and  know this. 

So - we need to recognize "It is happening, Now!"

Thirdly, this is the time to recall that primary thinking is reality; by thinking thus we are participating in divine creation - and this is the source of direct knowing and genuine (genius-type) creativity. 

This serves to validate what we are experiencing - to remind us that it is true, real and Good.

Of course, in practice, it is very easy to be thrown off track at any point, and to lose the actuality of primary thinking. For instance - we may take a passive, not-thinking, un-self-aware path - which leads us towards lower consciousness, less human and less divine. We may fall into a trance or asleep!

Much the same applies if our motivation becomes to seek blissful or exciting mental states, to use Final Participation as an 'analgesic' or escape from suffering - or to prolong the state of primary thinking for this kind of psychological-emotional reason. 

Primary thinking is certainly rewarding - nothing more so- but as a by-product. If pleasurable gratification becomes the end and aim - then primary thinking ceases.  

Or our superficial thinking may try to 'hijack' the primary thinking in order to attain some personal and selfish goal, to manipulate others or the world (as with some kind of 'black magic'). In which case we will instantly drop-out-from primary thinking down-into merely secondary and superficial mundane cognition. 

Only when we are actually aligned-with divine creation and providence can we attain Final Participation - when it happens automatically. On the one hand, if we try to use it for some worldly purpose, the state ceases. But, by recognizing the validity and here-and-now presence of its happening; we can encourage its recurrence, and learn from the experience. 

On the side of God? Some triads...

Who is on the side of God? We must judge, and that by (primarily) intuition; and act upon our best judgments - but where to start? 

Even before we start:

1. We must want Heaven (see below): want The Good

2. Recognize the spiritual war of this world

3. Use spiritual discernment (by 'intuition', direct-knowing, heart-thinking...).

What attributes does someone need to take the side of God as of 2021; ie. in these End Times characterized by near-universal social and institutional evil by value-inversion? 

1. Being a Christian - that is, wanting to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life eternal in Heaven.

2. Having personal spiritual experience of direct knowing. +/- Revelations from the Holy Ghost. (But nowadays, external guidance, even from the Holy Ghost, cannot routinely or for long be the only or primary guidance.)

3. Display discernment - e.g. of truth from lies, especially of the Big Lies of this era.

To explain:

1. If someone does not want resurrection to Heaven (e.g. he wants annihilation of the self, or Nirvana); then he will not understand this life correctly; nor will this mortal life be both necessary and eternally valuable - and yet also secondary to eternity.   

2. If someone has only secondhand and external knowledge of the divine; then (as of 2021) he will be corrupted (to the side against God; already, sooner, or later) by the fact that this is a world dominated by evil purposes in all institutions and nations - a social world of inverted values. 

3. One who fails to discern with respect to vital matters (those Big Lies that shape the worldly institutional strategies) then (given that the pressure toward evil from these is continual and increasing) his tendency will be towards corruption and self-damnation. Thus the Litmus Tests. 

Remembering that, although we personally need to discern and act upon these judgments - or perish; nonetheless:

1. We can only infer another's real mind and intent. (Nobody knows that, not even God.)

2. We know only about now But not the future, which is subject to personal agency.).

3. Whatever happens in this mortal life; the final decision about Heaven (the possibility of eternal commitment to live by Love) comes after death.

Why categorize evil? Why categorize Good?

 A couple of profoundly-clarifying posts by WmJas Tychonievich have led to the following thoughts. 

Good and evil are not symmetrical - not mirror images - because Good is positive divine creation; while evil is 'various ways' of being opposed to divine creation. Thus Good is primary, and evil cannot exist without Good. 

(This is why I habitually capitalize Good, and make evil lower case - subliminally to emphasize their qualitative difference in kind.)

The reason that I have suggested considering evil as Luciferic, Ahrimanic and Sorathic is a matter of expediency - it need not reflect and actual categories or distinction in the real world. It is a (more, or less) useful way of understanding evil. 

The reason for doing it was becuase Ahrimanic evil was not being recognised consciously as evil. I think most people spontaneously feel that Ahrimanic evil is indeed evil - i.e. the modern workplace and mass media makes people feel bad (e.g. afraid, resentful, despairing). 

But they do not consciously recognize it as necessarily evil by nature and motivation because they do not understand that Good is rooted in God and divine creation; and even if Christians have become transfixed by ancient lists and exemplars of Luciferic sins (murder, torture, rape, arson, theft etc) which are not what it at issue in a totalitarian Matrix of omni-surveillance and micro-control. 

OK so much for evil; but why divide and differentiate Good? I think that a categorization of Good ought to reflect actual, natural reality - rather than being merely expedient. 

And this seems especially important in this Ahrimanic age, when we so often categorize to kill: categorize in order to destroy that which is alive, organic, conscious, purposive...

Lists of virtues, laws of behaviour... these Now (however it was in the past) function to short-circuit thinking from our real and divine self - and to make us bureaucratic functionaries, being instructed by checklists and flow-charts. 

All language, and all concepts, are merely 'models' of real-reality; but we should only be categorizing Good in so far as this is really based-on the categories of real-reality. 

Good is rooted in divine creation, which is rooted in love - so Good is ultimately a unity of motivation. For a Christian Love is Good and it is the single Good.  

Indeed, the purpose of Jesus making possible our resurrection to eternal life is that we may each become able to contribute, each in our unique way - from our unite nature, to the single harmony of many unique goods - to help-make a creation that is always (but always differently and changing) Good. 

But WmJas reminds me that (as we both know, from our acceptance of Joseph Smith's Mormon revelations) behind the integrated harmony of divine loving creation are Two divine beings: our Heavenly Father and Mother. 

God is a dyad, and the single harmony of creating comes from the love of our Heavenly Parents; who are therefore, two qualitatively-different kinds of being that is Good. 

In a sense Heavenly Father and Mother can each be understood (i.e. can be abstractly modelled in language) as what Wm terms Ahuric /Seeking-Good  and Devic Avoiding-evil; or active versus passive* Good - or (as I now think of them) man-good and woman-good.  

Mormon theology has it that sexual difference (male and female) is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. God the Father is not a self-sufficient 'monad' of Goodness. Instead - God is two kinds of Goodness. 

Instead "God" is a dyad of Heavenly parents, a man and a woman. It is their love (and love is always between Beings) that is the cause of creation: thus all creation is loving-creation. 

(I will now modify, summarize and expand on some comments from Wm Jas.) 

This implies that there are two complementary types of good. No being, no person (not even Jesus) can fully embody both. And, as Wm says, Jesus was indeed an exemplar of positive, active Good - but not so for the negative, passive* kinds of Good (which are instead represented in Catholic Christianity by the figure of Mary his mother). 

Since sexual difference is an essential pre-mortal characteristic. This difference comes before observable chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, motivations, abilities and behaviours. Sexual difference therefore reflects a fundamental division of primordial Human Beings - into promordial men, who are (insofar as they individually are Good) are orientated towards positive Good; and women who are orientated towards the avoidance of evil.

And that causal primary division of ultimate nature is usually reflected, or approximated, in the 'sexual dimorphism' of anatomy, physiology and behaviour of mortal incarnate humans. 

(...Remembering that this mortal life is individually tailored for our unique personal learning requirements - so no specific generalizations apply universally.) 

In sum: it is legitimate to state that really there are two qualitatively different kinds of Good - and that these are the two characteristic Goods of our Heavenly Parents. These are reflected in their Heavenly Children as we observe them - mortal men and women; and will be reflected in Heaven. 

That is the reality - and we can then summarize, model, and in general try to capture these reality-differences in language - but these linguistic descriptions will never be more that partial and distorted representations. 

The reality is in the distinction between the two persons of our Heavenly Father and Mother.

*Passive and negative are wrong terms - for reasons described in the comments. In truth, I think the distinctive complementary qualities of good in a man compared with a woman are irreducible; because this sexual difference of human Beings is primary (hence irreducible). 

Emergency treatment for Project Fear

Since it seems that fear is the prime weapon that the Global Establishment are deploying for the damnation of Men's souls (more exactly, Project Fear leading to Project Despair); and since it is obvious that the recent totalitarian coup has all of societies institutions sewn-up (such that there is nobody with power that can be trusted - because they are all on the side of evil); therefore an emergency treatment for escalating acute, or grinding chronic, fear is useful.

The antidote to fear is a combination of love and trust in that which is good and powerful.

I find that what works best as a start is to concentrate on the here-and-now - in other words self-remembering; because fear is about the future. This can then be followed-up by reflection on the fact that God is the creator of this world, who is our loving Father, therefore can be trusted to do whatever is necessary and possible.

Another source of fear is about whether we ought to be doing something to prevent the feared from happening, but what? And how can we be sure what is for the best?

This is when self-remembering can be followed by seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who will tell us here-and-now what, if anything - and often there is nothing - should be done. This obviates the guilt pressing us towards that obsessive but fruitless planning, which plagues modern Men.

John Butler is very good on the specific business of detaching from abstract and theoretical angst; and becoming aware of oneself in the here-and-now; and (at his quietest) has just about the most soothing voice I've ever heard! - This immediately takes the sting out of present fear, and can be used to lead-into the process described above:

Another beautiful day

I wake-up... at 03:30, with a migraine - third night in a row! But that aside... It's another beautiful day; and at least I was awake to appreciate it breaking, and to hear the dawn chorus take-over from the solo nightingale.

Over the last four weeks we have been experiencing the longest run of sunny early spring weather I can remember. This has made the... recent changes... into something of a golden era, when considered on a day-by-day basis - and that is how I have been considering them.

(That is, when I am not doing my circa hour-a-day of general, abstract, overviewing and prognosticating; results of which is what I what I tend to post here.)


A lot of what I am doing is meditative, in the sense of trying to become better at self-remembering, better at recognising that everything is alive and conscious; and more continuously-aware of the presence of Jesus Christ (the Holy Ghost) and the detailed creative activities of God.

This comes under the category of that imperative for Modern Man of becoming aware of that which is mostly unconscious - including those intuitions which we are so adept at denying, ignoring or suppressing.

Furthermore, is my attempt to enhance or strengthen 'thinking' in the direction of Final Participation - which means that my conviction that thinking is real, active and objective needs to become not-just-a-theory and develops into experiences.


Such experience is greatly rewarding, so long as I do not allow myself to be dismayed at how transient are my successes - which is inevitable in this mortal world.

When I am at my best I do not regard such imperfections and difficulties with life as being due to us living in a 'fallen' world; rather, I regard such limitations as being 'functional' (part of the divine plan for mortal life) and for my own good.

After all; it would not do me much good if I had as a routine the ability to experience each new day, in its many aspects of repetition and novelty. It is better for me that I am unable to sustain an ecstatic response to life; and am compelled to continue solving many variants of the same old problems, as well as having new problems challenge (and defeat) me on a frequent basis.

Thus I am encouraged to keep learning - about love, faith, and hope among many other things - which is what this mortal life is 'for'.


In some ways, the sunny and fresh days are not much distinguishable, one from the other, in terms of what I can do (and what I am allowed to do); but in other ways, every hour brings me up-against new limitations of my attitudes and knowledge, or reveals how partial and feeble were yesterday's (or last night's) 'answers'.

So I strive, and often succeed, in greeting each new dawn with hope and confidence.

  

Living in the present and eternity

CS Lewis once said that we ought to live in the present and eternity; not the past or the future.

This seems to me the best possible advice at present.

We need to live in the present by self-remembering. And in eternity by our Christian faith. 

Of course we will sometimes want or need to think about the past; and it is necessary also to have some kind of framework for the future if we are to understand what things means and how best to respond. But ideally, these should be intermittent and time-limited activities (like the post which follows this one).

For the bulk of our mortal lives, we should be engaged in consciously appreciating the present moment - in the context of our hope of eternal resurrection to dwell in Heaven.

Simple to say, simple to understand - and difficult to do: but that's our task, as Jesus taught again and again through the Gospels.

The invisible world, in which we swim

If we are to try to 'remember to self-remember' - that is, to come awake from our usual semi-consciousness into the awareness of the present: Me! Here! Now! - then (to be genuinely valuable) this needs to be continued on to a consciousness of our situation in the world.

In different words: self-remembering can (and I think should) continue into an awareness of the invisible world that surrounds us. 

This can be imagined in three 'layers' - pagan, theistic and Christian. I see these as increasing levels, each built upon what went before so.

So we can (very swiftly, in a matter of seconds I mean) transform our awareness through the pagan, theistic and Christian by becoming aware of these in turn - finishing with Jesus Christ.

Something like:

1. Awareness of nature, in the form of nature spirits

The first step is recovering that 'animistic' awareness that all is alive and sentient, that the world is a world-of-Beings.

So there are nature spirits around us, constituting both anything that is alive (plant or animal) and also the supposedly-not-alive - sky, clouds, stars, water; and including the artefacts made by men. I don't mean 'imagining' that some specific 'thing' (like a chair, house, or computer) is a disrete nature spirit - but having the awareness of being surrounded by living and conscious beings. (These may be benign or hostile - happy Beings or in despair.)

Wherever we are; Everything is a Being or part-of a Being - and as such is aware of us, and in-communication to some degree - even if only very simply and slowly so. 


2. Awareness of God's creation

Moving swiftly to this level; we might remember (or notice) that we live in God's creation; that this is a creation in which we live.

That there is purpose to everything, meaning to everything. That all the Beings around us (and our-selves) are part of this divine creation. And that divine creation is accomplished by God who is our loving parent/s, who regards us each as a beloved child.

We are not 'lost in space' - we are instead 'at home in the universe'!

This comes-through as a sense somewhat-like being held safely in the arms of an invisible, benign and loving person that surrounds us; a sense that all is ultimately well, if we choose it so ("...all manner of things shall be well"). 


3.  The presence of Jesus

And then we may move on to become aware of the actual presence of Jesus Christ (that is, the Holy Ghost*), here-and-now, in the room with us; and in direct contact with our hearts and minds - present in the thoughts of our real and true selves.

Jesus as someone we can ask (if our questions are validly framed), and who will answer truthfully and relevantly.

(If, that is, answering is expedient to us... Remembering that the default in mortal life is that we ought to work think out for our-selves, by trial and error if necessary: that being the best way to learn. So, inexpedient questions are not answered: and that is the answer.)

*By my understanding of the Fourth Gospel; we have been told (and intuitive experience confirms it for me) that the Holy Ghost is the person of Jesus, present in this mortal world, as spirit.
 

It might be asserted (often is asserted) that Christians could-and-should go straight to an awareness of Jesus - should in particular ignore or shun the pagan awareness. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this idea - except that it misses-out most of this mortal world, making for a thin and demotivating understanding of reality; and also (for people like myself) it just doesn't work very well.

What I am suggesting can be regarded as a rapid recapitulation of the historical development of Christianity - from pagan, through Jewish monotheism, to Jesus Christ. It can also be taken to represent a development that - in the past - will have been followed by many Christians as they grow-up and mature.

And it represents the track of some ex-atheist adult converts to Christianity - such as CS Lewis and myself: beginning with a love of pagan myth and legend, passing through a philosophical theism, finally into an awareness of the essential role of the person of Jesus.

At any rate, this is something that might be tried, practised a few times, and evaluated as to its effect (good or ill - because anything which is strong enough medicine to do good to one Man, may harm another) - by those who seek more depth and breadth in their lives; by those who seek the friendship and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

How I do Christian meditation

This is not a cook-book method; indeed I agree with William Arkle that the essence of our mortal situation is that God wants us to work out as much as possible for ourselves. That's the best way to learn. But help is always available for anybody, when necessary.

A commenter asked me for references I could recommend on Christian meditation. I know of none. What I do know, I worked out for myself, collating bits and pieces from many sources. It may not be helpful for other people.


My usual pattern is as follows:

1. Self-remembering. I come to my senses, wake-up and realise that this is Me, Here, Now.

2. I instantly move this into a recognition that the whole world around me is alive and conscious and purposive - and by 'whole world' I mean not only animals, but also plants and minerals. This is a return to Original Participation, to the animism of young children and hunter-gatherers.

3. Then - again as soon as the above state has impinged - I consider Jesus Christ; that he is everywhere and right here with me, now (in the spirit form known as the Holy Ghost). I experience Jesus as a present person.

(...As a present person and Not as an abstraction, force, vibration or the like. And as a separate person from my-self in a loving relationship - Not as a light or ocean into which I aspire to diffuse or melt. The experience is of two-ness, Not one-ness.)


Now, that is as far as I can usually take my Christian meditation - it is a passive state of realisation; a wakening up to how things actually are. It can happen several or many times a day - if I am in a good frame of mind; but never when my frame of mind is wrong: busy, selfish, sinful - including fearful or despairing.

But it is Very Brief, happening in a matter of seconds.

I regard it as an error for Christians to expect or to aim-at sustained states of meditation. God wants us to learn from the (many) experiences of our mortal lives - he arranges our lives to make this possible; and to remain for long periods rapt in a chronic meditative trance is clearly not what God  wants from us. That is why sustained trance-like meditation is not spontaneous, and so difficult.

(At least, God does not want this, as a generalisation - there will no doubt be exceptions for specific people in specific circumstances; since each life is bespoke-tailored for our unique personal needs.)


Sometimes I find it possible to go beyond the above brief and contemplative meditation into a broader or more active state. Broader when - instead of Jesus as the Holy Ghost - I become aware of God - my Heavenly Parents - Father or Mother.

...Or become aware of one of the so-called-'dead' such as a beloved relative; or even someone I never knew but whom I genuinely love from their works (like JRR Tolkien, Owen Barfield, William Arkle). Or aware of the personified the spirit of a place or people.

In a nutshell, become aware of another specific Being.


The key is 'motivation': the state of love. When I am in a state of love and remain conscious and purposive and make the necessary decision - then it is not just possible but it happens naturally to go beyond passive contemplation and actively to participate in the ongoing work of Creation.

This is the state of Final Participation.  This may briefly happen during acts of earthly creation when that creation is motivated by love (including love of truth or beauty) - during writing, perhaps. It may happen in a conversation, or being-with another person. It can be described sometimes as inspiration, sometimes as an intuition.

And it comes as a direct-knowing; my mind, my thinking, comes into-line with divine creation (for a moment); so that my thinking is also the thinking of creation: my thinking is objectively real and permanent.

I can personally add a little to the harmony of ongoing creation.


Such are my Christian meditations. They are fairly frequent, but happen only when properly-motivated, consciously-chosen; and only briefly.

But - as you may imagine - they are of primary importance to this, my mortal life.


Note added: In principle, and given that Christians are now 'on their own' (for good or evil - but in an ultimate sense it is for uour own good), some kind of meditation becomes a necessity. As institutions, rituals and symbols lose their effect, are corrupted or withdrawn; what is needed is direct and personal experience of 'the divine' - and for Christians the most relevant divine is, of course, Jesus Christ. What about prayer? Necessary - but on its own, insufficient.  

Mindless mindfulness, and the meaning of (real Christian) meditation

I wrote a few years ago about 'mindfulness'* - and that kind of empty meditational practice; which is at best an analgesic, but is probably being pushed by The Establishment for much more malignant reasons.

This came to mind in watching one of John Butler's recent videos. I find him interesting because he exhibits the best and the worst aspects of the (Hindu/ Buddhist-derived) perennialist oneness spirituality as it affects the Western mind.

JB says much that is wise and valuable in the early part of the vid - and then towards the end demonstrates a stunning lack of discernment that comes through in supporting the vacuous 'mindfulness without God' fad, and references his dumb-evil belief in CO2-global-warming-totalitarianism that nowadays goes with New Agery. And the equally dumb-evil assumption that the rise in billionnaire-funded, mass media and state bureaucracy supported, mindfulness-training and climate-hysteria are steps in the right direction, that JB personally supports!

I mean, how unwise, how dense, does someone need to be to suppose that anything good for people, good for the planet, would really be emanating from such people and sources?


(The chap who interviews JB - Phil Shankland - is an Extinction Rebellion activist, who can be seen on his Facebook pages taking part in demonstrations. So much for the spiritual benefits of knowing and spending loads of time with a contemporary wise man, and meditating for hours every day - plus an active life associated with a liberal-'Christian' church!... JB himself - in other videos - apparently takes for granted the validity of Warmist claims to be able to predict and control the world climate by a - necessarily totalitarian - global government; empowered to monitor and control all human activity.)


Of course, if a oneness, Nirvana seeking, anti-ego meditator were trying to be consistent; he would have no political views at all; and no interest in other-people or the way that things apparently happen in this - by definition illusory - mortal life. He would have No Morality - because morality is regarded as just as much part of the illusion of This Life as is everything else we think is real. 

However, in practice, such folk mostly seem to be on the stupid and ranting extreme of Leftist moralistic posturing; and when followed-up through time (which, in theory, they also regard as illusory) exhibit a stunning inability to learn from life experiences.

That is what oneness spirituality seems to do to Westerners - it makes them indifferent to personal experience, and indifferent to the truth (i.e. indifferent to the maya / illusion of this changing mortal life) - but just to a sufficient extent to prevent them from taking life seriously enough to learn from the experience! Just to a sufficient extent to reject the reality of traditional sexual morality; but not quite enough to reject the moral imperatives that justify the ever expanding claims of the modern sexual revolution.

Somehow the effect of oneness and loss of ego is never quite enough to induce them to set-aside mainstream, approval-seeking, virtue-signalling, fashion-dominated Leftism...

*

I would say that meditation does indeed begin with self-remembering, being here-and-now; knowing the 'presence' of God. So far, JB is valuable, helpful. But meditation then should - instantly - move-on-to being aware not of God as a diffuse omni-presence (analogous to our immersion in the sea, or floating in air); but to knowing God as a person: indeed knowing God as our loving parent (here, now, with-us)...

(Knowing, that is, God as a Being - not an abstraction.)

And meditation should not be seeking to annihilate 'the ego' or 'the self', nor to dissolve it into the abstract one-ness of deity - but to bring forth our true and divine self.


(What would be the point of God creating mortal life if its purpose was to annihilate the body and the self? Better not have mortal life in the first place! No - the purpose of this our mortal life is to experience and learn from temporary incarnation and self-hood, so that we may be able to choose - or reject - Christ's offer of immortal incarnation and divine self-hood.) 


And meditation should be about our true-self meeting-with a Being: such as our Heavenly Father; or other divine, spiritual or other presence - perhaps the beloved dead.

And why should we meet such? Not for happiness, coping, to kill pain or reduce anxiety - But through love; that's the proper reason. It is indeed the proper reason for meeting anyone. Love of that person, or love of of God's creation.

And inter-personal love - between Beings; not love understood as a kind of gas, force-field, or high frequency vibration! 


Also, meditation should Not be about trying to sustain itself as a solid lasting state; but about (when needed, at will) touching-base with this underlying reality to reorientate ourselves in life.

We are not - clearly, from the design of this world - meant to spend our lives suspended in a static-state of meditation or prayer; but (mostly) in loving and creating. And meditation is in order to make this possible, set us on the proper direction etc.

What I (personally) aim-for: is to be able to meditate and pray often, on demand; but not continuously. As Arkle says; God does not want us to be thinking about Him most of the time; but God wants us to do what we are here to do; live in the way God wants us to live (roughly: loving and creating).

Broadly; we best serve God by doing what God wants us to do (and that is an unique destiny for each person), not in continuously contemplating God.


Meditation and prayer are therefore best 'used' as ways of reminding our-selves of this situation; and of clearing away that evil addiction to fear that JB so well describes early in this video.

To leave aside fear is necessary; but not an end in itself. Unless detachment from the temporary and irrelevant concerns of worldly angst is only a first step; then meditation becomes just a drugless Valium.

Context is everything; the meaning of meditation depends absolutely on the spiritual, religious, metaphysical assumptions that are used to understand it, and its purposes. 

We ought then to move straight-on to consider this mortal life in terms of our faith and hope of immortal resurrected life, through following Jesus. 


*Note: Mindfulness is meditation without religion, without God. Mindfulness is thus meditation embedded-in an the assumptions of mainstream, materialist, Leftism. It is meditation reduced to pure technique. Hence mindfulness is directed merely at human happiness in this mortal life, to the individual in the present moment. This amounts to, as I say, merely a non-drug form of painkiller, anxiolytic or antidepressant. It is a way of 'coping' with the incrementally-escalating psychological evils of totalitarian Leftism - which then, of course, is able to grow unopposed and unabated.

Self-remembering - then what?

Self-remembering has seemed a very important thing to strive for, ever since I first heard of the idea (from Colin Wilson) more than forty years ago. To be aware of Me, Here, Now is to awaken from that zombie like state that afflicts/ is-chosen-by most people - most of the time.

But having become aware of ones-self - what then? What should we do?

For some, self-remembering seems to be an aim in itself, itself the goal to strive for. This corresponds to a wish to return to the passive immersive state of early childhood (at its best) - a kind of open-eyed wonder at the situation of being alive in the world.

For others, self-remembering leads to the (meditative) attempt to lose the self (lose the ego); to stop thinking, to lose 'consciousness' and return to what is regarded as the primal one-ness. To cease to be a person. 

For myself; I hope that self-remembering will lead on to an awareness of living in a world of Beings; and that I am in relations with these Beings - and an active recognition that this is an ongoing-creation: God's creation - the unfolding product of personal purpose.

Today, as I was in a public space - I 'came to myself' and attained self-remembering, and then became aware of the situation. Strangely, although I was surrounded by dozens of people; all of them were cut-off from the web of relations, gave-off no living vibes - and there was a much more significant relationship to be had with the non-human aspects of my environment - the stones and buildings, the trees and vegetation.

This seems so common as to be almost a fact of modern life. When I go to a beautiful historic city, such as Norwich or Oxford, the city itself is far more alive than the inhabitants; the city is vibrant and conscious and purposive - the inhabitants little more than ghosts of Hades, wandering aimlessly or rushing around dementedly.

And the same applies to England. I am aware of England more in rural areas - rural Northumberland, for example, is so alive and conscious and purposive that it is impossible to ignore when I am in a self-remembering state. But again most of the people are not.

It is very strange. It is as if the land itself is a conscious organism, with definite purpose; and the people merely mites crawling on its surface - convinced that this great slow-moving beast is dead and inert (dead and inert in a way that nothing truly is).

Nearly everybody has chosen to believe that this whole world is meaningless, purposeless, dead; and now this has spread to the verge of a self-belief. It is as if the nation is on the verge of a mass delusion of personal unreality: that we are all nothing more than our own delusions, and the fear is that we ourselves are as unreal as we consider the non-human world to be. 

I keep hoping that some of the crawling mites will realise where they are, and what is potential in their situation; and will join with it in a spirit of love. But so far it doesn't seem to be happening.

 

A micro-nap (brief deep sleep) may instantly lead-to presentness and self-remembering (i.e. something of what meditation also tries to do)

Some days I can't seem to get my head clear; thoughts whirl in a rather futile manner; and in particular I cannot 'wake-up' properly; in the sense that I cannot 'self-remember': cannot get that recognition of Me. Here. Now.

In other words I am not really 'present' in my situation, my life. I am on autopilot, disengaged.

This is one condition that formal meditation training (in various schools) attempts to remedy; by learning either control of thoughts, or Not thinking, or letting thoughts fly through the mind without holding onto any. This is quite difficult, but can work; and then I can bring myself to presentness.

(Some people find that this presentness state is the experience of one-ness; but I tend to regard it psychologically rather than spiritually.) 

I don't regard presentness as an especially deep or significant state - nor is is a goal in itself; it is more like a basic pre-requisite for the 'state' of intuition: which I do regard as deep and significant. Intuition is that primary thinking or Final Participation which is the mode of Romantic Christianity. That is what I personally regard as my major life goal.

Nonetheless, presentness is, as I said, a valuable or sometimes essential pre-requisite to higher states; and I have found that it is best attained by a very short sleep - specifically when I experience the momentary absence of deep, dream-less sleep.

This works as a very effective re-boot; both clearing and opening-out my thinking; awakening me, and producing an instantaneous sense of presence: Me! Here! Now!

Of course, not everybody can take a micro-nap at will - nor can we control whether such a period of sleep will drop us into deep sleep rather than into 'REM' dreaming sleep. But I present it as a repeated observation that when it does happen that I have a micro-sleep; it can achieve in an instant what struggling to meditate has failed to do over a period of hours.

What kind of 'spiritual experience' should we be aiming for? More on 'direct knowing'

While there are people who continue to have 'traditional' forms of sensory spiritual experience - seeing visions, hearing voices, experiencing answered prayers and personal miracles, synchronicities and pre-cognition (information about the future), or phenomena like channelling or conversing-with spiritual entities - I would regard these as being impossible for many/ most people nowadays (except, perhaps, in conditions of intoxication or mental illness -which cast the validity of experience into doubt)  and as being preliminary and early aspects of a 'modern-era' spiritual life.

The main value of such experiences, I think, is to convince some people of the reality of a spiritual dimension to life. This was, indeed, the case for me - with a few instances of rapid/ miraculous answering of prayers, that were very important at the very beginning of my Christian life. The experiences were a confirmation of the reality of God.

But all of these are sensory-mediated, hence indirect, means of communication between God and Men. We see something, hear a voice saying words... and then comes an evaluation of the experience... Do we remember properly, accurately; was it an hallucination, or a coincidence?

And if we decide it was real and have an accurate record of the experience - then what does it mean for us? What was God trying to communicate, and what - exactly - did he want us to do about it?

So; once we are convinced of the reality of God - what then? After we know that God is real; that is the true beginning of spiritual life. Should we then expect or want the traditional kind of spiritual experiences to continue; are they, indeed, the best way that we can communicate with God?

This is when I return to the matter of what can be called the intuition of the real self or direct knowing. Direct knowing is - I believe - the form of spiritual experience that is available to many/ most people in the modern era. And furthermore it is, in principle, superior to the traditional forms - because it requires no extra layers of understanding and translation.

Perhaps if I draw a contrast, this will be clearer. Suppose someone has the experience of hearing God's voice, speaking words aloud in the mind. He needs to hear and understand the words, he needs to remember them (perhaps by writing them); and then he needs to ponder their meaning and implications.

But if that person was to receive knowledge directly into his understanding; he will already know what that knowledge means for him, and what he should do about it - because it all comes as a package: one moment not-there, the next moment it is there.

And direct knowledge is intended for direct action - it is typically bimodal, yes-no, two-track: either we stay with what we are doing, or else we set off onto a different path which is being given.

Now, there may be problems about remembering the experience, and so forth - but if we have acted-upon direct knowing, then that doesn't matter. And there is a much bigger problem about telling other people what has happened: that requires capturing the experience in language, tailoring it for the intended audience, and that audience will then need to receive, understand and interpret that information. The situation is the same as for traditional spiritual experience.

But direct knowing is the form of spiritual experience that goes with Romantic Christianity; and the essence of Romantic Christianity is that it is based upon direct and personal experience. Since direct experience is foundational, it means that it is indispensable. So that fact that direct knowledge cannot reliably and validly be transmitted in-directly is not surprising! It is why we need (and must have) direct experience in the first place. 

Another aspect is that direct knowing is - as a generalisation, in this mortal life - simple.

And in turn this means that we can receive direct knowledge only when we have formed our question exactly and with the proper motivation; when our mind it receptive to that form of knowledge. there are an endless ('infinite') number of false questions and wrong motivations for knowledge - and only the right questions and the right motivations will lead to direct knowing.

But once the right question and attitude are 'in place' - then direct knowing arises immediately and without any effort.

However, the knowing does not force itself upon us, overwhelm us, or compel us to do something. It is knowledge of what is right and there is a further decision about whether to embrace or reject what is right; or to argue that it is Not right. This is agency, this is free will - and is a separate 'process' from that of direct knowing. 

Agency comes in in this bimodal fashion: direct knowing tells us what is true and right; agency is concerned with whether we accept or reject this knowledge. it is not a choice between alternatives; it is a choice of 'destiny', or not-destiny.

So, direct knowing itself entails no effort, no struggle; but putting oneself into the necessary 'frame of mind' to receive it is a wholly voluntary and conscious process. Indeed, direct knowing - and to know that this is direct knowing - is possible only to those with agency, with free will.

Direct knowing doesn't 'just happen' to an unconscious person, who is thinking about other things (distracted); it doesn't happen to someone whose fundamental beliefs exclude the possibility of direct knowing... e.g. they don't believe in God, or their idea of deity is impersonal - or they don't believe that knowledge can be directly known. In such situations, there will be no direct knowing - that person is self-excluded.

To put matters the other way about - direct knowledge follows naturally upon the knowledge and love of God and the desire to follow Jesus through death to resurrected Life Eternal in Heaven. And then direct knowledge will provide the specific guidance we need in life.



 

Effort and forcing are inappropriate, counterproductive, in the spiritual life

On the one hand, if we do nothing - then nothing will happen.

But it is abundantly clear that to make the spiritual life and act of 'will power' is ineffective at best or disaster and self-damnation at worst - essentially because (absent the proper spirit, whose absence makes the spiritual quest necessary in the first place...) that entity which wills-with-power, can only be a false personality, and not the real self. Will power can only dig us deeper into our delusions.

In his booklet The Hologram and Mind, from about 1990, William Arkle wrote (this is edited from the full account at the link):

We can imagine that the synthesis of question and reply happens through a method which is as subtly as the genius of mind is subtle. And yet, the two processes of question and answer are clear and distinct. 

The ability to pose a good problem or ask a good question is as much a part of the genius as that which is liable to bring forth a good response. 

The attitude of trust on the part of the questioner is also an integral part of the value of the reply. The fact that effort and force is alien to the correct working of this creative synthesis is apparent in the realisation that the' reference beam' of the hologram of mind (which corresponds to the nature of God) is only too glad to give of its best to the 'working beam' (which corresponds to our our true self). 

God does not need to be either forced or even coaxed. Pressure of this sort is almost equivalent to rape, and simply shows that the individual has not reached the level of evolution of consciousness which knows how to behave with proper respect. 

Such an immature person has not realised that force is distorting the question being asked, and preconditioning the answer.

My interpretation:  This is about as strong language as Arkle ever uses, when he compares to attempted-rape the use of effort, force, coaxing in relation to asking God (our Heavenly Parents) for answers. Since God loves us, since we are God's children - there is no good reason for such an attitude.

God is only too glad to give of his best to each of his children; and to strive and strain to compel God's help can only come from a misunderstanding, a false understanding, an inversion of God's relation to us.

So we ought not to strive and strain - what then? I would say to 'remember' - as when William Wildblood, in his recent book, reminds us to Remember the Creator. The spiritual life is mostly a matter of remembering.

Spiritual experiences - If not, then what?

A few days ago I stated my view that the 'standard methods' of attaining spiritual experiences have  the disadvantage of failing to be associated with spiritual development; such that people who have frequent and intense spiritual experiences are often entirely lacking in spiritual wisdom.

Specifically, I said that magic and ritual systems of divination on the one hand; and training in meditation methods or induing of altered consciousness on the other hand; were both ineffective when it comes to developing the Romantic Christian life which I believe ought to be our priority, in The West.

Yet the Romantic Christian life is one that aims to restore the spiritual to life, so that we may reconnect with creation, and ultimately participate in creation; because Western people are dying of alienation - and mainstream Christianity does not even begin to address this core malaise - mainly because it emerged in an already alienated world, and grew to incorporate the alienated consciousness.

This is why the spiritual 'techniques' above operate separately from the kind of development in consciousness that is needed; the needed development is in the future and unprecedented; while the methods of the past only draw us back towards an obsolete consciousness that we cannot return to, nor would it be good for us if we could return.

This seems to set-up an impasse, in which on the one hand we must-have spiritual experiences - and I mean must; because I think that this is an absolute essential in The West if we are to avoid continuing down our path to mass chosen damnation... yet on the other hand we must-not seek such spiritual experiences using any of the standard, historical methods of doing so.

So, if not, then what? If not these methods, yet we must become more spiritual - then what should we do?

My answer is related to the idea of final participation as being our goal in consciousness (to use Owen Barfield's term); this is the consciousness that we will attain as resurrected beings dwelling in Heaven - but we need to attain this same quality of consciousness, as much as possible (as frequently and intensely as possible), during mortal life; in order to respond to the special challenges of this era.

To be in final participation is to participate in God's ongoing work of creation; it happens when we are thinking from our real self - because our real self is divine. Our real self - being divine - is free, and therefore our personal thinking adds to God's creation, is woven-into it; and this is indeed the main 'work' of our Heavenly lives.

When we attain to Final Participation in our mortal lives, we are having a spiritual experience. We are a part of the ongoing work of creation, which we experience in the mode of thinking. Our thinking is also divine thinking. Yet when this happens it is not in an 'altered state of consciousness' such as a trance or a dream; nor is it the narrowed and channelled consciousness of a ritual - it is simply ordinary thinking, rooted in the real self and raised to the fullness of clarity and simplicity.

Such thinking is, if we let it, self-validating - intuitively valid. We know that we know.

And I think many people have experienced this kind of thinking; although they seldom have a name for it; and very often deny its special significance. In my own life, the times when I have been thinking in this way make up a special sequence of memories I have termed the Golden Thread; the times and events that feel as if they were the only truly significant things (with all the great mass of routine and shallow pleasures falling away, barely remembered).

(These might include phenomena such as peak experiences, flow states, self-remembering, holiday consciousness, epiphanies and the like - as discussed often in the works of Colin Wilson.)

Yet these Golden Thread moments include many seemingly 'trivial' things, often unplanned and surprising; and apparently 'not real' things like reading something, or imagining something. And in the past I was more puzzled by them than inspired by them.

And this is the danger - that we have spiritual experiences but fail to notice and learn from them, for the simple reason that we discount them, disvalue them - regard them as trivial instead of The most Important Things in our lives.

In sum, spiritual experiences - properly understood - happen as a by-product of a proper way of living and understanding. And, as many people have noticed; the more they are noticed and learned-from; the more often they will happen.

So - the proper action to take is a kind of self-awareness, not simply to drift through life half-asleep; but be aware of what is happening, as it happens; and to recognise value the best of life as it deserves on the basis of intuitive experience rather than theory.

The necessarily Christian metaphysics of Self-Remembering: William Arkle on 'Paying Attention' in this life

From a (probably early 1990s) audio-lecture by William Arkle: Discovering your soul's purpose that can be found at the Wessex research group website. Transcribed from about 1 hour 13 minutes, and edited a little for clarity...

What we want to do to get the full benefit of God’s lectures is to be fully present. 

But we can’t be fully present if our soul is not with us in the ‘classroom’. That means being a physical body and personality, who – at the same time - knows he is a soul. 

Then you are fully present in God’s lecture. However, if your soul is not happy being in a physical body, and is trying to get out all the time; you’re not really going to be paying attention to what God wants you to pay attention to: why you are in this particular classroom, at this particular moment. 

That’s an argument for paying attention; but paying attention with all-of-you instead of just a bit of you. 

'Paying attention’ means paying attention to all of the things to do with physical life – which includes your motivation and sense of purpose.


Here William Arkle is developing one of his primary metaphors for mortal life, which is that our own actual Life is ultimately to be regarded a personally-tailored set of experiences; from-which God hopes we may learn that-which it is most-important for each of us personally-to-learn. Thus he terms mortal life a 'university', and the key experiences of life he terms the 'lectures', from-which we need to learns the intended 'lessons'.

Paying attention is necessary, and paying attention in the proper context is necessary. That is, we need to be aware that we are living in God's creation, in which God is present, and that our actual life (your life, my life, everybody's life) is neither random nor passively-determined; but has specific meaning and purpose.

So we need to pay attention in awareness that our life (Here! Now!) is a communication, a message, from God; or, more exactly, that there is intended knowledge to be had from it - and not general instruction but specific lessons that we personally need.

This way of paying attention does not require special powers of health, clarity or concentration - because it is a paying attention by the 'soul' itself - that which is divine in us, and which is (therefore) eternal and immune to sickness and impairment. It is, when achieved, self-recognisable and self-validation - not least because this kind of attention is instantly (albeit, usually, very temporarily) lucid.

This is sometimes termed 'self-remembering' but those who call it that often neglect that without God acknowledged as as our loving creator and parent, self-remembering/ paying attention is merely a psychological state, of no particular value.

For self-remembering to be significant, for it to be meaningful; it must be known as a part of the mutual divine purpose; of our personal affiliation to God's on-going work of creation.
 
 

The sense in which we already 'know everything', and just need to realise it

At first sight this seems a ridiculous idea, that has apparently been refuted by the great accumulation of knowledge through human history; but I believe there is a sense in which the broader argument is indicative of a profound insight - and this is why the argument has been taken seriously for more than 2000 years (ie. since Plato).

The sense is that life is two curves running from childhood to maturity - a rising line of self-consciousness which increases from childhood to a maximum plateau attained at adolescence. And a descending line of innate and spontaneous knowing which is high in childhood (albeit it is an unconscious knowing), and reaches a nadir in at adolescence.

In modern society adolescence is (spiritually) usually where matters stop - what we call adulthood is not 'maturity' but merely a sustained and degenerate adolescence. Modern 'adults' have lost their  spontaneous natural knowledge (instead just passively absorbing propaganda and hypothesies from 'society') and they live in a cut-off state of self-consciousness (so cut-off that it doubts and denies even itself). 

The task of adolescence ought-to-be to change that descending line of knowing into an arc - rising in adult maturity to reach the same kind of spontaneous and universal knowing that we began-with - but this time it is conscious knowing.

Thus, children know everything but are unaware of the fact, adolescents know nothing and are aware of the fact; but spiritually-mature grown-ups potentially know everything, and know-what-they-know.

I say adults potentially know everything, because the process of discovering-what-you-already-know is linear and happens in-time; so it would be more accurate to say that knowledge is un-bounded, open-ended, and tends-towards a situation of knowing everything-that-can-be-known - always from the perspective of a single self.

This scenario is, presumably, why all real learning - all knowing of truth - has the distinct feeling of being a realising, a remembering, a recognition... true knowledge is always 'familiar' - we always feel that we 'always knew that' but had never articulated it. I'm saying that we always Did know that - but did not realise we knew it, and could not use that knowing until after we had articulated it.

In terms of knowledge the trajectory is therefore from unconscious knowledge to conscious knowledge; from the implicit to the explicit; from immersion-in knowledge to standing outside it; from passivity through contemplation to creativity.