*
Reading Iain McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary and mixing in some ideas from Rupert Sheldrake, provides me with what seems a very promising way of thinking about that long-standing philosophical chestnut - free will versus determinism.
*
McG makes it clear that the Left hemisphere perceives reality in a deterministic way - as linear sequential chains of discrete causes and effects.
Yet the Left brain also has a problem, an intractable problem, of truly linking cause with effect, since reality is seen as static units resembling a 'snapshot' and it is difficult/ impossible to see how a cause statically-conceived can actually 'cause' anything.
But although the Left hemisphere can perceive that its own perspective is inadequate, it is intrinsically incapable of conceptualising anything else!
It has its precise and partial way of representing reality, and that is all that it can do.
*
Determinism is like that.
If we conceptualise the world in terms of causes and effects, then of course then can be no free will since we have already decided that everything is caused by something else.
On the other hand, this assumption opens up an infinite regress (as Aristotle realised) which can only be terminated by a first cause or unmoved mover. For some reason, modern thinking never acknowledges this infinite regress of causality - just too impatient I guess...
*
To assume that reality is conceptualised in terms of causal chains is and unfounded - it is not something that humanity has discovered.
Rather it is something that modern man cannot help doing.
We know it cannot be the whole truth - yet (we moderns, at least) cannot conceive of any other way of imagining things.
*
Well, McGilchrist points to another way - the Right hemisphere way.
Whereas the Left sees reality as a sequence of snapshots, the Right sees reality as a dynamic whole.
A dynamic whole cannot be expressed in terms of a sequence of snapshots; but how can it be expressed?
*
My notion is to conceive of Right brain function in terms of three-dimensional and dynamic morphic fields to complement the Left brain conceptualised in linear cause and effect sequences of static units.
(In reality, there are both linear sequences and morphic fields on both sides of the brain, considerable overlap - but McG is completely convincing that there is also a qualitative functional distinction, and this can be summarised - the point can be made - by treating the Left as if it were purely linear sequential and the Right as if it were a morphic field.)
This seems helpful to me; the idea of Right brain as a field of activity exerting its effects in a manner analogous to magnetic fields or gravitational fields.
*
Note: by Sheldrake's account a morphic field imposes form, pattern, structure onto the system in it influence - organising disparate events and processes; furthermore the field is teleological, containing 'attractors' which dynamically shape the system towards goals.
*
The Right brain (by this view) is in contact with the environment by being affected by other morphic fields - the gives it the distinctive 'holistic' grasp that the Left brain lacks.
McG conceives the optimal cognitive situation as being when the Right hemisphere dominates, using the Left for specific detailed processing tasks, then the Right taking up the results of Left processing and integrating them into the larger whole.
This could be imagined as the Right brain taking detached linear sequences of the Left brain (like strings of beads) and embedding them into dynamic three dimensional patterns of organisation - so that each causal sequence is put into its proper place and related to other sequences and to the much larger and dominant aspects of form that are not encoded as causal sequences...
*
So, this picture of the brain would have free will as fundamentally a Right brain phenomenon; with free will operating as a field; this picture standing in contrast to free will being more usually (but incoherently) considered in a Left brain fashion, as the first, (somehow) uncaused and initiating step of a chain of causes and effects leading to obervable behaviour.
*
I am suggesting that morphic fields, conceptualised in terms of McG's Right hemisphere functionality, could be considered a mechanism for the operation of free will, an explanation for 'how' it works.
This is, of course, merely a manner of thinking about free will: a new analogy which breaks the tyrannical power of free will conceptualised in terms of Left brain causal chains.
To see free will as a field does not describe what free will actually is, or what makes it free. In a sense the shift from linear to field thinking has only pushed back the explanation by another step - but this pushing back does create the space necessary as a preliminary to recognizing that the exclusion of free will is a metaphysical property of a form of representation, and that the exclusion of free will is not a property of the observed world.
*
Because free will is a metaphysical concept, not a physical concept - free will cannot be discovered by science, but nor can its absence be discovered by science.
There is a very widespread notion that 'science' has discovered that free will is an illusion, never existed, was merely a religious dogma.
This is a mistake - the actual situation is that the assumptions and methods of science have made free will incomprehensible.
Modern people cannot even imagine what is meant by free will - and assume that this means that science has discovered the absence of free will, or discovered that free will is an unnecessary hypothesis.
*
Free will is not a thing which is, or is not, out there in the natural world waiting to be detected - or found absent.
Free will is a metaphysical assumption - just as determinism is a metaphysical assumption.
But determinism is carrying the day in practise, because people cannot understand what kind of a thing free will might be. Public thought can only see reality as chains of cause and effect, and can only assume that every human act of will, every choice, must have had a cause or causes (whether we know them or not) - and therefore every act of will or choice can be explained-away.
People are simply locked into this way of thinking and can see no escape from it.
Perhaps understanding Left and Right brain differences, and thinking of causation in terms of organising fields instead of linear sequences, might open up the recognition that there is no 'must' about determinism.
*
When we feel that reality 'must' be deterministic, we are simply reading-off the distal consequences of our proximate assumptions.
Change the assumptions, and determinism melts.
*
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Monday, 2 January 2012
How to corrupt a whole civilization - the ratchet of corruption
*
Simple, but not easy (or not easy at first...).
*
Get people to perform acts they know in their guts to be evil - then make sure they do not repent them.
(To make them sin is not at all difficult, they will all do this anyway, sooner or later - they are, after-all, sinners by nature. It is preventing repentance that is the difficult thing - by nature many will repent, so you must prevent what is natural.)
That is all you have to do - once this simple system is in place, then it will become self-corrupting.
*
To corrupt the world, just ensure that repentance is prevented. Ensure that repentance is portrayed as strictly meaningless, hypocritical, weak, lame, lacking in self-esteem. Just ensure that repentance is seen as blaming, repressive, inegalitarian, racist, sexist.
(Because if you repent an evil then you acknowledge an evil, you implicitly accuse others of an evil - and that is to be judgmental. Thus the ethic transforms, inverts: the only evil is now to repent evil...)
*
Unrepentant sin is a ratchet-process, because once corrupted people stay corrupted.
Instead of repenting acts which they know in their guts to be evil, they boast of them - they encourage others to do the same. Why not?
*
So Screwtape says: Sin - go ahead - do it, if you feel like it - if it makes you happy...
(The precise sin doesn't matter, so long as you disgust yourself.)
Repentance? Nothing to repent. Be proud of your decisions (they are yours - they define you).
(It is those who believe in repentance who are the real sinners.)
Thus spake Screwtape.
*
What is an unrepented sin, after all? - well, the answer is that unrepented sin is fixing one's face away from God. The sin is to turn from God, repentance is a turning back to God. So when there is no repentance you are stuck - living with your back to God.
*
Once a sinner (and it could be just once! - that's the beauty of it) you stay a sinner, and the corrupter can leave you alone to wreck others by your example and teaching, and can apply his attentions elsewhere.
Not tempted by the same old sins? Don't worry, be patient, fashion will provide a supply of novelties to tempt every soul.
*
It's so easy for Screwtape now!
In the old days people were washed clean of their sins and able to make a fresh start, again and again! - the tempter was never sure of his prey until the very end.
But now, you do one measly unrepented sin and the tempter has you!
The sin cannot be repented, cannot be forgiven (who is there to forgive it? Only a god can forgive sin, and we know that they don't exist...) and the only recourse is to deny the sin; and if you deny the sin then you promote the sin.
*
The ratchet of corruption is exponential - just a few proud souls at first.
But each unrepentant sinner permanently joins the ranks of the death eaters, and by example or argument brings another one or two out of the fold.
The growth is exponential.
And pretty soon there is a democratic majority to enforce sin - which cannot be repented.
Such a simple system - so very effective...
*
Simple, but not easy (or not easy at first...).
*
Get people to perform acts they know in their guts to be evil - then make sure they do not repent them.
(To make them sin is not at all difficult, they will all do this anyway, sooner or later - they are, after-all, sinners by nature. It is preventing repentance that is the difficult thing - by nature many will repent, so you must prevent what is natural.)
That is all you have to do - once this simple system is in place, then it will become self-corrupting.
*
To corrupt the world, just ensure that repentance is prevented. Ensure that repentance is portrayed as strictly meaningless, hypocritical, weak, lame, lacking in self-esteem. Just ensure that repentance is seen as blaming, repressive, inegalitarian, racist, sexist.
(Because if you repent an evil then you acknowledge an evil, you implicitly accuse others of an evil - and that is to be judgmental. Thus the ethic transforms, inverts: the only evil is now to repent evil...)
*
Unrepentant sin is a ratchet-process, because once corrupted people stay corrupted.
Instead of repenting acts which they know in their guts to be evil, they boast of them - they encourage others to do the same. Why not?
*
So Screwtape says: Sin - go ahead - do it, if you feel like it - if it makes you happy...
(The precise sin doesn't matter, so long as you disgust yourself.)
Repentance? Nothing to repent. Be proud of your decisions (they are yours - they define you).
(It is those who believe in repentance who are the real sinners.)
Thus spake Screwtape.
*
What is an unrepented sin, after all? - well, the answer is that unrepented sin is fixing one's face away from God. The sin is to turn from God, repentance is a turning back to God. So when there is no repentance you are stuck - living with your back to God.
*
Once a sinner (and it could be just once! - that's the beauty of it) you stay a sinner, and the corrupter can leave you alone to wreck others by your example and teaching, and can apply his attentions elsewhere.
Not tempted by the same old sins? Don't worry, be patient, fashion will provide a supply of novelties to tempt every soul.
*
It's so easy for Screwtape now!
In the old days people were washed clean of their sins and able to make a fresh start, again and again! - the tempter was never sure of his prey until the very end.
But now, you do one measly unrepented sin and the tempter has you!
The sin cannot be repented, cannot be forgiven (who is there to forgive it? Only a god can forgive sin, and we know that they don't exist...) and the only recourse is to deny the sin; and if you deny the sin then you promote the sin.
*
The ratchet of corruption is exponential - just a few proud souls at first.
But each unrepentant sinner permanently joins the ranks of the death eaters, and by example or argument brings another one or two out of the fold.
The growth is exponential.
And pretty soon there is a democratic majority to enforce sin - which cannot be repented.
Such a simple system - so very effective...
*
Sunday, 1 January 2012
The Archbish of C speaks to the nation: spot the Christian Reference
*
This person is the leader of my church giving his annual address to the nation.
It is essentially a stagnant heap of Leftist, evasive, multi-culti, politically correct propaganda - but don't miss the Christian reference...
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2312/archbishops-bbc-new-year-message
..it comes, briefly, about three and a half minutes into a four and a half minute video.
*
Otherwise, what can one say about this?
What words describe it?
Banal, trite, obscure, wrong whenever it is not platitudinous, missing the point - but then what is the point supposed to be?
I can only guess he is setting up a straw man of Britain's supposed hostility to 'young people' and then proposing some vague and ineffectual secular ways this can be tackled.
But why? Why did he do this? What does he think he is doing? Has he any conception of how clownish and unprincipled he appears - how c & u he actually is?
*
The Church of England evangelical protestant church I support has a tremendous range of exciting and amusing activities for children (including my kids); these activities also have an obvious and unashamed evangelical and Christian educational element to them. It 'works', and consequently this is one of the ten biggest Anglican Churches in England (measured by the size of the regular congregation). Yet of course, this church is at the opposite pole from the Archbish of C and seriously at loggerheads with the liberal Anglican hierarchy.
*
This person is the leader of my church giving his annual address to the nation.
It is essentially a stagnant heap of Leftist, evasive, multi-culti, politically correct propaganda - but don't miss the Christian reference...
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2312/archbishops-bbc-new-year-message
..it comes, briefly, about three and a half minutes into a four and a half minute video.
*
Otherwise, what can one say about this?
What words describe it?
Banal, trite, obscure, wrong whenever it is not platitudinous, missing the point - but then what is the point supposed to be?
I can only guess he is setting up a straw man of Britain's supposed hostility to 'young people' and then proposing some vague and ineffectual secular ways this can be tackled.
But why? Why did he do this? What does he think he is doing? Has he any conception of how clownish and unprincipled he appears - how c & u he actually is?
*
The Church of England evangelical protestant church I support has a tremendous range of exciting and amusing activities for children (including my kids); these activities also have an obvious and unashamed evangelical and Christian educational element to them. It 'works', and consequently this is one of the ten biggest Anglican Churches in England (measured by the size of the regular congregation). Yet of course, this church is at the opposite pole from the Archbish of C and seriously at loggerheads with the liberal Anglican hierarchy.
*
Hitler and Smoking
*
I just stumbled across this article I wrote in the days when I was a highly prolific writer, and writing for major newspapers. I had completely forgotten its existence or that I had written it. Now it seems to be featured on a pro-tobacco collection of articles.
Written from a libertarian stance. Still, it makes a good point, I think...
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2050154078-4116.html?zoom=750
*
Oh no - not another New Year!
*
It's that disconcerting time of year when we are assailed by bright and friendly faces delightedly wishing us a Happy New Year - an orgy of public celebration over unwrapping the latest wall calendar.
*
It is not a new year in any meaningful sense, nothing new actually starts on January 1; it is not astronomically significant, it is not part of the Christian Year nor any other religion, it is not the tax year, it is not the academic year...
The New Year is the perfect celebration for a modern world which believes in nothing - literally. In the sense that nothing is precisely what it believes in and celebrates most uninhibitedly.
*
Marvelous. Great excitement, all night 'partying' and extreme drunkenness in honour of utter vacuousness: who could possibly be offended by that!
Happy New Nihilism!
*
It's that disconcerting time of year when we are assailed by bright and friendly faces delightedly wishing us a Happy New Year - an orgy of public celebration over unwrapping the latest wall calendar.
*
It is not a new year in any meaningful sense, nothing new actually starts on January 1; it is not astronomically significant, it is not part of the Christian Year nor any other religion, it is not the tax year, it is not the academic year...
The New Year is the perfect celebration for a modern world which believes in nothing - literally. In the sense that nothing is precisely what it believes in and celebrates most uninhibitedly.
*
Marvelous. Great excitement, all night 'partying' and extreme drunkenness in honour of utter vacuousness: who could possibly be offended by that!
Happy New Nihilism!
*
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Good habits and civilization - especially prayer
*
A devout life is not much about the flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will.
Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for 'entertainment'.
Against this we can inculcate Good habits - such as frequent participation in Holy Communion, reading of Scripture and devotional books (spiritual 'injections' as Fr Seraphim Rose called them), and most of all a habit of prayer.
I think that the use of one or a few repeated short prayers is especially valuable in modern conditions.
This practice is especially associated with Orthodox mysticism, and has a remarkable 'track record'; but it need not be Orthodox nor mystical.
The prayer chosen was traditionally drawn from scripture - the New Testament or Psalms or Prophecies. Or there is the Jesus Prayer - which has various versions.
The prayer is repeated and repeated whenever the need for prayer is remembered. There is no delay in finding a 'suitable' place or adopting a posture; as soon as the need is remembered the prayer is said (either quietly with the lips or in the mind).
Repetitions can be counted-off on the fingers - or with a device such as a prayer rope or rosary (maybe concealed in the pocket).
As the habit develops it will be found that sometimes the prayer comes to mind or is already running through the mind or being said unconsciously and without intention, and this is itself a reminder to pray consciously and with attention now.
The prayer can function as an alarm call; whenever we surface from the maelstrom of the modern world there is the prayer, ticking away, and reminding us of the real things.
A good habit to acquire!
*
A devout life is not much about the flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will.
Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for 'entertainment'.
Against this we can inculcate Good habits - such as frequent participation in Holy Communion, reading of Scripture and devotional books (spiritual 'injections' as Fr Seraphim Rose called them), and most of all a habit of prayer.
I think that the use of one or a few repeated short prayers is especially valuable in modern conditions.
This practice is especially associated with Orthodox mysticism, and has a remarkable 'track record'; but it need not be Orthodox nor mystical.
The prayer chosen was traditionally drawn from scripture - the New Testament or Psalms or Prophecies. Or there is the Jesus Prayer - which has various versions.
The prayer is repeated and repeated whenever the need for prayer is remembered. There is no delay in finding a 'suitable' place or adopting a posture; as soon as the need is remembered the prayer is said (either quietly with the lips or in the mind).
Repetitions can be counted-off on the fingers - or with a device such as a prayer rope or rosary (maybe concealed in the pocket).
As the habit develops it will be found that sometimes the prayer comes to mind or is already running through the mind or being said unconsciously and without intention, and this is itself a reminder to pray consciously and with attention now.
The prayer can function as an alarm call; whenever we surface from the maelstrom of the modern world there is the prayer, ticking away, and reminding us of the real things.
A good habit to acquire!
*
Friday, 30 December 2011
Guard yourself against the world?
*
Archbishop Averky also quoted often the words of St. Ignatius Brianchininov:
"Do not dare to raise your weak hand to stop the elemental tide of apostasy. Avoid it, protect yourself from it, and that is enough for you. Get to know the spirit of the times, study it so you can avoid its influence whenever possible."
Cited in http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-man-in-face-of-apostasy.html
From its provenance, this must be taken as authoritative - assuming we can interpret it correctly.
*
The interesting thing is that the Saint's advice is the opposite from normal worldly advice which I used to follow. The worldly advice was that one had a kind of duty to expose oneself to the worst that the world could throw at you, otherwise you were shirking life, living in an ivory tower - otherwise you didn't truly know life.
The truly virtuous man could, and would, live among the seamiest characters and grossest experiences (whether actual or vicarious in art and the media) - and only by doing so would his virtue be proven.
Such was the worldly advice which I followed...
*
The worldly advisers knew what they were about, knew that if exposed to unrelieved and engineered temptation and horror 24/7 - then all but the most saintly would succomb to sin and despair; and that if everyone was exposed to incessant temptation and horror from an early age so that they never got clear of it, then there would be no saints.
*
H/T commenter Pierre.
*
Archbishop Averky also quoted often the words of St. Ignatius Brianchininov:
"Do not dare to raise your weak hand to stop the elemental tide of apostasy. Avoid it, protect yourself from it, and that is enough for you. Get to know the spirit of the times, study it so you can avoid its influence whenever possible."
Cited in http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-man-in-face-of-apostasy.html
From its provenance, this must be taken as authoritative - assuming we can interpret it correctly.
*
The interesting thing is that the Saint's advice is the opposite from normal worldly advice which I used to follow. The worldly advice was that one had a kind of duty to expose oneself to the worst that the world could throw at you, otherwise you were shirking life, living in an ivory tower - otherwise you didn't truly know life.
The truly virtuous man could, and would, live among the seamiest characters and grossest experiences (whether actual or vicarious in art and the media) - and only by doing so would his virtue be proven.
Such was the worldly advice which I followed...
*
The worldly advisers knew what they were about, knew that if exposed to unrelieved and engineered temptation and horror 24/7 - then all but the most saintly would succomb to sin and despair; and that if everyone was exposed to incessant temptation and horror from an early age so that they never got clear of it, then there would be no saints.
*
H/T commenter Pierre.
*
The profound evil of non-judgment
*
Political Correctness says: Don't judge - don't be prejudiced.
Christianity says: Judge everything, superficial or deep - because everything is tending either to the good or to the bad.
Christianity says: Be prejudiced about everything - because your attitude to good and bad things must be different.
*
Only, be prepared to revise your judgements or prejudices in light of further developments. You must judge and be prejudiced, but as a fallen Man these will err.
Only God knows justice and the truth - but we must judge as best we can, guess the nature of things as best we can - grow to be like God as best we can.
*
Political Correctness says: Don't judge - don't be prejudiced.
Christianity says: Judge everything, superficial or deep - because everything is tending either to the good or to the bad.
Christianity says: Be prejudiced about everything - because your attitude to good and bad things must be different.
*
Only, be prepared to revise your judgements or prejudices in light of further developments. You must judge and be prejudiced, but as a fallen Man these will err.
Only God knows justice and the truth - but we must judge as best we can, guess the nature of things as best we can - grow to be like God as best we can.
*
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Six problems for modern Christian apologists - and a solution?
*
Historical Christianity came into an already religious world and won converts from Jews and then pagans - the modern situation of converting secular, materialist, utilitarian hedonists is very different:
*
1. Paganism absent
Christianity is a much bigger jump from secular modernity than from paganism. Christianity seemed like a completion of paganism - a step or two further in the same direction and building on what was already there: souls and their survival beyond death, the intrinsic nature of sin, the activities of invisible powers and so on. With moderns there is nothing to build on (except perhaps childhood memories or alternative realities glimpsed through art and literature).
*
2. Incomplete
Modern Christianity as experienced by converts tends to be incomplete - precisely because modern Christianity has nothing to build on. This means that modern incomplete Christianity lacks explanatory power, seems to have little or nothing to say about what seem to be the main problems of living. For example, modern Christianity seems to have nothing to do with politics, law, art, philosophy or science; to inhabit a tiny, shrinking realm cut-off from daily concerns. Modern Christianity often deletes miracles; original sin; the virgin birth, the incarnation and dual nature of Christ; Christ's death, resurrection and atonement; the Holy Trinity; angels, demons and unseen spiritual warfare and so on - yet without these and other elements, Christianity does not really hang-together nor does it satisfy human yearning.
*
3. Shallowness.
Modern Christianity often feels shallow - it seems to rely on diktat of scripture and the Church - this is because moderns lack a basis in the spontaneous perceptions of Natural Law, animism, the sense of active supernatural power in everyday life. Modern Christianity (after the first flush of the conversion experience) thus feels dry, abstract, legalistic, prohibitive, uninvolving, lacking in purpose.
*
4. Judaism absent.
Modern Christianity has to do without the centuries of Jewish tradition developing an understanding of the nature of God, the prophets and their prophecies, the devotional life of the Psalms etc; but modern Christians have to discover all this from scratch and for themselves, and often do not.
*
5. Confusion.
Modern life is hedonic, distracted - often drugged. Consequently people are often unclear about the nature of life. On top of this, in recent decades the prevalent ruling culture has been actively against the Good. Modern art is anti-beauty, modern philosophies are anti-truth, modern morality is an inversion of Natural Law. Propaganda (implicit and explicit) inculcates that the spontaneous ideals of humans (native religion, sex differentials, family, nation, loyalty, courage) are wrong. In sum moderns are deeply (deliberately) confused about deep matters. Therefore, modern Christian apologists have to explain the human condition, the basic nature of life; before explaining how Christianity is the answer.
*
6. Anti-Christian inoculation
6. Anti-Christian inoculation
The ruling culture now inoculates specifically against Christianity and the prerequisites of Christianity. It supplies ready-made arguments grounded in modern materialist hedonism to be used against all evidence or steps in argument that might lead to Christianity if rigorously followed. Christian apologetics cannot advance one step without eliciting these slogans, and modern impatience, distractability and a short attention span does the rest. That these hedonic materialist arguments are circular, incoherent and ungrounded is irrelevant in practice; because they effectively block the development of an alternative metaphysics from which their invalidity would be apparent.
*
In sum - modern Christianity lacks both pull and push - it lacks the pull which comes from people being grounded in Paganism and Judaism; and it lacks the push of being a complex and complete explanation of the human condition, relations, meanings and purposes. If apologists both know and also attempt to supply all of this, to supply the depth and completeness of Christianity, they find they cannot do so all at once. If they try to be exact and comprehensive, the apologist comes-up against the modern inability to follow a long and complex line of argument; yet if he tries to present Christianity all at once then what can be communicated is inevitably a gross simplification: incomplete and shallow.
*
So what is the answer? If the fullness is too complex and the essence is incomplete?
And since people cannot become like pagans or ancient Jews - from where could they start?
Perhaps as children again, children re-awoken and reborn in us; since children have spontaneously the prerequisites which our culture fails to provide and has suppressed:
Mark 10.13-16
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
*
How strange that children should be our repositories of ancient wisdom - and childhood memories the basis of salvation; but there it is, explicitly - Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein....
*
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
Deliberate self-mutilation is an evil
*
If someone was to spray-paint Durham Cathedral with graffiti, or slash all the best paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, or blast a Vuvuzela during the climax of a great operatic performance - we would (or, at least ought to) recognize these as evil acts in their varying degrees; as destructive the Good.
We should not be distracted because deliberately wrecking Great Art, deliberately marring beauty, is somehow 'not as bad' as torturing or killing - wrecking Great Art is bad: that is the point.
*
The same applies to the human face and body - deliberately to mutilate the human face and body is bad, is destructive of Good, is evil.
It is an act of desecration - a vandalism of sanctity.
And this is an objective fact - not a matter of opinion.
*
(As we all covertly recognize: our very viscera inform us of the fact.)
*
Even worse when the mutilation is permanent, scarring, cannot be undone.
Even worse when the mutilation is proudly advertized - so that others may be exposed to the act of evil; challenged to accept it, encouraged to emulate it.
*
Even worse when mutilation is normalized - brought into desirable situations in art, TV, movies, drama, news - into cultural institutions; into situations where the mutilation is accepted - perhaps after a struggle, or in face of ignorant hostility and prejudice - or simply made part of the background, assimilated unconsciously.
This is propaganda for evil - and far worse than oneself sinning (sin is inevitable in fallen Men; but the propagation - by favorable association, advertisement, by normalization - of sin is a voluntary act of strategic evil).
*
Evil cannot be undone, but it can be repented.
However, only at the cost of Pride.
Advertizing, normalizing, boasting of sin is a highly regarded activity in the modern world - by contrast it is regarded as evil to point-out sin, to reject sin, to say that a sin is bad and should elicit shame rather than admiration - because to do so is hurtful - humiliating, even.
But repenting evil hurts, it ought to hurt - it reduces one's self-esteem and status among others to say 'I made a mistake, I did a bad thing'.
But that is what ought to be done.
*
If someone was to spray-paint Durham Cathedral with graffiti, or slash all the best paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, or blast a Vuvuzela during the climax of a great operatic performance - we would (or, at least ought to) recognize these as evil acts in their varying degrees; as destructive the Good.
We should not be distracted because deliberately wrecking Great Art, deliberately marring beauty, is somehow 'not as bad' as torturing or killing - wrecking Great Art is bad: that is the point.
*
The same applies to the human face and body - deliberately to mutilate the human face and body is bad, is destructive of Good, is evil.
It is an act of desecration - a vandalism of sanctity.
And this is an objective fact - not a matter of opinion.
*
(As we all covertly recognize: our very viscera inform us of the fact.)
*
Even worse when the mutilation is permanent, scarring, cannot be undone.
Even worse when the mutilation is proudly advertized - so that others may be exposed to the act of evil; challenged to accept it, encouraged to emulate it.
*
Even worse when mutilation is normalized - brought into desirable situations in art, TV, movies, drama, news - into cultural institutions; into situations where the mutilation is accepted - perhaps after a struggle, or in face of ignorant hostility and prejudice - or simply made part of the background, assimilated unconsciously.
This is propaganda for evil - and far worse than oneself sinning (sin is inevitable in fallen Men; but the propagation - by favorable association, advertisement, by normalization - of sin is a voluntary act of strategic evil).
*
Evil cannot be undone, but it can be repented.
However, only at the cost of Pride.
Advertizing, normalizing, boasting of sin is a highly regarded activity in the modern world - by contrast it is regarded as evil to point-out sin, to reject sin, to say that a sin is bad and should elicit shame rather than admiration - because to do so is hurtful - humiliating, even.
But repenting evil hurts, it ought to hurt - it reduces one's self-esteem and status among others to say 'I made a mistake, I did a bad thing'.
But that is what ought to be done.
*
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
How should Reactionaries regard Conservatives? As seekers
*
There is a sense in which mainstream Conservatives are one of the worst enemies of Reaction.
This happens because - when effective - Conservatives make partial corrections that temporarily improve the situation without curing the underlying trend.
Effective Conservatives defer collapse but do not prevent it - and the longer collapse is deferred, the worse collapse will be when it eventually comes.
*
Yet of course Conservatives are much closer to Reactionaries than are out-and-out Leftists: Conservatives are more-nearly right/ Right.
*
What happens in modern socio-political life is that nuanced/ reasonable/ sensible/ moderate Conservative positions are continually being absorbed into Leftism/ Liberalism/ Political Correctness by default as the political 'centre' is moved ever Leftward...
Except in those exceptional instances when a Conservative perceives this assimilation as it begins to happen, takes a deep breath, makes a stand - then quantum-jumps into extreme, beyond the pale, Reactionary views.
*
This entails an inner rejection of modernity that is weird and indeed hypocritical; since nobody can live by it.
To the Conservative, the Reactionary is either crazy, or insincere - either way the Reactionary is seen not to be living by his beliefs, Reactionary beliefs are seen as inapplicable to 'real life'.
Yet this is the spiritual destination of Conservatism - pushed to the point of decision.
It is likely that few will make that inner decision, the quantum-leap, that road less taken: since all worldly considerations are against it.
*
But until a decision has already been made to take the broad path of the pragmatic mainstream; then the mass of Christian Conservatives should probably be regarded as 'friends of Reaction'; not for what they are but for what they might become.
Conservatives should perhaps be seen as 'spiritual seekers' on a path which may lead to Reaction, but as individuals who have not yet arrived at the fork in the way.
*
There is a sense in which mainstream Conservatives are one of the worst enemies of Reaction.
This happens because - when effective - Conservatives make partial corrections that temporarily improve the situation without curing the underlying trend.
Effective Conservatives defer collapse but do not prevent it - and the longer collapse is deferred, the worse collapse will be when it eventually comes.
*
Yet of course Conservatives are much closer to Reactionaries than are out-and-out Leftists: Conservatives are more-nearly right/ Right.
*
What happens in modern socio-political life is that nuanced/ reasonable/ sensible/ moderate Conservative positions are continually being absorbed into Leftism/ Liberalism/ Political Correctness by default as the political 'centre' is moved ever Leftward...
Except in those exceptional instances when a Conservative perceives this assimilation as it begins to happen, takes a deep breath, makes a stand - then quantum-jumps into extreme, beyond the pale, Reactionary views.
*
This entails an inner rejection of modernity that is weird and indeed hypocritical; since nobody can live by it.
To the Conservative, the Reactionary is either crazy, or insincere - either way the Reactionary is seen not to be living by his beliefs, Reactionary beliefs are seen as inapplicable to 'real life'.
Yet this is the spiritual destination of Conservatism - pushed to the point of decision.
It is likely that few will make that inner decision, the quantum-leap, that road less taken: since all worldly considerations are against it.
*
But until a decision has already been made to take the broad path of the pragmatic mainstream; then the mass of Christian Conservatives should probably be regarded as 'friends of Reaction'; not for what they are but for what they might become.
Conservatives should perhaps be seen as 'spiritual seekers' on a path which may lead to Reaction, but as individuals who have not yet arrived at the fork in the way.
*
Monday, 26 December 2011
Only one political principle for Christian Reactionaries
*
As Christians first, and reactionaries second, there is only room for one single, organising, inflexible reactionary political principle.
*
The Christian society is one organised-around the salvation of souls, or at least that is its ideal.
(Therefore, the Christian society is fundamentally different from the society we have.)
For Christian Reactionaries, political arrangements should be subordinated to retaining and growing the strength and possibility of Christianity.
*
Of course this does not at all mean that Christianity is the only important matter, since life cannot be divided and humans are corrupt, and almost all humans live 'in the world'.
It does not mean that The State/ Church should use 'compulsion' to engineer salvation. That makes no sense - the means must be the same as the end, and the end is that Christian salvation must be chosen, or not chosen.
(That is the necessity of Hell in the divine plan: because souls must be free to reject Christian salvation. This is perfectly explicit, and applies to angelic spirits as well as Men.)
*
Christianity is based on choice, on will; and the political principle must therefore also be based on choice, on will - that is on human attributes.
A Christian politics is necessarily a politics of individual choice - necessarily not (fundamentally) a system.
For the Reactionary Christian, civilisation must be fundamentally a thing of Man, of individual Men; therefore not of laws, rules, organisations, procedures, committees, votes, parliaments, panels, peer reviewing, nor democracy, nor mass movements, nor pressure groups...
Insofar as these things are necessary to civilisation, and they are, they must never be considered fundamental.
*
There is therefore no point, it is indeed counter-productive, to create blueprints for utopia for the perfect society that is Christian and much more.
Matters are too far gone, knowledge is too limited, that goal is too remote.
*
If we fight the battle on too many fronts, it will certainly be lost.
On the other hand, we must try to avoid being out-flanked - however this may not be possible with small forces.
The result may resemble a siege.
*
We cannot save everything, we must decide what it is vital to salvage.
In my opinion, when the nations and civilisations as a whole are anti-Christian then we probably, very probably, cannot save the current nation states and we cannot save our civilisation for the simple reason that Men are choosing not to save them.
*
There is no shortcut to the other side of salvation: we cannot make men want Good and then save them: salvation must come first: and repentance must precede salvation.
*
Societies have personalities (which are not the same, are the antithesis of, the results of votes and surveys and markets).
Modern Western societies must, as personalities, first acknowledge their sins (sin being the state of turned-away from God), and the cause of their sins; must take responsibility, repent, call for Divine aid.
This must come first, and it is pointless, no it is a dangerous delusion, to try and improve society without this; because it could be done only by coercion or trickery, and any apparent progress would swiftly be turned to its own undoing (since the apparent Good would in reality have come from the implementation of Bad intentions).
*
(contra Adam Smith, good results cannot ultimately comes from bad motivations but only briefly and delusively as a temptation; since over time bad motivations will thoroughly corrupt any well-intentioned system. Surely that is obvious by now? Isn't that precisely what we are experiencing?).
*
Thus the necessity for aiming fist-and-foremost at a state and practice of clear rejection of the world, and a humble acceptance of whatever consequences ensue.
(What possible inducement could people have to do this? - it might be asked. The answer is precisely the need for the conception of the wholeness of Christianity, that perceives the world as full or living intelligences ('angels') and life as Spiritual Warfare. From this perspective, suddenly, we are inside life and life is real with purpose and direction. This would be an infinite compensation for loss of worldly goods - if only we could hold to it; which we cannot, by our own efforts.)
Of course, as fallen Men, resolve will (almost certainly) fail, repeatedly; and need to be renewed; but ultimates outcomes are (as always) in the hand of Providence - and need not concern us.
*
As always, to a (simple) man of discernment, things are absolutely simple, what we need to do is absolutely simple.
And that state of simplicity and discernment is what needs to be striven for.
*
As Christians first, and reactionaries second, there is only room for one single, organising, inflexible reactionary political principle.
*
The Christian society is one organised-around the salvation of souls, or at least that is its ideal.
(Therefore, the Christian society is fundamentally different from the society we have.)
For Christian Reactionaries, political arrangements should be subordinated to retaining and growing the strength and possibility of Christianity.
*
Of course this does not at all mean that Christianity is the only important matter, since life cannot be divided and humans are corrupt, and almost all humans live 'in the world'.
It does not mean that The State/ Church should use 'compulsion' to engineer salvation. That makes no sense - the means must be the same as the end, and the end is that Christian salvation must be chosen, or not chosen.
(That is the necessity of Hell in the divine plan: because souls must be free to reject Christian salvation. This is perfectly explicit, and applies to angelic spirits as well as Men.)
*
Christianity is based on choice, on will; and the political principle must therefore also be based on choice, on will - that is on human attributes.
A Christian politics is necessarily a politics of individual choice - necessarily not (fundamentally) a system.
For the Reactionary Christian, civilisation must be fundamentally a thing of Man, of individual Men; therefore not of laws, rules, organisations, procedures, committees, votes, parliaments, panels, peer reviewing, nor democracy, nor mass movements, nor pressure groups...
Insofar as these things are necessary to civilisation, and they are, they must never be considered fundamental.
*
There is therefore no point, it is indeed counter-productive, to create blueprints for utopia for the perfect society that is Christian and much more.
Matters are too far gone, knowledge is too limited, that goal is too remote.
*
If we fight the battle on too many fronts, it will certainly be lost.
On the other hand, we must try to avoid being out-flanked - however this may not be possible with small forces.
The result may resemble a siege.
*
We cannot save everything, we must decide what it is vital to salvage.
In my opinion, when the nations and civilisations as a whole are anti-Christian then we probably, very probably, cannot save the current nation states and we cannot save our civilisation for the simple reason that Men are choosing not to save them.
*
There is no shortcut to the other side of salvation: we cannot make men want Good and then save them: salvation must come first: and repentance must precede salvation.
*
Societies have personalities (which are not the same, are the antithesis of, the results of votes and surveys and markets).
Modern Western societies must, as personalities, first acknowledge their sins (sin being the state of turned-away from God), and the cause of their sins; must take responsibility, repent, call for Divine aid.
This must come first, and it is pointless, no it is a dangerous delusion, to try and improve society without this; because it could be done only by coercion or trickery, and any apparent progress would swiftly be turned to its own undoing (since the apparent Good would in reality have come from the implementation of Bad intentions).
*
(contra Adam Smith, good results cannot ultimately comes from bad motivations but only briefly and delusively as a temptation; since over time bad motivations will thoroughly corrupt any well-intentioned system. Surely that is obvious by now? Isn't that precisely what we are experiencing?).
*
Thus the necessity for aiming fist-and-foremost at a state and practice of clear rejection of the world, and a humble acceptance of whatever consequences ensue.
(What possible inducement could people have to do this? - it might be asked. The answer is precisely the need for the conception of the wholeness of Christianity, that perceives the world as full or living intelligences ('angels') and life as Spiritual Warfare. From this perspective, suddenly, we are inside life and life is real with purpose and direction. This would be an infinite compensation for loss of worldly goods - if only we could hold to it; which we cannot, by our own efforts.)
Of course, as fallen Men, resolve will (almost certainly) fail, repeatedly; and need to be renewed; but ultimates outcomes are (as always) in the hand of Providence - and need not concern us.
*
As always, to a (simple) man of discernment, things are absolutely simple, what we need to do is absolutely simple.
And that state of simplicity and discernment is what needs to be striven for.
*
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Some misconceptions about motivations
*
I regard the Eastern Roman Empire as a kind of ideal society - in the sense that it seems to have been the most devout Christian society and with the fullest, deepest, highest kind of Christianity.
Byzantium seems to 'prove' or at least confirm that divine monarchy is the proper form of government, Empire the proper form of organization, that Christianity ought to permeate the whole life (and not be encapsulated away from the state), and that Christianity can reach its highest deveopment when led by the ascetic monsatic ideal; when productive of Saints and Elders.
*
Would it be true to say that I want to impose such an Empire on England, Britain, the West? To install a monarch, a Tsar, and re-organise life to emulate Constantinople?
And do I revere Byzantium because I personally crave to live somewhere of that sort?
*
Well, no and no.
The Byzantine ideal serves to show what can be done, how humans can be very different from now - how a society can be devoted to Christian ideals and richly civilised, yet tough enough to survive for centuries against strong and hostile forces.
Perhaps most impressively (for me, living here and now) a society which never lost faith in itself, never became self-loathing and suicidal; and which courageously chose to die rather than submit.
*
But Byzantium emerged from the Roman Empire when it became Christian; it became a fusion of Hebrew, Greek and Roman cultures with the Revelation; but it was not designed.
Spiritually, Eastern Orthodoxy was a completion of paganism, not a replacement.
*
But I am a product of modernity, hence cowardly and shallow and a lover of comfort and distraction. I would find it extremely hard to live under an Orthodox monarchy - in fact I would probably get sick and die in a few weeks.
So my motivations about such potential futures are - of course - abstract and fantasy-like.
If human society ought to be Christian rather than anti-Christian, devoted to salvation rather than peace and prosperity, a divine monarchy rather than a democracy, other-worldly instead of this worldly: honouring of Love rather than kindness, Courage rather than career, Authority rather than anarchy - and so on, then we would need something very different from what we have.
*
But I don't really think much about it - legitimate Christian reactionary politics is not about imposing a blueprint; it is about pursuing spiritual goals, making choices, and seeing what emerges from these choices.
Even if successful (which is highly improbable), even before corruption took its toll; likely as not we would not get what we bargained for; because what would be Good for us would, no doubt, be considerably different from what we consciously wanted.
Byzantium happened because the people deserved it, by their holiness; we do not deserve it, we could not create or sustain it - and it will not happen.
If Westerners, en masse, were to repent and reform, then - maybe - in a hundred years or more we might get somewhere near Byzantium...
*
I regard the Eastern Roman Empire as a kind of ideal society - in the sense that it seems to have been the most devout Christian society and with the fullest, deepest, highest kind of Christianity.
Byzantium seems to 'prove' or at least confirm that divine monarchy is the proper form of government, Empire the proper form of organization, that Christianity ought to permeate the whole life (and not be encapsulated away from the state), and that Christianity can reach its highest deveopment when led by the ascetic monsatic ideal; when productive of Saints and Elders.
*
Would it be true to say that I want to impose such an Empire on England, Britain, the West? To install a monarch, a Tsar, and re-organise life to emulate Constantinople?
And do I revere Byzantium because I personally crave to live somewhere of that sort?
*
Well, no and no.
The Byzantine ideal serves to show what can be done, how humans can be very different from now - how a society can be devoted to Christian ideals and richly civilised, yet tough enough to survive for centuries against strong and hostile forces.
Perhaps most impressively (for me, living here and now) a society which never lost faith in itself, never became self-loathing and suicidal; and which courageously chose to die rather than submit.
*
But Byzantium emerged from the Roman Empire when it became Christian; it became a fusion of Hebrew, Greek and Roman cultures with the Revelation; but it was not designed.
Spiritually, Eastern Orthodoxy was a completion of paganism, not a replacement.
*
But I am a product of modernity, hence cowardly and shallow and a lover of comfort and distraction. I would find it extremely hard to live under an Orthodox monarchy - in fact I would probably get sick and die in a few weeks.
So my motivations about such potential futures are - of course - abstract and fantasy-like.
If human society ought to be Christian rather than anti-Christian, devoted to salvation rather than peace and prosperity, a divine monarchy rather than a democracy, other-worldly instead of this worldly: honouring of Love rather than kindness, Courage rather than career, Authority rather than anarchy - and so on, then we would need something very different from what we have.
*
But I don't really think much about it - legitimate Christian reactionary politics is not about imposing a blueprint; it is about pursuing spiritual goals, making choices, and seeing what emerges from these choices.
Even if successful (which is highly improbable), even before corruption took its toll; likely as not we would not get what we bargained for; because what would be Good for us would, no doubt, be considerably different from what we consciously wanted.
Byzantium happened because the people deserved it, by their holiness; we do not deserve it, we could not create or sustain it - and it will not happen.
If Westerners, en masse, were to repent and reform, then - maybe - in a hundred years or more we might get somewhere near Byzantium...
*
Saturday, 24 December 2011
Friday, 23 December 2011
Living on in memory solves nothing - Ceremonial Time by Hanson Mitchell
*
I commented recently on the fake modern 'insight' that death is not-so-bad because people live-on in memory, in our hearts
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/deathly-hallows-part-ii-movie-what-is.html
The bogosity of this insight is beautifully expressed in a beautiful book called Ceremonial Time: fifteen thousand years on one square mile by John Hanson Mitchell (1984), from pages 200-201.
*
The thing that had stalked me in the woods of Scratch Flat for all those years was nothing more than death.
But it came to me very clearly that morning that it was not simply my own death that walked a few steps behind me; it was the full realization that my own cohort will die, that everyone whom I now know, whom I have known, and whom I will know, is going to die; and that, in spite of this horrifying fact, the world, huge and momentous and indifferent, will carry one.
There is no escaping this devastating reality. The mysticism of Tonupasqua and the supposed indifference of Pokawnau, the bear shaman, will not alter it. The solid foundations and heavy timbers of the seventeenth-century English structures on Scratch Flat could not alter it, and for that matter, neither will an account of fifteen thousand years of history on a square mile of land.
No matter where I looked, in the running walls that line the woodlands, in the folktales of the American Indians, or in the town records or verbal accounts of the area, I realized I was reading the obituary of my era...
Time has obliterated and will obliterate all the places and all the living individuals of this earth in its course, and we are living in a little match snap of light and life in a dark and dead universe and there is not much that can be done about it in the end.
I found the thought curiously comforting...
*
Mitchell has never yet gone deeper than this in all his subsequent work: his subsequent work is perhaps precisely part of the 'curiously comforting' carrying-on of light and life in a dark and dead universe.
*
Mitchell's perspective is, in other words, pagan - as he is perfectly aware, however top-dressed with post-modern irony - it is the ground position of those who face the human condition honestly and insightfully and without divine revelation.
The conclusion of Ceremonial Times is a recognition that all the good things of life are floating soap bubbles - they are beautiful for a moment, then they burst; and soon after observing this we burst also.
*
Mitchell has responded to this insight by blowing more beautiful bubbles, becoming absorbed in the task, imaginatively dwelling in the beautiful bubbles...
But always lurking in the background is that awareness.
*
To say that mortality is not-so-bad is to forget all this, or to suppress it.
When we watch a beautiful soap bubble burst, that loss is not solved by our having watched it happen and remembering, because we too will burst and everyone who saw us burst will themselves burst too.
Memory changes nothing about the reality of mortality except to displace the problem by one step.
Essentially, memory it is a distraction from the truth.
*
The only solution to mortality is im-mortality - everlasting life.
The only memory that solves anything is perfect, complete, absorbing, re-experienced reality - yet human memory is imperfect, incomplete, unreal, and decaying.
So, the only real solution to the inevitable change and decay of life in Time is Eternity: life out-of-Time.
*
I commented recently on the fake modern 'insight' that death is not-so-bad because people live-on in memory, in our hearts
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/12/deathly-hallows-part-ii-movie-what-is.html
The bogosity of this insight is beautifully expressed in a beautiful book called Ceremonial Time: fifteen thousand years on one square mile by John Hanson Mitchell (1984), from pages 200-201.
*
The thing that had stalked me in the woods of Scratch Flat for all those years was nothing more than death.
But it came to me very clearly that morning that it was not simply my own death that walked a few steps behind me; it was the full realization that my own cohort will die, that everyone whom I now know, whom I have known, and whom I will know, is going to die; and that, in spite of this horrifying fact, the world, huge and momentous and indifferent, will carry one.
There is no escaping this devastating reality. The mysticism of Tonupasqua and the supposed indifference of Pokawnau, the bear shaman, will not alter it. The solid foundations and heavy timbers of the seventeenth-century English structures on Scratch Flat could not alter it, and for that matter, neither will an account of fifteen thousand years of history on a square mile of land.
No matter where I looked, in the running walls that line the woodlands, in the folktales of the American Indians, or in the town records or verbal accounts of the area, I realized I was reading the obituary of my era...
Time has obliterated and will obliterate all the places and all the living individuals of this earth in its course, and we are living in a little match snap of light and life in a dark and dead universe and there is not much that can be done about it in the end.
I found the thought curiously comforting...
*
Mitchell has never yet gone deeper than this in all his subsequent work: his subsequent work is perhaps precisely part of the 'curiously comforting' carrying-on of light and life in a dark and dead universe.
*
Mitchell's perspective is, in other words, pagan - as he is perfectly aware, however top-dressed with post-modern irony - it is the ground position of those who face the human condition honestly and insightfully and without divine revelation.
The conclusion of Ceremonial Times is a recognition that all the good things of life are floating soap bubbles - they are beautiful for a moment, then they burst; and soon after observing this we burst also.
*
Mitchell has responded to this insight by blowing more beautiful bubbles, becoming absorbed in the task, imaginatively dwelling in the beautiful bubbles...
But always lurking in the background is that awareness.
*
To say that mortality is not-so-bad is to forget all this, or to suppress it.
When we watch a beautiful soap bubble burst, that loss is not solved by our having watched it happen and remembering, because we too will burst and everyone who saw us burst will themselves burst too.
Memory changes nothing about the reality of mortality except to displace the problem by one step.
Essentially, memory it is a distraction from the truth.
*
The only solution to mortality is im-mortality - everlasting life.
The only memory that solves anything is perfect, complete, absorbing, re-experienced reality - yet human memory is imperfect, incomplete, unreal, and decaying.
So, the only real solution to the inevitable change and decay of life in Time is Eternity: life out-of-Time.
*
Thursday, 22 December 2011
Fake boobs for women, fake bods for men
*
Because of silicone-fake-boobs there are now women around of a body shape that did not exist a generation ago and never had existed throughout human history. And indeed, in moderation, this is the most admired female shape in the mass media.
Likewise - but much less remarked upon - because of anabolic steroid-fake-bods, there are now men around of a body shape that did not exist a generation ago and never had existed throughout human history. And indeed, in moderation, this is the most admired male shape in the mass media.
But, due to a differential susceptibility of men and women to the influence of the mass media, and differential ability to discriminate mass media depictions from real life; this means that we now have a generation of women whose real life ideal of male attractiveness is (unknown to them) wholly a product of anabolic steroid use.
Just an observation...
*
Because of silicone-fake-boobs there are now women around of a body shape that did not exist a generation ago and never had existed throughout human history. And indeed, in moderation, this is the most admired female shape in the mass media.
Likewise - but much less remarked upon - because of anabolic steroid-fake-bods, there are now men around of a body shape that did not exist a generation ago and never had existed throughout human history. And indeed, in moderation, this is the most admired male shape in the mass media.
But, due to a differential susceptibility of men and women to the influence of the mass media, and differential ability to discriminate mass media depictions from real life; this means that we now have a generation of women whose real life ideal of male attractiveness is (unknown to them) wholly a product of anabolic steroid use.
Just an observation...
*
Why the Left always beats the secular Right in democracy
*
Both the Left and the secular Right derive from the same deep root – utilitarianism. The only difference is one of emphasis.
*
The Left emphasizes transcendental morality/ virtue, the secular Right emphasizes transcendental truth/ honesty.
*
Because feeling oneself to be virtuous is much more popular than feeling honest, and because people hate wickedness much more than they hate lies, the Left will always beat the secular Right.
*
Both the Left and the secular Right derive from the same deep root – utilitarianism. The only difference is one of emphasis.
*
The Left emphasizes transcendental morality/ virtue, the secular Right emphasizes transcendental truth/ honesty.
*
Because feeling oneself to be virtuous is much more popular than feeling honest, and because people hate wickedness much more than they hate lies, the Left will always beat the secular Right.
*
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Personal intellectual breakthroughs of 2011
*
Some things that spring to mind (all are linked):
1. Properly engaging with the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake - accepting the metaphysical value of morphic fields and morphic resonance.
2. Relating morphic fields to the nature and activities of angels.
3. Understanding the relationship between Time and Eternity as set out in Boethius's Consolations of Philosophy. Consequently, understanding the retrospective effects of prayer and the way that prayers for the dead can be conceptualized.
4. Understanding Christianity as the completion of paganism and the reality of animism - especially from considering the medieval universe as set-out by C.S Lewis.
*
All of the above were helped, behind the scenes, by e-mail interchanges with a new penfriend of 2011 - commenter Kristor.
*
Any other lists of personal breakthroughs 2011 from commenters?
*
Some things that spring to mind (all are linked):
1. Properly engaging with the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake - accepting the metaphysical value of morphic fields and morphic resonance.
2. Relating morphic fields to the nature and activities of angels.
3. Understanding the relationship between Time and Eternity as set out in Boethius's Consolations of Philosophy. Consequently, understanding the retrospective effects of prayer and the way that prayers for the dead can be conceptualized.
4. Understanding Christianity as the completion of paganism and the reality of animism - especially from considering the medieval universe as set-out by C.S Lewis.
*
All of the above were helped, behind the scenes, by e-mail interchanges with a new penfriend of 2011 - commenter Kristor.
*
Any other lists of personal breakthroughs 2011 from commenters?
*
Three little words - in The Lord's Prayer
*
Three little words in the Traditional Anglican version of the Our Father seem to represent the infinite perils of modernization, and yet in themselves them seem to be an example of reasonable and cautious modernization.
*
The Book of Common Prayer 1662 version was in use for about ten generations universally, and I learned it as a child attending a Church of England school:
*
At some point, three little words were changed:
"Our Father, which art in Heaven" - and this was modified to "who art in Heaven".
"Thy kingdom come, in Earth as it is in Heaven' - which was modified to "on Earth".
"As we forgive them that trespass against us" was modified to "those that trespass against us".
I'm not sure when this change was made, maybe 1928, but it spread gradually and widely.
*
In some ways the change to three little words made an almost imperceptible difference - certainly it did not destroy much of the power of the language.
In another sense they make the prayer slightly clearer to modern ears.
And yet - changing three little words was the first step that led to the horrors of the paradoxically named 'Common Worship' which is (apparently) the most commonly used form now:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours
now and for ever.
Which is merely a literal translation of the poem - an 'executive summary' of the Lord's Prayer (complete with invisible bullet points).
*
We now see that there should have been no meddling.
If people really cannot understand the usage of which, in and them (and the idea is nonsense since the meaning is obvious from context) - then the meaning should have been explained to them.
The prayer should not have been changed at all, not even by three little words.
*
Three little words in the Traditional Anglican version of the Our Father seem to represent the infinite perils of modernization, and yet in themselves them seem to be an example of reasonable and cautious modernization.
*
The Book of Common Prayer 1662 version was in use for about ten generations universally, and I learned it as a child attending a Church of England school:
- Our Father, which art in heaven,
- hallowed be thy name;
- thy kingdom come;
- thy will be done,
- in earth as it is in heaven.
- Give us this day our daily bread.
- And forgive us our trespasses,
- as we forgive them that trespass against us.
- And lead us not into temptation;
- but deliver us from evil.
- [For thine is the kingdom,
- the power, and the glory,
- for ever and ever.]
- Amen.
*
At some point, three little words were changed:
"Our Father, which art in Heaven" - and this was modified to "who art in Heaven".
"Thy kingdom come, in Earth as it is in Heaven' - which was modified to "on Earth".
"As we forgive them that trespass against us" was modified to "those that trespass against us".
I'm not sure when this change was made, maybe 1928, but it spread gradually and widely.
*
In some ways the change to three little words made an almost imperceptible difference - certainly it did not destroy much of the power of the language.
In another sense they make the prayer slightly clearer to modern ears.
And yet - changing three little words was the first step that led to the horrors of the paradoxically named 'Common Worship' which is (apparently) the most commonly used form now:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours
now and for ever.
Which is merely a literal translation of the poem - an 'executive summary' of the Lord's Prayer (complete with invisible bullet points).
*
We now see that there should have been no meddling.
If people really cannot understand the usage of which, in and them (and the idea is nonsense since the meaning is obvious from context) - then the meaning should have been explained to them.
The prayer should not have been changed at all, not even by three little words.
*
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Iain McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary
*
The Master and his Emissary: the divided brain and the making of the Western world.
Iain McGilchrist, Yale University Press, 2009.
*
If you are interested in the brain and consciousness, this is one of the best books ever written.
Indeed, it is such a good book of its kind (philosophically-informed science) that it reveals with great clarity the limitations of the kind of book this is - the limitations, in other words, not only of science but of philosophy.
*
I will not try to summarize the book - suffice to say it is about the right and left hemispheres of the human brain.
Further information (and excerpts) are available at http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/
*
Indeed, although I have been dipping-into and stepping-away-from the book for more than a year, I still keep coming across sections that jump out at me as if I hadn't seen them before.
Today I noticed on page 137:
If one had to characterise the left hemisphere by reference to one governing principle it would be that of division.
Manipulation and use require clarity and fixity, and clarity and fixity require separation and division.
What is moving and seamless, a process, becomes static and separate - things. It is the hemisphere of either/ or: clarity yields sharp boundaries.
And so it makes divisions that may not exist according to the right hemisphere.
Just as an individual object is neither just a bundle of perceptual properties 'in here', nor just something underlying them 'out there', so the self is neither a bundle of mental states or faculties, nor, on the other hand, something distinct underlying them.
It is an aspect of experience that perhaps has no sharp edges.
*
You won't find better quality scientific writing this side of Erwin Chargaff!
And for the sheer number and density of insightful and suggestive points, there is little else in this league.
*
Indeed, The Master and his Emissary is so good that you recognise where the book falls short of timeless greatness (although there is still time for a revised version which might scale this ultimate height).
As it stands, The Master and his Emissary is a brilliant and beautiful set of essays which is not unified due to a reluctance to ground its arguments in the metaphysical. It goes, that is, as far as science can go, and then as far as philosophy can go; but does not take the next step - which would be metaphysics, and indeed an explicit statement of religion.
The solution is pointed-at, implied, but not itself stated; not because a solution cannot be stated, but for whatever reason it is not stated.
It is, as a matter of fact, unstated - or at least not stated here.
*
The book is like a hemispherical dome that lacks its capstone - and therefore the book resembles a series of incomplete arches - each of which (because the dome is incomplete) requires substantial buttressing with the end result that the book needs far more 'building material' (words, evidence) than would be the case were the dome completed and self-supporting.
*
In other words, the component arguments are necessarily elaborated beyond what could potentially be an achievable level of clarity and brevity.
*
However, if The Master and his Emissary had indeed been capped-off with its implicit key metaphysical and religious statement, then it would probably (in these corrupt times) have alienated both publishers and many sympathetic readers.
So it is quite understandable that this was not the case.
Nonetheless, it is a wonderful achievement, especially for the time and place it was published - very much an old style piece of scholarship, written from the heart by a man of exceptional brilliance and erudition who expended two decades of his best efforts on the task. .
*
The Master and his Emissary: the divided brain and the making of the Western world.
Iain McGilchrist, Yale University Press, 2009.
*
If you are interested in the brain and consciousness, this is one of the best books ever written.
Indeed, it is such a good book of its kind (philosophically-informed science) that it reveals with great clarity the limitations of the kind of book this is - the limitations, in other words, not only of science but of philosophy.
*
I will not try to summarize the book - suffice to say it is about the right and left hemispheres of the human brain.
Further information (and excerpts) are available at http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/
*
Indeed, although I have been dipping-into and stepping-away-from the book for more than a year, I still keep coming across sections that jump out at me as if I hadn't seen them before.
Today I noticed on page 137:
If one had to characterise the left hemisphere by reference to one governing principle it would be that of division.
Manipulation and use require clarity and fixity, and clarity and fixity require separation and division.
What is moving and seamless, a process, becomes static and separate - things. It is the hemisphere of either/ or: clarity yields sharp boundaries.
And so it makes divisions that may not exist according to the right hemisphere.
Just as an individual object is neither just a bundle of perceptual properties 'in here', nor just something underlying them 'out there', so the self is neither a bundle of mental states or faculties, nor, on the other hand, something distinct underlying them.
It is an aspect of experience that perhaps has no sharp edges.
*
You won't find better quality scientific writing this side of Erwin Chargaff!
And for the sheer number and density of insightful and suggestive points, there is little else in this league.
*
Indeed, The Master and his Emissary is so good that you recognise where the book falls short of timeless greatness (although there is still time for a revised version which might scale this ultimate height).
As it stands, The Master and his Emissary is a brilliant and beautiful set of essays which is not unified due to a reluctance to ground its arguments in the metaphysical. It goes, that is, as far as science can go, and then as far as philosophy can go; but does not take the next step - which would be metaphysics, and indeed an explicit statement of religion.
The solution is pointed-at, implied, but not itself stated; not because a solution cannot be stated, but for whatever reason it is not stated.
It is, as a matter of fact, unstated - or at least not stated here.
*
The book is like a hemispherical dome that lacks its capstone - and therefore the book resembles a series of incomplete arches - each of which (because the dome is incomplete) requires substantial buttressing with the end result that the book needs far more 'building material' (words, evidence) than would be the case were the dome completed and self-supporting.
*
In other words, the component arguments are necessarily elaborated beyond what could potentially be an achievable level of clarity and brevity.
*
However, if The Master and his Emissary had indeed been capped-off with its implicit key metaphysical and religious statement, then it would probably (in these corrupt times) have alienated both publishers and many sympathetic readers.
So it is quite understandable that this was not the case.
Nonetheless, it is a wonderful achievement, especially for the time and place it was published - very much an old style piece of scholarship, written from the heart by a man of exceptional brilliance and erudition who expended two decades of his best efforts on the task. .
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)