*
One of the ways in which I evaluate things is by imagining them as real, and seeing how I like it. As a thought experiment.
Sometimes I can do this quite vividly, and reach fairly firm conclusions, especially negative ones - but also positive. Indeed, sometimes this method makes matters crystal clear for the first time.
And sometimes authors do this for me - that it, they put down on paper, explicitly, their ideal imagined state of affairs - and then I find either that I am drawn towards it, or repelled by it.
*
So, for example, I have often blogged (as recently as yesterday) ideal imagined versions of Eastern Orthodoxy, which I find extremely attractive; likewise (albeit at a lower level) idealised version of Anglican worship - the early morning spoken Eucharistic service, the perfected evensong (with music of the kind I love, but not too much of it).
And it was through not being much attracted by (even) the ideal versions of Latin church (such as I read in Belloc, or John Senior) that I found myself somewhat unwilling (at least, at the moment) to become a Roman Catholic.
*
And many years ago, it was a passage in Radicals and the Future of the Church (1989) by Don Cupitt (a famous and influential Anglican teacher, theologian and media figure) that finally and irrevocably made clear to me that Liberal Christianity was bogus, bankrupt and repellent.
Here Cupitt describes his ideal future church:
Sacraments, however, there will be. The church will exist in two states, gathered and dispersed.
Gathered and become visible, the church will coincide with Christ. Dispersed and invisible, she will coincide with humanity at large.
*
The church's gatherings will take place perhaps at noon on Sundays, or - in some cities - on Thursdays at the end of the working day. The historic buildings will still be in use.
The gathering will consist of a common meal, taken seated at table. Each congregation's elected officers will be a group of deacons.
One of them will open the meal by standing, banging for attention, and breaking a bread roll, saying: 'the body of Christ', a formula understood to mean that the church now gathered in company is the risen Christ.
Noise then breaks out.
*
The meal is simple, like a War on Want lunch. Baskets of fresh bread rolls, cheese tomatoes, apples.
*
During the meal church business is transacted, items being introduced by the secretaries of the various divisions. Tasks are allocated.
The general understanding is that each enrolled member of the church should attend the meal weekly, and each week should undertake some small task as his or her personal 'liturgy', or item of service.
The rhythm is that week by week there is systole and diastole; you come in and are sent out.
*
The chief divisions are Study (courses, evening classes, groups), Training (personal counselling, meditation, yoga), Art (music, drama, the visual arts) and Social Action (including local branches of human rights groups, twinning relationships with overseas congregations, and political action)...
...And so on.
**
The remarkable thing is that it took Don Cupitt another 20 years to leave (even) the Church of England - despite that his views on the ideal kind of 'Christianity' are now pretty mainstream among the mass middling majority of Anglicans, Catholics, and Nonconformists...
At any rate, Cupitt performed for me the valuable service of stating exactly where Liberal Christianity was trending; such that I could see whether, or not, I liked the destination.
*
Friday, 1 June 2012
Thursday, 31 May 2012
Difference between Western and Eastern Catholic Church - Robert Byron
*
From Robert Byron - The Byzantine Achievement, 1929
*
The psychological difference between the two Churches lies at bottom in their temporal outlook.
To the Greek, who by nature lives entirely in the present, the conception of future resurrection and future afterlife is obscure. To the Roman it is as clear as his own hand.
The result is that while, for the Roman, the whole impulse of religion is in essence eschatological, woven with the idea of post-human progression, for the Greek it is derived from the desire to seek transfiguration, not in the future, but the present.
The Roman, in this life, is concentrated on the problems of sin and grace: his eyes are fixed on the below; the other world, though parent of his activity, is far off.
For the Greek it is here. He lives in two worlds at once, and his eyes are on the upper of them; the Eucharist is not so much a means of grace as 'a medicine of immortality'.
While in Roman opinion, God became man that man's sins might be forgiven with a view to future immortality, in Greek it was that his human nature might be deified, not in some future state, but now.
This for the Roman the prime function of religion is an ethical one, the regulation of conduct.
For the Greek it is the piercing of the sensory veil, the justification of the divine spark in man with its extraterrestrial affinity, God.
**
COMMENT: I'm with the Greek on this.
*
From Robert Byron - The Byzantine Achievement, 1929
*
The psychological difference between the two Churches lies at bottom in their temporal outlook.
To the Greek, who by nature lives entirely in the present, the conception of future resurrection and future afterlife is obscure. To the Roman it is as clear as his own hand.
The result is that while, for the Roman, the whole impulse of religion is in essence eschatological, woven with the idea of post-human progression, for the Greek it is derived from the desire to seek transfiguration, not in the future, but the present.
The Roman, in this life, is concentrated on the problems of sin and grace: his eyes are fixed on the below; the other world, though parent of his activity, is far off.
For the Greek it is here. He lives in two worlds at once, and his eyes are on the upper of them; the Eucharist is not so much a means of grace as 'a medicine of immortality'.
While in Roman opinion, God became man that man's sins might be forgiven with a view to future immortality, in Greek it was that his human nature might be deified, not in some future state, but now.
This for the Roman the prime function of religion is an ethical one, the regulation of conduct.
For the Greek it is the piercing of the sensory veil, the justification of the divine spark in man with its extraterrestrial affinity, God.
**
COMMENT: I'm with the Greek on this.
*
Destroying Truth to deny unwanted Christian truths
*
It is a simplification, but broadly correct, to regard intellectual anti-Christianity as the root and basis of Leftism.
In other words, Leftism is what you get when anti-Christianitry is rationalized and systemized.
*
Because the desire of secular materialists is not to refute Christianity (refutation of something rational has only a temporary effect) but to discard Christianity permanently.
Not to out-argue Christianity but to set it aside without argument.
And to do this by changing the subject for mankind - by changing the nature of public discourse such that Christian claims are rendered un-discussable.
*
This has been achieved through the past half century; but at terrible cost: the cost of destroying reason and putting metaphysical assumptions off-limits.
Error is now entrenched and intractable in the public arena.
Professional discourse is bureaucratized.
*
Truth talk now is to be found only by active seekers, rarely, in private; and mostly in books not people.
*
It is a simplification, but broadly correct, to regard intellectual anti-Christianity as the root and basis of Leftism.
In other words, Leftism is what you get when anti-Christianitry is rationalized and systemized.
*
Because the desire of secular materialists is not to refute Christianity (refutation of something rational has only a temporary effect) but to discard Christianity permanently.
Not to out-argue Christianity but to set it aside without argument.
And to do this by changing the subject for mankind - by changing the nature of public discourse such that Christian claims are rendered un-discussable.
*
This has been achieved through the past half century; but at terrible cost: the cost of destroying reason and putting metaphysical assumptions off-limits.
Error is now entrenched and intractable in the public arena.
Professional discourse is bureaucratized.
*
Truth talk now is to be found only by active seekers, rarely, in private; and mostly in books not people.
*
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Reason versus repentance (reason is useless)
*
For much of my life I was a kind of rationalist, using reason, logic, evidence to persuade both in person and in polemical articles.
And the internet is full of such people - in particular the secular Right pins everything on the strategy of reasoned and evidential debate as a way of changing things, of getting good decisions and policies.
Well, it doesn't work - not even a little bit.
*
There are many many situations of which I have in-depth knowledge and in which I have been involved - where the rational position is crystal clear and unambiguous; the evidence and logic are irrefutable; the argument is won - yet this makes no difference at all.
And I mean zero difference.
*
Evidence, logic, reason - this just isn't how humans work...
(except for short periods of time among a tiny and self-selected elite in specialized domains).
*
Certain it is that people do not make sacrifices for the future well being (comfort, peace, safety, security) of their culture and civilization.
(Because if you live for comfort, peace, safety, security - than that is what you live for; and you will not be willing to sacrifice sure and certain, here and now and personal c.p.s.s. for the mere hope of a possible share in future social c.p.s.s.)
*
We all know that our civilization is destroying itself actively and purposefully; but we should also know that reason is absolutely definitely and for sure not going to stop this from happening - it will not make any difference at all, may well make matters much worse (by raising antibodies against itself).
*
Only one thing could reverse our suicidal trajectory, and that is repentance: an explicit admission (to ourselves and to others) that we were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong, that is, about (pretty much) everything core - everything fundamental and of the greatest relevance.
A seismic upheaval of repentance would be necessary to reverse the massive inertial decline, the multiple self-inflicted fatal woundings that are afoot.
Short of this, nothing will have any effect.
*
This is why the secular Right is deluded by its own rationality: it is not a matter of tactics - the secular Right is futile in principle because it misunderstands the wellsprings of human motivation and action.
*
Only religion could save us - yet of course religion must be embraced because it is true; not because it would (perhaps) save civilization.
(And, of course, to save this culture and civilization the religion would have to be Christian.)
*
It is not that a religious revival would necessarily save civilization, of course not!
But that without religious revival civilization certainly will not be saved.
Because without religion, men are not motivated to make the vast necessary sacrifices.
Men of reason and utterly without religion are men without chests, men of straw, sub-men - they cannot sustain or save anything at all - except their own skins, in the short term. Certainly not a nation or a culture.
*
But will it happen? Will culture, will civilization be saved by repentance and Christian revival?
Here in the UK it certainly does not look like it, not at all: I see neither signs nor glimmers of this.
I see rather a population of psychotic leaders, and psychodramatic self-absorbed masses - united only in relentless hedonism and a desperate, hourly search for self-esteem.
*
On present trends the UK, England, will lose culture, civilization and Christianity.
England will simply break-down, break-apart, and each fragmentary bit get dominated and filled-up by something else altogether.
But if anything is to be saved, the first step must be Christianity and after that - we shall see...
*
For much of my life I was a kind of rationalist, using reason, logic, evidence to persuade both in person and in polemical articles.
And the internet is full of such people - in particular the secular Right pins everything on the strategy of reasoned and evidential debate as a way of changing things, of getting good decisions and policies.
Well, it doesn't work - not even a little bit.
*
There are many many situations of which I have in-depth knowledge and in which I have been involved - where the rational position is crystal clear and unambiguous; the evidence and logic are irrefutable; the argument is won - yet this makes no difference at all.
And I mean zero difference.
*
Evidence, logic, reason - this just isn't how humans work...
(except for short periods of time among a tiny and self-selected elite in specialized domains).
*
Certain it is that people do not make sacrifices for the future well being (comfort, peace, safety, security) of their culture and civilization.
(Because if you live for comfort, peace, safety, security - than that is what you live for; and you will not be willing to sacrifice sure and certain, here and now and personal c.p.s.s. for the mere hope of a possible share in future social c.p.s.s.)
*
We all know that our civilization is destroying itself actively and purposefully; but we should also know that reason is absolutely definitely and for sure not going to stop this from happening - it will not make any difference at all, may well make matters much worse (by raising antibodies against itself).
*
Only one thing could reverse our suicidal trajectory, and that is repentance: an explicit admission (to ourselves and to others) that we were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong, that is, about (pretty much) everything core - everything fundamental and of the greatest relevance.
A seismic upheaval of repentance would be necessary to reverse the massive inertial decline, the multiple self-inflicted fatal woundings that are afoot.
Short of this, nothing will have any effect.
*
This is why the secular Right is deluded by its own rationality: it is not a matter of tactics - the secular Right is futile in principle because it misunderstands the wellsprings of human motivation and action.
*
Only religion could save us - yet of course religion must be embraced because it is true; not because it would (perhaps) save civilization.
(And, of course, to save this culture and civilization the religion would have to be Christian.)
*
It is not that a religious revival would necessarily save civilization, of course not!
But that without religious revival civilization certainly will not be saved.
Because without religion, men are not motivated to make the vast necessary sacrifices.
Men of reason and utterly without religion are men without chests, men of straw, sub-men - they cannot sustain or save anything at all - except their own skins, in the short term. Certainly not a nation or a culture.
*
But will it happen? Will culture, will civilization be saved by repentance and Christian revival?
Here in the UK it certainly does not look like it, not at all: I see neither signs nor glimmers of this.
I see rather a population of psychotic leaders, and psychodramatic self-absorbed masses - united only in relentless hedonism and a desperate, hourly search for self-esteem.
*
On present trends the UK, England, will lose culture, civilization and Christianity.
England will simply break-down, break-apart, and each fragmentary bit get dominated and filled-up by something else altogether.
But if anything is to be saved, the first step must be Christianity and after that - we shall see...
*
There is no such thing as amoral
*
To tolerate, approve or actively advocate a policy on the basis that it is amoral (or supposedly has no moral significance) is to advocate immorality.
'A-moral' is therefore a dishonest or delusional characterisation of im-moral.
*
This is a sub-category of the fact that there is no such thing as neutrality - except that to advocate neutrality is, indeed, to take the side of evil.
Everything, without exception, has a moral dimension - or, more accurately, everything is more or less Good, more or less evil (Good is moral, beautiful and true in unity - evil is the destruction of these).
And this is a sub-category of life being recognised as a field of unseen or spiritual 'warfare' - with every choice we move closer either to Heaven, or to Hell.
*
Indeed, the characterisation of something as amoral is a particularly insidious form of wickedness - because it helps create a mode of analysis which purports to elude the intrinsic Good-evil axis.
It tries to suggest that some things are 'not significant' (not worth worrying about) which is a step towards saying that nothing is significant - nihilism, in other words.
Amoral is part of the bureaucratic mindset.
*
To tolerate, approve or actively advocate a policy on the basis that it is amoral (or supposedly has no moral significance) is to advocate immorality.
'A-moral' is therefore a dishonest or delusional characterisation of im-moral.
*
This is a sub-category of the fact that there is no such thing as neutrality - except that to advocate neutrality is, indeed, to take the side of evil.
Everything, without exception, has a moral dimension - or, more accurately, everything is more or less Good, more or less evil (Good is moral, beautiful and true in unity - evil is the destruction of these).
And this is a sub-category of life being recognised as a field of unseen or spiritual 'warfare' - with every choice we move closer either to Heaven, or to Hell.
*
Indeed, the characterisation of something as amoral is a particularly insidious form of wickedness - because it helps create a mode of analysis which purports to elude the intrinsic Good-evil axis.
It tries to suggest that some things are 'not significant' (not worth worrying about) which is a step towards saying that nothing is significant - nihilism, in other words.
Amoral is part of the bureaucratic mindset.
*
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Power but no rule
*
We live, in the West, in a society where the greatest power lies with the mass media.
(As we in the UK have discovered recently: Prime ministers come, Prime Minsters go; the nation swings Left, the nation swings 'Right' - but real power, the grey (or red) eminence behind the throne - continues through such changes.)
*
But of course the mass media cannot rule - thus there is no 'government'.
The mass media is powerful because 1. the media are crack cocaine dealers, suppliers of that addictive drug called distraction upon which our society is utterly dependent on an hourly basis; and 2. the media fills our thought and shapes our thinking - defines our education, evaluation and arbitration; and 3. the media can destroy anyone or any institution - can destroy history itself - at will, on principle or at a whim.
*
The mass media, as a hive mind, is the focus of power and yet it does not rule.
Obviously it cannot rule. This is sometimes described as power without responsibility - the situation is much worse than that, because responsibility is not merely being eluded by the mass media - rather, for media responsibility is intrinsically impossible.
The mass media cannot rule, but it can (and does) prevent anyone else from ruling.
*
We live, in the West, in a society where the greatest power lies with the mass media.
(As we in the UK have discovered recently: Prime ministers come, Prime Minsters go; the nation swings Left, the nation swings 'Right' - but real power, the grey (or red) eminence behind the throne - continues through such changes.)
*
But of course the mass media cannot rule - thus there is no 'government'.
The mass media is powerful because 1. the media are crack cocaine dealers, suppliers of that addictive drug called distraction upon which our society is utterly dependent on an hourly basis; and 2. the media fills our thought and shapes our thinking - defines our education, evaluation and arbitration; and 3. the media can destroy anyone or any institution - can destroy history itself - at will, on principle or at a whim.
*
The mass media, as a hive mind, is the focus of power and yet it does not rule.
Obviously it cannot rule. This is sometimes described as power without responsibility - the situation is much worse than that, because responsibility is not merely being eluded by the mass media - rather, for media responsibility is intrinsically impossible.
The mass media cannot rule, but it can (and does) prevent anyone else from ruling.
*
Monday, 28 May 2012
Put not thy faith in institutions
*
I grew up in a world which put faith in institutions.
Leaving aside the church for a moment (since I was an atheist) I was among people who had faith in the United Nations, and the European Economic Community (now European Union), the United Kingdom, England, the Labour Party, the National Health Service, Universities and more abstract institutions such as Science and Education.
Such things were regarded as net good, that is good in essence and on average, good on the whole, tending towards good...
I now perceive that none of these are worthy of faith - indeed all modern institutions are net bad, bad in essence and on average, bad on the whole, tending towards evil...
Yet I have not found any worthy substitutes.
*
This world is one in which people seek institutions in which to put their faith - I do it myself, somehow I can't help myself - yet for honest people this has become harder and harder.
We seek some grouping or activity in which to place our hopes and to which we wish to dedicate our best efforts.
Yet we are thwarted in a search for worthy institutions with which to ally ourselves.
Indeed, it is probable that there are none - indeed why should we expect there to be any?
*
The hardest thing for Christians to accept is that this applies also to the official mainstream churches and denominations. If we consider any large, powerful Christian church, we will find that its leadership is driving it away from the Good and into closer alliance with secular hedonistic modernity.
At an institutional level, large and powerful Christian churches are net bad and to support them as a whole is, I am very sorry to say, to support the forces of evil.
(Of course, this has been the usual situation in evil societies - the churches become corrupted - sometimes heretical elements in the churches have led corruption. )
And, conversely, any net Good church - worthy of overall support - will be small and weak.
*
Since most of us work (and worship) in large and powerful institutions, we need to get used to the fact that the good elements which we admire and would wish to support are minority, local and dissenting - usually beleaguered, declining or on the verge of extinction.
Our choice is to be one of these dwindling islands within the large and net-evil institutions en route to being swamped; or to work in a weak and tiny institution that is good-on-the-whole.
*
This applies to churches and denominations.
Real Christians have a choice: to be a persecuted minority within an overall (on average) wicked and corrupt large and powerful church, or whole-hearted members of a church that is overall good but small and weak (or something quantitatively in between).
If a Christian is a member of one of the larger and more powerful churches, he will either be in an embattled minority or essentially corrupt.
(And, of course, most of the embattled minorities are themselves essentially corrupt! - embattled minority status is of itself no indicator of goodness.)
*
We are not on the winning side, and the desire to be on the winning side - and part of something large and powerful - is a force tending towards our own corruption.
What we need to remember, what ought to give us hope, is that everything good we do has an effect.
Not that it might have an effect, but that it does have an effect: not a contingent effect somewhere down the line, but an instant, universal and eternal effect the consequences of which may be obscure and take time to unfold.
*
Not that we necessarily know how or where it has an effect - probably we never will know anything of this (at least not while we are in this world) - but that every single personal, obscure and apparently-'insignificant' act of good is in reality of vast import.
The more difficult our own situation, and the more overwhelming the might of evil institutions brought to bear on Christians, the more Christians are made to feel futile: the more clear should be the universal (albeit mysterious) power of individual acts or tiny and temporary alliances.
*
I grew up in a world which put faith in institutions.
Leaving aside the church for a moment (since I was an atheist) I was among people who had faith in the United Nations, and the European Economic Community (now European Union), the United Kingdom, England, the Labour Party, the National Health Service, Universities and more abstract institutions such as Science and Education.
Such things were regarded as net good, that is good in essence and on average, good on the whole, tending towards good...
I now perceive that none of these are worthy of faith - indeed all modern institutions are net bad, bad in essence and on average, bad on the whole, tending towards evil...
Yet I have not found any worthy substitutes.
*
This world is one in which people seek institutions in which to put their faith - I do it myself, somehow I can't help myself - yet for honest people this has become harder and harder.
We seek some grouping or activity in which to place our hopes and to which we wish to dedicate our best efforts.
Yet we are thwarted in a search for worthy institutions with which to ally ourselves.
Indeed, it is probable that there are none - indeed why should we expect there to be any?
*
The hardest thing for Christians to accept is that this applies also to the official mainstream churches and denominations. If we consider any large, powerful Christian church, we will find that its leadership is driving it away from the Good and into closer alliance with secular hedonistic modernity.
At an institutional level, large and powerful Christian churches are net bad and to support them as a whole is, I am very sorry to say, to support the forces of evil.
(Of course, this has been the usual situation in evil societies - the churches become corrupted - sometimes heretical elements in the churches have led corruption. )
And, conversely, any net Good church - worthy of overall support - will be small and weak.
*
Since most of us work (and worship) in large and powerful institutions, we need to get used to the fact that the good elements which we admire and would wish to support are minority, local and dissenting - usually beleaguered, declining or on the verge of extinction.
Our choice is to be one of these dwindling islands within the large and net-evil institutions en route to being swamped; or to work in a weak and tiny institution that is good-on-the-whole.
*
This applies to churches and denominations.
Real Christians have a choice: to be a persecuted minority within an overall (on average) wicked and corrupt large and powerful church, or whole-hearted members of a church that is overall good but small and weak (or something quantitatively in between).
If a Christian is a member of one of the larger and more powerful churches, he will either be in an embattled minority or essentially corrupt.
(And, of course, most of the embattled minorities are themselves essentially corrupt! - embattled minority status is of itself no indicator of goodness.)
*
We are not on the winning side, and the desire to be on the winning side - and part of something large and powerful - is a force tending towards our own corruption.
What we need to remember, what ought to give us hope, is that everything good we do has an effect.
Not that it might have an effect, but that it does have an effect: not a contingent effect somewhere down the line, but an instant, universal and eternal effect the consequences of which may be obscure and take time to unfold.
*
Not that we necessarily know how or where it has an effect - probably we never will know anything of this (at least not while we are in this world) - but that every single personal, obscure and apparently-'insignificant' act of good is in reality of vast import.
The more difficult our own situation, and the more overwhelming the might of evil institutions brought to bear on Christians, the more Christians are made to feel futile: the more clear should be the universal (albeit mysterious) power of individual acts or tiny and temporary alliances.
*
Sunday, 27 May 2012
Attitude to democracy - the litmus test of a reactionary
*
Question: What is the difference between a Conservative and a Reactionary?
Answer: A Conservative is pro-democracy; a Reactionary is anti-democracy.
*
A negative attitude to democracy is pretty close to being the litmus test of being a Reactionary - democracy is so pervasively regarded as 'a good thing' in modern culture that nobody is indifferent to, unsure about their answer to, this question.
Anyone who is pro-democracy is - whether they know it or not, whether they are religious or not - objectively on the side of the Leftists/ Liberals/ Progressives (and, indirectly, atheists) - however moderate or gradualist a member of this tendency they may be.
*
(And the same applies to all non-religious persons - if you are not religious, you are not a Reactionary - because atheism intrinsically and necessarily leads to Leftism, is indeed the root and motivation of Leftism - surely that is obvious by now?)
*
Question: What is the difference between a Conservative and a Reactionary?
Answer: A Conservative is pro-democracy; a Reactionary is anti-democracy.
*
A negative attitude to democracy is pretty close to being the litmus test of being a Reactionary - democracy is so pervasively regarded as 'a good thing' in modern culture that nobody is indifferent to, unsure about their answer to, this question.
Anyone who is pro-democracy is - whether they know it or not, whether they are religious or not - objectively on the side of the Leftists/ Liberals/ Progressives (and, indirectly, atheists) - however moderate or gradualist a member of this tendency they may be.
*
(And the same applies to all non-religious persons - if you are not religious, you are not a Reactionary - because atheism intrinsically and necessarily leads to Leftism, is indeed the root and motivation of Leftism - surely that is obvious by now?)
*
Saturday, 26 May 2012
The only jobs worthy of respect - according to W.H Auden
*
From an essay by WH Auden in I Believe: the personal philosophies of twenty-three eminent men and women of our time. London: Allen & Unwin 1941.
The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, some kind of highly skilled craftsman, a research scientist, a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer.
**
This discusses a big problem for many people - I mean the problem of trying to find and work-in 'a job worthy of respect from the point of view of the individual and society'.
As a mid-teen the above passage by WH Auden made a big impact on me, since I was thinking about jobs. I agreed with the above list, more or less, at the time I read it - these were worthwhile jobs, others were not.
But now...
1. Creative artists. Not even trying, highly professionalized ugliness-makers.
2. Highly skilled craftsman. As a hobby, yes; but as a job?
3. A research scientist. A docile and dishonest bureaucrat.
4. A doctor. Dying species, salesman for Big Pharma.
5. A teacher. State propagandist?
6. A farmer. A subsidy-farmer.
*
My point is that all of these few jobs which used to be 'worthy of respect' have been thoroughly infiltrated by the state, bureaucritized, made into cogs in a machinery that does harm. It has become, ahem, a challenge to do respectworthy work in any of the above categories.
This means that nearly everybody is doing work which is not worthy of respect.
(And of those who imagine they do, then this is a delusion or dishonesty.)
Which means that (being honest and clear-headed) we all are beavering away busily at despicable activities which tend to make things worse...
And the situation seems inescapable.
*
From an essay by WH Auden in I Believe: the personal philosophies of twenty-three eminent men and women of our time. London: Allen & Unwin 1941.
The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, some kind of highly skilled craftsman, a research scientist, a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer.
**
This discusses a big problem for many people - I mean the problem of trying to find and work-in 'a job worthy of respect from the point of view of the individual and society'.
As a mid-teen the above passage by WH Auden made a big impact on me, since I was thinking about jobs. I agreed with the above list, more or less, at the time I read it - these were worthwhile jobs, others were not.
But now...
1. Creative artists. Not even trying, highly professionalized ugliness-makers.
2. Highly skilled craftsman. As a hobby, yes; but as a job?
3. A research scientist. A docile and dishonest bureaucrat.
4. A doctor. Dying species, salesman for Big Pharma.
5. A teacher. State propagandist?
6. A farmer. A subsidy-farmer.
*
My point is that all of these few jobs which used to be 'worthy of respect' have been thoroughly infiltrated by the state, bureaucritized, made into cogs in a machinery that does harm. It has become, ahem, a challenge to do respectworthy work in any of the above categories.
This means that nearly everybody is doing work which is not worthy of respect.
(And of those who imagine they do, then this is a delusion or dishonesty.)
Which means that (being honest and clear-headed) we all are beavering away busily at despicable activities which tend to make things worse...
And the situation seems inescapable.
*
Friday, 25 May 2012
Corrosive college
*
A residential college ought to be organised, busy and supervised (and Christian) - but when (as now) it isn't then it reflects the character of the students; which is that this period of life is characterised by the highest lifetime levels of neuroticism (moodiness), extraversion (need for the company of others, intolerance of solitude), and generally lower conscientiousness (poor concentration, need for distraction) and less empathy than later adult life.
*
And modern college students are too old - college should begin the the mid-teens, and end before twenty; when humans are biologically at the peak of learning ability.
(And of course the vast majority of people should not go to college, but only those who are intended for the intellectual professions.)
*
The problems of modern college are not real problems but societally self-inflicted problems: they are the kind of problems you get from doing something you don't need to do and shouldn't be doing in the first place.
In fact, college is one of those Leftist 'benefits' - I mean the sort of Goods that are the outcome of re-labelling damage as construction. As when a cripplingly expensive, intellectually harmful, morally corrosive waste of human life is relabelled as an unchallengeable benefit, nay human right.
It is on a par with relabelling crime as vibrancy, parasitism as injustice, self-gratification as the highest virtue and entitlement...
*
Modern college is a multi-valent anti-Christian force of civilizational destruction - instilling addiction, destroying motivation, inculcating the metaphysics of hedonistic nihilism...
No wonder college is so popular with the Left!
*
A residential college ought to be organised, busy and supervised (and Christian) - but when (as now) it isn't then it reflects the character of the students; which is that this period of life is characterised by the highest lifetime levels of neuroticism (moodiness), extraversion (need for the company of others, intolerance of solitude), and generally lower conscientiousness (poor concentration, need for distraction) and less empathy than later adult life.
*
And modern college students are too old - college should begin the the mid-teens, and end before twenty; when humans are biologically at the peak of learning ability.
(And of course the vast majority of people should not go to college, but only those who are intended for the intellectual professions.)
*
The problems of modern college are not real problems but societally self-inflicted problems: they are the kind of problems you get from doing something you don't need to do and shouldn't be doing in the first place.
In fact, college is one of those Leftist 'benefits' - I mean the sort of Goods that are the outcome of re-labelling damage as construction. As when a cripplingly expensive, intellectually harmful, morally corrosive waste of human life is relabelled as an unchallengeable benefit, nay human right.
It is on a par with relabelling crime as vibrancy, parasitism as injustice, self-gratification as the highest virtue and entitlement...
*
Modern college is a multi-valent anti-Christian force of civilizational destruction - instilling addiction, destroying motivation, inculcating the metaphysics of hedonistic nihilism...
No wonder college is so popular with the Left!
*
Thursday, 24 May 2012
I'm *not* going to believe it - and *you* can't make me
*
The phrase above pretty much sums up my own attitude to Christianity through most of my life. All I knew for sure was that I didn't want to be a Christian (I wanted to be and do, what *I* wanted to be and do); and I defended this rather specific unbelief by a fluid mixture of reason and emotion.
In general, I thought of myself as far more intelligent and rational than Christians, far more honest and tough-minded.
Yet I always knew and sometimes said that if a Roman Catholic apologist (I always assumed that this would be a Jesuit, for some reason) could ever pin me down, then I could be defeated by logic - because these guys had memorized and practiced all the answers to every possible objection.
But I still knew that I was right because Christian rationality was, I believed, a facile achievement of post hoc reasoning - reasoning from the result to the premises. So I would reject all this scholasticism, without even meeting it, because I knew in my guts that they were wrong.
It was a heady feeling to know that nobody could persuade me of Christianity, that I could always find reasons not to believe, whether reason or gut feeling, and that therefore I would remain un-defeatable as the master of my own private destiny.
I was, in fact, a case history of the overmastering power of pride: pride revelling in pride; and this not just by accident but as a matter of highest principle and core conviction.
Pride as the primary Good, the highest value.
*
The phrase above pretty much sums up my own attitude to Christianity through most of my life. All I knew for sure was that I didn't want to be a Christian (I wanted to be and do, what *I* wanted to be and do); and I defended this rather specific unbelief by a fluid mixture of reason and emotion.
In general, I thought of myself as far more intelligent and rational than Christians, far more honest and tough-minded.
Yet I always knew and sometimes said that if a Roman Catholic apologist (I always assumed that this would be a Jesuit, for some reason) could ever pin me down, then I could be defeated by logic - because these guys had memorized and practiced all the answers to every possible objection.
But I still knew that I was right because Christian rationality was, I believed, a facile achievement of post hoc reasoning - reasoning from the result to the premises. So I would reject all this scholasticism, without even meeting it, because I knew in my guts that they were wrong.
It was a heady feeling to know that nobody could persuade me of Christianity, that I could always find reasons not to believe, whether reason or gut feeling, and that therefore I would remain un-defeatable as the master of my own private destiny.
I was, in fact, a case history of the overmastering power of pride: pride revelling in pride; and this not just by accident but as a matter of highest principle and core conviction.
Pride as the primary Good, the highest value.
*
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
The success of the demythologizers
*
From Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, page 202
*
We know from our experience that the demythologizers have very effectively undermined the faith of vast numbers of young Christians.
...we would estimate that nearly half the students who enter Catholic colleges as believers exit as unbelievers...
...this loss of faith is in some measure surely due to the influence of demythologizing teachers...
*
Psychological reasons for unbelief
The most powerful psychological motive for unbelief, as distinct from the most effective argument to undermine belief, is... almost always moral rather than intellectual.
That answer is addiction to sin and selfishness...
1. Addiction to power in this world... [nobody advocates detachment or unworldliness]
2. Addiction to lust, our society's favourite pastime... [sex addicts are not objective]
3. Addiction to greed... [our society relies on greed for its survival]
4. Addiction to worldliness... [acceptance and popularity - whereas the prophets and martyrs were neither]
5. Addiction to freedom...[doing your own thing, accepting yourself as you are, self-assertiveness].
***
COMMENT
I recognise the power of demythologizing - the kind of 'unmasking' which was pioneered by Nietzsche and has come in waves such as logical positivism, or the other isms; and in science and medicine in the form of applied statistics.
The basic method is to tell stories of how it was that (stupid people) used wrongly to believe x, but we (intelligent people) now perceive and can explain their errors.
*
Demythologizing is a purely destructive weapon, it will apparently undermine and ultimately destroy whatever it is used against; but it is never used against itself.
*
(That is power at work. The greatest destructive power is the mass media - which has such reach and operates using such procedures that it can moralistically destroy anything. Secular Western societies are helplessly addicted to the mass media; as addicts they will take, have-to-take, whatever drug the media is pushing. But the media destruction is only used systematically and strategically against perceived enemies of the Left.)
*
So debunkers feel as if they are superior in rigour and skepticism.
As undergraduates, they sit in judgement over Saints, prophets and martyrs; over the great scientists and authors of the past; over their parents and all previous generations - they look at some evidence, they evaluate for a few minutes or hours, and they pronounce their judgements...
*
But does this have any validity? They do not know, because metaphysics is taboo - being regarded as useless, dull, a wicked distraction; so it is impossible to discuss the assumptions and rationale and applicability of demythologizing tools.
Young people are equipped with universally destructive tools, but are not allowed (or able) to discuss what they do, or when to use them.
Young people are intellectually equipped with chisels, saws and sledge hammers; but not with hammer and nails nor screws and screwdrivers - not even with riveting guns.
They can dissect, slice and smash - approved enemies, or obstacles to their own gratification - but they cannot build.
***
But what a situation! - that Catholic colleges, private colleges, set-up to promote Catholicism, actually destroy Christian faith by means of the intellectual and social environment they have created.
And they do this among grown-ups - people who have reached an age of 18 plus without losing their faith! - but who have their faith eroded by attending Catholic college!
And everybody seems to accept this - parents choose to keep on paying-out heavy tuition fees and sending their kids away to remote colleges - only to have these pampered institutions destroy their children's faith!
*
Christians are voluntarily subsidising their own destruction (in this as in many other ways).
*
From Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, page 202
*
We know from our experience that the demythologizers have very effectively undermined the faith of vast numbers of young Christians.
...we would estimate that nearly half the students who enter Catholic colleges as believers exit as unbelievers...
...this loss of faith is in some measure surely due to the influence of demythologizing teachers...
*
Psychological reasons for unbelief
The most powerful psychological motive for unbelief, as distinct from the most effective argument to undermine belief, is... almost always moral rather than intellectual.
That answer is addiction to sin and selfishness...
1. Addiction to power in this world... [nobody advocates detachment or unworldliness]
2. Addiction to lust, our society's favourite pastime... [sex addicts are not objective]
3. Addiction to greed... [our society relies on greed for its survival]
4. Addiction to worldliness... [acceptance and popularity - whereas the prophets and martyrs were neither]
5. Addiction to freedom...[doing your own thing, accepting yourself as you are, self-assertiveness].
***
COMMENT
I recognise the power of demythologizing - the kind of 'unmasking' which was pioneered by Nietzsche and has come in waves such as logical positivism, or the other isms; and in science and medicine in the form of applied statistics.
The basic method is to tell stories of how it was that (stupid people) used wrongly to believe x, but we (intelligent people) now perceive and can explain their errors.
*
Demythologizing is a purely destructive weapon, it will apparently undermine and ultimately destroy whatever it is used against; but it is never used against itself.
*
(That is power at work. The greatest destructive power is the mass media - which has such reach and operates using such procedures that it can moralistically destroy anything. Secular Western societies are helplessly addicted to the mass media; as addicts they will take, have-to-take, whatever drug the media is pushing. But the media destruction is only used systematically and strategically against perceived enemies of the Left.)
*
So debunkers feel as if they are superior in rigour and skepticism.
As undergraduates, they sit in judgement over Saints, prophets and martyrs; over the great scientists and authors of the past; over their parents and all previous generations - they look at some evidence, they evaluate for a few minutes or hours, and they pronounce their judgements...
*
But does this have any validity? They do not know, because metaphysics is taboo - being regarded as useless, dull, a wicked distraction; so it is impossible to discuss the assumptions and rationale and applicability of demythologizing tools.
Young people are equipped with universally destructive tools, but are not allowed (or able) to discuss what they do, or when to use them.
Young people are intellectually equipped with chisels, saws and sledge hammers; but not with hammer and nails nor screws and screwdrivers - not even with riveting guns.
They can dissect, slice and smash - approved enemies, or obstacles to their own gratification - but they cannot build.
***
But what a situation! - that Catholic colleges, private colleges, set-up to promote Catholicism, actually destroy Christian faith by means of the intellectual and social environment they have created.
And they do this among grown-ups - people who have reached an age of 18 plus without losing their faith! - but who have their faith eroded by attending Catholic college!
And everybody seems to accept this - parents choose to keep on paying-out heavy tuition fees and sending their kids away to remote colleges - only to have these pampered institutions destroy their children's faith!
*
Christians are voluntarily subsidising their own destruction (in this as in many other ways).
*
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Anglican monasticism
*
I have been visiting the last of the major English Anglican men's monastic foundations - The Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, Yorkshire.
(The other two large and famous Victorian foundations - Society for the Sacred Mission at Kelham Hall and the 'Cowley Fathers' in Oxford are now only vestigial.)
This was my second visit after three years, and my overall feeling was that the brethren was in good heart (including signs of replenishment with new vocations and tremendously improved plainchant!) and perhaps are emerging from the 'bottleneck' which threatened their survival.
Although, since their foundation by the early-'liberal' theologian Charles Gore, the CR have been (in my view) significantly weakened by their Leftist background in Christian Socialism (indeed, some of the most pernicious aspects of modernism in Christianity are beating on the door and permeating worship, relating to the adjascent and linked theological college); yet my sense is that the power of monasticism is greater than all this and will prevail.
Especially, the regular round of the (in this instance, four-fold) daily office, and observation of the great silence, seem to have a spiritual potency that hard to match - creating something mysteriously greater than the sum of its parts.
One of my conclusions is that a monastic revival (among men) would be just about the most valuable sign for the Christian church at present; and that even Protestant churches ought to be experimenting with supervised forms of celibate and disciplined Christian group living for unmarried men.
*
I have been visiting the last of the major English Anglican men's monastic foundations - The Community of the Resurrection in Mirfield, Yorkshire.
(The other two large and famous Victorian foundations - Society for the Sacred Mission at Kelham Hall and the 'Cowley Fathers' in Oxford are now only vestigial.)
This was my second visit after three years, and my overall feeling was that the brethren was in good heart (including signs of replenishment with new vocations and tremendously improved plainchant!) and perhaps are emerging from the 'bottleneck' which threatened their survival.
Although, since their foundation by the early-'liberal' theologian Charles Gore, the CR have been (in my view) significantly weakened by their Leftist background in Christian Socialism (indeed, some of the most pernicious aspects of modernism in Christianity are beating on the door and permeating worship, relating to the adjascent and linked theological college); yet my sense is that the power of monasticism is greater than all this and will prevail.
Especially, the regular round of the (in this instance, four-fold) daily office, and observation of the great silence, seem to have a spiritual potency that hard to match - creating something mysteriously greater than the sum of its parts.
One of my conclusions is that a monastic revival (among men) would be just about the most valuable sign for the Christian church at present; and that even Protestant churches ought to be experimenting with supervised forms of celibate and disciplined Christian group living for unmarried men.
*
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft & Tacelli. THE best book for seekers?
*
I have previously suggested Peter Kreeft's annotated edition of Pascal's Pensees (Christianity for Modern Pagans) as the best book for modern, intellectual Christian seekers - but now I am inclined to change that recommenation to Handbook of Christian Apologetics: hundreds of answers to crucial questions by Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli.
Whatever the choice, it is clear to me that Peter Kreeft is a treasure - Christians have been very lucky to have him.
Kreeft is by so great a margin the best (wisest, clearest, most enjoyable) of living Christian apologists and explainers (of whom I am aware) that it is very hard to identify the second best.
Given the state of things, we really don't deserve anybody this good - still, there he is.
Be thankful we do not get what we deserve.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm
*
I have previously suggested Peter Kreeft's annotated edition of Pascal's Pensees (Christianity for Modern Pagans) as the best book for modern, intellectual Christian seekers - but now I am inclined to change that recommenation to Handbook of Christian Apologetics: hundreds of answers to crucial questions by Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli.
Whatever the choice, it is clear to me that Peter Kreeft is a treasure - Christians have been very lucky to have him.
Kreeft is by so great a margin the best (wisest, clearest, most enjoyable) of living Christian apologists and explainers (of whom I am aware) that it is very hard to identify the second best.
Given the state of things, we really don't deserve anybody this good - still, there he is.
Be thankful we do not get what we deserve.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm
*
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Audiobook Lord of the Rings reviewed
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/audio-book-lord-of-rings-read-by-rob.html
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/audio-book-lord-of-rings-read-by-rob.html
*
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
How metaphysics is different from science (in a nutshell) - from Ed Feser
*
I shall (I hope) always be grateful to Ed Feser for enabling me (after several decades of failing to get the point) to understand the nature of metaphysical reasoning and how it differs from natural science (in his short book on Aquinas).
Feser really is a great explainer (and to be a great explainer is to be an exceptionally intelligent person of a special kind).
Anyway, he has done it yet again in a book review which I have excerpted and slightly edited below (in order to make his argument more generally applicable).
*
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place.
When somone begins by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.
*
In general, classical philosophical theology argues for the existence of a first cause of the world—a cause that does not merely happen not to have a cause of its own but that (unlike everything else that exists) in principle does not require one.
Nothing else can provide an ultimate explanation of the world.
*
For Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, for example, things in the world can change only if there is something that changes or actualizes everything else without the need (or indeed even the possibility) of its being actualized itself, precisely because it is already “pure actuality.” Change requires an unchangeable changer or unmovable mover.
For Neoplatonists, everything made up of parts can be explained only by reference to something that combines the parts. Accordingly, the ultimate explanation of things must be utterly simple and therefore without the need or even the possibility of being assembled into being by something else. Plotinus called this “the One.”
For Leibniz, the existence of anything that is in any way contingent can be explained only by its origin in an absolutely necessary being.
*
But most atheists simply can’t see any difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator, versus arguing in favor of an eternally existing universe without one.
The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary.
There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
*
One can sensibly argue that the existence of such a God has not been established. (I think it has been, but that’s a topic for another day.)
But one cannot sensibly dispute that the unchanging, simple, and necessary God of classical theism, if he exists, would differ from our changing, composite, contingent universe in requiring no cause of his own.
*
I shall (I hope) always be grateful to Ed Feser for enabling me (after several decades of failing to get the point) to understand the nature of metaphysical reasoning and how it differs from natural science (in his short book on Aquinas).
Feser really is a great explainer (and to be a great explainer is to be an exceptionally intelligent person of a special kind).
Anyway, he has done it yet again in a book review which I have excerpted and slightly edited below (in order to make his argument more generally applicable).
*
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place.
When somone begins by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.
*
In general, classical philosophical theology argues for the existence of a first cause of the world—a cause that does not merely happen not to have a cause of its own but that (unlike everything else that exists) in principle does not require one.
Nothing else can provide an ultimate explanation of the world.
*
For Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, for example, things in the world can change only if there is something that changes or actualizes everything else without the need (or indeed even the possibility) of its being actualized itself, precisely because it is already “pure actuality.” Change requires an unchangeable changer or unmovable mover.
For Neoplatonists, everything made up of parts can be explained only by reference to something that combines the parts. Accordingly, the ultimate explanation of things must be utterly simple and therefore without the need or even the possibility of being assembled into being by something else. Plotinus called this “the One.”
For Leibniz, the existence of anything that is in any way contingent can be explained only by its origin in an absolutely necessary being.
*
But most atheists simply can’t see any difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator, versus arguing in favor of an eternally existing universe without one.
The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary.
There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.
*
One can sensibly argue that the existence of such a God has not been established. (I think it has been, but that’s a topic for another day.)
But one cannot sensibly dispute that the unchanging, simple, and necessary God of classical theism, if he exists, would differ from our changing, composite, contingent universe in requiring no cause of his own.
*
A political reading list for Christian Reactionaries
*
Now I have your attention...
There is no such reading list - that is to say, there is no political reading list for Christian Reactionaries.
(And if you are looking for one, you should perhaps examine your motivations in doing so.)
A Christian Reactionary must be a Christian first, and political only secondly (or indeed not even secondly but some larger number) - and I don't think there are any books of politics which put things the correct way around.
Rather, the reading list is, or should be, the works of your most esteemed spiritual guides; but read for their politics and their political implications.
So my personal suggested reading list would include JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis (who wrote very little about politics, explicitly), Fr Seraphim Rose (who did write quite a lot about politics) - and from recent reading Fr Herbert Kelly.
http://tinyurl.com/c7r56xt - (PDF booklet summarising and quoting Fr Kelly on Theology).
In sum, these are simply my spiritual fathers, when being read for their political insights; and being read in the expectation that where my current political views and evaluations differ from theirs, it is likely that I am the one who is wrong - especially when their views and evaluation methods seem 'outdated'.
Your spiritual guides may well be different, but the method could be the same.
Plus, of course, the Bible should be read in the same manner; and written records of Church Tradition (e.g. lives of The Saints and Martyrs) may guide us in similar fashion.
*
Now I have your attention...
There is no such reading list - that is to say, there is no political reading list for Christian Reactionaries.
(And if you are looking for one, you should perhaps examine your motivations in doing so.)
A Christian Reactionary must be a Christian first, and political only secondly (or indeed not even secondly but some larger number) - and I don't think there are any books of politics which put things the correct way around.
Rather, the reading list is, or should be, the works of your most esteemed spiritual guides; but read for their politics and their political implications.
So my personal suggested reading list would include JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis (who wrote very little about politics, explicitly), Fr Seraphim Rose (who did write quite a lot about politics) - and from recent reading Fr Herbert Kelly.
http://tinyurl.com/c7r56xt - (PDF booklet summarising and quoting Fr Kelly on Theology).
In sum, these are simply my spiritual fathers, when being read for their political insights; and being read in the expectation that where my current political views and evaluations differ from theirs, it is likely that I am the one who is wrong - especially when their views and evaluation methods seem 'outdated'.
Your spiritual guides may well be different, but the method could be the same.
Plus, of course, the Bible should be read in the same manner; and written records of Church Tradition (e.g. lives of The Saints and Martyrs) may guide us in similar fashion.
*
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Demographic change just IS natural selection in action
*
When discussing examples of natural selection which are empirically observable within human experience,
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/evolutionary-philosophy-versus-specific.html
...I forgot to mention one very relevant example: global demographic change.
*
It is a neglected fact that global demographic change, which has been extremely rapid for the past couple of hundred years, and is apparently accelerating, is simply natural selection in action.
That is, demographic change just is (nearly always) a matter of differential change between populations with heritable differences, significantly due to these heritable differences.
*
All that is required for natural selection to be operating is some causal relationship between the heritable differences and the demographic change, and Bingo! that is the process of natural selection; algorithmic, doing its stuff.
And there has been a heck of a lot of this going-on within living memory.
For instance, European populations have gone from about a quarter of the people in the world to less than half of this.
What's more, of the now existing European population, more than half the women are too old to bear children; so there is a lot more natural selection yet in store.
*
Is there a causal relationship? Yes of course there is. The differential population changes in the human gene pool are (mostly) due to differential fertility; and fertility is causally related to IQ and personality amongst other heritable attributes; and IQ and personality differ both within- and between- populations.
*
How come this very obvious fact is missed? Missed despite massive and rapid demographic changes - so massive and rapid that they are visible on a year by year basis to anyone who is awake and in possession of a normal perceptual apparatus?
Well, as usual when obvious facts are missed or mislabeled, the root of the problem is Leftism in its modern form of political correctness.
Demographers (as mainstream academic Leftists) do not believe, exclude a priori, any possibility of different human populations being heritably different in ways that would affect reproductive success.
Demographers regard all humans as interchangeable units - or, more accurately, they regard all human differences as due to culture, hence superficial, hence (in principle, it is assumed) malleable - hence of no significant biological relevance.
Demographers are, as a species, merely economists-with-a-twist, merely number-crunchers, non-biological, blank-slaters: but with the difference that the dependent variable of interest is not 'goods' (such as wealth, productivity, production or whatever) but (in effect) reproductive success.
*
With demographic change as a clear and certain example of natural selection in the world of our own experience, we yet again we see the bizarre fashion in which the dominant Leftist intellectual culture combines a dogmatic belief in the only-indirectly-inferred reality of human macro-evolution (e.g. the evolutionary origin of the human species purely by contingent, historical and local selection pressures operating on undirected genetic variation); combines this relatively speculative knowledge with an implacable hostility to the blatantly obvious and undeniable (to any honest person) reality of adaptive micro-evolution within the human species.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/evolutionary-philosophy-versus-specific.html
*
Adaptive evolution within the human species just IS global demographic change (amongst other things).
*
To think of it a different way, the human species, considered as a total gene pool, is different now than it was when I was born: not just bigger, but with significantly different balance of gene frequencies. In principle, such change might be due to random drift or natural selection. A few moments thought will reveal that it was the latter - some alleles have increased in frequency, and others decreased, (substantially) because of their impact upon reproductive success.
*
When discussing examples of natural selection which are empirically observable within human experience,
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/evolutionary-philosophy-versus-specific.html
...I forgot to mention one very relevant example: global demographic change.
*
It is a neglected fact that global demographic change, which has been extremely rapid for the past couple of hundred years, and is apparently accelerating, is simply natural selection in action.
That is, demographic change just is (nearly always) a matter of differential change between populations with heritable differences, significantly due to these heritable differences.
*
All that is required for natural selection to be operating is some causal relationship between the heritable differences and the demographic change, and Bingo! that is the process of natural selection; algorithmic, doing its stuff.
And there has been a heck of a lot of this going-on within living memory.
For instance, European populations have gone from about a quarter of the people in the world to less than half of this.
What's more, of the now existing European population, more than half the women are too old to bear children; so there is a lot more natural selection yet in store.
*
Is there a causal relationship? Yes of course there is. The differential population changes in the human gene pool are (mostly) due to differential fertility; and fertility is causally related to IQ and personality amongst other heritable attributes; and IQ and personality differ both within- and between- populations.
*
How come this very obvious fact is missed? Missed despite massive and rapid demographic changes - so massive and rapid that they are visible on a year by year basis to anyone who is awake and in possession of a normal perceptual apparatus?
Well, as usual when obvious facts are missed or mislabeled, the root of the problem is Leftism in its modern form of political correctness.
Demographers (as mainstream academic Leftists) do not believe, exclude a priori, any possibility of different human populations being heritably different in ways that would affect reproductive success.
Demographers regard all humans as interchangeable units - or, more accurately, they regard all human differences as due to culture, hence superficial, hence (in principle, it is assumed) malleable - hence of no significant biological relevance.
Demographers are, as a species, merely economists-with-a-twist, merely number-crunchers, non-biological, blank-slaters: but with the difference that the dependent variable of interest is not 'goods' (such as wealth, productivity, production or whatever) but (in effect) reproductive success.
*
With demographic change as a clear and certain example of natural selection in the world of our own experience, we yet again we see the bizarre fashion in which the dominant Leftist intellectual culture combines a dogmatic belief in the only-indirectly-inferred reality of human macro-evolution (e.g. the evolutionary origin of the human species purely by contingent, historical and local selection pressures operating on undirected genetic variation); combines this relatively speculative knowledge with an implacable hostility to the blatantly obvious and undeniable (to any honest person) reality of adaptive micro-evolution within the human species.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/evolutionary-philosophy-versus-specific.html
*
Adaptive evolution within the human species just IS global demographic change (amongst other things).
*
To think of it a different way, the human species, considered as a total gene pool, is different now than it was when I was born: not just bigger, but with significantly different balance of gene frequencies. In principle, such change might be due to random drift or natural selection. A few moments thought will reveal that it was the latter - some alleles have increased in frequency, and others decreased, (substantially) because of their impact upon reproductive success.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)