Following a meeting devoted to the subject; William discusses the concept of Albion:
Albion is first and foremost a country of the imagination. That doesn't mean it is not real. It's a spiritual counterpart to the land of Britain. In Platonic terms you might see it as an archetype though I use that term non-literally.
We will leave the debate as to how much of Britain and Ireland Albion comprises to others. For myself, being by blood half English, a quarter Scottish and a quarter Irish, I see it as centred in England but touching, though not incorporating, Caledonia and Hibernia (and Wales I'm sure!) which have their own spiritual identities.
But it is important to understand that on this level there is no conflict between angels of the land. Behind every real thing there is a being and I see Albion as not just the spirit of the land but also a great national angel.
Read the whole thing...
Monday, 14 October 2019
Proto-SJWs and virtue-signalling - The 'complex' characters in Anthony Trollope's Barchester Chronicles
I've been watching the 1982 BBC TV adaptation of volumes one and two of Anthony Trollope's Barchester Chronicles. These are set in a fictional idyllic English Cathedral city in the middle 1800s; and I found that I was expecting the characters to fit the usual stereotypes familiar from modern TV and movies.
But Trollope does something very interesting and unusual here. The story is about the activity of political radicals in Barchester who propose a variety of reforms to the church. The Church of England is depicted as staffed by idle, nepotistic and corrupt upper class men; who get large incomes for little or no work.
For example, the Warden gets 800 pounds income from a hospital for a dozen old men, a position that has no duties. The Canon of the Cathedral has been living the high life with his family in Italy for more than a decade.
As a result of the radicals activities, the hospital is doubled in size to include old women; and has a Sunday school added and regular church services. The Canon is made to return and work for his living.
This is exactly the kind of plot we are familiar with from countless dramas - corrupt conservatives versus idealistic leftists...
However, Trollope provides a rare - but realistic - twist; because the corrupt conservatives contain all the kindest, most sympathetic - most truly Christian characters. The Warden himself, Mr Harding, is almost a saint; the only person who is capable of loving self-sacrifice.
While by contrast the radicals are a mixed bunch of dislikable, or inconsistent, folk - as indicated by their Dickensian names. Dr Bold - a gullible idealist who betrays his wife's family to the rabble rousing London press; Mrs Proudie - the new Bishop's snobbish and tyrannical wife; and the Bishop himself - weak, vacillating, without principles. And the vastly odious Obidiah Slope - the Bishop's hypocritical and scheming Chaplain (played by Alan Rickman in his first big impact role).
The result is a state of complex ambiguity in which the 'cause' is separated from the nature of motivations of the people; in which apparently high ideals are shown to have adverse consequences, in which the pursuit of public good is a mask for a more cynical, and overall more damaging, form of corruption than that which it purports to address.
Mrs Proudie and Mr Bold can indeed be seen as proto-SJWs, engaging in early examples of what we currently term 'virtue signalling'!
In brief, Trollope succeeds in writing that rarest of stories - one in which the nice people are on the 'wrong' side, while those who hold all the 'right opinions' are shades of nasty. More importantly, Trollope has the ring of truth about it - and (broadly speaking) very probably represented the actual situation in that era.
As a real life example, reading Ralph Waldo Emerson in the pre US Civil War years, it is clear that the activist Abolitionists were a bunch of monomaniacal fanatics - either very boring, or psychopathically dangerous. The nice and kind people were nearly all on the side of the status quo. Indeed, Emerson had to overcome a strong personal repulsion against the Abolitionists before he could embrace the cause of anti-slavery. And, of course, the actual consequences of coercive abolition were, in many respects, extremely bad - not least the killing and maiming of a very high proportion of the population. Yet such realism has become intolerable to the modern mind - we must have our slavers as nasty, and our abolitionists as saints.
So we get the paradox that mainstream middlebrow Victoria story of small town, upper class life is more genuinely tough-minded and truthful than the grimy sordidness of modern productions. But then, modern people mock the up-front and principled Bowderlisations of Victorians (designed to protect the innocent), while dishonestly imposing their own censorship in favour of moral inversion and the corruption of children.
So it's all of a piece, really.
The slimy Mr Slope - low churchman and bachelor and proponent of puritanical public morality, gets rather too flirty with a married lady...
Review of The Transmigration of Timothy Archer by Philip K Dick (1982)
Although I have owned a copy of The Transmigration of Timothy Archer for nearly forty years; it was only this weekend that I actually 'read' it - that is, I listened to the audio-book version. I found it very stimulating.
The protagonist is a type that I thoroughly despise in real life: the 'trendy', leftist-radical, media-famous, apostate Christian bishop - indeed the central character was modelled on a real life example of the breed, who was apparently a friend of the author. However, such was the depth and multi-faceted nature of this book that my irritation took a second place behind my fascination at the issues and conflicts.
Although Dick was far more sympathetic to the Tim Archer character than I would have been - seeing him as a great man who did much good and whose quest was genuinely spiritual; overall the portrait is unsparing.
This includes the way that short-termist, hedonic, personal and selfish drives are retrospectively 'validated' by the intelligent and articulate (and legally trained) Archer; who fluently distorts philosophy and Christian theology into justifying whatever he currently wants to do. Also the ways in which the bishop is de facto a parasite upon the church in terms both of his status and also of lifestyle and financially.
Dick was a very smart and cerebral writer - in this respect much like Saul Bellow; there is a wide range of artistic and cultural references, and the engagement is sufficiently deep and sincere that the book comes-across as a genuine exploration (rather than a pretentious display of names). The novel doesn't merely discuss or talk-about, but actually does philosophy.
This is unsurprising given the extraordinary and frenzied nature of PKD's final years - during which he was continually grappling with spiritual and religious issues; reading, thinking, talking and staying-up through the night writing dozens of pages of exploratory philosophy - entirely for his personal reasons (not aimed at publication, although an edited selection of these writings was posthumously made available - in 2011 - as Exegesis).
Overall, this book succeeds in rendering the spiritual quest to know Jesus, to understand and practice Christianity, as a very exciting and supremely important business; a matter that grips and obsesses the characters. And this is surely a consequence of the fact that it was so for PK Dick himself - in late life.
Nobody - least of all Dick - would recommend anybody to emulate Dick's lifestyle and life choices, which were largely disastrous - but this books focus on important things. There is a relentless pursuit of truth, a sustained and repeated attention to primary questions... and these are of greater urgency now than when the book was written, since our culture has drifted so far into shallowness and despair, feeble motivation, brief-attention and gullibility.
Dick's attitude and world is only the start of wisdom for a person (a society) sunk in distraction and intoxication, but that is something we need now more than ever.
The protagonist is a type that I thoroughly despise in real life: the 'trendy', leftist-radical, media-famous, apostate Christian bishop - indeed the central character was modelled on a real life example of the breed, who was apparently a friend of the author. However, such was the depth and multi-faceted nature of this book that my irritation took a second place behind my fascination at the issues and conflicts.
Although Dick was far more sympathetic to the Tim Archer character than I would have been - seeing him as a great man who did much good and whose quest was genuinely spiritual; overall the portrait is unsparing.
This includes the way that short-termist, hedonic, personal and selfish drives are retrospectively 'validated' by the intelligent and articulate (and legally trained) Archer; who fluently distorts philosophy and Christian theology into justifying whatever he currently wants to do. Also the ways in which the bishop is de facto a parasite upon the church in terms both of his status and also of lifestyle and financially.
Dick was a very smart and cerebral writer - in this respect much like Saul Bellow; there is a wide range of artistic and cultural references, and the engagement is sufficiently deep and sincere that the book comes-across as a genuine exploration (rather than a pretentious display of names). The novel doesn't merely discuss or talk-about, but actually does philosophy.
This is unsurprising given the extraordinary and frenzied nature of PKD's final years - during which he was continually grappling with spiritual and religious issues; reading, thinking, talking and staying-up through the night writing dozens of pages of exploratory philosophy - entirely for his personal reasons (not aimed at publication, although an edited selection of these writings was posthumously made available - in 2011 - as Exegesis).
Overall, this book succeeds in rendering the spiritual quest to know Jesus, to understand and practice Christianity, as a very exciting and supremely important business; a matter that grips and obsesses the characters. And this is surely a consequence of the fact that it was so for PK Dick himself - in late life.
Nobody - least of all Dick - would recommend anybody to emulate Dick's lifestyle and life choices, which were largely disastrous - but this books focus on important things. There is a relentless pursuit of truth, a sustained and repeated attention to primary questions... and these are of greater urgency now than when the book was written, since our culture has drifted so far into shallowness and despair, feeble motivation, brief-attention and gullibility.
Dick's attitude and world is only the start of wisdom for a person (a society) sunk in distraction and intoxication, but that is something we need now more than ever.
Sunday, 13 October 2019
Did Jesus complete his work? Matthew and Luke say no; the Fourth Gospel (of John) says yes
One major difference between the Fourth Gospel and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; is that the Fourth Gospel account is one of Jesus finishing his job after his resurrection and ascension.
We are told that Jesus has completed his work. Nothing more needs to be done - except for each person to choose whether or not to follow Jesus.
Whereas Matthew and Luke, with their assertion of a second coming, assert that the ascended Jesus had done only half the job.
The job would be finished only with the second coming of Christ.
Furthermore, the Acts of the Apostles (continuing Luke), and Paul's Epistles also assert that the efforts of Men - by teaching and organising, are needed in order to complete the work of Jesus.
By my understanding, both cannot be correct.
(Note: I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the correct teaching.)
We are told that Jesus has completed his work. Nothing more needs to be done - except for each person to choose whether or not to follow Jesus.
Whereas Matthew and Luke, with their assertion of a second coming, assert that the ascended Jesus had done only half the job.
The job would be finished only with the second coming of Christ.
Furthermore, the Acts of the Apostles (continuing Luke), and Paul's Epistles also assert that the efforts of Men - by teaching and organising, are needed in order to complete the work of Jesus.
By my understanding, both cannot be correct.
(Note: I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the correct teaching.)
God's ethical problem: consequences of God making our primordial spirits into Children of God, without our consent
My understanding (mostly derived from Mormon theology) is that human beings began as what could be called primordial spirits - which had existed from eternity; and the first step in our development was to become Sons and Daughters of God.
That was God's most important act of creation, because it was the first step towards Men potentially becoming divine, mini-gods of the same kind as the resurrected and ascended Jesus.
The ethical problem, as I see it, is that as primrdial spirits we could not, therefore did not, consent to being made children of God. We could not consent because, until we became children of God, we were not capable of consent.
As primordial spirits we were incapable of understanding what it meant to become children of God, therefore it was something done to us.
We had first to become children of God, before we were able to consent to or choose anything; therefore it was an essential first step - nonetheless, that first step was coercive.
To put this in a nutshell; God bestowed consciousness upon us. This consciousness then made it possible for us to be agents, to have free will. Until there was consciousness, we could not choose to be conscious - therefore we were compelled, by God, to become conscious.
There is a close analogy with raising children - here in our mortal lives. Parents have to begin by doing things to children - without the child's consent. Good parenting entails considerable compulsion.
A young child is (at least quantitatively) unable to consent; and it is not until later in development that consent becomes possible (for some, not all, people).
The factor that transcends the compulsion and 'makes it good' is love. When the parent is behaving with love, the compulsion is taken-up by the greater reality of love and seen as a means to the ends of love.
But if love is denied, or was not present, then we are left with the perception of plain compulsion of the child by the parents; with the parent merely compelling the child to follow the parent's agenda.
Only during adolescence, does a child becomes able to consent; and an adolescent will often become (implicitly or explicitly) aware that much of their childhood entailed compulsion. They may see this as having been necessary and done with love; or they may instead conclude that they have been oppressed or exploited by their parents.
The adolescent coming-into adulthood may choose consciously to return to a loving relationship with parents; or may choose to sever all ties and reject the parents.
The fact of compulsion during development therefore necessarily (and rightly) leads to a crux, a time of decision. The parent makes a decision on behalf of the child; but for the situation to become right the mature child needs to endorse the parental decision.
This happens in an ultimate and divine sense. We must, sooner or later, decide whether we endorse the decision of God coercively to make us his children - or reject it.
I think it is the result of this choice that leads people to Heaven or not. To choose Heaven means to endorse God's decision, to be grateful for consciousness, to regard God as having been motivated by love. It means to dwell with God in divine creation, and to participate - whether passively, actively and fully - or something in-between - in that continuous work of creation.
(It can be seen how such an understanding of Heaven depends on the situation of love.)
To choose hell means that we resent God's choice, we regard it as having been made un-lovingly, for God's own purposes with which we disagree. Hell is the denial that God acted with love, or the denial that love is a sufficient reason for God to act.
This hell is what happens when a person is angry at God, at God's primal act of 'making' us his child. It is to accept the consciousness that was bestowed by God, but to reject God's purpose for which consciousness was bestowed.
To choose hell therefore means that we choose to retain our consciousness and agency - despite its having being forced-upon us; but (motivated by hatred and resentment against God) to use this consciousness in opposition to God's purposes.
Hell is to use our powers of agency against the agenda of God - and instead for our own agenda.
There is another possibility. Some people dislike being conscious, and therefore would prefer to reverse the act of bestowing Sons and Daughters of God. This is broadly the choice of people that may be Hindus or Buddhists. They disagree with God's agenda of raising Men to a divine level of Being; and instead prefer to revert to the primordial state of Being. Being without awareness - simply being.
In principle this choice may well be made with full acknowledgement of God's loving intentions; but simply based on the conviction that 'consciousness is not for me'. God has made us his children, made us conscious - and as spiritual adolescents we say 'Thanks, but no thanks; I would rather not become divine'.
To such persons, God (I believe) offers Nirvana - which is a reversion to the primordial state of minimal consciousness, but dwelling in a situation of divine love, of 'bliss'. Simply being, moment by moment, unchanging, in a pleasant and comfortable state.
(Hence the impersonality, the foundational abstraction of 'Eastern' religions. It somes from the preference not to be persons, not to relate to God as a person - because these depend on consciousness.)
In sum, there is a moral problem at the heart of divine creation; which is the moment in our personal history when we were made children of God.
This was unavoidable; but the problem is dealt with when we each must later choose how we regard this act of bestowing consciousness, how we interpret it, what to do about it...
Then there will be (it is unavoidable) a decision - which we can now make, being agents with free will: the decison whether to accept the agenda of spiritual development towards divinity for which God made us consciousness; or to reject it.
And if we reject it; the decision whether we then consciously fight against God's agenda (since we regard God as selfishly-motivated); or simply opt-out of being Sons or Daughters of God - handing-back to God his unwanted gift of consciousness.
That was God's most important act of creation, because it was the first step towards Men potentially becoming divine, mini-gods of the same kind as the resurrected and ascended Jesus.
The ethical problem, as I see it, is that as primrdial spirits we could not, therefore did not, consent to being made children of God. We could not consent because, until we became children of God, we were not capable of consent.
As primordial spirits we were incapable of understanding what it meant to become children of God, therefore it was something done to us.
We had first to become children of God, before we were able to consent to or choose anything; therefore it was an essential first step - nonetheless, that first step was coercive.
To put this in a nutshell; God bestowed consciousness upon us. This consciousness then made it possible for us to be agents, to have free will. Until there was consciousness, we could not choose to be conscious - therefore we were compelled, by God, to become conscious.
There is a close analogy with raising children - here in our mortal lives. Parents have to begin by doing things to children - without the child's consent. Good parenting entails considerable compulsion.
A young child is (at least quantitatively) unable to consent; and it is not until later in development that consent becomes possible (for some, not all, people).
The factor that transcends the compulsion and 'makes it good' is love. When the parent is behaving with love, the compulsion is taken-up by the greater reality of love and seen as a means to the ends of love.
But if love is denied, or was not present, then we are left with the perception of plain compulsion of the child by the parents; with the parent merely compelling the child to follow the parent's agenda.
Only during adolescence, does a child becomes able to consent; and an adolescent will often become (implicitly or explicitly) aware that much of their childhood entailed compulsion. They may see this as having been necessary and done with love; or they may instead conclude that they have been oppressed or exploited by their parents.
The adolescent coming-into adulthood may choose consciously to return to a loving relationship with parents; or may choose to sever all ties and reject the parents.
The fact of compulsion during development therefore necessarily (and rightly) leads to a crux, a time of decision. The parent makes a decision on behalf of the child; but for the situation to become right the mature child needs to endorse the parental decision.
This happens in an ultimate and divine sense. We must, sooner or later, decide whether we endorse the decision of God coercively to make us his children - or reject it.
I think it is the result of this choice that leads people to Heaven or not. To choose Heaven means to endorse God's decision, to be grateful for consciousness, to regard God as having been motivated by love. It means to dwell with God in divine creation, and to participate - whether passively, actively and fully - or something in-between - in that continuous work of creation.
(It can be seen how such an understanding of Heaven depends on the situation of love.)
To choose hell means that we resent God's choice, we regard it as having been made un-lovingly, for God's own purposes with which we disagree. Hell is the denial that God acted with love, or the denial that love is a sufficient reason for God to act.
This hell is what happens when a person is angry at God, at God's primal act of 'making' us his child. It is to accept the consciousness that was bestowed by God, but to reject God's purpose for which consciousness was bestowed.
To choose hell therefore means that we choose to retain our consciousness and agency - despite its having being forced-upon us; but (motivated by hatred and resentment against God) to use this consciousness in opposition to God's purposes.
Hell is to use our powers of agency against the agenda of God - and instead for our own agenda.
There is another possibility. Some people dislike being conscious, and therefore would prefer to reverse the act of bestowing Sons and Daughters of God. This is broadly the choice of people that may be Hindus or Buddhists. They disagree with God's agenda of raising Men to a divine level of Being; and instead prefer to revert to the primordial state of Being. Being without awareness - simply being.
In principle this choice may well be made with full acknowledgement of God's loving intentions; but simply based on the conviction that 'consciousness is not for me'. God has made us his children, made us conscious - and as spiritual adolescents we say 'Thanks, but no thanks; I would rather not become divine'.
To such persons, God (I believe) offers Nirvana - which is a reversion to the primordial state of minimal consciousness, but dwelling in a situation of divine love, of 'bliss'. Simply being, moment by moment, unchanging, in a pleasant and comfortable state.
(Hence the impersonality, the foundational abstraction of 'Eastern' religions. It somes from the preference not to be persons, not to relate to God as a person - because these depend on consciousness.)
In sum, there is a moral problem at the heart of divine creation; which is the moment in our personal history when we were made children of God.
This was unavoidable; but the problem is dealt with when we each must later choose how we regard this act of bestowing consciousness, how we interpret it, what to do about it...
Then there will be (it is unavoidable) a decision - which we can now make, being agents with free will: the decison whether to accept the agenda of spiritual development towards divinity for which God made us consciousness; or to reject it.
And if we reject it; the decision whether we then consciously fight against God's agenda (since we regard God as selfishly-motivated); or simply opt-out of being Sons or Daughters of God - handing-back to God his unwanted gift of consciousness.
Saturday, 12 October 2019
Eternal life - what does it entail? (considering that Beings are eternal, anyway)
Just below the surface; it is a puzzle that Jesus promises eternal life; when life is, apparently, already eternal. Souls do not die, and both Jews and pagans of Jesus's time (or leading up to that era) assumed that souls continued in a kind of underworld. What, then was so special about everlasting life?
What is being offered by Jesus is that we our-selves will live eternally - and that this includes resurrection, a permanent restoration of the body. Because - for both Jews and pagans - what of us that persisted in the underworld after we have died was no longer our-self.
The implication is that for we our-selves to live forever requires that bodies (our bodies) must also live forever.
This can't happen with our mortal bodies; they never were suitable for eternal use - from conception and birth there are problems, and through life these accumulate, and we die. So a permanent body must be another one that is (in some sense) the same as the mortal one, but not the same one.
This isn't really any mystery or paradox - because each person's identity (our identity) is based upon the linear continuity of our-selves through time. So resurrection is understandable as the continuity of our selves, souls, from eternity - going through a phase of mortal incarnation which is (for some reason that we don't understand) developmentally-necessary for the development of a resurrected body.
So, these are the necessary developmental stages of a Man. We must go-through these phases - spirit, mortal body, immortal body - if we want to become eternal selves...
But the essence of the necessity of Jesus's life (i.e. why Jesus was needed) is that the 'final' stage - of transition from mortal to immortal body - is one that requires our conscious assent; unlike earleir stages, resurrection does not 'just happen'.
We must want it, and we must want it in a particular way that includes wanting the consequences of it; which means that resurrected life eternal is not just about our-personal-selves living forever; but about the fact that to have this is to become gods - and participating in the 'ongoing work of creation'.
The two go together - resurrection and participation in creation; which is a clue to the fact that resurrection is itself an aspect of ongoing creation.
What is being offered by Jesus is that we our-selves will live eternally - and that this includes resurrection, a permanent restoration of the body. Because - for both Jews and pagans - what of us that persisted in the underworld after we have died was no longer our-self.
The implication is that for we our-selves to live forever requires that bodies (our bodies) must also live forever.
This can't happen with our mortal bodies; they never were suitable for eternal use - from conception and birth there are problems, and through life these accumulate, and we die. So a permanent body must be another one that is (in some sense) the same as the mortal one, but not the same one.
This isn't really any mystery or paradox - because each person's identity (our identity) is based upon the linear continuity of our-selves through time. So resurrection is understandable as the continuity of our selves, souls, from eternity - going through a phase of mortal incarnation which is (for some reason that we don't understand) developmentally-necessary for the development of a resurrected body.
So, these are the necessary developmental stages of a Man. We must go-through these phases - spirit, mortal body, immortal body - if we want to become eternal selves...
But the essence of the necessity of Jesus's life (i.e. why Jesus was needed) is that the 'final' stage - of transition from mortal to immortal body - is one that requires our conscious assent; unlike earleir stages, resurrection does not 'just happen'.
We must want it, and we must want it in a particular way that includes wanting the consequences of it; which means that resurrected life eternal is not just about our-personal-selves living forever; but about the fact that to have this is to become gods - and participating in the 'ongoing work of creation'.
The two go together - resurrection and participation in creation; which is a clue to the fact that resurrection is itself an aspect of ongoing creation.
Friday, 11 October 2019
Atheism is the libertarianism of spiritual ecology
Atheists and Libertarians are both on the side of the mainstream of public discourse; that is, on the side of the Global Establishment, the mass media, and the interlinked bureaucracy - with their agenda of a single, totalitarian System of value-inversion.
Taken seriously, atheist assumptions would lead to paralysing despair - perhaps as the terminus of a brief phase of psychopathic hedonism.
But atheism never is taken seriously in public discourse; because all atheists are hypocrites - at root, because that there is no such thing as the sin of hypocrisy from an atheist perspective. In sum, there are no sincere atheists.
(Any atheist that did take atheism seriously would not participate in public discourse, would - indeed - keep his atheism secret; and would soon be dead. So we would never know about him.)
This is the same as libertarianism: there are no sincere libertarians. All libertarians are either hypocritical and self-contradicting; or else (usually, nearly always) they sell-out, as soon as it is expedient for them to do so. Why not?
(Libertarianism is just a career strategy - a bit like forming a start-up company in hope that you will become successful enough to be bought-out by one of the industry giants.)
I think these facts are widely known - but come up against the question If Not, Then What? It seems that most modern people have pre-decided the answer must be 'Anything but Christianity' then they have painted themselves into a corner.
Until they recognise that Christianity is the answer, and set about finding out just how it is the answer; they are stuck in a hopeless trap, forever.
Note: I have been both an atheist - most of my life; and a libertarian - late 90s to mid-2000s.
Taken seriously, atheist assumptions would lead to paralysing despair - perhaps as the terminus of a brief phase of psychopathic hedonism.
But atheism never is taken seriously in public discourse; because all atheists are hypocrites - at root, because that there is no such thing as the sin of hypocrisy from an atheist perspective. In sum, there are no sincere atheists.
(Any atheist that did take atheism seriously would not participate in public discourse, would - indeed - keep his atheism secret; and would soon be dead. So we would never know about him.)
This is the same as libertarianism: there are no sincere libertarians. All libertarians are either hypocritical and self-contradicting; or else (usually, nearly always) they sell-out, as soon as it is expedient for them to do so. Why not?
(Libertarianism is just a career strategy - a bit like forming a start-up company in hope that you will become successful enough to be bought-out by one of the industry giants.)
I think these facts are widely known - but come up against the question If Not, Then What? It seems that most modern people have pre-decided the answer must be 'Anything but Christianity' then they have painted themselves into a corner.
Until they recognise that Christianity is the answer, and set about finding out just how it is the answer; they are stuck in a hopeless trap, forever.
Note: I have been both an atheist - most of my life; and a libertarian - late 90s to mid-2000s.
Thursday, 10 October 2019
Extinction Rebellion/ Climate Emergency is 'divide and rule': the Establishment trolling the masses - and what else?
The top-down organised and funded pseudo-protests (in support of the Global Establishment) called Extinction 'Rebellion' (part of the so-called Climate Emergency) represent a clear example of the modern rulers at work.
The primary effect is to create resentment and conflict among the population. And this, of course, benefits the rulers - on Machiavellian grounds of divide-and-rule. So that is one tick.
The other tick is that the protesters are asking for something which there is literally zero chance of the Establishment doing; which is to dismantle or destroy (immediately, as a matter of emergency) the entirety of the structure of the modern global economy and governance.
This would - if done, which it certainly won't be - lead, very quickly, to the deaths of several billion people.
(Hence the names: Extinction as a matter of Emergency, on the excuse of a Climate Rebellion.)
Now giga-death would, of itself, not trouble the people that run the planet - indeed, They might well regard it as a plus.
But in destroying the world economic system They would also destroy the apparatus of totalitarian government; the escalating system of omni-surveillance and micro-control. And that, They are Not going to do.
So why did They dream up, fund and implement this 'protest'? What do They want?
They will say -
"You beg Us to dismantle the world economy - Yes, We want to do it, We will do it! Give Us the power, please... (Ah nice...) Thanks very much...
"Now We need to monitor and control everything that has to do with Carbon Dioxide or that can tenuously be linked to heat production... Is that OK?... Yes? Thanks.
"The System is in-place. Job Done.
[Faint voices, barely discernable... something about 'the climate', murmers about 'sustainable environment'...]
"You will all shut-up and listen, or else:
"From this moment onwards We will be telling You what to think, do, and believe..."
Full Stop. Double Underline.
The primary effect is to create resentment and conflict among the population. And this, of course, benefits the rulers - on Machiavellian grounds of divide-and-rule. So that is one tick.
The other tick is that the protesters are asking for something which there is literally zero chance of the Establishment doing; which is to dismantle or destroy (immediately, as a matter of emergency) the entirety of the structure of the modern global economy and governance.
This would - if done, which it certainly won't be - lead, very quickly, to the deaths of several billion people.
(Hence the names: Extinction as a matter of Emergency, on the excuse of a Climate Rebellion.)
Now giga-death would, of itself, not trouble the people that run the planet - indeed, They might well regard it as a plus.
But in destroying the world economic system They would also destroy the apparatus of totalitarian government; the escalating system of omni-surveillance and micro-control. And that, They are Not going to do.
So why did They dream up, fund and implement this 'protest'? What do They want?
They will say -
"You beg Us to dismantle the world economy - Yes, We want to do it, We will do it! Give Us the power, please... (Ah nice...) Thanks very much...
"Now We need to monitor and control everything that has to do with Carbon Dioxide or that can tenuously be linked to heat production... Is that OK?... Yes? Thanks.
"The System is in-place. Job Done.
[Faint voices, barely discernable... something about 'the climate', murmers about 'sustainable environment'...]
"You will all shut-up and listen, or else:
"From this moment onwards We will be telling You what to think, do, and believe..."
Full Stop. Double Underline.
Brexit report: Single-issue Remaining seems to be impossible
The longer the EU-UK Establishment resistance to Brexit drags-out the process - or sabotages it (as is quite likely) - the clearer it is that the forces of totalitarian evil really have lined-up solidly in support of Britain Remaining in the EU.
The out-and-out demonic servants seem to be unable to find any way At All of being in favour of a real, hard Brexit. The best they can manage is to support one or another version of Brexit-in-name-only, or temporary-reversible Brexit.
This is valuable knowledge.
I am even beginning to think that the way that the Brexit-blockers have displayed with crystalline clarity - day after day for more than three years - their hatred for the British people, their totalitarian methods and motivations, their dishonesty and corruption - has been all-to-the-good.
The absolute vileness of the UK ruling classes is now sure and certain for those with eyes to see - whereas until 2016 they were sufficiently hidden to be deniable.
It seems that Brexit would be a real, solid, unavoidable setback for the Establishment totalitarian plan. I don't mean they could not overcome it, but that Brexit is - it must be, from their behaviour - a genuine problem for unrolling and implementing the devil-worshipping-paedophile agenda of value inversion and self-damnation. Hmm...
I am rather surprised at this. I knew - it was obvious - that the Establishment were against Brexit; but I did not know that they were so strongly against it that - apparently - they would find no way around an actual Brexit without considerable delay and diversion.
My conclusion is that Britain (out of the EU) is - either actually, or potentially - much more important in the resistance to the triumph of Satan than would be guessed from the feebly-motivated atheism and media-addicted hedonism of the mass of the UK population.
Who would have guessed it? There must be more to us than meets the eye!
The out-and-out demonic servants seem to be unable to find any way At All of being in favour of a real, hard Brexit. The best they can manage is to support one or another version of Brexit-in-name-only, or temporary-reversible Brexit.
This is valuable knowledge.
I am even beginning to think that the way that the Brexit-blockers have displayed with crystalline clarity - day after day for more than three years - their hatred for the British people, their totalitarian methods and motivations, their dishonesty and corruption - has been all-to-the-good.
The absolute vileness of the UK ruling classes is now sure and certain for those with eyes to see - whereas until 2016 they were sufficiently hidden to be deniable.
It seems that Brexit would be a real, solid, unavoidable setback for the Establishment totalitarian plan. I don't mean they could not overcome it, but that Brexit is - it must be, from their behaviour - a genuine problem for unrolling and implementing the devil-worshipping-paedophile agenda of value inversion and self-damnation. Hmm...
I am rather surprised at this. I knew - it was obvious - that the Establishment were against Brexit; but I did not know that they were so strongly against it that - apparently - they would find no way around an actual Brexit without considerable delay and diversion.
My conclusion is that Britain (out of the EU) is - either actually, or potentially - much more important in the resistance to the triumph of Satan than would be guessed from the feebly-motivated atheism and media-addicted hedonism of the mass of the UK population.
Who would have guessed it? There must be more to us than meets the eye!
'Failing' as a Christian
It is important that Christians understand how to interpret their failures in life - or else the response to failing can wreck the purpose of life.
One way failure wrecks a life is when - instead of acknowledging the failure, and repenting it - the person tells himself that it was Not a failure; and ends-up arguing and propagandising that it is not a failure - hence, the failure is asserted to be a virtue, instead of a sin.
This is moral inversion - the reversal of Good and evil, and probably the worst of all forms of evil; and it probably afflicts more people here and now (in numbers and as a proportion) than ever before in human history.
Another way that failure wrecks a life is when it is assumed that each failure to live by the ideal standards (e.g. never to sin) or to live in the ideal way (e.g. always to be at the highest level of consciousness) invalidates the ideal.
The way it goes is that: "Since I am incapable of perfection, I am a fraud; since my life is not wholly transformed by my faith - my faith is a sham. Because Christianity cannot abolish sin in me (or him, or her) it is useless. No matter how hard I try, I always keep failing; therefore it is futile to try."
These problems arise from a wrong understanding of the nature and function of this mortal life. What has been very helpful for me to recognise is that this mortal life comes between a pre-mortal eternity in which we were spirits (without bodies) and a post-mortal eternity in which we will be (those of us to choose it) resurrected immortal incarnates (with bodies).
This life is a finite period sandwiched between two 'infinities' - it is therefore not intended to be a permanent, fixed, or perfect mode.
If that is the structure of our life - past, present and future - what then is the function of this finite mortal segment that we are living now?
It is a time of experiencing and learning. And in order to experience, we will need a range of experiences - depending on our individual needs. In order to learn we will need some repeated experiences, we will also need new experiences.
Since learning is primarily directed at the eternity of post-mortal life; the outcomes in this finite mortal life are not, therefore, of a permanent, steady kind during this life. Therefore, current mortal life is not supposed to be an ideal state - or rather, the ideal mortal life is one that offers us the experiences we most need to learn-from. And these will seldom be unvarying ideality...
Indeed, mortal life has impermanence built-into it - there are many kinds of change; there is development, degeneration, disease, and death. For each person, his own 'baseline' is constantly changing - due to such processes.
The situation of mortal life is set-up to provide learning experiences; therefore it is Not set-up to provide the possibility of a life without failure.
Indeed, a mortal life without failure would (nearly always) be a failure as a mortal life!
Therefore Christians really should not be cast-down by failures as such; by imperfection as such; by the inevitability of sin, of change (including decline), of our absolute incapacity to live life to the fullest and at the highest level...
When we understand the nature and function of this, our mortal life; these become features, not bugs.
Note added from the comments: It is because we need to learn from failing that we are alive. If we could live without failing - there would be no need to live.
One way failure wrecks a life is when - instead of acknowledging the failure, and repenting it - the person tells himself that it was Not a failure; and ends-up arguing and propagandising that it is not a failure - hence, the failure is asserted to be a virtue, instead of a sin.
This is moral inversion - the reversal of Good and evil, and probably the worst of all forms of evil; and it probably afflicts more people here and now (in numbers and as a proportion) than ever before in human history.
Another way that failure wrecks a life is when it is assumed that each failure to live by the ideal standards (e.g. never to sin) or to live in the ideal way (e.g. always to be at the highest level of consciousness) invalidates the ideal.
The way it goes is that: "Since I am incapable of perfection, I am a fraud; since my life is not wholly transformed by my faith - my faith is a sham. Because Christianity cannot abolish sin in me (or him, or her) it is useless. No matter how hard I try, I always keep failing; therefore it is futile to try."
These problems arise from a wrong understanding of the nature and function of this mortal life. What has been very helpful for me to recognise is that this mortal life comes between a pre-mortal eternity in which we were spirits (without bodies) and a post-mortal eternity in which we will be (those of us to choose it) resurrected immortal incarnates (with bodies).
This life is a finite period sandwiched between two 'infinities' - it is therefore not intended to be a permanent, fixed, or perfect mode.
If that is the structure of our life - past, present and future - what then is the function of this finite mortal segment that we are living now?
It is a time of experiencing and learning. And in order to experience, we will need a range of experiences - depending on our individual needs. In order to learn we will need some repeated experiences, we will also need new experiences.
Since learning is primarily directed at the eternity of post-mortal life; the outcomes in this finite mortal life are not, therefore, of a permanent, steady kind during this life. Therefore, current mortal life is not supposed to be an ideal state - or rather, the ideal mortal life is one that offers us the experiences we most need to learn-from. And these will seldom be unvarying ideality...
Indeed, mortal life has impermanence built-into it - there are many kinds of change; there is development, degeneration, disease, and death. For each person, his own 'baseline' is constantly changing - due to such processes.
The situation of mortal life is set-up to provide learning experiences; therefore it is Not set-up to provide the possibility of a life without failure.
Indeed, a mortal life without failure would (nearly always) be a failure as a mortal life!
Therefore Christians really should not be cast-down by failures as such; by imperfection as such; by the inevitability of sin, of change (including decline), of our absolute incapacity to live life to the fullest and at the highest level...
When we understand the nature and function of this, our mortal life; these become features, not bugs.
Note added from the comments: It is because we need to learn from failing that we are alive. If we could live without failing - there would be no need to live.
Wednesday, 9 October 2019
Unreliable Prophecy
The problem with prophecy is that - when it is made public - it never seems to come true; or - even when some would interpret it as validated; prophecy never seems to do any good.
I have read many sincere, detailed prophecies made over the past fifty years or so; and they are often completely wrong - as wrong as it is possible to be.
There were, for example, from the 1970s - 1990s (and again leading up to 2012) many channelled messages about an imminent landing of aliens on earth and the consequences, and multiple predictions of an imminent planetary breakthrough to a higher 'frequency/ vibrational' level of consciousness. Didn't happen.
The only valid prophecy I have encountered has been Rudolf Steiner's of 1918 - about which I have written extensively. Perhaps significantly this was a pessimistic prophecy - about what bad things would happen if Western man continued to reject the reality of the spiritual; if we continued to assume the truth of materialism. And even in 1918 this was an extrapolation of a century-plus trend.
But Steiner's main prophecy - of the Second Coming of Christ in c1933, was completely wrong - at many levels. Instead of Christ we got Hitler as Chancellor - although Anthroposophists actually interpret Hitler as a demonic reaction against the Second Coming. But if the 1918 prophecy is straightforwardly true, then the Second Coming prophecy is falsified by the same common sense criteria.
Another of Steiner's main prophecies was that Ahriman (Satan, the Antichrist) would be incarnated in c2000 - so I suppose that remains a possibility, although I think we might have noticed by now?
But from Steiner we can see that being A Prophet does not mean that one is correct about most things, most of the time. And if only a small percentage of statements are accurate - and we don't know which percent until afterwards - then this really isn't much use.
There are several ways by which, it has been suggested, God could enable prophecy. But the question is why he would want to do this.
Prophecy essentially assumes divine planning to a timetable. And why would God (at least the Christian God) want to do that? And if he did, why would he want people to know about it. And if he did want people to know about it - why choose a human prophet as the mechanism - and expect the message to be accurately disseminated and understood?
There is no doubt that - through the ages - there has been a fascination with prophecies. But public, objective, social prophecy is beginning to strike me as a wrong idea at root. It may be a fascination - one I personally feel pretty strongly; but that fascination may be idle or evil rather than good.
I can certainly see the value in personal prophecy - among family, friends and the like. This can serve a function of retrospective validation - as apparently happened among Jesus's disciples when after his resurrection, they recalled some relevant prophecies. But something goes terribly wrong when these are made public, with 'general prophecy', when prophecies are made into objective statements, applicable to 'all'; when they are supposed to affect public policy.
Indeed, the most convincing stories of prophecy are when The Public disbelieve and ignore The Prophet, but a much smaller group of the prophet's family, friends, followers do believe; and these 'believers' are able to escape some prophesied disaster.
A good example is at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, when the prophet Lehi are ignored by the authorities, but he and his family escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Or in fiction when, in Watership Down, the shaman rabbit Fiver predicts the destruction of the burrow, is ognored by teh chief rabbit, but escapes with his brother and a small group of followers.
I am certainly guilty, many times over, of worrying about what the future holds in general terms unless... or of trying to avert one or another prophecy. But surely this is a fault? Surely I ought to be discerning what I ought to do now - and (so far as possible) setting aside what might (but probably will not) happen as a consequence?
Or, if I did recieve a real prophecy, then this would surely not be about anything large scale - but about what should happen to myself or my family; something I can directly affect: where my personal decision is significant.
Like most people, I want to be reassured that If I do X, then Y will eventuate; but we know that it is seldom possible really to know what will happen - too many factors impinge. Most importantly, all people (all Beings) have agency, and are capable of choosing. In principle, conscious behaviour cannot be known in advance - only guessed.
And therefore what we ought to do, ought not primarily to be aimed at consequences - especially when we know what it is right to do regardless of consequences. That seems the case in real prophecy - the future is not known with any great precision; but what ought to be done is clear.
We may, if we are sincere, come to understand the reality of our situation - and this will include what we personally should do in consequence. To get back to that broadly-fulfilled 1918 prophecy of Steiner - we may reasonably infer that the bad consequences happened for broadly the reasons Steiner stated 100 years ago. But we only knew that for sure in (perhaps) the past generation or two; many decades after the prophecy was made.
And what we do not know is the consequences that would actually eventuate from here-and-now if we (from this point) did what Steiner rrecommended and remedied the defects Steiner outlined... If we (you and me, other people) regarded the spiritual realm as real, developed a more frequent and intense awareness of the spiritual realm etc. What effect would this have?
In sum, even if we know that the prophecy was true, and what we ought to do about it - this does not tell us what would happen if we actually went ahead and did it. If (for example) there was a general recognition that 'Steiner was right after all!' (at least, in that particular lecture of 1918).
What then: what would be the resulting consequences?
It seems we would need yet another prophecy!
I have read many sincere, detailed prophecies made over the past fifty years or so; and they are often completely wrong - as wrong as it is possible to be.
There were, for example, from the 1970s - 1990s (and again leading up to 2012) many channelled messages about an imminent landing of aliens on earth and the consequences, and multiple predictions of an imminent planetary breakthrough to a higher 'frequency/ vibrational' level of consciousness. Didn't happen.
The only valid prophecy I have encountered has been Rudolf Steiner's of 1918 - about which I have written extensively. Perhaps significantly this was a pessimistic prophecy - about what bad things would happen if Western man continued to reject the reality of the spiritual; if we continued to assume the truth of materialism. And even in 1918 this was an extrapolation of a century-plus trend.
But Steiner's main prophecy - of the Second Coming of Christ in c1933, was completely wrong - at many levels. Instead of Christ we got Hitler as Chancellor - although Anthroposophists actually interpret Hitler as a demonic reaction against the Second Coming. But if the 1918 prophecy is straightforwardly true, then the Second Coming prophecy is falsified by the same common sense criteria.
Another of Steiner's main prophecies was that Ahriman (Satan, the Antichrist) would be incarnated in c2000 - so I suppose that remains a possibility, although I think we might have noticed by now?
But from Steiner we can see that being A Prophet does not mean that one is correct about most things, most of the time. And if only a small percentage of statements are accurate - and we don't know which percent until afterwards - then this really isn't much use.
There are several ways by which, it has been suggested, God could enable prophecy. But the question is why he would want to do this.
Prophecy essentially assumes divine planning to a timetable. And why would God (at least the Christian God) want to do that? And if he did, why would he want people to know about it. And if he did want people to know about it - why choose a human prophet as the mechanism - and expect the message to be accurately disseminated and understood?
There is no doubt that - through the ages - there has been a fascination with prophecies. But public, objective, social prophecy is beginning to strike me as a wrong idea at root. It may be a fascination - one I personally feel pretty strongly; but that fascination may be idle or evil rather than good.
I can certainly see the value in personal prophecy - among family, friends and the like. This can serve a function of retrospective validation - as apparently happened among Jesus's disciples when after his resurrection, they recalled some relevant prophecies. But something goes terribly wrong when these are made public, with 'general prophecy', when prophecies are made into objective statements, applicable to 'all'; when they are supposed to affect public policy.
Indeed, the most convincing stories of prophecy are when The Public disbelieve and ignore The Prophet, but a much smaller group of the prophet's family, friends, followers do believe; and these 'believers' are able to escape some prophesied disaster.
A good example is at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, when the prophet Lehi are ignored by the authorities, but he and his family escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Or in fiction when, in Watership Down, the shaman rabbit Fiver predicts the destruction of the burrow, is ognored by teh chief rabbit, but escapes with his brother and a small group of followers.
I am certainly guilty, many times over, of worrying about what the future holds in general terms unless... or of trying to avert one or another prophecy. But surely this is a fault? Surely I ought to be discerning what I ought to do now - and (so far as possible) setting aside what might (but probably will not) happen as a consequence?
Or, if I did recieve a real prophecy, then this would surely not be about anything large scale - but about what should happen to myself or my family; something I can directly affect: where my personal decision is significant.
Like most people, I want to be reassured that If I do X, then Y will eventuate; but we know that it is seldom possible really to know what will happen - too many factors impinge. Most importantly, all people (all Beings) have agency, and are capable of choosing. In principle, conscious behaviour cannot be known in advance - only guessed.
And therefore what we ought to do, ought not primarily to be aimed at consequences - especially when we know what it is right to do regardless of consequences. That seems the case in real prophecy - the future is not known with any great precision; but what ought to be done is clear.
We may, if we are sincere, come to understand the reality of our situation - and this will include what we personally should do in consequence. To get back to that broadly-fulfilled 1918 prophecy of Steiner - we may reasonably infer that the bad consequences happened for broadly the reasons Steiner stated 100 years ago. But we only knew that for sure in (perhaps) the past generation or two; many decades after the prophecy was made.
And what we do not know is the consequences that would actually eventuate from here-and-now if we (from this point) did what Steiner rrecommended and remedied the defects Steiner outlined... If we (you and me, other people) regarded the spiritual realm as real, developed a more frequent and intense awareness of the spiritual realm etc. What effect would this have?
In sum, even if we know that the prophecy was true, and what we ought to do about it - this does not tell us what would happen if we actually went ahead and did it. If (for example) there was a general recognition that 'Steiner was right after all!' (at least, in that particular lecture of 1918).
What then: what would be the resulting consequences?
It seems we would need yet another prophecy!
Tuesday, 8 October 2019
Collects at Evensong
From the 1549 edition of the Book of Common Prayer - two of the closing prayers:
O God from whom all holy desyres, all good counsayles, and all juste workes do procede: Geve unto thy servauntes that peace, which the world cannot geve, that both our hartes maye be sette to obey thy commaundementes, and also that by thee, we being defended from the feare of oure enemies, may passe oure time in rest and quietnesse; throughe the merites of Jesu Christe our saviour. Amen.
LYghten our darkenes we beseche thee, O lord, & by thy great mercy defende us from all perilles and daungers of thys nyght, for the love of thy onely sonne, our saviour Jesu Christ. Amen.
These contain some of the most beautiful phrases of English prose, in their original spellings. Particularly pertinent is the plea that: "we being defended from the feare of oure enemies, may passe oure time in rest and quietnesse". It is easy to forget that such fear is a sin to which we are all prone, and it is well to pray for help in this matter.
The seconde Collecte at Evensong
O God from whom all holy desyres, all good counsayles, and all juste workes do procede: Geve unto thy servauntes that peace, which the world cannot geve, that both our hartes maye be sette to obey thy commaundementes, and also that by thee, we being defended from the feare of oure enemies, may passe oure time in rest and quietnesse; throughe the merites of Jesu Christe our saviour. Amen.
The thirde Collect for ayde agaynste all perils
LYghten our darkenes we beseche thee, O lord, & by thy great mercy defende us from all perilles and daungers of thys nyght, for the love of thy onely sonne, our saviour Jesu Christ. Amen.
These contain some of the most beautiful phrases of English prose, in their original spellings. Particularly pertinent is the plea that: "we being defended from the feare of oure enemies, may passe oure time in rest and quietnesse". It is easy to forget that such fear is a sin to which we are all prone, and it is well to pray for help in this matter.
The God of Christians did not create everything from nothing (ex nihilo)
From Blake Ostler's essay The Doctrine Of Creation Ex Nihilo Was Created Out Of Nothing. His conclusion:
1. The Old Testament adopts the ancient Near Eastern view of creation out of a preexisting chaos or waste. This conclusion is supported by linguistic evidence of the meaning of beresit, by the structure of Genesis 1, by the textual, semantic and conceptual similarities between Genesis 1 and other creation accounts, and by the entire structure of the creation narrative. The word bara does not mean creation ex nihilo nor does it imply it. Rather, the word bara addresses creation by dividing and separating already existing realities and thereby creating something new that has never before existed.
2. The New Testament does not teach creation ex nihilo. To the contrary, 2 Peter 3:5 expressly teaches that God created out of the already existing chaotic waters, Hebrews 11:3 expressly teaches that God created the visible world from the already existing invisible world, and Romans 4:17 teaches that God created from an already existing substrate.
3. The claim made by C&C that the dogma of creation ex nihilo was already well-established in the Jewish texts about the time of Christ is simply false. None of the texts they cite for this conclusion address the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Indeed, some of the Jewish texts which they take to teach creatio ex nihilo, such as Second Enoch and Joseph and Aseneth expressly teach that God created the world by making visible those things which already existed as invisible.
In addition, none of the Christian texts cited by C&C such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Odes of Solomon actually teach creatio ex nihilo. Indeed, these texts are better explained by the doctrine of creatio ex materia. Further, it is clear that several Jewish texts from around the time of Christ, such as Philo Judeaus the Wisdom of Solomon, and several early Christian writers like Clement, Justin Martyr and Athenagorous, expressly teach the doctrine of creatio ex materia.
4. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly about 180 A.D. in the writings of Tatian and Theophilus in their arguments with Stoics and Middle Platonists.
It is fairly clear that the doctrine arises as a philosophical consequence of their adoption of a Middle Platonic concept of God. What we see in all texts from about 165 A.D. and after is that Platonic philosophy, both Middle and Neo, have infiltrated Christian thought and become a basis for major innovations in doctrine.
From the Mormon perspective, we see the apostasy in action in living color. The personal God of the Bible known through revelation and personal encounter is suddenly too far removed from the human sphere of existence to be involved in such things with humans.
The notion that humans are created in the image and likeness of God must be reinterpreted to fit the Platonic view that God is utterly unique and entirely unlike humans. God’s mode of creation, therefore, must be completely different than any human mode of creation.
The Middle Platonic assumption that only the absolutely immutable can be eternal is used as a background assumption to argue that matter cannot in any sense be eternal because it is subject to change. The Middle Platonic view that sees matter as necessarily entailing an eternal cycle of recurrence leads to adopting a view of God transcending altogether the material sphere.
If one accepts the assumptions from which the Christian apologists of the late second century begin, then creatio ex nihilo becomes the only logical conclusion. It apparently never occurred to them to reject these Platonist assumptions.
The adoption of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo had other far reaching implications for the history and form of “Christian” theology even to our own day.
The doctrine of creation out of nothing led inevitably to Chalcedon where Christ was described as one person having two natures, consubstantial with the Father in his deity. This two nature theory of Christology assured that the Platonic view of natures and substance would be essential to make “sense” of the doctrine of God within the creedal tradition.
The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo also gives rise to arguments that everything that occurs must be caused by God, for if he didn’t cause each substance to exist anew in each moment, it would cease to exist.
Thus, a very strong form of divine determinism and predestination seems to be entailed by the doctrine...
1. The Old Testament adopts the ancient Near Eastern view of creation out of a preexisting chaos or waste. This conclusion is supported by linguistic evidence of the meaning of beresit, by the structure of Genesis 1, by the textual, semantic and conceptual similarities between Genesis 1 and other creation accounts, and by the entire structure of the creation narrative. The word bara does not mean creation ex nihilo nor does it imply it. Rather, the word bara addresses creation by dividing and separating already existing realities and thereby creating something new that has never before existed.
2. The New Testament does not teach creation ex nihilo. To the contrary, 2 Peter 3:5 expressly teaches that God created out of the already existing chaotic waters, Hebrews 11:3 expressly teaches that God created the visible world from the already existing invisible world, and Romans 4:17 teaches that God created from an already existing substrate.
3. The claim made by C&C that the dogma of creation ex nihilo was already well-established in the Jewish texts about the time of Christ is simply false. None of the texts they cite for this conclusion address the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Indeed, some of the Jewish texts which they take to teach creatio ex nihilo, such as Second Enoch and Joseph and Aseneth expressly teach that God created the world by making visible those things which already existed as invisible.
In addition, none of the Christian texts cited by C&C such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Odes of Solomon actually teach creatio ex nihilo. Indeed, these texts are better explained by the doctrine of creatio ex materia. Further, it is clear that several Jewish texts from around the time of Christ, such as Philo Judeaus the Wisdom of Solomon, and several early Christian writers like Clement, Justin Martyr and Athenagorous, expressly teach the doctrine of creatio ex materia.
4. The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly about 180 A.D. in the writings of Tatian and Theophilus in their arguments with Stoics and Middle Platonists.
It is fairly clear that the doctrine arises as a philosophical consequence of their adoption of a Middle Platonic concept of God. What we see in all texts from about 165 A.D. and after is that Platonic philosophy, both Middle and Neo, have infiltrated Christian thought and become a basis for major innovations in doctrine.
From the Mormon perspective, we see the apostasy in action in living color. The personal God of the Bible known through revelation and personal encounter is suddenly too far removed from the human sphere of existence to be involved in such things with humans.
The notion that humans are created in the image and likeness of God must be reinterpreted to fit the Platonic view that God is utterly unique and entirely unlike humans. God’s mode of creation, therefore, must be completely different than any human mode of creation.
The Middle Platonic assumption that only the absolutely immutable can be eternal is used as a background assumption to argue that matter cannot in any sense be eternal because it is subject to change. The Middle Platonic view that sees matter as necessarily entailing an eternal cycle of recurrence leads to adopting a view of God transcending altogether the material sphere.
If one accepts the assumptions from which the Christian apologists of the late second century begin, then creatio ex nihilo becomes the only logical conclusion. It apparently never occurred to them to reject these Platonist assumptions.
The adoption of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo had other far reaching implications for the history and form of “Christian” theology even to our own day.
The doctrine of creation out of nothing led inevitably to Chalcedon where Christ was described as one person having two natures, consubstantial with the Father in his deity. This two nature theory of Christology assured that the Platonic view of natures and substance would be essential to make “sense” of the doctrine of God within the creedal tradition.
The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo also gives rise to arguments that everything that occurs must be caused by God, for if he didn’t cause each substance to exist anew in each moment, it would cease to exist.
Thus, a very strong form of divine determinism and predestination seems to be entailed by the doctrine...
Should Christians have spiritual experiences? What if they don't?
Over the years I have been asked - sometimes in comments, sometimes in personal e-mails - whether Christians should be having spiritual experiences; these forming the most solid basis of their faith?
I have been asked this question especially by those who do not have such experiences - on the lines of: 'Is there something defective about my Christian faith that I personally don't ever get spiritual experiences?'
The answer I would now give (as a generalisation) is that yes, modern, adult, Western Christians should be having spiritual experiences, and should base their Christian faith upon them. And that yes; anyone who does not have such experiences should indeed regard their faith as (to that extent) defective.
The reason is that the ability to have spiritual experiences in a Christian context has become necessary here-and-now; and it is the lack of such experiences - or the denial or explaining-away of such experiences as false or trivial - that is the root of Christian weakness and the problem of materialism/ positivism/ scientism/ reductionism - the Ahrimanic totalitarian bureaucracy and Leftism.
It is that important.
Spiritual experience has become vital for Christians in this modern context and era - which is why I believe that Romantic Christianity is now (it was not always) our destined way forward (via Final Participation) to Life Eternal; and that all other paths will lead elsewhere.
So I would argue that a Christian who has not had any spiritual experience, is not having spiritual experiences, should not rest content in that situation; but should examine his metaphysical assumptions, attitudes, behaviours etc - to try and discover what is blocking the spiritual experiences that would otherwise be happening. And then try to remove those blockages.
Or else, it may be he is indeed having spiritual experiences, but is failing to recognise or denying them. That too should be remedied. In this modern era our task (as adults) is to become conscious of the spiritual realm - and the spiritual realm must be freely chosen.
Thus we should neither want nor expect to be overwhelmed by irresistible spiritual experiences, since that would be bad for us - we should want and expect to know them, and choose them.
This will be (as usual) a very personal and distinctive matter - each must discover for himself - and only you can discover for yourself (nobody else can do it for you). Furthermore, because we live in a pervasively materialist world, there is a tendency passively to lose the ability to connect with the spiritual realm: for spiritual experiences to become less frequent, less intense, to cease... This should be regarded as a sign of spiritual malaise.
In sum, it is no longer sufficient for a Christian to be passive and unconscious; no longer sufficient to follow external guidance, no longer sufficient to suppose that following rituals and adhering to morality is sufficient.
These are insufficient because a person who tries to be that kind of Christian will not remain any kind of Christian at all (except verbally), but will join the mass materialist apostasy - even when they self-identify as Christians. They will not choose Heaven.
Here-and-now the only secure Christians are those with direct personal conscious experience and knowledge of Jesus Christ and his offer of Life Everlasting. And if Jesus is then chosen and Heaven made our first priority, then that is indeed sufficient.
I have been asked this question especially by those who do not have such experiences - on the lines of: 'Is there something defective about my Christian faith that I personally don't ever get spiritual experiences?'
The answer I would now give (as a generalisation) is that yes, modern, adult, Western Christians should be having spiritual experiences, and should base their Christian faith upon them. And that yes; anyone who does not have such experiences should indeed regard their faith as (to that extent) defective.
The reason is that the ability to have spiritual experiences in a Christian context has become necessary here-and-now; and it is the lack of such experiences - or the denial or explaining-away of such experiences as false or trivial - that is the root of Christian weakness and the problem of materialism/ positivism/ scientism/ reductionism - the Ahrimanic totalitarian bureaucracy and Leftism.
It is that important.
Spiritual experience has become vital for Christians in this modern context and era - which is why I believe that Romantic Christianity is now (it was not always) our destined way forward (via Final Participation) to Life Eternal; and that all other paths will lead elsewhere.
So I would argue that a Christian who has not had any spiritual experience, is not having spiritual experiences, should not rest content in that situation; but should examine his metaphysical assumptions, attitudes, behaviours etc - to try and discover what is blocking the spiritual experiences that would otherwise be happening. And then try to remove those blockages.
Or else, it may be he is indeed having spiritual experiences, but is failing to recognise or denying them. That too should be remedied. In this modern era our task (as adults) is to become conscious of the spiritual realm - and the spiritual realm must be freely chosen.
Thus we should neither want nor expect to be overwhelmed by irresistible spiritual experiences, since that would be bad for us - we should want and expect to know them, and choose them.
This will be (as usual) a very personal and distinctive matter - each must discover for himself - and only you can discover for yourself (nobody else can do it for you). Furthermore, because we live in a pervasively materialist world, there is a tendency passively to lose the ability to connect with the spiritual realm: for spiritual experiences to become less frequent, less intense, to cease... This should be regarded as a sign of spiritual malaise.
In sum, it is no longer sufficient for a Christian to be passive and unconscious; no longer sufficient to follow external guidance, no longer sufficient to suppose that following rituals and adhering to morality is sufficient.
These are insufficient because a person who tries to be that kind of Christian will not remain any kind of Christian at all (except verbally), but will join the mass materialist apostasy - even when they self-identify as Christians. They will not choose Heaven.
Here-and-now the only secure Christians are those with direct personal conscious experience and knowledge of Jesus Christ and his offer of Life Everlasting. And if Jesus is then chosen and Heaven made our first priority, then that is indeed sufficient.
Monday, 7 October 2019
Romantic Christianity and spiritual experiences
From this blog in 2014 I find this important piece of writing by Mormon philosopher and theologian Blake Ostler (BO), about the primacy of personal spiritual experience - and the implications of this primacy.
Read the whole thing - but these excerpts give a flavour. I have added the bold emphasis:
Read the whole thing - but these excerpts give a flavour. I have added the bold emphasis:
Q: What should you conclude when your spiritual experience conflicts with logical and tangible evidence?
BO: This is a very good question. First I would
suggest this, there’s nothing more immediate than your own experience.
Only you know what your experience is. If it conflicts with logic? Trust
me, I’m very good at logic and I know there are a lot of ways to do
logic to make it conflict with just about anything I can come up with,
that’s what I do for a living {laughter}.
And tangible evidence? We
don’t know what evidence is until we have all of our basic premises and
axioms in place to begin with. You see, when I see through the lens of
faith what counts as evidence is different than when I don’t see through
the lens of faith.
In fact, I found something very interesting among people
who have lost testimonies. Almost invariably they will say, “I had a
testimony and then I decided, ‘I’m going to take a look at this without
relying on spiritual experiences or the way that I see things when I
trust the Spirit. I’m just going to see what logic or evidence
provides.'”
The fact is that evidence isn’t self-interpreting, and logic
is only a very useful tool for arriving – and I am very “Humean” about
logic. All logic is ex post facto to prove what we already feel is true; how’s that?
Q: How can one find the truth when two people
experience two opposite things while praying about the Book of Mormon?
One gets the feeling it’s true, the other gets the feeling it’s wrong?
BO: Well, I say trust your experience...
Trust your Heavenly Father. What I
said was that the experience that anybody else has is not evidence for
us. If somebody else has a different experience, I think I have good prima facia
reason for believing my own experience as opposed to theirs. What else
can I do?
And it comes down to faith. Am I going to trust my heart or
not? Am I going to have an open heart or am I going to close it? That’s
the bottom line.
Have there been any wise actors, musicians?
In a world where the 'thoughts' (expressed opinions) of actors and musicians are the staple of the mass media; it comes to mind that there has perhaps never been an actor or musician who was wise.
Of course nobody-at-all in the public arena is wise nowadays; but there are plenty of examples of wise representatives of most professions from the past. But of actors and musicians?...
There were and are a few intelligent As & Ms, but that intelligence always seems misplaced, foolish, actively-wicked... un-wise.
Indeed, such is the low average level, that when a reasonably smart person is among actors (e.g. like some directors) or among musicians (like some conductors, or composers) the performers express absolute astonishment at their brilliance, and accord them vastly exaggerated reputations.
And when an actor or musical performer is intelligent-merely; they are accorded a reputation for astonishing wisdom, creativity - even genius; even though they are merely spouting mainstream platitudes and secondhand conventional wisdom.
Maybe David Garrick, in the 18th century, was a tolerably wise actor - but he was a lot more than a actor. Glenn Gould was certainly a worthwhile thinker - but again he was much more than a performer. Pure performers?... I can't think of any.
When we are daily force-fed with the news and views of actors and musicians, in multi-page interviews; when biographies of performers take up yards of shelving in the new and secondhand bookshops, it comes to mind to ask - what is really going-on here?
Of course nobody-at-all in the public arena is wise nowadays; but there are plenty of examples of wise representatives of most professions from the past. But of actors and musicians?...
There were and are a few intelligent As & Ms, but that intelligence always seems misplaced, foolish, actively-wicked... un-wise.
Indeed, such is the low average level, that when a reasonably smart person is among actors (e.g. like some directors) or among musicians (like some conductors, or composers) the performers express absolute astonishment at their brilliance, and accord them vastly exaggerated reputations.
And when an actor or musical performer is intelligent-merely; they are accorded a reputation for astonishing wisdom, creativity - even genius; even though they are merely spouting mainstream platitudes and secondhand conventional wisdom.
Maybe David Garrick, in the 18th century, was a tolerably wise actor - but he was a lot more than a actor. Glenn Gould was certainly a worthwhile thinker - but again he was much more than a performer. Pure performers?... I can't think of any.
When we are daily force-fed with the news and views of actors and musicians, in multi-page interviews; when biographies of performers take up yards of shelving in the new and secondhand bookshops, it comes to mind to ask - what is really going-on here?
GIGA - Garbage-in, Garbage-out... Mainstream popular discourse on sexual relationships
I used to be a professional evolutionary psychologist, researching and teaching the subject for more than 20 years. I was pretty careful to state my assumptions - which was that Ev Psych was a model of human behaviour that assumed the correctness of Natural Selection as a major influence on human psychology. It was not the only, nor necessarily the most important influence - and in many situations it was not relevant.
Yet, although careful to state these assumptions, there was a strong tendency to assume that Ev Psych was indeed the primary influence on human behaviour. In other words, discoursing on the subject tended to convert an assumption into a personal motivation.
More accurately, from a combination of habit and expertise, I tended to regard what was actually an assumption as a discovery; converting what was assumed into an apparent fact about the world.
This type of thing is rampant in the modern world - indeed defines the modern world (called positivism, scientism, reductionism, materialism...). Because I was deep into it, and came out from it (mostly...) I am perhaps able to see this with more clarity than most - I have been sensitised to it.
So, what about sex and relationships? There is a pseudo-biological, bastardised Ev Psych that dominates most discussion. I can see that there is an assumption in mainstream public discourse - and in analytic writings on the subject, that human sexuality is about having sex (especially with attractive people).
From a biological perspective this is a plain error, since Ev Psych is about having babies - and the link between having sex and having babies is so broken (by contraception and abortion) that there are plenty of people with more marriages than children; and indeed in some surveys the most children (on average) come from people who are once married, and have had one lifetime sexual partner.
There is a biological error - but the problem is much deeper than that because we should not be regarding ourselves a reproducing organisms, as if that was (or should be) our prime consideration.
The irony is that men reproduced successfully when they were primarily religious, and as soon as they began to regard themselves as 'higher animals' with biological goals, average reproduction slipped below minimum replacement levels, and such populations first began to age, and more recently become genetically degraded and move toward extinction.
Yet this discourse is still a grossly simplified,hence distorted model. It is clear by their actual behaviours ('revealed preferences') that people do not really regard themselves biologically, and show no sign ever of doing so. Indeed unnatural, non-reproductive, forms of sex and sexuality are being officially encouraged at global, national and local levels. So biology has about as little current relevance (except as an unavoidable constraint, dishonestly denied) as is imaginable.
How, then, ought people to talk about sexual relationships?
Well, first they must be clear with themselves what is their primary motivation. Someone who wants to marry one person for life and raise a family has a totally different perspective, hence attitudes and behaviours; from one who is motivated to have sex-without-strings with many attractive people; perhaps ideally a new person each week, or every few days...
The difference is spiritual, ultimately - it is the difference in a person's vision of what life should be; and this is based on an understanding of what life actually is.
If people were coherent, this would lead them straight back to First Things; to a discovery and evaluation of their own primary assumptions about 'Life, The Universe and Everything' - for example whether this world is created or accidental, whether it is personal or abstract and so forth.
But people are not coherent, indeed most people are psychotic in their denials and delusions. And this is a consequence of having chosen to live by the implicit mainstream assumption that human life, at its root/ depth/ the bottom-line, is 'about' no more than personal feelings.
It ought to be obvious that if our assumptions are that human life is a kind of emotional garbage; then we will lead our life on that basis. If we regard ourselves as disposable trash, and talk that way - to others in public and our-selves in private - we will become garbage, 'human resources'... to be burned, deployed as bio-landfill, or dismembered for salvage and recycling.
If we see life as a maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of suffering - we will regard sexual relations as an endless war of attempted manipulation and exploitation of other people to that end.
There will be a few winners, and many losers - but (because we are talking about pleasure) all 'victories' will be temporary, and habituation will mean that repeated pleasures lose effect. Everyone will be a loser sooner or later - victory is merely to be a winner now.
But everybody, without exception, loses in the end: which is death.
Yet, although careful to state these assumptions, there was a strong tendency to assume that Ev Psych was indeed the primary influence on human behaviour. In other words, discoursing on the subject tended to convert an assumption into a personal motivation.
More accurately, from a combination of habit and expertise, I tended to regard what was actually an assumption as a discovery; converting what was assumed into an apparent fact about the world.
This type of thing is rampant in the modern world - indeed defines the modern world (called positivism, scientism, reductionism, materialism...). Because I was deep into it, and came out from it (mostly...) I am perhaps able to see this with more clarity than most - I have been sensitised to it.
So, what about sex and relationships? There is a pseudo-biological, bastardised Ev Psych that dominates most discussion. I can see that there is an assumption in mainstream public discourse - and in analytic writings on the subject, that human sexuality is about having sex (especially with attractive people).
From a biological perspective this is a plain error, since Ev Psych is about having babies - and the link between having sex and having babies is so broken (by contraception and abortion) that there are plenty of people with more marriages than children; and indeed in some surveys the most children (on average) come from people who are once married, and have had one lifetime sexual partner.
There is a biological error - but the problem is much deeper than that because we should not be regarding ourselves a reproducing organisms, as if that was (or should be) our prime consideration.
The irony is that men reproduced successfully when they were primarily religious, and as soon as they began to regard themselves as 'higher animals' with biological goals, average reproduction slipped below minimum replacement levels, and such populations first began to age, and more recently become genetically degraded and move toward extinction.
Yet this discourse is still a grossly simplified,hence distorted model. It is clear by their actual behaviours ('revealed preferences') that people do not really regard themselves biologically, and show no sign ever of doing so. Indeed unnatural, non-reproductive, forms of sex and sexuality are being officially encouraged at global, national and local levels. So biology has about as little current relevance (except as an unavoidable constraint, dishonestly denied) as is imaginable.
How, then, ought people to talk about sexual relationships?
Well, first they must be clear with themselves what is their primary motivation. Someone who wants to marry one person for life and raise a family has a totally different perspective, hence attitudes and behaviours; from one who is motivated to have sex-without-strings with many attractive people; perhaps ideally a new person each week, or every few days...
The difference is spiritual, ultimately - it is the difference in a person's vision of what life should be; and this is based on an understanding of what life actually is.
If people were coherent, this would lead them straight back to First Things; to a discovery and evaluation of their own primary assumptions about 'Life, The Universe and Everything' - for example whether this world is created or accidental, whether it is personal or abstract and so forth.
But people are not coherent, indeed most people are psychotic in their denials and delusions. And this is a consequence of having chosen to live by the implicit mainstream assumption that human life, at its root/ depth/ the bottom-line, is 'about' no more than personal feelings.
It ought to be obvious that if our assumptions are that human life is a kind of emotional garbage; then we will lead our life on that basis. If we regard ourselves as disposable trash, and talk that way - to others in public and our-selves in private - we will become garbage, 'human resources'... to be burned, deployed as bio-landfill, or dismembered for salvage and recycling.
If we see life as a maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of suffering - we will regard sexual relations as an endless war of attempted manipulation and exploitation of other people to that end.
There will be a few winners, and many losers - but (because we are talking about pleasure) all 'victories' will be temporary, and habituation will mean that repeated pleasures lose effect. Everyone will be a loser sooner or later - victory is merely to be a winner now.
But everybody, without exception, loses in the end: which is death.
Sunday, 6 October 2019
The problem of residual abstraction (maths, geometry, physics) in philosophical (and theological) thinking
This is a really, really Big problem! What is more, it affects the very best and most important thinkers and writers in my pantheon of influences for Romantic Christianity - Steiner, Barfield, Arkle...
The problem is that the understandings and explanations of such people are/ remain rooted in abstract phenomena - despite that these are intending to advocate a personal, 'animistic', 'anthropomorphic' metaphysics.
Their basic idea is that reality is a matter of Beings in Relationships... That the ultimate entities are Beings (alive, conscious, purposive) and that what holds things together and provides structure is the relationships of these Beings.
Yet ni advocating a metaphysics of Being and Relations; these authors fall back, again and again, into abstraction; into the use of examples drawn from physics, geometry and mathematics.
eg. Steiner in Philosophy of Freedom develops his argument wholly abstractly, in terms of categories of percept and concept, and his example is the geometrical figure of the triangle.
Barfield uses physics as his primary mode of explanation; the rainbow is his most famous example; and he calls his new way of thinking 'polarity' which he describes relationships between beings in abstract-mathematical-physics ways - using magnetism and electricity as explanations.
Arkle's main book, A Geography of Consciousness, uses geometrical and physics graphs, tables and diagrams to explain his 'system' - despite that he explicitly asserts everything is alive and conscious.
This could be regarded as a prime example of Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) as described by Barfield - and the fact that Barfield himself was prone to it (as was his Master, Steiner) shows how difficult it is to shake-off. This difficulty is most apparent in Barfield's most deep and rigorous book - How Coleridge Thought - when the clash of perspectives is the source of greatest difficulty in understanding the argument. Barfield seems unaware of how his abstractly-structured schemes are so fundamentally at-odds-with what he is trying to prove using these schemes. The key term 'polarity' is mathematical and derived from magnetism (later electricty) - and as difficult to understand intuitively as most such ideas are.
The problem is so old that it can seem inevitable - it goes back to the ancient Greeks, who nearly always used (the ancient equivalent of...) physics as the basis of their metaphysics - with principles such as fire or water underlying 'everything'.
Another example is that 'form' is taken as primary (as with Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas) - and 'form' is conceptualised in geometric terms and often using geometrical examples. (A modern instance is Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields.)
Whereas the primary reality is actually A Being, not A Triangle; is a Being's motivation, not a force or principle.
This abstraction then leads on to the problem (the error) of regarding Time as... optional. The delusion that Time can be set aside, redefined etc. When a world is seen as abstract as its reality and bottom line - then Time loses its function; indeed Time becomes a nuisance!
Yet, if the world is of Beings, beings exists In Time, and only In Time. In cross-section, there are no Beings - because in a 'zero' timescale there is no Life, no Consciousness - if Life and Consciousness are primary, then there is and always must be Time...
Thus one error leads on to another,
But what this does show is the need for further work for Romantic Christianity; because Steiner, Barfield, Arkle are all in error by using maths/ geometry and physics as their models and explanations.
There us work to be done to restate their arguments in terms that are coherent with the conclusions of their arguments.
The good news is that - when thus restated - the metaphysics and theology of Romantic Christianity becomes something intuitively understandable by a child; rather than requiring advanced training in the natural sciences.
The problem is that the understandings and explanations of such people are/ remain rooted in abstract phenomena - despite that these are intending to advocate a personal, 'animistic', 'anthropomorphic' metaphysics.
Their basic idea is that reality is a matter of Beings in Relationships... That the ultimate entities are Beings (alive, conscious, purposive) and that what holds things together and provides structure is the relationships of these Beings.
Yet ni advocating a metaphysics of Being and Relations; these authors fall back, again and again, into abstraction; into the use of examples drawn from physics, geometry and mathematics.
eg. Steiner in Philosophy of Freedom develops his argument wholly abstractly, in terms of categories of percept and concept, and his example is the geometrical figure of the triangle.
Barfield uses physics as his primary mode of explanation; the rainbow is his most famous example; and he calls his new way of thinking 'polarity' which he describes relationships between beings in abstract-mathematical-physics ways - using magnetism and electricity as explanations.
Arkle's main book, A Geography of Consciousness, uses geometrical and physics graphs, tables and diagrams to explain his 'system' - despite that he explicitly asserts everything is alive and conscious.
This could be regarded as a prime example of Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) as described by Barfield - and the fact that Barfield himself was prone to it (as was his Master, Steiner) shows how difficult it is to shake-off. This difficulty is most apparent in Barfield's most deep and rigorous book - How Coleridge Thought - when the clash of perspectives is the source of greatest difficulty in understanding the argument. Barfield seems unaware of how his abstractly-structured schemes are so fundamentally at-odds-with what he is trying to prove using these schemes. The key term 'polarity' is mathematical and derived from magnetism (later electricty) - and as difficult to understand intuitively as most such ideas are.
The problem is so old that it can seem inevitable - it goes back to the ancient Greeks, who nearly always used (the ancient equivalent of...) physics as the basis of their metaphysics - with principles such as fire or water underlying 'everything'.
Another example is that 'form' is taken as primary (as with Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas) - and 'form' is conceptualised in geometric terms and often using geometrical examples. (A modern instance is Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields.)
Whereas the primary reality is actually A Being, not A Triangle; is a Being's motivation, not a force or principle.
This abstraction then leads on to the problem (the error) of regarding Time as... optional. The delusion that Time can be set aside, redefined etc. When a world is seen as abstract as its reality and bottom line - then Time loses its function; indeed Time becomes a nuisance!
Yet, if the world is of Beings, beings exists In Time, and only In Time. In cross-section, there are no Beings - because in a 'zero' timescale there is no Life, no Consciousness - if Life and Consciousness are primary, then there is and always must be Time...
Thus one error leads on to another,
But what this does show is the need for further work for Romantic Christianity; because Steiner, Barfield, Arkle are all in error by using maths/ geometry and physics as their models and explanations.
There us work to be done to restate their arguments in terms that are coherent with the conclusions of their arguments.
The good news is that - when thus restated - the metaphysics and theology of Romantic Christianity becomes something intuitively understandable by a child; rather than requiring advanced training in the natural sciences.
Saturday, 5 October 2019
A dog is for life (Marriage is for eternity.)
Most Christians believe - or, at least their theology teaches them - that ideally Marriage is for Life; and is dissolved after death.
For modern Western people it seems like a great deal if marriage is for life - because for modern Western people life is all-that-there-is. To say that a marriage ought to last until death seems like saying Marriage is Forever...
But for a Christian who expects to live the life after biological-death everlasting, if Marriage is for Life, then that is not for very long. A human adult life is a lot less than eternity...
So 'Marriage is for Life' actually means 'Marriage is just for life'.
If we are serious about marriage on earth, in mortal life - as most real Christians claim to be; then surely the aim, the ideal, the hope should be that marriage is for eternity?
Friday, 4 October 2019
The meaning of End Times
I don't think these are the result of any 'timetable' kind of prophecy - but are the result of the development of human consciousness such that many people (especially Westerners) have become capable of detaching themselves from the divine and denying the divine.
(In which the divine is defined in Christian terms.)
This leads to a crux - where the assumption (from society, from institutions - even, implicitly, from most churches) is that there is no divine; that the divine is not really real... so each individual must choose the divine, if he is to know the divine.
Knowledge (here and now) depends on choice. Choice is the beginning of knowledge of the divine.
The End Times are when the assumption of the unreality of the divine is normal, propagandised, assumed, and imposed. When, in other words, the default is for people to choose their own damnation (choose to reject Heaven).
The End Times seems to refer to a state of positive-feedback when this becomes prevalent, and worsening.
Why? Why does it happen., Why is it allowed (by God) to happen?
The answer is perhaps because the End times are also the era of maximum clarity, of maximum differentiation between salvation and damnation; between choosing Good or evil - the dwelling in Heaven or the various personal hells. For some incarnate Men, this is the best time to be born, the best chance.
What will end the End Times?
The best answer is that they end themselves. In the End Times, values are inverted - hence evil, death and spiritual destruction become the implicit objective of human motivation (albeit, motivation is itself severely weakened by the inversion and the consequent deep-confusion).
What comes after the end? Who knows ? It is not knowable - because we really are free agents.
Probably it depends... A new beginning, or the end to the experiment of mortal life... or both.
(In which the divine is defined in Christian terms.)
This leads to a crux - where the assumption (from society, from institutions - even, implicitly, from most churches) is that there is no divine; that the divine is not really real... so each individual must choose the divine, if he is to know the divine.
Knowledge (here and now) depends on choice. Choice is the beginning of knowledge of the divine.
The End Times are when the assumption of the unreality of the divine is normal, propagandised, assumed, and imposed. When, in other words, the default is for people to choose their own damnation (choose to reject Heaven).
The End Times seems to refer to a state of positive-feedback when this becomes prevalent, and worsening.
Why? Why does it happen., Why is it allowed (by God) to happen?
The answer is perhaps because the End times are also the era of maximum clarity, of maximum differentiation between salvation and damnation; between choosing Good or evil - the dwelling in Heaven or the various personal hells. For some incarnate Men, this is the best time to be born, the best chance.
What will end the End Times?
The best answer is that they end themselves. In the End Times, values are inverted - hence evil, death and spiritual destruction become the implicit objective of human motivation (albeit, motivation is itself severely weakened by the inversion and the consequent deep-confusion).
What comes after the end? Who knows ? It is not knowable - because we really are free agents.
Probably it depends... A new beginning, or the end to the experiment of mortal life... or both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)