The desperate appeal of deus ex machina

"Deus ex machina" is a term used to describe the plot device by which intervention from outside the action appears just before some catastrophic disaster, and solves an apparently impossible problem. 

In "real life" DEM has long formed the basis of optimism - the hope that something not-known (or known but previously inactive) will emerge unexpectedly to save us. 

Or to put it negatively, despair may be staved-off by hoping that "Something will turn-up". 

This may, of course, be true! 

Because we really do not know or understand much about how the world works; so there is never reason to give-up hope.

But hope is not the same as optimism - and it is a very different thing to hope for rescue, than it is to expect rescue by some unknown event.

In particular, it is foolish to construct a specific hope from a logical sequence of double-negative assertions. 

For example, that (for all we know) we cannot be sure that "leader"-X isn't really a genuine saviour, who is (despite superficial appearances) cleverly plotting behind the scenes towards some kind of decisive last-minute master stroke. 

Or, spiritually; the worse the world is apparently getting, and the weaker and more corrupt "my church" seems to be - nobody can disprove that this won't make it more likely that the Deity will (at last!) step-in, make a personal intervention, and save things in some unexpected fashion.

(Such a "saving might itself be negative - as in saving-from the default of Hell; or it might be positive in the sense of establishing a redeemed Church as dominant and pervasive across society.)

Such reflections were provoked by my again considering the (in retrospect) extraordinary optimism that was prevalent among spiritual people in the years approaching and just following the millennium. 

Among many or most such people existed a near-consensus that the whole world was shortly to be raised to a higher spiritual level (higher "frequency" or "vibrational" level); that would affect everybody and every-thing (like it or not).

...Although the more discerning in the New Age clearly acknowledged that for this external influx to be effective would also require a receptivity - or even some positive spiritual move - from each individual; in order to meet this incoming spiritual "energy" halfway. 

So an element of at least consent, and probably collaboration, was also required -- nonetheless the primary cause was a new, or greatly amplified, external influence. 

My interpretation of this apparently anachronistic millennial expectation is that it was the product of a kind of desperation; especially among those genuinely spiritual people who had rejected (or simply did not believe) Jesus's offer of reasserted eternal Heavenly life. 

And, mutatis mutandis, I think the same applies to the optimism (as contrasted with hope) of so-many of those Christians who are serious and motivated about their faith. 

The Christians who believe-in some kind of external saving of this mortal life and the earth; are guilty of conflating the true and sure hope of Heaven, with a false optimism concerning this-world. 

This false-optimism among Christians seems particularly pernicious, insofar as it entails God intervening to save (what seems to me) the most deeply evil civilization the world has yet known - I mean a civilization that is already, and increasingly, strategically and officially inverted in its values.  

The answer is simple, but difficult; and is to strive to be motivated primarily by next-worldly hope rather than this-worldly optimism - and to root this in the faith that God will (indeed, by Jesus, already-has) made it possible for anybody and everybody, in whatever situation, time, or place) to attain salvation.  

The next inference is more controversial among Christians, which is that this can only be attained by taking personal responsibility for salvation. 

In other words; I am assuming that there will be no worldwide, or even culture-wide, deus ex machina intervention; because everything has already been done; and "all" (!) that remains is for us as individuals is to recognize that reality - and to make our commitment, to choose to follow Jesus...

That is the essential starting-point. 

And then... we each need to discover what that actually means for us; for us specifically - here-and now.   

Crossing a threshold into a New Age of consciousness at the Millennium - its unexpected fulfilment

I continue to cycle back to consider that the New Age of human consciousness, so eagerly anticipated by "spiritual" people of the late 20th century to be coming-upon Mankind at about the millennium - and by which we would cross a kind of threshold into a qualitatively different relationship with reality... actually happened; yet not-at-all in the manner hoped-for. 

There has been a transformation of consciousness, but it hasn't been of the kind that was so optimistically envisaged. 

People are not more spiritual; alienation, egoism, and awareness of separateness are stronger than ever. There is not a spontaneous sense of oneness, nor of attunement with the universe. 

The change did not make us better people, nor has it made us happier, nor has it led to a kinder human society with diminished suffering. 

Neither do people in general have either a closer relationship with nature, or a closer sense of personal involvement with ultimate reality. 

So much for what didn't happen - but if I believe there was a millennial transformation, then what did happen; and why did it go so wrong? Or at least, so very differently from what was envisaged? 

What happened was pretty much as predicted by Rudolf Steiner and confirmed by Owen Barfield - in that the changes of the past several centuries reached a threshold after which we were each required consciously to choose the basic assumptions on the basis of which we would understand our lives. 

The residues of innate, unconscious, spontaneous spirituality; that had been dwindling for centuries, finally became so weak and feeble that they ceased to operate. The progressive "disenchantment" became so extreme that social life ceased to be humanized, personalized and sweetened by it. 

Everything became materialistic and mundane; explicit, procedural, bureaucratic. Experience divided into the subjective and the objective - and the objective was impersonal - a realm of entertainment and exploitation, and exploitative entertainment - it became "politicized" and systemic. 

And - because we are alienated, nowadays we all know this; and insofar as we regard the public/ institutional, social realm as objectively real - then this is the reality we have chosen. 

Meanwhile, everything else, is regarded as subjective hence arbitrary - and relevant only to our private emotions*.  

21st century Man has chosen his assumptions, then chosen to assert that these assumptions are inescapable reality; and painted himself into this corner of purposelessness, meaninglessness and hopelessness. 

 

That is the nature of the millennial threshold and the New Age. 

Yet... if this can be understood, and if we choose to take ultimate and personal responsibility for what we regard as the nature of ultimate reality - instead of assuming that this is "a given" to which we can only submit passively...

Then we may consciously choose another path by which we each-and-all may individually participate in divine creation; and each bring to it something unique and irreplaceable. 

And that would be the threshold to a New Age, a new consciousness, which is worth living.  

**

* Note: I should also record that there is also an assertion of subjectivism - that because it is only in the subjective and personal that we can find purpose, meaning and enchantment, we ought therefore to regard the subjective as reality. Well, this is "easy to say" - but I have never come across anybody who remotely does it: either in their speech, or observable actions! Such a recommendation is (whatever its merits in an ideal sense) un-real and un-motivating, even to those who most vehemently espouse it. 

The self-chosen false dilemma of 21st century Man is therefore between an objective public discourse that is death and despair; and a subjective personal world that is experienced as unreal and unmotivating.

The (obvious?) conclusion is apparently a case of "back to the drawing board" to discover on what basis these (supposedly exclusive) alternatives were formulated. 

And, it turns-out, that means going back a very long way down - deeper than almost anybody else has been or is prepared to go...

Which is, in a nutshell, the reason for our current situation. 

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only path ahead, is the right path ahead. 

**

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

The Celestine Prophecy and synchronicity revisited

"I've found a synchronicity!"

The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield, was a self published book of the early 1990s, that went on to become a major best seller; and contributed to the sense of millennial anticipation among "New Age" spiritual seekers. 

On the one hand, the book was much read and discussed - on the other it had a reputation of being day dreamy, wishful, vague, and ineptly-written in the cynical and materialist mainstream.  

I encountered the CP about a decade after publication, and found it a rather charming and naive book, with a pleasant kind of atmosphere about it; and which helped make a significant step towards me becoming a Christian - although that is not the book's intent. 

A few days ago, I downloaded an audiobook copy from Archive.org, and found that I still responded to its earnest and positive tone, while at the same time seeing more clearly the self-imposed limitations that derive from its being a continuation of the idealistic sixties counter-culture. 

The main positive effect of the Celestine Prophecy (and I sampled some of Redfield's follow-up books as well) was to focus my attention on the importance of synchronicity - the idea that the remarkable and positive "coincidences" of life may have meaning, and point to a purpose. 

I reasoned that if synchronicity was a real phenomenon, then events must be arranged in accordance wit some plan or intention. To my mind, this must mean not just an ordered universe, or a transcendent deity, but a personal and loving God. 

Because otherwise reality would not arrange itself around individual people, around me and my destiny. An abstractly structured universe would have no reason to care about individuals or their fate in the world.  

For synchronicity to happen, and to have significance for the future; the events of an individual life must (I thought) be somehow "arranged" and therefore have a spiritual significance. 

In a nutshell; there must be a personal creator God, who loves me (and others) as individuals, and who is continuing to create for our ultimate spiritual benefit. 

Such was my eventual benefit from reading the CP back in the middle 2000s.

But re-listening to the CP, I see that the author's intentions are different. It is not Christian, not focused on resurrected eternal life; but instead hopes for a transformation of this life on earth so as to become a kind of blissful spiritualized paradise of peace, love, harmony - without pain or suffering. 

Indeed, CP asserts that this is happening, and will happen - it will happen to us; because of the direction of history and reality. People fail to see it, because immersed in survival and the seeking of possessions, status, thrills etc. But it will happen anyway, because it must.

Related to this is the vision of synchronicities as something that also happen to us, guideposts pointing at our better future, and which it is best if we follow.  

The prophecies are presented as "insights" - which are items of knowledge that need to be grasped, internalized, lived. 

The picture is of some higher reality that communicates to our senses pieces of information that are qualitatively and positively transformative for the people, and societies, that acknowledge them. 

These are precious insights which need to be preserved, disseminated, read, pondered and internalized. That is how things are meant to happen - and that is what is resisted by the regressive forces, the materialists, the power structures, the exploiters...

The Good Life of the CP is therefore one in which we are guided through the world and our lives by synchronicities, to attain sequential insights, towards a state of enlightenment that is also contageous - in a good way. 

The insights spread from person to person, and each is permanently transformed by each insight - so there is a ratcheting positive movement (albeit this may happen quickly, or else be delayed considerably by our faults and my malign meddling).  

 

In sum - I find the Celestine Prophecy to envisage a very passive form of spiritual life. The millennial New Age will happen to us, will be imposed from externally; and synchronicities likewise. Our job is to follow - and our reward is that these are for our own good - and to make a world where people can be qualitatively more spiritual and happier. 

From here-and-now, I regard these as fallacies, because I do not believe that goodness or spirituality can be imposed from externally. People cannot be made good, the world cannot be made good - good just isn't a top-down imposable thing; it must come from individual choices, from personal freedom, fro the good in individual beings.  

I do not believe, either, that there can be a paradise on earth - because entropy and evil are part of this world. Evil cannot be cured from externally, and entropy is the primal state "within" which creation is always being made. 

I think that evil and entropy can therefore only be escaped and left-behind by a new, Second Creation, which is Heaven, which is post-mortal. 

In sum; the New Age aspect of Celestine Prophecy, and its counter-culture origins and continuation, is seen in a this-worldly (and indeed leftist) vision of the desirable future - a coming Golden Age on earth as culmination of social changes that were the basis of 1960s radicalism. 

It was written more than thirty years ago when tens of millions of people in The West believed that this not only can happen, but would happen - irresistibly. That all people were changing, were being made more spiritual.

Due to some external and universal influence - sometimes called a higher frequency of consciousness, higher vibrational level, new energy or the like (invariably, some term derived from physics - it seemed). 

And that this did not come from the personal loving creator God of Christianity; but from a purposive movement within the whole of reality - a wholly immanent, discarnate, spiritualized idea of everything as ultimately one. 

The millennium was seen as a restoration of a harmony which was actually a unity. There was to be no pain or suffering, because there was no conflict or competition, because everything was one. 

And that is what humankind, and everything on earth and everywhere else, was irresistibly and necessarily moving-towards.  

Yet it did not happen. 

That was not how the millennium went for us. That does not describe the world, now. 

But, somehow, this not-happening hasn't dented the assumptions behind the New Age. Tens of millions of people still seem to live in optimism for the paradisal Golden Age, here on earth - and in line with sixties idealism - they still see this as actually happening. 

A further thing about synchronicity. It now strikes me as ultimately false to suppose that our lives are segmented such that particular bits of them count as synchronicities. 

In truth: our life is continuous, a living process - and while our consciousness may be detached and alienated - created reality is (and always has been) a kind of loving family of relationships. 

The reason why we cannot usually understand The Meaning of a synchronicity, is because in defining it, we thereby chop it out from this process and web of meaning.

We pull out a synchronicity from life, like Little Jack Horner extracting a plum from a pie; and examine it minutely - but cannot see from that one plum the pie itself, nor who made it, nor why it was baked... 

The synchronicity thereby becomes mysterious in its meaninglessness! 

Such are my thoughts from a brief re-engagement with the Celestine Prophecy

Optimism or Boosterism?

It is surely pleasanter to expect things to get better in the future, than to expect the opposite. 

Yet, if we are honest, such predictions ought to be rooted in honest realism rather than what happens to make us feel more cheerful at the moment. 

But aside from this, optimism is often tainted by Boosterism - which is often regarded as a distinctively American trait, but (since the US came to dominate global culture) is now seen almost everywhere. 

The idea of Boosterism is that optimistic prognostications are self-fulfilling: that if people believe something is going to be successful, to get-better; then this will happen. 

Boosterism seems to derive from people "talking-up" their town or business; exaggerating and boasting about its past and present success, in order to attract belief and investment - leading (it is hoped) to a more prosperous future.

Boosterism also applies to people as well as institutions; and, in England, has gone from a disapproved rarity in my early adult life, to something insisted upon by bureaucratic procedures - hence almost universal. 

For instance; UK scientists in the 1980s were self-deprecating and affected humility. But from around the millennium, scientists were required to construct and publish elaborate deniable-dishonesties concerning the great importance and influence of their work; as part of local and national bureaucratic research evaluation schemes. 

Since appointments, promotions, and funding depended on successful Boosterism; scientists soon believed these inflated self-narratives; and their scientific researches incrementally detached from reality, transforming into status-seeking fantasies.  

Such calculated untruthfulness, in a domain which was tasked with absolute truth-seeking; was self-justified in terms of all the "good work" that could be accomplished; "if only" I had that appointment/ promotion/ funding/ award or whatever...

In the end, those who embarked on this path simply became ever-more focused on satisfying the (ever-fluctuating) bureaucratic criteria of success - which were not merely irrelevant to, but actually opposed, the conduct of real science.   

On-line discourse has also become rampant with Boosterism; as can be seen by the self-presentation of most people engaged in social media, blogs, videos etc; including the frequency with which analysis and opinion is linked to monetization.  

This happens because the promotion of a place, or a business or other group activity, so easily becomes conflated with self-promotion; and self-promotion is justified in terms of its (supposedly) leading to benefits for the place, business or group. 

This can be seen in the absurd (but universal) practice whereby people who are awarded some prize, award or honour; claim that "I didn't want it for myself, but accepted it for the benefit of the team"... This! after grinding and grovelling in pursuit of just such a prize/ award/ honour, for perhaps several decades!

Anyway; our natural inclination to want to believe things are getting better may synergize with Boosterism in a spiritually-undesirable fashion. 

Typically, this is obvious to everyone except the person doing it; who is being gratified by (what seems to him) asserting success and its achievement, as if by magic!

Pretty rapidly; the process detaches from reality, and gets sustained by dishonest fantasy. The spiritual is subjective, and therefore genuine spirituality soon gets displaced by the observable and measurable objectivities of the material. 

Successful expansion becomes both outcome and goal - so that motives are re-orientated towards... wherever "success" leads. Expanding monetization rapidly shapes and drives evaluations and opinions.   

This form of corruption can be seen operating (in real time) with respect to individual people, with churches, businesses; and in institutions such as schools, colleges and departments of bureaucracy.  

Boosterism is perhaps especially dominant at present, when honest realism seems to lead to pessimism. An increasingly desperate desire to be optimistic at any price then joins with self-promotion - leading to the self-gratifying contention that Things Really Are Getting Better... 

Instead of recognizing that we have temporarily adapted to the demands of a fundamentally evil totalitarian system - and thereby become corrupted; Booster-people instead claim to have "bucked the trend".

The Boosters assert that a corner has been turned, the pendulum has swung - and they are merely riding a new wave of betterment.

And all that other people need to do to make the world a better place is... To believe the Boosters and do what they say! 

And anyone who disagrees with the Boosters' self-aggrandizing assertions - is a Bad Person who wants to stop all the good stuff from happening! 

**

Note: This was stimulated by reflections at Francis Berger's blog.  

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be - Past Times 1986-2012 (or, The ebbing of the Intellectual Soul)

The UK retail company (shops, and later a mail order web site) called Past Times, was very much a phenomenon of the 1990s and early 2000s. 

It was a kind of gift shop that specialized in nostalgia; and it did a pretty good job of both fuelling and supplying it; with modestly priced reprints and facsilimlies of old books, pictures and prints, replicas of old toys, artefacts, jewellery and the like. 

Around the millennium it was a prime browsing place to get presents (including for oneself), and seemed like a permanent fixture in the high rent zones of the city high street. 

Yet in 2012 Past Times went bust and was wound up altogether the year later. What's more it was not replaced. Nostalgia stores became a thing of the past...

 

As always there are multiple potential explanations; but my spiritual interpretation is that Past Times was the last gasp of Original Participation - of the ancient and early childhood experience of spontaneous immersion in the world - of belonging; which has gradually dwindled down almost to nothing through the centuries, and especially in the modern era. 

In its commercial way, the shop was providing a secular equivalent of the robes, rituals, music and poetic words of the churches; providing a kind-of "system" of symbols; via which individuals could relate to reality - as had happened so effectively at the peak of the middle ages.  

This medieval consciousness is termed the Intellectual Soul; and it worked by the individual learning (or being socialized-into) and then assimilating; the correspondences of a symbol system to particular aspects of the spiritual life. After which, the symbol will reliably, and powerfully, "trigger" the appropriate spiritual response.

Well nostalgia-systems, such as that provided by Past Times, did something analogous with the childhood memories of an earlier (and childhood) world where life had automatic purpose and meaning, where there was an almost unconscious sense of security and stability.  

Nostalgia continued to be effective for a while after the effectiveness of religious symbol systems had become a tiny-minority phenomenon; on the basis of common childhood experience having changed less, and more slowly, than the adult world. 

But childhood changed, people changed, consciousness changed - and nostalgia lost its instant-magic. Also, the Establishment stepped-up its subversion and suppression of nostalgia; to the point that now the past is assumed to be evil. 

In the mass media and among the ubiquitous bureaucracies of this era; "the past" is at-best apologized-for (e.g. those disclaimers before broadcasting old films, about the attitudes they embody being "worng now, and wrong then!"). In the mainstream; the past is edited, invented, and rewritten for "modern sensibilities.

And increasingly the past is hidden and destroyed. 

Symbol systems are weaker, little wanted, and are disappearing, everywhere you look: in religion, and in the social institutions generally. 

The "medieval-type" Intellectual Soul consciousness is almost extinct in The West: we are all alienated now. 

The Past Times era was therefore a particular phase in the development of human consciousness, and of Western secular materialism - the final ebbing of the medieval mind-set. 

It could not last, and it did not last; and enjoyment of past times has now become a secret and guilty niche pleasure - or a defiant act of socio-political resistance. 

NOTE ADDED: Lest I be misunderstood; I am not saying that the Intellectual Soul is utterly obsolete, nor that symbol systems ought to be eschewed; but instead that we cannot (therefore should not) expect too much from them. Symbol systems are much weaker than in the past, and also modern Man is far more aware that the medieval consciousness was always a compromise, a half-way house and transitional, and entailing considerable residual alienation. It is unideal, after all, for Men to relate to ultimate realities only and always via intermediaries. And especially when the intermediate symbol system is regarded as the sole and mandatory way to relate to ultimate reality; as with medieval churches. This never was true, although it was a good approximation in some times and places. But now, it is clearly false, and assertions to the contrary are incoherent and (ultimately) made in bad faith. In sum; I see Intellectual Soul symbol systems of various kinds as retaining a potentially helpful role in the Christian life - few can dispense with them, and certainly I can't! But going back to medieval consciousness cannot be the way forward from here; any more than the (sixties counter-cultural) attempt to return to the the un-conscious spontaneous and immersive spirituality (Original Participation) of tribal hunter gatherers.  

Numinous experiences are "objective" - yet also personal

From what I can gather (and assuming other people are telling the truth!) what elicits numinous experiences varies between persons - and in this sense the numinous is subjective. 

Yet for each person there seems to be an "objectivity" - in that particular places and people can sometimes be (more or less, at least for a while) relied upon to evoke the numinous in a repeatable fashion. 

(I am assuming - in all this - that one is, in the first place, open to the experience of the numinous - which, apparently, many people are not!)   

The numinous sensation of some kind of underlying spiritual, religious or divine quality; needs to be distinguished from liking, enjoying, and finding immediately beautiful. I think this must be because the numinous is something implied or behind the surface of things. 

Thus, the numinous feeling seems more associated with yearning than with gratification; it has elements of deep and lasting fascination; such that the numinous stays in the mind and recurs, and each recollection brings the feeling again. 

Furthermore, I have found that (assuming a receptive mood) the numinous is experienced first-time, rather than being a thing that develops with repetition.  

A recent example was driving along the B7009/ 709 beside Ettrick Water in the Scottish Borders (the same trip in which I visited Tam Lin's Well). 

This was only my second time along this road (and over thirty years apart) - and it was again the quietest, most traffic free, road I have ever encountered. 

I find the journey weaving beside the Ettrick Water extremely "numinous". The scenery is indeed somewhat conventionally-attractive, yet far from the most attractive, even in the immediate vicinity. 

Indeed, there aren't many pictures of Ettrickdale online, nor has anybody made a photographic book of the region. But for me this landscape is saturated with covert meaning and significance. I experienced a light magical "trance", while in the area. 

When we passed the watershed of the Ettrick and crossed west into Eskdale, the numinous sensation began to diminish. The scenery was at least as pretty, indeed conventionally better; and yet for me the underlying magical quality reduced.

I wonder if this has to do with a change of geography or geology; or some kind of memory or association... Who knows? But this is the way that such things seem to work. 

Another example is Oxford versus Cambridge. For me (at least until around the millennium, when it diminished quite sharply: a reduction in the spirit of the place) Oxford is a numinous place but Cambridge is not - indeed Cambridge is anti-numinous! (Despite Cambridge being prettier and much less traffic-ravaged.) 

There are historical reasons why this might be so (e.g. Royalist Oxford versus Roundhead Cambridge, Classical Oxford v Mathematical Cambridge), and again the geography is different - albeit in this case I find the west more numinous than the east. 

(Albeit rural East Anglia is numinous; as are Ely and Norwich.) 

But in the end, the numinous is a matter of experience - yet any explanation of the difference comes second and is not-necessarily convincing. Even locally, in my everyday life; I find some particular trees, buildings, streets... numinous; but most others not. But why this should be, I cannot even guess.   

I have found the same, throughout my life, with people. A few people had (when I met them) a numinous quality; while others seemed and remained stubbornly "unromantic"! 

This applied to both men and women, friends and acquaintances. And, like places, the numinous romantic quality could be lost, but was never gained after an initial absence.

And the numinous is attractive - but not necessarily conventionally beautiful or nice, or even necessarily likeable - while, conversely, a person could be attractive and likeable without having anything of the numinous about them.  

  

As I discussed earlier today - what this all means is a different matter from the fact of its reality. However it is, and always has been, important to me. I will go to efforts and inconvenience to experience the numinous, and will continue to puzzle over its implications - without ever getting anywhere in particular. 

I am convinced that something is going on in me, at some level, in these numinous experiences - and that it is of lasting importance...

And so long as I continue feel that, and am able to respond to places and people in this fashion - for so long will I continue to seek experience of the numinous.  

What's going on at the planetary level? And how can we know?

A brief reflection. 

Something has been going on at the planetary level, and also with Men, since about the millennium - and this was foreseen by quite a few people in the decades (going back many decades) leading up to this stage or phase. 

I assume that there is some kind of God-aligned planetary Being (an angel, the angel of this world; some would call it) who is involved; as well as Satan and his gang. 

How might this work? Given that the planetary Being, and each of us, are free agents? 

I think it must work by love, by-analogy-with (and also in "the same way" as) the ideal human family. 

Satan's rulership, by contrast, either manipulates people as if they were cause-effect machines; or else strives to dominate their wills utterly, to "make" them do what Satan wants. 

Love is not (ultimately) an emotion or feeling; but is a creative relationship between any two Beings - it is, indeed, the ultimate basis of divine creation.   

So this contest - this war - of spiritual good, and the opposition to spiritual good - has reached a point of potential awareness in recent decades - as humans have changed to become more spiritually aware. 

(Sadly, this awareness has been, so far, overwhelmingly negative in effect - awareness has destroyed the power of traditional religion, but few have embraced the power the new awareness brings. People use their new ability to intuit and believe - to dis-believe truths because imperfectly expressed or corrupted; and believe incoherent nonsense that is part of the agenda of evil.) 

It seems that many more people are aware of the evil attempts to dominate and control this world - earth and Men; than are aware of the positively good "angel of this earth". 

This is (I think) because we are aware of love and of the angel only by the spiritual (immaterial) way of "direct-knowing"... 

And this way of direct-knowing is denied, ignored (and over-ridden) or else regarded as trivial by comparison with the material communications of institutions, words, symbols, models etc. 

Another way of conceptualizing this distinction is to regard that which is directly-known as a consequence of heart-thinking. Whereas all the mass of other communications are kind of head-thinking, rationality; modelling that maps components of reality onto a wholly-known scheme; all based ultimately upon perceptual "data" (including the perceptions and measurements of machines).  

 

So - if the above is true; it suggests that we ought to allow ourselves to aware of the angel of the earth - and also many other spiritual realities - but in such a way that we don't simply fall back into giving authority to the materialism of of head-thinking. 

This is exactly where so many spiritual writings and teachings fall down. Direct insights are re-expressed (approximated, modelled) in communicable systems; but then (and this is the fatal error) this head-thinking is allowed to take-over. 

So that we get spiritual systems that are easily assimilated into the demonic system. 

This is the problem, not only of all traditional religions (with their philosophies, specified rituals, formal symbolism etc.) - which purport to define and thereby capture spiritual realities...

And thereby become the basis for schemes of monitoring and control; very similar in nature to that of the current global totalitarianism: doing things "to" people "planning" to "make" people do what is wanted.

Not only religions; but also many spiritual systems that purport to replace religions - from the many New Age ideas to older systems such as Steiner's Anthroposophy. 

The danger is that so many of these begin with genuine insights, often achieved by direct knowing, which impress us rightly; and only then do they shift into the mode of system and communication.  

As when Rudolf Steiner or his disciples begin with true and rare insights derived from direct and personal intuitions (and thereby gain our admiration) - but then construct and fit these with numerology, categories of many types (mineral, plant, animal, human - material, etheric, astral, ego), astrology, and detailed schemes of the purported evolutionary history and future of the solar system, earth, and Men (and thereby attempt to re-impose a tyranny of external spiritual authority). 

It seems natural, and almost inevitable, for us to express direct-knowing and heart-thinking in such categorical and systemic ways, in order first to communicate-with, then maybe influence - and potentially control - other people. 

The systems begin by explaining and teaching, then get used for monitoring and evaluating; but end by attempted domination and over-riding the ultimate agency of other Beings. 

Much of our deep and strong drive to do this; arises (I think) from a strong, prioritized, sometimes exclusive, focus upon the conditions of this mortal life and our gratification during it. 

If we could, instead, view this life and world as a vital but intermediary phase leading to resurrected life in Heaven - maybe it would be easier to resist such temptations?

Meanwhile, we can but strive to recognize and repent our tendency to make ourselves (and others) captive to "that which can be communicated and systematized" - and instead strive to use our heart-thinking to listen for direct-knowing.  

Passivity and refusal of responsibility: Why the Millennial Spiritual Transformation led us to hedonic materialism and value inversion

I have often written about the (approximate) millennium - when so many people felt there was an approaching spiritual breakthrough, yet the spiritual changes that actually happened were the opposite of spiritual. 

So that we now live in a shallowly hedonist, materialistic, short-termist, gullible world - more evil than ever in history, because of widespread and officially-media encouraged (increasingly even mandated) value inversion. 

I have suggested that the millennial spiritual change was a change of consciousness (endogenous, primary and presumably divinely-destined); by which that which had been innate, instinctive, spontaneous and (often) traditional - lost their grip on our minds. 

We found ourselves cut-off from our previous immersion in a kind of general consciousness; and therefore both gifted and forced to choose. 

We must now choose; whereas in the past our values came naturally: partly inbuilt, partly absorbed from society (and most human societies shared most of these values).

We became able to choose our fundamental values: but more, we were (and are) compelled to choose them. 

We might therefore have chosen to believe and live-by almost anything! 

We might have chosen some purposive, meaningful and hopeful assumptions and values! We might have chosen to live in divine creation, with a god/s who loved us personally, and took an interest in each of our lives. We might have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ who enabled us to have a resurrected and everlasting life in Heaven; by following Him on the other side of death...

 

But instead, overall and overwhelmingly; we of The West (in particular) rejected these possibilities. Going from my own responses and efforts, and what I have seen in others; here is my best guess as to what happened. 

Instead of making positive and hope-full choices, (and en masse) we chose rather to believe that both the reality of the universe, and our personal lives, are causally-determined and/or random; and that our own life will be objectively arbitrary, a temporary blip, and therefore objectively futile in the larger scheme of things. 

Consequently the mood of our times is one of fear, resentment at our situation; at best barely staving-off a suicide-seeking despair by continual distraction and projection.  

What went so badly wrong? 

Why did so many people choose so self-destructively, so miserably - to believe everything to be pointless? 

Why have so many people doubled-down on this decision?

 

Looking back at the end of the twentieth century and the hopes and expectations of a better and more spiritual world to come; I think the main reasons were passivity and the refusal of responsibility. 

The hope for a global spiritual transformation and awakening; were passive hopes that this would be done-to-us. Indeed, the idea of un-sought yet profound change was (and often still is) regarded as a hallmark of validity, authenticity. 

So people hoped and expected that everyone would be made more spiritual; everybody's consciousness would be raised-up by some external force or change. People's attitude was one of waiting for this to happen-to-them. 

The most we would need to do, for this to happen, would be to assent to its being-done: we would need to agree to being spiritually uplifted, but would not need to seek it out (and indeed, there was a feeling that to seek it out would be to open oneself to self-deception) . 

The other big factor is a refusal of responsibility. This operates at many levels, and may masquerade as humility, or public spiritedness. 

Thus people may decline to take full and personal responsibility for their spiritual and religious evaluations because they defer to "The Church" as contrasted with "mere little me". Meaning whatever church they already believe is true, must be right. Or when (as usual) the whole church is not united; then deference is due to whatever particular authority within that church is regarded as primary. 

Or personal responsibility for belief is set aside in favour of some supposedly pragmatic benefit; such as a belief that some-thing ought to be believed because it is beneficial for raising children; or perhaps regarded as beneficial for society at large or in the long-term. 

In other words; my sense is that some people shape their religious convictions around what they choose to sustain on the basis of what they believe to be a socially-helpful fiction; rather than taking ultimate responsibility, and then discovering that they have (apparently) thrown-out some valued social benefit.  

But this kind of deference and pragmatism are, ultimately, to put the cart before the horse; since (for Christians) what is most authoritative and/or beneficial can only be decided on the basis of real truth. 

And when we have pre-decided against taking personal responsibility for discerning and determining real truth, we are not able to evaluate if it is truly better to defer and decline, rather than to make a stand for our inner convictions. 

In sum; I think that there really was a change of consciousness that progressively (and over some years) swept-through The West (and maybe the world?) at around the millennium. 

This transformation pretty-much closed-off the remnants of that spontaneous, traditional and often-unconscious modes of religiosity which had been in-place throughout Man's known history; such that we can now only become spiritual by a conscious choice, by actively seeking, and on the basis of taking very personal spiritual responsibility. 

That means aiming to make ultimate choices from our-selves and for ourselves.

And only after that has been accomplished, should we turn our personal attention to potential social benefits.  

Second-hand Christians and spiritual scaremongering

For a couple of years back in 2010-11, I was deeply immersed in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (as can be seen from this blog, at that time) - and I was especially interested by that tradition's embrace of mysticism and spiritual experience; how this 'worked' and how they dealt with the problems. 

The US lay-monk Seraphim Rose (later a priest-monk) wrote on this topic with what seemed like great insight and a full acknowledgement of modern conditions. 

What I derived from this; was that the ascetic monks and hermits of the EO tradition (including the millennium before the Great Schism division of the Catholic church; which was caused by divergence of the Western Latin tradition - especially the emerging influence of philosophical theology) were indeed actively seeking a direct and personal relationship with the divine and with spiritual Beings - with God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, Mary the mother of God, angels, and saints - dead and living.  

This active seeking of mystical spiritual experience was pursued by very extreme measures! Including extreme asceticism (lack of food, extremes of heat or cold, immobility,) and heroic vigils (staying awake praying for many hours, sometimes is adverse conditions), and by prolonged meditation including solitude for extended periods - sometimes years. 

The EO tradition is, however, very aware of the problem of achieving spiritual experiences that are demonic rather than with representatives of God. 

This is often represented as demonic attack, or sometimes of succumbing to temptations such as spiritual pride, or being deceived. Some of the greatest of Saints are represented as susceptible - for example it seems that England's greatest Saint - Cuthbert - was assailed (i.e. badly tempted) by demons when he went into solitude on the island of Inner Farne, off the coast of Northumberland. 

Seraphim Rose also explained that there was no valid method or system by which angels and demons could be distinguished reliably, because demons were capable of impersonating angels convincingly; and because the mystic's own evaluations were affected by his own (inevitable, because human) sinful impulses. 

According to SR; over many centuries, the best method for protecting mystics from demonic temptations was a Spiritual Father who had himself known and overcome such temptations, and who might reasonably be assumed to be wholly dedicated to the spiritual good of his spiritual sons and daughters. There was (especially, and in the end, only) in Russia an unbroken lineage of Spiritual Fathers in the premier monasteries, that ensured the overall and across-time integrity of the Russian Orthodox tradition. 

But this lineage was broken, permanently, with the Russian Revolution of 1917; and the subsequent murder of the Tsar and his family, and (essentially) all of the true-hearted Bishops, Abbots and holy monks - except those who escaped overseas and were dispersed in non-Orthodox nations (and they left no heirs of their stature). 

What I got from this was that direct mystical spiritual-contact was essential to Eastern Orthodoxy over many, many centuries; therefore it was worth taking the risks of being deceived by demons - even though there was no really reliable method of ensuring that some aspirants were not deceived. 

There could be, and was, pre-selection of those monks who were best motivated - before they were allowed to become extreme ascetics, or hermits. But this was no guarantee, since all Men are sinful, hence susceptible, to some extent. 

And even the best supervision by Holy Fathers did not reach into the 'desert' conditions of the hermits, which may last for years - e.g. there was nobody to supervise St Cuthbert in the harsh solitude of Inner Farne.  

But the background to all this implicitly seems to have been that personal contact between Men and spiritual Beings, and God; was so vital that risks must be taken. 

Eastern Orthodoxy works in a society in which there is a communal spirituality, such that individuals are immersed in the group mind of the people; such that the Tsar really can represent his people in relation to God; and monks really can be intermediaries between the divine and the mass of lay-people. 

But modern Western consciousness excludes this possibility; and therefore we are confronted by a choice between - on the one hand - personally taking the same kind of risks that the Eastern Orthodox monks used to take - but without the possibility of valid human supervision (because the churches are all net-corrupted, and Men of the spiritual stature of past Holy Fathers are not to be found - Seraphim Rose was very definite about that). 

And - on the other hand - practicing a second-hand faith. 

Practicing, that is, a Christianity that has lost its beating heart of contact with the divine, angels, and good-spirits of other kinds; a Christianity of mere scholarship... A Christian faith that is about being a Christian - got from books and other-people, following rules and rituals, doing set tasks, and expressing certain formulae of words - rather than actually being a Christian.

That mainstream modern Christianity is merely second-hand and not a real faith and therefore weak and easily (eagerly!) corruptible, was made obvious in 2020 - if it was not already so. 

The problem is that being a second-hand Christian, is another way of Not being a Christian.  

That is why a second-hand Christianity that engages in spiritual scaremongering, and eschews or proscribes direct and personal spiritual contacts with God, Jesus Christ and the wide range of divine and good spiritual Beings - is a weak, fake Christianity - because it is spiritually dead. 

Therefore, the only way actually to be a Christian is to take the risks of being deceived. 

And to have faith that anyone who is genuinely motivated to God and Jesus Christ will be able to receive the necessary divine corrections, when things go wrong. 

(When, not if, things go wrong.)

Now that traditions of Spiritual discipleship are broken, and now that Men have no good churches upon which faith can be pinned; and when our consciousness has become individual and agentic, rather than being immersed in a group (so that Christians must take personal responsibility)... 

We can be sure - 100% confident - that God our Heavenly Father and the Creator - has ensured that every single person is, nonetheless,able to get the experiences and guidance he needs for attaining salvation and spiritual development. 

If individual spiritual knowledge and mystical experience are indeed a necessary part of being a Christian, as was believed by the Eastern Orthodox for nearly 2000 years - then we can be sure and confident that this has been made possible. 

Possible for me, and for you. So; if you do not already know this by experience, than it is time you found out (that is; if you desire to be and remain Christian). 

To summarize: There is no safe way to be a Christian; therefore the danger of spiritual scaremongering is considerable, and safety-first-ism must be rejected - since the sanction for yielding to spiritual scaremongering is to become first a second-hand Christian, then (because that is so feeble and easily corruptible) not-at-all. 

One who rejects personal discernment and responsibility and seeks safety in external institutions and rules - will simply not be a Christian before very long, will be led by the nose away from Jesus Christ. 

Remember: This is (here-and-now) a world where all major institutions (national and global - including the churches) are under overall-demonic control.

Demons want all religion to be mediated by human institutions, because demons can control institutions.

Surely that is obvious? 

Thus; all Christians need direct spiritual contact with - and guidance from - the divine and all possible Beings of Good; and must therefore take courage, take the risks - in a spirit of trial-and-error; while being always open to correction by "divine-feedback" (which will me made available): and ready for repentance. 

Note added: I suppose I should say again what I have already stated so many times: which is that I think the current situation is that many (most? all?) real Christians have actually already started doing exactly what I recommend - have used personal discernment and taken personal responsibility for their Christian faith, including their choice of denomination and church, and which "authorities" to follow in that particular church. But... Because this has been unconscious, hidden from their own awareness; they have not acknowledged explicitly to themselves that this is what they have actually done -- and instead they pretend/ assert that their choices were actually compelled by "evidence", "reason", "logic" or some such external and supposedly-objective source (for which they, personally, eschew responsibility for choosing; claiming necessity). These are living in a situation of Bad Faith by denial of what is true. Since such a situation is fundamentally incoherent; therefore their Christianity is weak - and readily corrupted or diverted. I suspect that something of this kind is responsible for the incremental loss of once-real Christians, year by year, as they fail one or another Litmus Test; become this-worldly in their primary orientation and aspirations; or fall into an externally-controlled form of second-hand Christianity that presages de facto exit from the faith. 

What is the relationship between Christianity and the decline of the world? The basis of Romantic Christianity

It used to be assumed (taken for granted) among Christians, that the coming of Jesus Christ made the world a better place in some ultimate sense; and that conversion of a person or nation to being Christian did much the same. 

But I regard it as a fact that - spiritually - the world now is much worse than was the world 2000 years ago; because there has never before been so much (and top-down, official, propagandized, mandatory) inversion of true values. 

I regard Christianity as essentially about the next world, not this-world; so its effects on this-world are secondary to changes in attitudes and expectations consequent upon the desire for salvation. It is the desire for salvation - and also the expectation - that constitute the main societal effect of Christianity; and this main effect has manifested very differently among Christians of different types, times and places.  

Standing where we are, in 2023 and in The West; we find a world that has not just turned away from Christianity, but turned against it. 

Like it or not; the societal agendas of Christianity (and the other religions) have been subverted, corrupted... and are now largely subordinated-to, indeed assimilated-into, an international leftist, atheist, materialist ideology. 

A Christian now stands largely alone, or with a handful of companions; in a world where institutions (including churches) are actively net-evil - or else in present danger of becoming-so. 

The fact of Christianity's failure to make the world a better place ought not to surprise anyone whose faith is rooted in the Fourth Gospel - but that has not been the basis of Christianity (which, in practice, is rooted in the Synoptic Gospels, the Epistles, or church theology and tradition). 

When it became a church-focused, church-mediated, religion; Christianity almost-inevitably became primarily social. The church agenda was more often mainly up-front about this-wordly behaviour; and only much more secondarily and remotely about resurrection and Heaven. 

Indeed, Christianity has often become millennialist in its nature; and focused upon this-world being saved and redeemed by a second coming of Jesus Christ - implicitly acknowledging that Jesus only half-succeeded in his mission, and needed to come-back in order to finish the job. 

This, as I say, was partly a consequence of the expectation that Christianity implied that the world - this mortal world - would become a better place: indeed a perfect place. The coming of Jesus from heaven to Earth was taken to mean that a process had-been initiated by which the Earth would (by some combination of gradual and radical change) become Heaven. 

Well, as I said above; not only has this not (yet?) happened after 2000 years - but (IMO) this-world is further from Heaven, than ever before in the history of Mankind. Realistically, therefore, Christianity is now an individual-level religion - essentially 'about' the spiritual relationship between the individual Christian and Jesus Christ... Or else (if society is regarded the index of success) Christianity is a failure, and looks set to become worse. 

Another aspect of the two millennium span since the time of Jesus Christ is that Men have changed from being immersed in their group identities, to being very-much individuals. Insofar as modern Men have group identities, these are chosen (and often changed). 

In the past, Men lived essentially as part of various groups they were born-into or socialized-into; much of their behaviour was spontaneous and driven by unconscious group factors; and their choices were merely amounted to 'take it or leave it', and were very much buried in those identities. 

Indeed, this immersive unconsciousness is probably why a church based Christianity was inevitable 2K years ago. It simply did not make sense (it was not a matter of awareness) to Men of that era, that an individual could and did exist primarily apart from the groups into-which he has been born... And therefore (because he has-chosen) that each Man's religion just-is now his own responsibility. 

Nowadays, this alienated individualist state (sometimes termed alienation) has gone from being the subject of vast comment and discussion, to being simply taken for granted and unavoidable.  

So; these are two great conclusions that I draw from the past 2000 years: 

First that Christianity is not primarily about the world, but about each individual Christian; and second that nowadays (like it or not) we experience ourselves primarily as individuals. 

I said these seem like 'facts' to me; but of course that isn't really accurate: I see them as assumptions that are unavoidable when I am honest with myself.  

And this forms the basis, my foundation, of that way of being a Christian that I (and a few others) term Romantic Christianity. 

Stanley Messenger on distinguishing healthly from unhealthly "psychic experiences"

Daily inner life for the majority of westerners is nowadays little more than a lonely restless chat-show. 

Apart from those who simply talk to themselves all day there are many whose inner lives are numbly silent till someone addresses them. Then there is a minority who pray, and a still smaller number who meditate. Of those a tiny number reach a level of mystical contemplation, or, on a different path, give themselves over to some degree of trance-mediumship. 

In recent years there has been an increase in a kind of inner life which differs from these in a significant way... In these situations a person’s focus of identity, the groundedness at the centre of their own consciousness, is not only not weakened or disturbed, it is on the contrary considerably strengthened and enhanced. 

By natural endowment, or more frequently by a degree of more or less conscious self-training, often through meditation or kindred practices, normal consciousness has been expanded and enhanced. 

The experience is that the person feels there is more inner space. Within this space all kinds of imaginative exercises can take place. 

Different people have different talents in this regard. Some are more easily able to visualise inner events. Some have more facility in hearing them. Others again have the facility for constructing a framework for other conscious presences to occupy. 

People’s experiences are almost infinitely varied in this regard. Some people remember their awareness of other entities in their inner world since early childhood, often lost as they grow older. Others construct inner worlds which are in the first place almost wholly imaginary, and only gradually become occupied with thoughts and pictures in later life which are recognisably derived from other realities. 

The great difference between genuine, healthy psychic experience and the pathological situations described above is that the healthy experiences are always in control. Even when quite unfamiliar expansions take place they always do so from within. 

It is the self-awareness which grows, and the self­-awareness which contains the expansion. One never has the sense of losing touch. 

Moreover, everything is experienced as being under the protection of love. This inner love is the crucial yardstick. In pathological conditions there is always an underlying uneasiness and fear.

Excerpted and edited from Dancing with Tears - by Stanley Messenger, 1999

Stanley Messenger (1917-2013) was a scholar of Rudolf Steiner, whose explanations I often find to be clearer and more memorable than those of his Master. 

He also gave special attention to this question of what might be termed 'occult', 'psychic' or 'clairvoyant' experiences; and how these have been changed by the evolutionary-development of Western Man's consciousness - and especially in the period approaching and following the millennium.  

Unsurprisingly, and like Steiner himself in this regard; Stanley M was not able fully to live up to his own peak level of understanding; and often 'lapsed' back into seeking and overvaluing exactly the kind of spiritual experiences that - elsewhere - he so lucidly had explained were dubious and prone to mislead.

Nonetheless, explanations like that above are very helpful in understanding the kind of thing we ought to be aiming for - the kind of thing I have (in different words) variously tried to formulate as primary-thinking/ heart-thinking/ direct-knowing - or Owen Barfield's concept of Final Participation.  

Whereas spiritual experiences of the past tended to be approached by striving for an opening of the mind, a passive acceptance of - and being overwhelmed-by - perceptual information (seeing visions and hearing words, having conversations)...

What Stanley M is describing could, by contrast, be regarded as conscious and actively experienced throughout, and not-perceptual - but instead directly known in our thinking. 

Instead of being overwhelmed by the experience - such as happens in trance mediumship, or automatic writing - the participant retains a sense of full control of a process of thinking that is quantitatively (even qualitatively) strengthened and increased in scope and surety - compared with normal thinking. 

And while past experiences were often sought for practical and functional purposes; the newer experiences will only happen "under the protection of love" - which I take to mean that love (not curiosity, not usefulness, not power - for instance) must be the motivation.  

The main problem with the new kind of psychic experiences is that of wishful-thinking. This temptation is, to some extent, avoidable by being aware of false motivations such as ego or advantage; and by refraining from learning material for the purposes of teaching, or to-order: e.g. in groups convened at a particular time and place for the purpose. 

This is one of the areas in which I think Stanley M went wrong - as you may see from reading more of the Dances with Tears booklet - he describes working for many years with a group - dedicated to making contact with spiritual beings; aiming to collecting detailed information from such beings on specified topics; and engaging in lecturing, workshop, and writing projects in order to disseminate the resulting material. 

The result was mostly made-up wishful-thinking, in line with the group's pre-existing beliefs and prejudices; and in conformity with too much, too-credulously-accepted, mainstream New Age output of that era (1980s and 90s). 

The genuine, valid spiritual teaching was mostly swamped by the sheer volume of personality-level, socially-shaped, stuff. 

Indeed, in a lecture, Stanley M acknowledged that he had been told that only about 5% of the material he got was genuinely from the supposed communicating entity (viz. the Archangel Michael) - the other 95% from himself. 

While Stanley felt that even 5% of spiritual truth was valuable; my feeling is that the amount of conceptual distortion with so much personal invention is so great that it is, in practice, impossible to filter-out the truly factual 5%. 

At any rate, what he and his group got by such means seems (as with the similar case of Steiner) to be mostly wrong - in many, very misleading, ways. 

My strong feeling is that it would be much preferable to have only the 5% that is valid; and be content with a small volume of relatively simple 'information' -- than to build all sorts of castles in the air (on subjects like UFOs and Crop Circles, and an impending mass spiritual awakening) from great swathes of wishful-thinking; exacerbated (not corrected) by consensus-group-dynamics.

Nonetheless, with these caveats; I am confident that Stanley Messenger had much wisdom to impart concerning the principles of what is most needed here-and-now. 

And if he did not personally live-up-to the highest levels of his aspirations, and was tripped-up by his own need for spiritual excitement and a desire for feeling incremental spiritual progress; then so are we, all of us, unable to stay at our own best levels at all times. 

As always, the material needs to be explored in a discriminating fashion, and with properly 'loving' motivation; if the good and valid it genuinely includes, is to be sifted from the wishful-thinking, misleading, and irrelevant material. 

Gareth Knight - Romantic Christian

In 2011, Gareth Knight (1939-2022) published an autobiography titled I call it Magic which is easy and enjoyable to read on the surface; yet contains several deeper layers of implied content that have only revealed themselves on re-reading.

Of particular interest was his account of the transformation in his own 'magical life' throughout his adult life; especially the changes in what he 'called' magic, the means by which he reached the state of enchantment or poetry, and the actual content of these magical-states. 

Knight began as a formal ritual magician, ascending through the prolonged training and initiatory steps of the Society of the Inner Light (founded a generation earlier, as a Christian organization, by Dion Fortune); he went on to found his own ritual magic group - on similar, though looser, lines; then to 'staging' much larger annual weekend events (almost 'happenings') at an anthroposophical centre called Hawkwood. 

By Knight's own account, in the 1970s to the early 1980s, these weekends attained a very powerful level of magical activity among the participants (who had been trained in the requisite methods of concentration and visualization). He then stopped doing this, and moved on to less formal and more improvisatory styles of magic either alone, with his wife and daughter, or in small and private groups. 

After the turn of the millennium his magic practice had changed further. In December of 2004 he was invited back to the Hawkwood weekend; which had changed considerably over the previous couple of decades (the following quotations are from Chapter 31 of I called it Magic) :

The occasion was a jolly romp, with the place filled to capacity, and a rich variety of activity. [But] Power was not ramped up to the degree that it had been in the early Hawkwood days...   

In other words, the experience was less-strongly magical, less enchanted than it had been. In other words; this corresponds to my observations on the declining power of symbolism and ritual through the late 20th century.  

Knight does not draw attention to the meaning of these changes for his inner life; but describes how in fact his practices changed - in the direction of becoming more individual, personally based, and exploratory (rather than relying-on an established and quasi-objective system of symbols, rituals, and group activity). 

Rooted in his study of French language and literature (in which subject he did a degree in later life); Knight embarked on an engagement with the medieval French Arthurian poet Chretien de Troyes:

I took upon myself the task of going through each of Chretien's romances as if both he and I were present, travelling through the whole scenario from start to finish as a kind of directed visualization, and writing it all down...

It then filtered into my head the realization that much that I had witnessed in this was was not chivalrous knights going to the aid of damsels in distress but accounts of their initiation into fairyland - for there was a strong case for seeing the principal female characters as faery rather than human. 

This led on to what Knight termed faery 'contacts' - which then led to writing several books deriving from these contacts. What this meant he explains further: 

It dealt in imagery but with a philosophical intent, yet a wisdom expressed more through the medium of a story than by intellectual definitions. To make the contact it was necessary to build a scenario [i.e. in imagination] something like a questing knight discovering a castle in a particular symbolic shape, and then entering into it... with a ... direct feeling of relationship with the fabric of the building itself. 

After further description of his imagined but real-seeming experiences; Knight elaborates the resulting new and deeper engagement with nature:

This kind of thing was at a different level from local countryside experiences where contact was virtually devoid of intellect but impacted more on the emotional and etheric levels... Along with contacts... came a greater sense of presence and communion with the world of nature, and particularly trees...

It may well be that experience and wisdom of this nature comes with age, which is [an] aspect of the Merlin and Nimue story... But there is no real need to await one's dotage for a realization of these things.

  

What Gareth Knight seems to me to be describing here, is a kind of recapitulation of Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield's scheme of the development of consciousness. The ritual magic was the Intellectual Soul era, characteristic of classical and medieval culture. 

Contact bears some relationship to 'channeling' of spiritual Beings - which he also did for example in a channeled series of direct communication (much like taking dictation) of 1993, published as The Abbey Papers. 

But 'contact' comes across to me as much more of a two-way interaction between himself and a spiritual Being - and not necessarily in words, nor in images - i.e. more direct than language- or symbol-mediated. 

Knight then moved towards what sound very much like Final Participation - which is something like a recapitulation in conscious thinking of what was a much more passive and unconscious in the spontaneous animistic Original Participation of early childhood and tribal Man. 

Animistic, because it recognizes the world as consisting of living, conscious Beings with which one may have relationships and communication. Knight also seems to be moving towards a communication less based on perceptions and visions, and more a matter of what I have called Direct Knowing: that is direct, wordless and imageless communication in thinking. 

In other words, a direct communion between Beings, such that the thinking of one is participated-in by the thinking of another. 

Once Gareth Knight had reached this kind of 'magic' I think he has largely left-behind the formal and institutional roots of his practice, and indeed its 'objective' aspects, where experiences were shared via a common language and symbolism that could be relied-upon to evoke the same inner states in its participants.

It seems he has - in practice, if not in terms of theorization - fully Romantic Christian; in that he takes an inner, intuitive and personal responsibility for whatever 'methods' he uses to attain magical states of mind (within the over-arching and primary Christian metaphysical framework).   

Knight puts this change down to his own personal development, experiences, expediency, and ageing - but such is the generality of such a development that I interpret it as driven by inner and divinely-destined changes in the human consciousness of Western Man. 

What all this seems to mean is that (here and now) we cannot rely upon external and institutional forms of spirituality to attain 'participation' in the world; and the language of 'objective' communication of spiritual experiences has weakening and withered. 

Yet, on the positive side, we can develop distinctive (perhaps unique) personal 'aids' and methods (i.e. 'contacts' occurring inside thinking, rather than as external 'events), that will achieve the participation which is natural, good, and divinely-intended. 

Also, that strong forms of achieved participation are likely to be more animistic and personal - engagement with particular Beings - than the abstract forms of earlier symbolism. 

     

Whether Gareth Knight would have agreed with my interpretation of his life and development is perhaps doubtful... 

It does rather involve a cutting-off of the branch upon which his life's work rested: that is, the general validity of some particular kinds of ritual, symbols, group-activity; and the communication of these in abstract and written forms, and by speech. 

But his desire to use more narrative story-like communications; his primary mode of magic in later life being a personal, inter-Being and two-way 'contact'; and the continually-evolving nature of the subject matter and formal techniques of his magic - all suggest that there was exactly such an evolution; and that Gareth Knight's life ended with him being implicitly a genuine and fully-realized Romantic Christian. 

The desire for open-ended reincarnation and the sufficiency of mortal life

I recently had a very interesting online conversation with someone who - from multiple personal spiritual experiences - believes in the reality of multiple human reincarnations. 

That is not an unusual thing; but this person is someone who I have know over a long period of years to be unusually thoughtful, sincere, and insightful. 

So I pressed him to consider an eternal timescale; and whether - from that perspective - repeating and repeating the experiences of a series and variety of mortal Men living this earthly life - was really sufficient. 

Whether, in particular he could imagine wanting anything better: something better than mortal Men, and living in a world better than this earth?

His answer was no, he did not want anything more - this world, this "plane of existence" was the best he could wish for; even ideally he could want nothing more or better. 

Regular readers will know that I have an extremely different set of beliefs and hopes; and that for me this mortal life and earth do not suffice, and cannot suffice. For me, to contemplate an unending series of mortal reincarnations in a world of always sinful Men and with the inevitability of decay and death; sounds like something more of a curse than a blessing. 

I have characterized this in terms of the fundamentally entropic nature of this mortal life and world; and my desire for a life of eternal creation; that this mortal life is a vital phase between pre-mortal spirit and eternal resurrection - vital, but a phase nonetheless: therefore not something it would be good to remain 'in' forever.   

This kind of consideration and thinking is something that I regard as very fundamental to the human condition; in particular with respect to the gift of Jesus Christ. 

Salvation is aimed at people such as myself; but there are people such as my old friend - I think these people are actually rather rare, yet they exist - who want something positive (i.e. they are not self-damned hell-seekers; they are accurate discerners and foes of evil) that is nonetheless very different from what Jesus offers. 

Another type of person who rejects both salvation and damnation is one who sincerely desires some kind of Nirvana state of blissful loss of awareness of the self, cessation of thinking, removal of the feeling of separation from the divine; and where the divine is understood in an abstract and depersonalized way. 

I have often stated my belief that a large majority of those who profess this kind of oneness aspiration are insincere (ultimately, dishonest with themselves) as evidenced by their attempts to persuade others and argue their position. And as evidence by their behaviour of convergence with the evil totalitarians. In other words these 'mainstream' oneness advocates claim to be other-worldly and indifferent to this mortal life; but evidence the opposite in what they do and teach. 

Yet I think it likely that there are genuine Nirvana-wishers (perhaps especially in Eastern societies) who reject the theosis - the desire for spiritual development towards full creative divinity - that is an essential part of Christianity; and the personal understanding of the world. 

If what we assume about the ancient and ancestral hunter-gatherers, and their cultural equivalents in more recent years - is correct; they had a belief in serial reincarnation without end in 'this world' - and were fully-satisfied by this. 

So it is perhaps not surprising if there are some people alive today who share this basic world view. 

On the other hand; the destiny of Western Man as-a-whole is, by my understanding, towards Christian salvation and Christian theosis; and I am confident that (especially since the millennium) an increasing proportion of those who reject salvation are actually embracing damnation. 

In other words; it seems clear to me that a large majority of those in The West who reject Christianity have actually taken the side of evil; and are either being dishonest with others when they claim they have not, and/or else dishonest with themselves - and have never thought sufficiently rigorously and truthfully to recognize the fact. 

Yet even if I am correct and there is - as a strong generalization - only the two choices of Christ or Satan; nonetheless, each person is in fact unique, and came into this mortal life and earthly world as unique. 

It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that all sincere and thoughtful people who reject evil will also want what Jesus Christ offers. It would be a mistake to assume that all individuals Must fit into one of only two categories.  

On the one hand; I know enough about my old friend to regard him as one of the exceptions. On the other hand - I do not believe there are many others like him! 

But then, I do not believe that many of the hundreds of millions of self-identified Christians in the world, are sincere in their professed belief. 

It seems to me that extremely few "Christians" have asked themselves the right questions concerning what they most desire through an eternal future; and have genuinely considered whether what they want is the same-thing as what Jesus Christ actually offers to those who follow Him. 

Why the dystopia-mania?

Netflix have introduced a new category into their streaming services which is Dystopian Futures. 

In other words; one of The System's core propaganda sources is encouraging its audience to consume movies and TV programs which focus on future hellish societies; just as (since the summer of 2020) they introduced the category "Black Stories" as an approved category. 

This invites consideration; because on the surface it would seem to be counter-productive for The System to warn the masses about the nasty things The System intends to do with the masses... Yet, here we have it. 

The answer is quite simple, as indeed are all such matters of large scale System policy - because, if strategies were not simple, then they would be rendered ineffectual by the complex and varied multi-society implementation process. Only simple policies can be relied upon to have their desired effect across many nations and across extended timescales.  

The reason why Netflix is pushing dystopian narratives is related to their overall service to the core demonic agenda, which is the damnation of Men.

Overall (and on average) modern dystopias - under modern conditions - promote the agenda of evil; which is the agenda of The System. 

The damnation is Men is not an easy thing to achieve, because Men must choose it: that is, each Man must (as an unique individual) choose to reject the offer or eternal resurrected life in Heaven that is made possible by Jesus Christ. 

That is: a Man must be induced not-to-want Heavenly resurrected and everlasting life; but instead to prefer death and hell. 

In other words; Men must be made to want evil (not Good); and to desire evil entails that Men understand evil and its implications; understand the planned evil sufficiently to consent to evil, sufficiently to say yes to evil. 

Furthermore, Men be be induced Not-to-repent; because it is never too late (in mortal life) for any Man to repent and instead follow Jesus Christ. 

Damnation is never secure so long as Men retain an accurate sense of what is Good, and what is sin. 

Only when the evilness of sin is denied and its opposite asserted, is damnation secure. 

This means that - at some level - there needs to be a value-inversion whereby real Good is understood to be evil; and actual evil is understood to be Good.   

This is the spiritual function of Dystopian Futures - and indeed the reason for the mania for dystopian depictions in the mass media and arts, especially since about the millennium: to induce Men to consent to the evil which is planned for them, and to choose it in preference to Heaven.

There are many (unlimited in number and variety, although with some common themes) ways in which modern (especially post-2000) dystopian fictions can promote exactly the dystopias they 'warn' against. 

Maybe simply through depicting dystopia as inevitable - hence inducing the 'resistance is futile' mindset; which is just one step away from embracing the evil plans while trying, personally, to make the best of it. 

Depictions of 'apocalyptic' collapse likewise often promote an attitude of ruthlessly selfish personal-survivalism - indifferent to any spiritual or divine goals (which are implicitly depicted as unreal delusions when times get hard). 

For example; physical survival is assumed (but without stating it) to be the ultimate Good; therefore a 'whatever it takes' ethic becomes ultimate. 

Or; evil is promoted by opposing the depicted dystopias with leftist/ atheist/ materialist/ hedonic System ideologies. This means that both support-of dystopia and 'opposition'-to dystopia both share the same ideology, and both sides in the conflict are merely different aspects of the same (evil) System. 

For instance; Nazi-like 'racist' fictional dystopias are opposed (in-world) by 'antiracist' freedom-fighters - when in real-life antiracism is a core tool of the totalitarian System. 

Or when 'environmentally destructive/ indifferent' tyrannical and cruel rulers, are opposed by some 'eco-warrior types' aiming to save-the-planet - when in real life the environmental movement is utterly in-thrall to (indeed a creature of) the globalist agenda. 

And there are (many) fictions about  Artificial Intelligences. If these are 'evil' (i.e. cruel, selfish etc) this implies that there are also potentially 'Good' AIs (kind, altruistic etc). Fictions of 'Good' AIs, and 'nice'/ or beautiful robots - may have these depicted as better than (most) Men. 

In the end, the message is that AI is a real thing, and AIs are persons and might replace (in essentials) Men - and often the AI future is said to be inevitable anyway (again "resistance is futile"). 

Yet another strand of the propaganda is that futures are some combination of random materialism, scientific determinism, and the Man-made; such that divine creation is excluded completely from the range of possibilities. 

In dystopia Men inhabit a meaningless and purposeless world - because only the divine creation of a Good God has purpose and meaning; consequently those who are depicted as opposing dystopia in these worlds, implicitly accept the same nihilistic assumptions concerning reality, that are inevitable when creation is excluded from possibility. 

In other words; the 'dystopian' worlds portrayed are ones in which all depicted options, on all 'sides' in the dramatic conflict, are all servants of the demonic agenda - in one or another of its aspects. 

Past Dystopias were indeed sometimes genuine warnings against that which they depicted; but the vast expansion and promotion of the dystopia agenda during the past few decades is undoubtedly driven by evil motivations, and is intended to work in support of the evil System-agenda: to pave its way, reduce resistance, increase acceptance...

In a nutshell; 'dystopian futures' are depicted with the overall intent of - by one means or another - generating consent for a totalitarian and materialist society; and, further, inducing mind-sets, attitudes and responses to the unfolding global dystopia that support its development.

Modern dystopias encourage a wide-range of Jesus-rejecting, anti-God, spirit-disbelieving, leftist ideologies that feed-back-into The System, and indirectly but materially and spiritually support it; because in dystopia, all possible futures derive from exactly the same basic and fundamental assumptions upon-which dystopia has been built.