It is fact, not merely opinion, that supporters of "AI" are supporting global totalitarian materialism's Core Project

It is a simple fact that the supporters of "AI" are thereby supporting global totalitarianism's Core Project - and the project that the totalitarians have-been, and currently are, expending more resources and money upon, than any other of their strategies of evil.  

Supporting "AI" is therefore rational and consistent if you personally share in the goals of materialist totalitarianism - i.e. the goals and methods and understanding of Good represented by the architects and implementers of Agenda 2023 and the Great Reset. 

But otherwise (for example if you identify as Christian, or if you believe you oppose The Establishment or favour freedom) then you personally are engaged in an incoherent, and probably self-serving, delusion. 

You may rationally justify embracing and propagandizing "AI" on the basis that global totalitarianism is a lesser evil than the mainstream alternative of universal mutual destruction favoured by the Agents of Chaos. 

This is (I think) overall true: the selfish power-seeking materialist-bureaucratic evil aimed at omni-surveillance and micro-control of others; is not as bad as a mastering spiteful desire for death and the destruction of divine creation - even when at the cost of self-harm.  

However, if you are honest; then such reasoning requires a frank admission that you are engaged in the Boromir Strategy of trying to fight a greater evil by strengthening a lesser evil. 

In which case (if you regard honesty and coherence to be a necessity); you had better ensure that your own hands and conscience are As Clean As Whistles: ensure that you personally are neither likely, nor hoping, to benefit from the triumph of your preferred brand of evil. 

Or else you are your-self, objectively, One Of Them.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saving us into an eternal life in Heaven. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is that so hard to grasp? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Consciousness is "orthogonal" to Goodness.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing Etheric and Astral

In my reading of Rudolf Steiner I came across a fourfold division of Beings into what he called "bodies" but which might better be understood as "levels". 

Ego - Astral - Etheric - Physical*

The first and last are easy to grasp - Ego is me-my real-self which is eternal; and Physical is the mortal material body. 

But although there seems to me to be some validity to Steiner's posited in-between levels of Etheric and Astral, I have found it difficult to understand, distinguish and grasp these - especially when I see how the terms sometimes get used in practice.

For instance Steiner sometimes tries to draw a bright-line between the levels, and use them to divide and separate discrete categories of minerals, plants, animals and humans - on the basis that the etheric plane corresponds to "life"; the astral to "consciousness", and the ego to something-like "will". 

For Steiner (in some of his writings) plants are minerals plus the etheric; animals are plants plus the astral; humans are animals plus the ego. 

However; I believe that all Beings have all these attributes, but to widely varying degrees...

Such that we are talking about distinctions, not divisions; levels not planes or "bodies". 

So; to make coherent sense from these "planes" I think it must be acknowledged that all Beings (mineral, plant and animal) have all these planes of reality to some degree, but in widely varying degrees.

It could reasonably be decided to merge etheric and astral, to regard them as a continuum bridging the spiritual qualities in-between our mortal physical bodies and the eternal true-self. 

And this must be true in an ultimate sense. Nonetheless, the fact that these levels are often distinguished suggests that individual consideration may have value. 

Here are some thoughts on distinguishing Etheric and Astral that seem broadly valid:

The Etheric "field"

This realm is localized, and surrounds the physical body - extending into the surroundings but falling off rapidly with distance.  

The etheric can be understood as rather like a "field" surrounding the body - it is both sensory and imposes itself. For example, the etheric field is what enables people to realize that another person, or large animal, is near; or if we are being watched. 

We can reach-out with our etheric field to explore our surroundings, so it operates as a sixth sense - in addition what is perceptible to "the five senses". 

Charisma and sexual "chemistry" operate mostly at the etheric level - and so do "gut feelings" of fear, and the perception of threat from others. 

In such situations, our own etheric field interacts-with another person's etheric field; in a way that is qualitatively distinguishable from the five senses. 

It is by etheric communications that we may feel comfortable and happy to sit in silence beside those we love; and feel uncomfortable and miserable when we are nearby those whom we regard as hostile or manipulating. 

By etheric interaction we may be aware, and we may influence - and etheric interactions may be spontaneous and passive; or they may be active and willed.

Someone may project their dominance or their sex appeal etherically - entering the room and all attention is upon them. Or people may project the opposite. 

Or even withdraw their etheric field; to the point of a kind of willed etheric-invisibility, so they tend to pass un-noticed. 

The etheric level is also that of ghosts and the like: localized spirits, spirits tied to a place or situation; spirits that may be detected by our etheric awareness, and many interact directly with physical bodies. 

The Astral "realm"

The astral is de-localized, it is more like a realm than a field - a realm that we may enter and explore; and in which distance is irrelevant, and past and present are both experienced.

The astral is the realm of dreams. 

In dreaming we (mostly) leave-behind our everyday physical bodies and our etheric awareness - the dreamer lying on the bed asleep; and our egos instead travel in astral realms, equipped with astral "simulations" of the body and etheric field. 

In the astral realm of dreaming we may interact with other Beings using five physical sense plus the etheric - but in the astral realm these are "virtual" communications, all-but detached from the sleeping person's physical self, who is mostly cut-off from his surroundings. 

Since Beings are eternal and not localized - the astral realm potentially extends across all reality. 

In the astral realm we can therefore interact with those who have died, and those from far away - from anywhere and from past or present; in an as-if fashion, communicating by quasi-sensory virtual-versions of vision, language, touch etc.  

[In the Astral we are not "in" the past, not re-living it; but instead may experience here-and-now the past of our own earlier experience (including our pre-mortal experience as spirits), and also here-and-now experience the past as has been experienced by the other Beings we encounter.] 

But the astral is a realm that includes all Beings - to some degree. 

Therefore we should not suppose that the astral is wholly, or even mostly, "good". It is not a realm exclusively for wish-fulfilment and pleasure. 

Since we inhabit primary creation, and since the astral is a realm in this mortal world, the astral is potentially open to all manner of Beings; although the ego remains conscious and always retains a measure of control - and of responsibility. 

The evil we encounter and do in the astral realm, is some kind of reality, for which we bear some kind of responsibility - which is why dreams are important. 

But the astral realm is not only a matter of dreaming; it is always present to some degree; and may be substantially or (almost) fully entered in other circumstances: for instance in meditation or trance states, in intoxication and delirium states.  

When we are aware of a kind of inner pressure to think, travel, read or otherwise do something; this may be a matter of communications from other Beings operating at the astral level. 

Astrally-communicating Beings may be good and loving (perhaps benign ancestors, or our beloved who have died, or those who love from their books or music or suchlike). However, just as in this mortal world; among these well-meaning benign Beings, none are infallible, and some are much wiser than others. 

But the astral Beings trying to influence us may instead be hostile. The thoughts and activities that these Beings encourage will be intended to harm us, spiritually.  

In other words (amongst others) the astral realm is that in which we are most likely to encounter both angels and demons; and our guide must be a combination of our own discernment with the guidance of the Holy Ghost - which guidance is above and independent from the astral realm. 

The astral realm is a realm of indirect communication; in which our interactions are symbolic and perceptual (even the etheric is a kind of perception) and require interpretation. 

While the level "above" the astral is that of the Ego, the real, ultimate, divine Beings that populate creation. 

And at this level where there is direct and unmediated - Being to Being - knowing. 

*My understanding is that this division - or at least this formulation of it - originated in Theosophy, and with Helena Blavatsky. Steiner began as a Theosophist. The idea therefore spread far beyond Steiner, and both in the West and the East (Gandhi was a Theosophist in his early adulthood, thus Theosophy influenced modern Hinduism. Several Theosophical concepts - such as Atlantis - have been widely incorporated into the New Age. So the etheric and astral are discussed all over the place. 

Was Jesus mainly providing information and teaching; or was Jesus a new creator?

One of the major difficulties that Christians now have* is in trying to explain clearly, simply, concisely: who Jesus was, what Jesus did - and, in particular, why Jesus was indispensable. 

(i.e. "Indispensable" to those who want what Jesus offers.) 

Jesus might be conceptualized in two main ways: either as someone who was a Teacher and Preacher of The Truth; or as a Creator who changed the universe - and thereby the possibilities for Men. 

Information

Historically, Jesus has been regarded mainly as a T&P who provided Information. 

This information was also backed-up by divine power - but the main thing (people assumed) was "the information". 

In order that this information be learned, understood, and acted-upon in future generations; it was assumed that Jesus constituted a Church (naturally, several/ many have claimed to be "the" Church that Jesus intended). 

In sum: To varying degrees and in various ways, the true information derived from Jesus and provided by this Church, would be backed-up by divine power. 

The Church's "essential" job was to discover, preserve, develop the information from Jesus; then to disseminate it, persuade people of its validity, make and enforce rules of conduct derived from this information. Ultimately, the Church would supervise construction of a human society that embodied, was built-upon, the information provided by Jesus.  

(The "essential" nature of Jesus was therefore bound to the "essential" nature of "the" Church that was the true repository of "the information" that Jesus provided. That is; Jesus was essential because of his information; therefore Jesus was essential insofar as "the" Church was essential to the knowledge, understanding, implementation etc. of this information.)

  

Creation

I suggest an  alternative understanding of "What Jesus did" is that he was a New Divine Creator ...

"New" because Jesus did not exist as a divine Man before his incarnation on earth; and "divine" because he was creating additional possibilities; he was creating an extension to pre-existing creation. 

"Primary " divine creation already existed before Jesus; and Jesus was born-into this creation and became divine in the context of that first creation. 

What Jesus did (the primary thing); was to make possible new a different future, a new option, than was possible before Jesus. 

This, I believe, is the truth about Jesus - it is the proper primary conceptualization of who he was and what he did, and its consequences. 

But. 

This (I would say true) way of understanding Jesus as a new creator of new possibilities is blocked by theological-philosophical assumptions, which were actually pre-conceptions (i.e. they were pre-Jesus ways of understanding); which have been (I believe) retroactively imposed-upon who Jesus was and what Jesus did. 

For instance:

Jesus's nature as a divine Man, incarnated into mortal life on earth, who creatively-transformed the possibilities of existence from his life onwards...

Was obscured and rendered incoherent by also insisting that Jesus The One God, who was eternal omniscient, omnipotent and unchangeable, impassible.

Nobody can explain (clearly, simply, concisely) how Jesus can be a mortal incarnate Man and also The One God - therefore this is made A Mystery. 

So the person trying to understand why and how This Man Jesus who lived and dies 2000 years ago is necessary to salvation now; is immediately told: It's a mystery.  

(Not a good start, I suggest.) 

The fact that therefore Jesus made-a-necessary difference, did something new, brought something to the world that did not exist before the time of Jesus...

Was terminally-confused by insisting that Jesus was always the One God, from eternity from forever-before his birth/ life/ death/ ascension; and (because of his "omni"-attributes) Jesus operated outside of time. 

Such that Jesus somehow always was, as well as always-is, and always shall be... 

Such that the explanatory sequence of creation before Jesus and then creation after Jesus; was said to be ultimately a kind-of mortal and earthly illusion...

Because in real-reality, outside of Time/ where Time-is-not, where the One God (including Jesus) existed... creation Just Was: Eternally and Perfect...

So the understanding of Jesus as a new creator that I regard to be true; was-and-is theologically regarded as false by prior philosophical assumption; because it was assumed that could be no ultimate change in creation; neither before nor after, no addition to creation. 

(After all, how could Jesus add-to or improve something that was already and forever perfect?)   

The consequences include that Jesus is nowadays, almost universally (among self-identified Christians as well as not), regarded as primarily a teacher, preacher, prophet... Jesus is seen as a provider of information. 

Christian debate therefore focuses mainly on "the information" - on the validity of its sources, whether the sources are being understood accurately, whether or what difference is made by societal changes; and the various claims by Churches or secular experts over the authority to decide these matters of information.   

Among self-identified Christians; debate also concerns the nature and scope of that divine power which (it is envisaged) backs-up and pushes "the information". 

Questions such as: What does God really want to happen to us - will reform be imposed, or perhaps our destruction? Is the divine power restricted to a particular Church, or particular parts of the earthly-institutional instantiation of "the" Church? 

Does divine power to impose information apply to all humans in the same way? Is divine power irresistible by humans, or does it depend on voluntary human cooperation?

Questions regarding Church authority; how it arose and how it was preserved and transmitted across many generations.   

Such are the kinds of question that concern many self-identified Christians: questions of information.    

Alternatively: It seems to me that when Jesus is understood as a divine Man whose work was essentially that of Creator operating in sequential Time; the story and sequence become clearer and easier to understand (and explain). 

It is realized that for Jesus the teaching and preaching and prophecy were an "optional extra" - information was secondary to his main work and achievement. 

In an ultimate sense, when understood as a Creator; if Jesus had lived and died in utter obscurity, and left no records or memories in earthly society - then his essential work of creation could still have been accomplished.

The new-created possibilities Jesus made, would still exist; and would still be available to all who desired them.  

+++

*Aside from the fact that modern Men have been trained, multi-generationally, to find the claims of religion incredible and ridiculous; while uncritically gulping-down endless drafts of incoherent/ self-contradicting nonsense from the Establishment media-conduit.

"What do I think about X? Excuse me, I'll just ask..."

The idea that what we think, believe, do; ought-to-be derived from some external authority - which is, in practice, always some institution/ organization/ corporation... some formal group of people - is something that we recognize in others, but seldom acknowledge in ourselves. 

I had a friend who had recently become a member, or some kind of associate, of the UK Trotskyite "Socialist Workers Party"; and he described to me how things worked there, ideologically. 

Whenever there was some big new news story - an invasion, an economic crisis, a strike, civil disorder - a meeting would be called at which the event was ideologically framed and explained, and members were told how The Party could make use of it: therefore what to think and do about it. 

This is how communists work, and this has been well known and obvious to others, whenever any argument with them is attempted.

It is why communists can and do, in lockstep, make 180 degree turns of policy as required by Part expediency; as when Hitler made a pact with Stalin, then again when Germany invaded the USSR.

In 2020 there were several such 180 degree No-then-Yes instant turns: whether Testing was needed; whether Masking was needed; was Christmas to be cancelled?

Analysis, debate, argument was futile: what was false, wicked, unnecessary yesterday; becomes true, good and compulsory today - and this is all rational, consistent and absolutely necessary. 

When authority lies with an institution, so does truth and legitimacy; so there are no valid grounds for dissent.

There is only either obedience, or just-punishment. 

This is also, by somewhat different procedures, how churches work when they are powerful in the lives of people. 

(This fundamental identity of control procedures is one reason why people - mistakenly* - assume that "ideology" and "religion" are the-same-thing - and that totalitarianism and theocracy are fundamentally identical.)

When some new "thing" emerges for which the church view is not immediately obvious; there is a some mechanism by which the churches framing, explanation and instructions are handed-down.

Because the church is the essential and only mediator of the divine; it is the ultimate repository of truth, beauty and virtue - so that all anyone absolutely needs to know is what the church thinks, and then to obey it.

Outwith which there is nothing but selfish, sin-rooted, individual will.  

This model of institutional authority represents a world-view - a mode-of-consciousness - for which the ultimate responsibility for important attitudes, beliefs and behaviours lies in some external and formal social grouping. 

It was (apparently) not always and everywhere thus, but it has been thus for recorded history: with ultimate authority variously - but always externally and institutionally - located.  

The "job" of each individual in such a System is to internalize as much as possible of the approved views and ways of reasoning that characterize "that social institution" there-and-then given custody of his conscience; and when the answer is not obvious - to seek and follow appropriate guidance. 

Such an external-authority-based set-up dictates the role of intellectuals in terms of the social institution. 

The job of an intellectual in this scheme is that of a commissar: to learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view. 

When there is dissent or opposition to the institutional view, the job of the intellectual is overcome it - by whatever means he can, by whatever means are effective - while staying within the institutionally-ratified assumptions, evidences and methods. 

The point is that the intellectual's own thinking is in service of this task. He will not think in any way that might lead to another conclusion than that of the institution he serves.

This is why institution-serving individuals will never, under any circumstances, acknowledge or even discuss their fundamental - including metaphysical - assumptions. 

They will only-and-always operate-from those assumptions; they will only assume the rightness of the institution they serve. 

This is the cause of a feeling we must all have experienced, must all have come-up-against - even if our own thinking is in service to a church or other societal institution. 

Perhaps the most usual encounter to evoke this feeling is with a bureaucrat who is trying to enforce the institutional will upon us; trying to get us into-line with the current strategies and priorities and behaviours. 

We may be lured into defending our case for dissent or disobedience (or inadequate enthusiasm!), or arguing against the institutional POV; but we Will realize (later if not sooner) that we are just talking into sand. 

Our interlocutor is not interested in what we think, not interested in the validity of our arguments - he already knows what we are supposed to think and do.  

His only interest in our arguments is to refute them using institution-approved arguments, to bring our views into-line with institutional views...

Or else to discredit our perspective (usually by discrediting us).  

Most of the people, most of the time, behave in this way - in all walks of life. 

It might be most obvious in political ideologies, churches, and bureaucracies - but it is the same everywhere nowadays; including the areas I worked in: medicine, academia, teaching, and science. 

This is proximately because in modern life all social institutions have become primarily bureaucratic; and all bureaucracies are linked to (and indeed form) the global totalitarian System. 

But it is also because many people, and nearly-all intellectuals in particular, regard ultimate authority as residing in some social institution such as their ideology, or employer, or their church (or The System) - and see their ultimate job to be defending and propagating that institutional authority. 

This reality is what underpins and causes the futility of argument; here and now. 

Most argument that we encounter in the media and professionally, is between individuals "representing" institutions. 

The main exception to this commissar-like situation, is when individuals are more or less "psychopathic"; when they are selfish, self-seeking, short-termist - and are using institutional camouflage - faked attitudes and assumptions, subverted/ inverted procedures etc), to pursue to their own personal agenda - seeking wealth, sex, power, fame, admiration; or whatever "turns them on". 

Anyone who is seeking spiritual truth, trying to understand his own situation in this world and larger reality; anyone who seeks a religion and a way of living - will come up against this commissar or bureaucratic externalization of authority. 

In effect; the seeker is supposed to strive for a situation in which he accepts the external authority of one church or another. 

In practice; this means that the seeker is supposed to accept some external authority (e.g. the truth and validity of Church X) as the first step - from which all-else follows. 

Because once a particular external institution is accepted as the fount of authority, validity, goodness and correct procedure - then the seeker can (and is expected to) hand-over his conscience and honesty to that institution.     

From then on - his ultimate role in life, or at least the role that dictates what counts as ultimate - is to himself learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view. 

It is difficult, it may be impossible, for any individual to find anyone who will engage on any other basis than that of first accepting (or being rhetorically-duped into accepting) the primacy of some external authority - some denomination, church or other institution. 

Life becomes a choice between actually-existing social institutions. 

Duty becomes a matter of serving the chosen institution. 

And if you are not happy about this situation - you will probably have no alternative but to accept responsibility for yourself.  

You can then expect to be attacked by everyone who serves any institution (i.e. almost everybody!)

But in a totalitarian-bureaucratic world where all social institutions are orientated towards evil; this path of personal responsibility is the only alternative to serving one or another (or several) organizations assimilated to the demonic agenda. 

You real choice is between serving overall-evil body, heart, and soul; or seeking a direct and personal knowledge-of and relationship-with something better.  

*"mistakenly"; because when religion is sincere, it is regarded by adherents as being ultimately spiritual and underpinned by the divine. This makes a difference. The question is how much difference - and in what ways different? The difference may be so feeble as to be ineffectual; the ways of difference may be for worse, as well as for better.  

The two millennial failure of Christian *Religion*

I admit candidly that my title is more than a little click-baitish! 

However; if Christianity is considered as a religion, then it has failed - epically; given that it has had about 2000 years to succeed.

So the sensational title hides a serious point - a very serious point. 

If Christianity really depends on church membership, then it has failed...

Because even after two millennia and being the official religion of several international empires; most people in the world aren't Christian church members.  

The situation is even worse when it is noticed that most of the main Christian churches have been (more or less) exclusive; and through history did not recognize each other's validity as "Christian". 

From the early centuries of Christianity there have been large sections of what was the Church that were excluded, divided, or destroyed - Monophysites, Arians, Pelagians, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Nonconformists, Mormons...   

Consequently; in practice and throughout history, for any particular church member, the number of "real" Christians has nearly always been very small - both numerically and as a proportion of Mankind.

And Christianity in The West now is not just shrinking in terms of church membership and attendance, but is ever more feebly motivating - makes less and less observable positive difference to how people live. 

Thus we could add that if making a positive difference to how people live is supposed to be the essence of Christianity, then it has failed on that score.  

If we can imagine ourselves back to the last mortal days of Jesus Christ; what happened after the ascension could hardly be termed a success! The disciples and early Christians would surely have been very disappointed indeed, at how poorly Christianity has done.

Of course the same could be said about other religions; but the difference is that Christians believe that Jesus was divine, that that he changed the whole of creation...

If that is true (and I believe that it is true: i.e. that Jesus was divine and did positively transform creation), then the limited spread of Christian churches, and their schisms and mutual hatreds and hostilities; must surely be something approaching a refutation... 

I mean - looking at this world now and through the past 2000 years - does it really look as if Jesus positively-transformed creation?  

All the above refutations seems to be the case... if, if, IF Christianity really is supposed to be a this-worldly and institutional religion. 

If Christianity is supposed to be something that happens in this world, if becoming a Christian is a thing that must happen in this mortal life, if the definitions and membership of Christianity are in the hands of some self-identified Christian church (or even all Christian churches)...

Then Christianity must regarded as a failure.  

**

But, but, BUT if instead we take the Fourth Gospel seriously as as our primary source, and reason from it; then we would instead assume that Jesus changed creation in such a way that its benefits would be independent of any or all churches. 

But how did Jesus change creation? 

Even that is a subject of major disagreement...

Those who say that Jesus came to make better Men, better societies, and save the world - come-up against the stark fact that it hasn't worked. 

But I would say that Jesus made a second creation - Heaven - and offered all Men the possibility of resurrected eternal life in that Heaven...

After Our Death.

Jesus himself died before becoming resurrected and ascending to Heaven, and so must we. 

So - in an ultimate sense - it seems clear that when Jesus was doing his work of salvation, he would ensure that the situation in which any Man finds himself in this mortal life would not be allowed to prevent each individual from choosing resurrected eternal life.   

To my mind, this can only mean that the final decision for or against salvation needs to happen after this mortal life. 

It may happen during mortal life - any of us may choose to follow Jesus Now - but for all Men to have the chance and choice, Jesus would need to ensure that that choice does not have-to happen in mortal life. 

And (being a divine creator) this is what Jesus was able to do and did - or so I presume. 

By offering post-mortal resurrection into a new creation, and by making this a post-mortal choice; Jesus made "Christianity" into a society-proof faith. 

All the slow and incomplete growth of churches does not ultimately matter; the apostasies and feeble faith; the schisms and intra-Christian hatreds... 

These are bad; these have an effect on individual persons - but none of them have prevented the work of Jesus from happening at all times and everywhere over the past two millennia...

Every one of those who loved and desired to follow Jesus, all who would have wanted salvation - have-been and are-being given the chance to have this happen - because the choice happens after mortal life.  

So, even if the religion of Christianity has failed, and seems to be headed for more and greater failure - ultimately this does not stop anyone from following Jesus Christ - even if they are ignorant or misinformed about him during their mortal lives. 

The divine Jesus made sure that the evil of Men would not prevent the Good of his own work. 

Good News, surely?

How can modern people becomes sure enough about their beliefs, for this to be strongly motivating? Example from my earlier life as a scientist

We need to be sufficiently sure of our bottom-line convictions that they will serve strongly to fuel our personal motivation - so that we have the clarity and courage to aim at good; and to discern and navigate through life. 

But we modern people, in this modern world, find it very hard to believe in - anything!

At least, we moderns don't believe in stuff strongly enough that we can be truly free, and choose God and divine creation, and have the courage to stick with this --- in the face of a world that continually subverts, ridicules, suppresses, persecutes... and even inverts such intentions. 

We need true beliefs - i.e. beliefs that reflect reality (divine reality); and we also need to be subjectively sure about these beliefs in order that they can be positively motivating.

So how can we discover, and become sufficiently-convinced, by such things?  

The short answer is "intuition" - but I need to explain what I mean by intuition. 

For this I will here use the example of my earlier life as a scientist. 

When I began learning science, in the "early" phase;  it was learning "about" science; and I learned it in just the same way that we learn most other things about this world: we are told it we absorb it in terms of the assumptions that lie behind the functioning of our world. 

And we generally believe what we are told, especially when it comes from socially-defined authority figures.

But such "early" learning is superficial and passive - and such beliefs are not strongly held, not least because they have never really been understood, and we have never invested anything very personal into them. 

Consequently, these early beliefs concerning science were easily revised, modified, even reversed - when some "higher" authority said so. 

So: this early kind of passive and external belief about science was only very weakly inwardly motivating, and was unstable.

The same applies to all such beliefs - and this accounts for almost all proclaimed political, social and religious beliefs. They are shallow, impersonal - and very easily redirected or reversed by a change in what "authorities" are currently-saying. 

When I became a professional scientist, and began to do research; I entered an intermediate phase. I soon became much more discerning about what I believed, and more active in choosing who I would personally regard as authorities.  

My own understanding became deeper; albeit in externally derived terms. 

The doing of science became much more selective - but what I selected-from, and the criteria for regarding something as true; was something I assembled from that selective sample of what "authorities" stated.

I was not doing original or creative work in science; rather I was trying to be more professional, more discerning, and to do my work at a higher level than others. 

At this intermediate level; the work I was doing was not really anything to do with "reality" - rather it was dictated by the scientific literature - and was a matter of filling in gaps, extrapolating from what had already been done - and refuting pieces of established science that were (I believed) refuted by better authorities. 

It could be said I had "faith" in science as a process, as a social activity. This is analogous to most Christians "faith" in their church. 

I changed my mind less often than in the early phase, because I was more motivated - but this motivation was very much bound-up with and shaped-by the professional scientific environment - which was regarded as the ultimate arbiter. 

So, at this intermediate level; science was what the best scientists were saying (or had said) - and the intent was to become one of these "best" - and this was determined by the higher professional structures. 

Such a vision of science is this-worldly, and its standards and motivations are of this-world - even if rather idealized within this-world.

The motivations are stronger, because of the personal investment in the process; but the motivation is still ultimately external - and when the external consensus of those I regarded as "best" scientists changed, then so would my own purposes and motivations. 

I could (I hoped!) stand in a select company which I had partially chosen to ally-with; but I could not stand alone.  

The highest level of science was concerned by transcendental ideals that looked beyond the scientific milieu; ideals to do with reality (not just the relevant scientific literature) and truth (not just professional standards. 

At this highest level I was compelled to take personal responsibility for my beliefs; and might therefore need to "stand alone" when I thought that "the external world of science" (even of the best scientists, and by my evaluation) was wrong and misguided. 

For these evaluations to become beliefs that were strong enough to motivate; I needed to have criteria for conviction that went beyond my interpretations of the external world of the professional scientific literature. 

At this point, as may be clear, I had actually moved outside of the professional system of science. 

I had come to recognize that science had its assumptions that were not really true; that it was a matter of models not reality; and that for science to be true and real, required that science be understood in terms of ultimate reality...

Which included God and divine creation, and myself as having some personal significance in this.  

This was the point at which I developed sufficiently strong a personal motivation that I could, where I regarded it as necessary, maintain my convictions and direction without support from other scientists. 

I was, in other words, innerly-motivated, and also (consequently) more strongly motivated. 

This stronger inner motivation came from a different quality of conviction concerning what was true. 

At the early and intermediate levels of science; I was dependent on external authority as expressed in external communications and externally-validated interpretations of these communications - i.e. my belief (hence motivation) was rooted the observations and theories to be found in some selective sample of the scientific literature...

To reiterate - this understands science as communications that are externally derived and externally validated. 

At both early and intermediate levels; my convictions could be no different-from, deeper-than, or more-solid-than these external factors.  

And when these external factors vacillated, or even apparently reversed - then there was no alternative but for me to revise my convictions. 

This situation is demotivating! - especially when, by criteria external to science (and to do with truth and reality) science is being corrupted, as was very obviously the case.

(Science began explicitly to serve the needs of bureaucracy, careerism, politics etc. I could not fool myself other than that this really was corruption!)   

For me to have a personal conviction and motivation in science; I needed to have an inner sense of truth and reality; what is more this inner sense needed to be direct, not a communication; needed to be self-interpreting - not dependent on observations and theories. 

In other words "intuition". 

Actually, I have put matters the word way around; because it was only after I had recognized that intuition was and ought to be the root of science, that I moved to the higher level. 

What happened was that I would be thinking about something, working on something; when I realized that "this was it". 

From the stream of superficial thinking and doing, there sometimes emerged, there was discovered, a solid sense of conviction and surety; a "this is it".  

  

After a while, the intuition of "this is it" became the final validator of my work - unless I got it, and unless the sense of this-is-it was solid enough to survive repeated consultations; then I was not convinced. 

Lacking such an intuition; I remained unsure. 

I knew that "more work was needed". 

But with this intuition, and so long as it lasted and was operative - I was highly motivated, and could withstand any amount of external contradiction. 

To generalize from this specific experience; when we regard the external world as corrupt, and increasingly taking the side of evil; then unless we are to be drawn-into that; we need to move "above" considerations of the external, the communicated. 

We need, I think, to operate from the kind of deep intuition I eventually found in doing science...

Because only this intuition can be the basis for us to be free and positively-motivated by something outwith "society" that is both solid and potentially real.  

Why monetizing corrupts

Setting-aside arguments about economic necessity (which very seldom hold water*) it is surely a blazingly obvious fact that monetizing of blogs and videos, by whatever means, is corrupting. 

We can all see this for ourselves (especially if there is a before and after) - even when the scale of earnings is (presumably) negligible.

Indeed, this is what is striking; that even a small scale blog-video is distorted in predictable ways by monetization - in other words, monetization induces and enforces this-worldly short-termism in service to the mainstream agenda. 

The mechanism of corruption is analogous to that which leads to the "convergence" that afflicts all charities in the UK (and I mean All charities) - which is that engagement with The System (in this case the economy) is intrinsically corrupting. 

Which means, of course, that we are all (more or less) corrupted by the fact that we all depend on The System for our survival. 

That is true. But it is also true that every time we choose to increase our integration with The System, we increase our corruption. 

We can negate such spiritual harm if we explicitly acknowledge (to ourselves, in particular) that we have chosen to do what corrupted us because it seemed more expedient (i.e. if we take personal responsibility for our corrupting choice); and acknowledge too that we have actually become more corrupt as a result of our choices.

In other words; we are all sinners and cannot cease from sinning and indeed often choose to sin more and gratuitously.  

But what usually happens is that we lie to ourselves; first that we "have to" engage-with and subordinate-to The System in this particular instance; and that "it won't make any difference". 

With monetization - it takes the form of justifying that we "deserve" to be paid for the input of our time and effort...

OK; but that means we are selling our time and effort (even when we get very little back from that sale); and we cannot validly then claim that we are writing (or otherwise creating) in pursuit of truth, beauty and virtue.    

In sum: as of 2025 (with our national and global totalitarian system) - if you are writing for money then you are, to a significant degree, Writing For Money; writing so as to be more compatible with making money; hence you have chosen to place your writing and its content within the totalitarian system. 

One sign of corruption is when the writing engages with the monetization, another when the writing become PR for other system-affiliated activities: selling books or other merchandize, supporting your business; or promoting your-self, your career, your worldly-projects. 

All that's fine if you support the evil-motivated actuality and aims of the global totalitarian system. 

In that case you presumably want to become more corrupt, and selling your writing (or using your writing to sell) will help with this. 

But insofar as you desire to take the side of God, divine creation and the good; then the decision to monetize your writing is one that will surely have adverse consequences on you personally, relative to how you otherwise would have been - and more so insofar as you try to deny this.      

To put it the other way around; if you are genuinely serious in your motivation of wanting to align with the divine and enable good via your writing; then you should avoid (insofar as possible) inserting an economic interface between your writing and those who may read it. 

In conclusion; I think we have recently reached a point when the old possibility of valid compromises between this-world and the spirit, have broken-down. 

Things have come to a point. 

We must make choices - one way, or the other.

The choice whether or not to monetize one's writing is only one of these choices; but it is one of these choices.  

*If one is writing for money, in order to live; then it should be considered whether money may be got some other way - so as to liberate the writing. There are few less-efficient ways of making money than writing; so that a smaller amount of some other kind of work will nearly-always make money more reliably and efficiently than monetizing the writing. Also; most of the best writers in history have been "amateurs" who made money from some other work than writing; and their best writing was done without expectation of payment (even if that writing later made some, or a lot of, money). 

Transhumanism - a cure for entropy? No - transhumanism is a faith-based ideology

Like most Men though history; I regard "entropy" as the fundamental problem of this mortal life on earth - in other words, what the IV Gospel called "death" or "sin". 

Entropy is the tendency of all entities to undergo change, degeneration, and dissolution - loss of form; for Men to suffer disease and death. 

Entropy is the fundamental problem of mortal life, because it cannot be prevented - or, at least, it never yet has been prevented. 

But transhumanism claims that entropy can be cured - by human effort, and the application of science and technology. 

And transhumanism is - mostly implicitly, and for lack of any "acceptable" alternative - perhaps the dominant ideal and ideology of the developed world today. 

The main basis of this claim to be able, in principle, to cure entropy; is that disease and degeneration has been delayed in many places; and the average age of death has been been delayed considerably. 

In other words, some of the symptoms of entropy have been - in some cases - quantitatively alleviated by extension of technologies of exactly the kind we already have - drugs, surgery, genetic manipulations and so forth. 

On the other hand, the waning of one disease means the waxing of another - e.g. as a smaller proportion of otherwise healthy old people died of pneumonia in their sixties; a much greater proportion of decrepit older people died with dementia in their eighties. 

While average human lifespan has indeed greatly increased globally, and especially in developed nations; maximum human life span seems to be the same as ever (or hardly changed). 

And while people in their fifties and sixties look and behave younger than those of that age did 100 years ago; if they live long enough the signs of extreme old age will come upon them - and with greater rapidity (somewhat as Aldous Huxley described in his Brave New World). 

So, transhumanism is not based on any fundamental insight or empirical discovery; rather it should be considered an ideology (i.e. a "religion" minus the divine) that is intended to, and sometimes does, replace religions - especially Christianity.

In the IV Gospel; the work of Jesus Christ is rooted in his offering an eternal and complete cure for entropy (which is called "death" or "sin") - but on the other side of death and by resurrection.

Transhumanism offers its cures for entropy on this side of death, and without the re-making of self that is resurrection - which is probably the basis of the appeal of transhumanism.

The promise of transhumanism is one of alleviation of suffering and abolition of death soon, and without having to die first.

If this was possible, and true, then the appeal of transhumanism is obvious to anyone who desires above all to escape from disease, degeneration, and death. 

However; at root the transhumanist proposed cure of entropy is purely imaginary, a "nice notion", a wave of the hand, an unfounded assertion...

If entropy is real, then it cannot (cannot) be cured by any possible technology - because all technologies are subject to entropy - and so on, all the way down.

And if entropy is not real... well, that would be something that transhumanists would need to argue explicitly. 

Yet transhumanism passes-itself-off (with its quantitative analogies) as "hard science" or more like "applied technology"; a thing attainable with bureaucratic reliability, by a sufficiently large and well-funded project management of research effort: by directed human effort. 

With transhumanism we have, as so often, unacknowledged metaphysics as the basis of an assumed ideology - an ideology that pretends to be a consequence and inference of solid and inescapable empirical facts. 

Thus people are choosing to be transhumanist purely on the basis of wanting to escape the effects of entropy, and then assuming that it is possible to abolish entropy in this mortal life and world. 

The assumption that entropy can be cured is the basis of all that follows in transhumanism; and, as an assumption, it cannot be disproved - it is a matter of faith.

What I ask is that such an assumption be regarded as an assumption.

The assumption should be made clear and explicit and up-front; rather than hidden-away, implicit - or falsely denied to be "an assumption". 

And consequently the ignorant or dishonest pretence should be dropped that transhumanism is a rational extension of further-developing science, medicine, or technological breakthroughs. 

It is no such thing:   

Transhumanism Just-Is a faith-based ideology; and should be acknowledged, evaluated and judged as such. 

 

The metaphysical failure of All Christian churches

...But don't ask me about my metaphysical assumptions

(The above being the argumentative strategy of all churches)

The generations-long, inexorable corruption, apostasy and (remember 2020) self-destructive failure of Christian churches has nothing to do with me!* but is there for all capable of seeing it. 

*(I am but the bearer of bad news; and one who seeks to proceed on that basis - rather than on the basis of the delusional and dishonest optimism all-too-characteristic of those whose Christianity is inextricable from some particular church.)

And yet there is a sometimes-palpable metaphysical hunger among the mass majority of not-religious people; who realize that mainstream materialist totalitarianism offers no meaning, no purpose; and zero basis for ethics, beauty or truth. 

Metaphysics is the discourse concerning ultimate, fundamental reality. In other words metaphysics seeks to make explicit and examine our deepest convictions and assumptions concerning the way that things are.

The metaphysics of dominating mainstream modern materialism; explicitly regards ultimate reality as dead (unalive), ruled by blind causation and undirected randomness - there is no direction to it, no reason behind it, it has no values; therefore nothing is better or worse than anything else...

The only basis for preference and choice is our own temporary, subjective, psychological state; which itself has neither purpose, nor meaning - and merely whatever happens-to-be, at present. 

The official non-explanation of life, the universe, and everything is: Things Just Are. Nothing can coherently be said about any of it.   

There is a hierarchy of explanation that runs from fundamental, primary and metaphysical assumptions to make sense of the secondary, surface and observational aspects of life.

Thus: we derive our meanings and purposes from our metaphysical assumptions, and not from our "factual" observations - indeed, we cannot even know what counts as "a fact" without prior assumptions (theories) to tell us. 

Consequently, of themselves, our perceptions mean nothing, imply nothing and are undistinguishable - since the world does not come to us divided into different objects, nor do the supposed causes acting on such objects come to us divided into types. 

It is by our interaction with the world (our "participation" with creation) that what would otherwise be incoherent "noise" is instead known as having structure, meaning, purpose. 

A perceived world without primary assumptions - without the metaphysical and structural basis of reality; well, it is hardly even imaginable - but might be pictured as a booming, buzzing, fuzzy, incoherent, literal-chaos.    

It might be supposed that the churches would benefit from this vacuum of purpose/ meaning, this craving for fundamental values; but the churches eschew the deep level of metaphysical assumptions; instead trying to reason from current preferences, agreed observations, accepted facts... 

Each church hoping to convince that its particular "package" of administration/ rituals/ scriptures/ symbols/ prayers etc; offers a better psychological or socio-political outcome, or a better (perhaps the only) chance of some kind of life beyond death. 

While churches will often critique mainstream materialism, and expose its vacuity; what the churches fail to do, is go back and down to the deepest level of their own fundamental assumptions. 

The churches Will Not make explicit and examine their own assumptions. 

The Christian churches' attempts at conversion are therefore of a double-negative nature: they are happy to expose and demolish the assumptions modern atheistic metaphysics; but they will deny that their own metaphysical fundamental are assumptions. 

The churches all claim that their own metaphysics Just Are True. 

Or else the churches reverse the hierarchy of explanation and pretend that their metaphysical assumptions can (somehow!) be derived from the accepted facts of life; being so obvious that to express disagreement is idiotic, evil, or dishonest. 

But this comes across as (and indeed actually is) merely dogmatic bluster.  

The answer is that we modern people must go deep, we must go as deep as we possibly can - in order to discover our own bottom-line assumptions about reality - and to expose those of other thought-systems such as particular Churches. 

It is not enough to "show" that somebody else's metaphysical assumptions are incoherent or absurd or inadequate - we must as-well be prepared to bring forward our own fundamental beliefs in order to compare them with whatever is being critiqued. 

Indeed; it seems to me that after we have genuinely exposed our own metaphysics, and recognized that it is rooted in primary assumptions which are a product of our own free agency - will we then be able potentially to understand the metaphysics of anybody else. 

Only when our own fundamental assumptions demonstrate positive superiority with respect to what we regard as most important, and in comparison with the fundamental assumptions of other ideologies and/or religions; will we actually have made real progress in terms of overcoming the endemic metaphysical failure of this time and place.   

**

Note added: 

I do not suggest, nor even believe, that it is possible that Christian churches, or any churches, could possibly do what I am suggesting - because as institutions, this would expecting churches to be anti-institutional. 

No: this is something that individual persons can only do for themselves, because for themselves; else it will not be done at all. 

And because it needs to be done for individual persons; this can only be done with the necessary good motivations by one who believes that knowing truth experientially is an activity harmonious with divine creation.

That is to say; one who knows, and knows why, honestly "doing metaphysics" is something that is of-itself-and-necessarily beneficial to God's cause; as well as to the benefit of our own post-mortal, resurrected self.  

"AI" is the reductio ad absurdum and revenge of "Truth is Out There"

There is a fundamental, integral, by-assumption incoherence of Western thinking; that was described by Rudolf Steiner in The Philosophy of Freedom (1894); then further elucidated by Owen Barfield in Saving the Appearances (1957). 

These deep errors have not been acknowledged so could neither be analysed* nor be reformed, therefore have remained; and now are wreaking their revenge in the strategically destructive nonsense that is the post-November 2022 totalitarian global project of "AI". 

Such metaphysical assumptions have led Western civilization to the apparently-inevitable conclusion that, since truth has nothing to do with the active thinking of living, conscious, purposive beings (such as human beings); "therefore" truth can be more efficiently and impartially "discovered and done" by computers.

For the AI-dolaters; Truth is something that can be built-into a logical system; and it is the job of rational humans to submit to... whatever that logical system tells us is true. 

For AI-dolaters - "AI" is just a mechanical tool for discovering, and perhaps implementing, those self-explaining and objective truths - "truths" which are implicitly regarded as floating around "out there", waiting to be discovered and used...

For the Truth Out There gang; Truths are like pre-cut diamonds mixed into a vast heap of useless rubble - and they regard AI as merely a machine for sifting through trash and extracting the valuable elements.  

There is widespread acceptance (among the managerial and intellectual class) of the false mantra of "Truth is Out There", objective, independent of what we think about it; with its implication that rational men therefore ought to submit to that external truth...

And because this nonsensical assumption is integral to the functioning of bureaucracy and functional discourse; the demon-serving powers-that-should-not-be - most of the middling people of Western society have ended-up supporting (by word and deed, even when there are vague mental reservations) an insanely-dysfunctional but mandatory project to "replace" human consciousness with machine algorithms in as many kinds of socio-economic activity as possible. 

This happens because it is lazily assumed that the only alternative to the fake reasonableness of Truth is Out There is the solipsism of Truth is in My Mind.*

Such vague ideas of the subjectivity of truth have been floating around the counter-culture for many decades, indeed a few centuries: e.g. "my truth" notions such that ultimate truth is wholly-subjective, is whatever I currently assert it to be. 

Such subjectivist "relativism" is just as incoherent as "Truth is Out There" - but in addition it is upfront socially subversive and destructive. 

So it seems that mainstream "responsible" opinion - which cannot/will-not reject the exclusive dichotomy of conception; it has doubled-down on Truth is Out There. 

Consequently; it is routinely pretended (but aggressively!) that real truths are objective, independent of minds and consciousness; and have nothing to do with what humans (or anyone else) thinks...

It is important to recognize that "external truth" assumptions, are shared across the divide between mainstream materialist-atheism and mainstream-church-Christianity.

Therefore; the totalitarian assumption that it is the duty of individuals to submit to external truth - is also shared by totalitarians of secular and Christian types. 

This, I suggest, is why the "Truth is Out There" Christians have so often embraced and celebrated the totalitarian AI Project. 

Church-rooted, or "systemic", Christianity on the one hand, and materialist-secular-atheism on the other hand; are in this respect two sides of the same coin of "Truth is Out There"-ism. 

And this explains their analogous failure to discern the fraudulent and evil-motivated nature of current "AI". 

The main difference between church-Christian and secular AI-dolaters, seems to be that the Christians want their AI systems to be "trained" on a somewhat different data set. 

Other than that; church-Christians seem to be eagerly anticipating a system of AI-religion - a fusion of bureaucracy and computers - that they hope will become objectively valid, and to which they believe we ought then to submit obediently.   

*Note added: the reason for the apparently exclusive dichotomy of truth as either wholly subjective or wholly objective; is that Western philosophy has assumed this separation and division into place - then finds that it cannot be bridged. Most who realize that the result is a choice of two incoherent possibilities then assert some version of Oneness spirituality - which also does not make sense, since it provides no basis for creation or human existence; and there is no basis in it for any distinction or discernment of life. The only coherent basis I have found is to assume that the fundamental reality is of pre-existent/ eternal living beings, and this is the basis of true distinction and discernment. We start with Beings. And divine creation is a matter of developing relationships and creating cooperation between such Beings. This means that the baseline is that all knowledge is a product of the relationships between conscious Beings - so that detached subjectivity and objectivity are alike meaningless. 

It turns-out that reality is a connection - not a blueprint

We are none of us spontaneously reality-based nowadays; partly due to inhabiting the virtuality, partly due to everybody* being psychologically (if not physically) ill and/or impaired.  

Since health and normality are unattainable, and because all external sources of guidance are tainted and corrupted by the inescapable totalitarianism of all institutions (including religions and churches); reality is now something we can achieve only intermittently and briefly. 

Reality - truth - is therefore something we can sometimes know, but cannot consistently achieve. 

An extra problem is that our idea is reality is misconceived as some kind of blueprint - whether ideological or religious: something like a set of principles or laws, an instruction manual, or utopian map. 

After the comprehensive and extreme failure of this model, it turns-out that reality is not like that!

But neither is reality nothing at all, nor whatever we want, nor whatever those with power say it is - these notions too have been tried and catastrophically failed to inspire or motivate. 

It turns-out that reality is a kind of connection instead of some sort of blueprint. 

In other words, reality impinges when the mass of surface-stuff in our emotions, thoughts, behaviours; discovers and attends to a connection with our true-self, and via this with that-which-is-divine.  

When we become aware, by this connection; with the reality of truth, beauty and virtue as it exists dynamically, livingly, actively - in actual divine beings...

Such as the divine in ourselves, God the Creator, Jesus Christ and other beings; these connections are what provide knowledge of reality. 

All of which may strike us as very difficult to attain; and we may then ask: Is this really the best that God could contrive for our guidance?   

Why is mortal life set-up in such a fashion?

My understanding is that this reality-by-connection has the great advantage of being potentially available to everybody under all circumstances - whatever our personality, whatever our social situation. 

But ultimately the answer to "is this really the best that can be managed" for mortal life is: Yes. 

It is the best that God can contrive for an entropic universe, that also contains a good deal of evil. 

Which is why Jesus's offer of Heaven refers - not to mortal life nor this earth and universe - but to our post-mortal life in Heaven. 

*I say "everybody" because that is what I observe - obviously including myself! I recognize that there are plenty of people who present-themselves as bastions of normality, common sense, health and strength. But all of these I have encountered, strike me as very obviously and strongly pathological characters - who are deceptively attempting to displace attention (their own attention, as well as that of other people) to the deficits of others.

Why politics has become negative - loss of the unconscious, spontaneous, naturalness of communal values

If the verities of our spiritual life are things like our-selves and God and divine creation; then by contrast politics is ultimately arbitrary. In the world as it is now, and ourselves as we are now; wherever and however we draw boundaries around our categories, there is a strong element of arbitrary imposition. 

Nothing is now obvious and spontaneous; everything is contested and a matter of choice. Hence ideology has displaced nature. 

What was once unconscious and happened naturally - isn't any more. 

In the past we found-ourselves and grew up immersed in a communal situation - which became primary. 

Our values were inculcated by mechanisms that were unconscious, spontaneous, natural - this was almost unavoidable. 

Not Any More.

At least from adolescence, if not before - we experience our-selves as individuals in a world of many options. Nothing is "given" because everything can be (and sooner or later is) brought to awareness, consciousness - so that we find ourselves standing outside of questions; questions that once were simply the-way-it-is.  

The problem with all politics as-is; is that it is based upon arbitrary - ideological - categories. 

However we cut-up reality in order to discuss it and make plans - we are confronted with the need for conscious choices about what is valid, what is good, what ought to be the aim. 

Hence ideology; which imposes these top-down, consciously; and then claims that doing-this has been necessary and real. 

Consider the apparently sensible maxim that it is better for us to "mind our own business" and not to meddle in the business of others.

Once we move from the business of our own spiritual life in the context of the everything, we are confronted by intermediate levels of analysis - and questions. 

Is our family our business? Is our street, village city, nation, region, civilization our business? There are arguments for each of these levels as genuinely impacting on our own business - so why stop at our civilization - why not include the world, the planet, the universe? 

Soon it seems that either everything is our business - or else nothing but our selves... and maybe our self isn't primarily our business; since plenty of people assert that our business is to "serve" other-people (or God). 

We might therefore conclude that we our-selves have no business at all; or else that our business is everything - or we may conclude that our business is our race, nation, or ideology!   

My point is that this matter of categories, drawing lines, making qualitative distinctions Just Is a matter requiring discernment, choices, commitments - such that in 2025 and the West the categories can no longer serve as the basis or justification for values...

So, it used to be possible to have one's clan or tribe or (small) nation as the basis for values - but it isn't any more; since before we can be "a nationalist" (or whatever) we have had to decide to make this our business. 

And this also applies to our religion.  

Yet in the past it certainly seems like these categories (clan, place, religion) really did have a primary reality - they were that from-which we argued, from-which our values emerged. 

Indeed; if we assume that our primary loyalties used-to-be unconscious, spontaneous, natural and communal - nowadays, for many people, this is lost - and the opposite is true!

Politics (in its many manifestations) is a reality, but a negative reality. 

In the past xenophobia was unconscious, spontaneous, natural - and (apparently) a necessary part of our natural and unavoidable positive affiliations to peoples, places, religions...

But nowadays xenophilia - love of the "other" is more common, more valued, and apparently more influential. 

And indeed difficult to avoid! Nearly everybody, me included, has a tendency to "idealize" some or another "foreign and hearsay kind of place, religion, grouping... (And often something about which we have only superficial or hearsay knowledge.) 

So; instead of the unconscious and spontaneous values of human history; we find-ourselves in a situation of multiple-choices and chosen-ideologies. 

We therefore ought to embrace and make-the-best-of the inevitable!

We should choose, take responsibility for our choices, and remain aware that we have chosen. 

Good politics is impossible in such situations - since all possible politics entails dishonesty about the nature and implications of its conclusions and assertions; it entails hiding and denying its own roots.  

It is therefore up to each of us, as individuals, to make these choices in the best possible way that we can envisage and attain; or else - since good politics is become impossible - we shall be the ones who suffer the consequences. 

Totalitarianism and/or Chaos: Ahrimanic backlash and/or Sorathic escalation in response to the latest global Litmus Test

The latest global Litmus Test (aka the most recent Establishment agenda theme) is playing-out negatively and for evil - as any change must, when not motivated by positive good. 

Whatever the original intent of the event and its propagation may have been, the existing Establishment power blocs are competing over what it implies.

Competing, often within different parts of the same media outlet! - as would be expected when there is a genuine schism and "civil war" within the Establishment.  

We need to be clear that in this war, both sides are of evil intent; but different types of evil. 

On one side, and this includes the political "Right" (actually, part of the Left); and this also includes the nationalistic "Christian Right" - there are the Ahrimanic totalitarians. 

These desire - first and foremost - an efficient and effective international System... A coherent political-bureaucracy-media complex. 

And the Ahrimanic totalitarians are trying to escalate and use the new Establishment agenda to make the System work better, mainly so-far by undoing some of the more egregious consequences of political correctness. 

This is the true nature of whatever is real in the "anti-woke" backlash assiduously reported by the mainstream sources. 

What motivates these System-reformers is a materialistic and this-worldly desire for a more comfortable, prosperous, and secure life (first and especially for themselves, and those of whom they approve). To be done by means of working-towards an effective and efficient System. 

This is why there is such a strong enthusiasm among such people, for ruthless coercion of individuals justified by "rational" objectives and "the common good." In other words: "enemies" are to be made to conform to the new rules of a better System.

For a truly Ahrimanic totalitarian, this coercion of conformity is done impersonally, without sadism - because it is the result of "objective" calculation of System necessity.  

In sum: For mainstream Establishment totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the System...

The only difference between the "Political Right" and the "Christian Right", is that the System to be ruthlessly imposed is intended to be one that is explicitly Christian in its forms: a Church System*. 

(Insofar as any totalitarian bureaucracy can really be Christian when it is intrinsically evil!)

Consequently; our old friend The Boromir Strategy is very much in evidence! 

The Political/ Christian Right advocate using the "weapons" of the enemy, including the psychological motivations of leftist materialism - rationalized by the excuse that this is the most effective way to win... 

Under the assumption that "our System winning" (by whatever means are judged to be expedient) is the same thing as "Good". 

In sum: For Christian totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the Church System...

Mixed-in with totalitarianism (of various stripes) - and sometimes dominant - is explicit expression (across the board, including the "Right", including among self-identified-Christians) of the characteristically "sadistic" emotions of spiteful Schadenfreude. 

In other words, we see the fingerprints of strengthening Sorathic Chaotic Evil.

This is motivated mainly by personal gratification at the sufferings and destruction of "enemies"; or, at first enemies... 

Instead of the impersonal and calculating Ahrimanic justification of coercive imposition for reasons of Systemic-necessity; the Sorathic "Right" will characteristically express positive pleasure in the "need" for imposing suffering on their enemies. 

They typically express delight at the prospect of the misery and destruction of those who will not conform to the new programme. 

...But later, as evil feeds-upon-itself, they will go on to enjoy the suffering and destructions of anybody and anything that opposes or ignores our personal interests and enjoyments.

(And finally the ultimately nihilistic destruction of divine creation - and at last, the suicidal annihilation of their own self; as something created by God.)  

In other words - because people are currently riled-up and feel free to express their dark and usually-secret motivations - we can currently observe the inevitable waxing of evil that happens when both "sides" are actually rival factions of the spiritual war that opposes God and Divine Creation. 

Both totalitarian and chaotic evil are, in their different but overlapping ways, de facto working towards the self-chosen damnation of self-righteous sinners. 

In other words, all varieties of evil are working towards an increase of the self-exclusion of the unrepentant from Heaven; which self-exclusion includes those unrepentant for whom this-worldly expediency is affirmed as primary...

Those for whom their superficial assertion of wanting a more-Christian world and future Heaven, has become an insincere excuse for advocating and doing More Evil Now.

**

*NOTE ADDED: I would like to clarify that I intend the term Church System - which I judge to be the large (or at least vociferous!) majority of Christians who identify with "the Right" or nationalism - to refer to those whose priority is System. here-and-now, in This World - and starting from where we actually are. I mean those many who, at worst (explicitly or covertly), regard their favoured Christian Church as the best or only means to what they really and most deeply want: which is an effective, efficient and "us"-orientated social System. 

(Looking back some 15-plus years; I can see that I was one of these at the time I converted to Christianity. I wanted what I hoped the right Church might do for society during my mortal life and those I love; more than I wanted to follow Jesus to Heaven.) 

I also mean the term Church Systematists to include others, less culpable perhaps, who - sincerely and without covertly-pursued primary self-interest - regard System as a necessary materialistic means to the salvific and next-worldly and spiritual end, of what the uncorrupted Christian Churches advocate. That is to say the Church System totalitarians include those who want System-reform first, to be followed (some unspecified time later) by top-down and imposed Christianization, made possible by the attainment of power (i.e. the Boromir Strategy). These are blind or foolish (if sincere), but not so strategically-bad as those who merely desire to use the Churches for material ends  

But I do Not mean to include in the Church System category, those real Christians who retain loyalty to the spiritual goals of their Church in its ideal form - those who, by discernment and personal evaluation, seek and follow the Christian Truth among the lies and expediencies of the totalitarian-affiliated human institutions of the actual Churches of 2025.  

Some Christian Churches yet retain the capacity to help individuals in their Christian Faith; with political considerations as secondary and derivative consequences of this primary faith. 

The evil propaganda of metaphysical personal insignificance

When looking back across what is known of human history; it is notable that whatever was the official and established religion of the past, and whatever is the atheistic materialism of the present - almost all of them share a fundamental, metaphysical, assumption that individual people are insignificant in the context of total reality. 

All these systems of religion or ideology seem to be united in an insistence that individual human beings cannot make any difference to the Big Picture in the Long Term.

Nonetheless, despite that individuals make no difference whatever they think/ say/ do - the conclusion is drawn that it is a sin, or dumb, or an insane delusion - but certainly a Bad Thing - if or when an individual believes that he does or can make a difference to eternal reality. 

What is recommended of each individual is always to recognize and accept his own ultimate insignificance; and therefore to strive for something like humility, servitude, obedience, self-abnegation. 

Despite vast differences between religions, and between religion and no-religion, and between ideologies - it is striking how they all nearly-always converge on this same assertion: 

"Ultimately, you don't matter. You need to accept this as a fact, and live accordingly."

So many millennia of anti-individual propaganda, hammering down on us throughout our lives, is indirect evidence that we have contrary innate, spontaneous, and instinctual conviction that we are personally significant, and we do matter as individuals; and that what we think, say and do, can make a difference to the Big Picture - and permanently. 

And that this difference may be positive. 

There is, I suggest, an inbuilt assumption that we, each of us personally, and alone; can potentially make total-reality Better. 

I don't think we need persuading of this, because it is a given. 

But we do need some kind of metaphysical explanation of how this could be true...*

(i.e. An explanation of just how I personally could contribute something unique, irreplaceable, and positive; to eternal reality.)

We need this especially; given that "all" the society-wide and available metaphysical explanations of history, seem to be dedicated to explaining how we personally are necessarily insignificant, and therefore cannot make any difference to reality...

(Or - maybe - explaining that, by believing in our personal significance and trying to contribute positively; we will necessarily be doing wrong, and making matters worse.)

Therefore, as so often; we need to seek an explanation for ourselves and to our own satisfaction - rather than seeking it ready made, from external sources, or to the satisfaction of social authorities. 

* An explanation of how it is true that we personally and alone can potentially contribute something positive, unique and eternal to divine creation; is a thing that my partly-self-developed metaphysical assumptions and Christian theology intends to accomplish: to my personal satisfaction, at least!

Note added: I would also state that I've noticed that some highly individualistic, eccentric, and creative people are among the most ardent advocates of standard/ off-the-peg/ incoherent metaphysical monism. I tend to assume that there is a psychological explanation for this - that it is a consequence of guilt. And perhaps also of trying to provide "cover" for that person's many violations of the metaphysical consequences of his supposedly fundamental beliefs - in a situation when that person cannot adequately explain his own nature and choices in terms of his own assumptions. What is instead needed is for such people really to examine the nature and basis of their metaphysical assumptions - but these are often dogmatically insisted-upon by the authorities that he most respects. In the end, something gives - as it must... 

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.