Here's where to go: Qoheleth Resources...
Wednesday, 6 June 2018
Jesus is the Only real Pastor/ Good Shepherd
Yesterday's post argues that (in the Fourth Gospel) Jesus did not ask Simon Peter, or anyone else, to be a Shepherd (aka Pastor) of his people: Jesus is himself our only Shepherd.
The Shepherd's role was to lead and protect his flock, and the flock is all Christians who believe in Jesus.
(Only the Good Shepherd can protect our souls in this mortal life, and lead us through death and into eternal life.)
Simon Peter was asked to 'feed' the disciples and Christians; but Shepherds don't feed their sheep; their sheep feed themselves, and (because ewes feed lambs) sheep feed each other. This Gospel cannot have meant that Simon Peter was to be any kind of stand-in or substitute or analogous 'Good Shepherd'.
And 'to feed' is a word-concept with what seems to us moderns to be an exceedingly deep, complex and multiple meaning in the Bible... yet was, to people contemporary with the writings, just the way that language and consciousness were in that time and place.
The Shepherd's role was to lead and protect his flock, and the flock is all Christians who believe in Jesus.
(Only the Good Shepherd can protect our souls in this mortal life, and lead us through death and into eternal life.)
Simon Peter was asked to 'feed' the disciples and Christians; but Shepherds don't feed their sheep; their sheep feed themselves, and (because ewes feed lambs) sheep feed each other. This Gospel cannot have meant that Simon Peter was to be any kind of stand-in or substitute or analogous 'Good Shepherd'.
And 'to feed' is a word-concept with what seems to us moderns to be an exceedingly deep, complex and multiple meaning in the Bible... yet was, to people contemporary with the writings, just the way that language and consciousness were in that time and place.
Tuesday, 5 June 2018
The mystery of 'Feed my lambs/ sheep/ sheep' in the Fourth Gospel
The twenty-first and last (and I believe, later added) Chapter of the Fourth Gospel is intensely mysterious and difficult (relevant passages are reproduced below). It focuses on the disciple Simon Peter, and also the author of the Fourth Gospel himself (the disciple 'whom Jesus loved' - and who I believe to be the raised Lazarus).
It begins with the episode of the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples when they are fishing. This is clearly freighted with what we regard as symbolism, but what was then a kind of depth and multiple-applicability of language, that was due to a different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking and being in the world - and which is sometimes possible for us to intuit or express poetically, but which cannot be explained in prose. But the episode seems to be about the disciples gathering of what we would term 'converts', as well as about 'feeding'.
The matter of feeding is very difficult to grasp in the Fourth Gospel - there are many passages about eating, feeding, bread, meat, flesh... and at present I find it hard to grasp and impossible to express what they mean altogether; but the feeding of the five thousand is probably the main key to it - with the idea of food being God-given, and the Food of Jesus potentially giving of eternal life (in contrast to the manna of Moses).
After the disciples had gathered fish and dined; Jesus asks Simon Peter three times whether he loves him (three times in an echo of Simon Peter's earlier three denials of Jesus).
But the first time Jesus asks 'Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?'- these presumably being the other disciples. After Simon Peter says yes, then Jesus tells him to feed his lambs.
Lambs imply sacrifice, and I think this refers to Simon Peter's role in leading the other disciples. Simon Peter is told, prophetically, the manner of his own sacrificial death. So, Simon Peter, and most of theother disciples, are sacrificial lambs.
The next twice, Jesus repeats the same phrase: 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? This time Jesus leaves-out 'Peter', which is his disciple name, given him by Jesus. So, presumably what follows relates to Simon Peter not as leader of the disciples, but in a different, more general role - perhaps as future 'bishop'?
And then his instruction is to 'feed my sheep' - not lambs. The symbolism of sheep is very different from lambs. Lambs are disciples, but sheep are the followers of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
So, Simon has to feed the lamb/ disciples and the sheep/ people... but wait a minute! People don't feed lambs or sheep. Lambs are fed by their mothers (by female sheep), while grown-up sheep feed themselves.
So this passage is Not about Simon Peter becoming a Shepherd, or Pastor; because the Shepherd's job was to protect and lead the flock - not to feed them...
And anyway, Jesus is The (Good) Shepherd - and this symbol is close to being his essence - Jesus, and only Jesus, will lead us through death to to life everlasting.
So, whatever 'feed' means in the Fourth Gospel, Simon Peter is being asked (for his love of Jesus) to do this both for the disciples, and for the people in General...
But not for the beloved disciple, author of the fourth Gospel, who has a different task and role. Jesus asks Simon Peter to 'follow me' - meaning, through death to eternal life. Simon Peter is himself one of the sheep/ followers, as well as a lamb/ sacrifice.
But a different identity and fate apply to the beloved disciple, who is not one of the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd through death (because, being Lazarus, he has already died); but instead he is to 'tarry' until Jesus 'comes' again...
**
Fourth Gospel ('John') Chapter 21: 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
It begins with the episode of the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples when they are fishing. This is clearly freighted with what we regard as symbolism, but what was then a kind of depth and multiple-applicability of language, that was due to a different form of consciousness, a different way of thinking and being in the world - and which is sometimes possible for us to intuit or express poetically, but which cannot be explained in prose. But the episode seems to be about the disciples gathering of what we would term 'converts', as well as about 'feeding'.
The matter of feeding is very difficult to grasp in the Fourth Gospel - there are many passages about eating, feeding, bread, meat, flesh... and at present I find it hard to grasp and impossible to express what they mean altogether; but the feeding of the five thousand is probably the main key to it - with the idea of food being God-given, and the Food of Jesus potentially giving of eternal life (in contrast to the manna of Moses).
After the disciples had gathered fish and dined; Jesus asks Simon Peter three times whether he loves him (three times in an echo of Simon Peter's earlier three denials of Jesus).
But the first time Jesus asks 'Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?'- these presumably being the other disciples. After Simon Peter says yes, then Jesus tells him to feed his lambs.
Lambs imply sacrifice, and I think this refers to Simon Peter's role in leading the other disciples. Simon Peter is told, prophetically, the manner of his own sacrificial death. So, Simon Peter, and most of theother disciples, are sacrificial lambs.
The next twice, Jesus repeats the same phrase: 'Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? This time Jesus leaves-out 'Peter', which is his disciple name, given him by Jesus. So, presumably what follows relates to Simon Peter not as leader of the disciples, but in a different, more general role - perhaps as future 'bishop'?
And then his instruction is to 'feed my sheep' - not lambs. The symbolism of sheep is very different from lambs. Lambs are disciples, but sheep are the followers of Jesus, the Good Shepherd.
So, Simon has to feed the lamb/ disciples and the sheep/ people... but wait a minute! People don't feed lambs or sheep. Lambs are fed by their mothers (by female sheep), while grown-up sheep feed themselves.
So this passage is Not about Simon Peter becoming a Shepherd, or Pastor; because the Shepherd's job was to protect and lead the flock - not to feed them...
And anyway, Jesus is The (Good) Shepherd - and this symbol is close to being his essence - Jesus, and only Jesus, will lead us through death to to life everlasting.
So, whatever 'feed' means in the Fourth Gospel, Simon Peter is being asked (for his love of Jesus) to do this both for the disciples, and for the people in General...
But not for the beloved disciple, author of the fourth Gospel, who has a different task and role. Jesus asks Simon Peter to 'follow me' - meaning, through death to eternal life. Simon Peter is himself one of the sheep/ followers, as well as a lamb/ sacrifice.
But a different identity and fate apply to the beloved disciple, who is not one of the sheep who follow the Good Shepherd through death (because, being Lazarus, he has already died); but instead he is to 'tarry' until Jesus 'comes' again...
**
Fourth Gospel ('John') Chapter 21: 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Monday, 4 June 2018
OK, I'm a Christian - Now what? Lifestyle, politics or consciousness
Christianity has at least two steps - the first is becoming a Christian, which happens in a moment. This is a wonderful experience; but after some time the overwhelming feeling fades - as it is meant to. Then the question arises - what now?
Traditionally, the convert spends the rest of his mortal days learning and practising the Christian 'lifestyle' as it is understood by the denomination of his church in a particular time and place. That is one possibility.
Modern liberal Christians - a many evangelicals - reject a highly detailed prescribed lifestyle as being unscriptural; and there is a tendency for such to put their efforts into 'politics' of one sort or another: into trying to achieve Social Change. This usually ends, sooner or later, by leading out of Christianity; at least it does nowadays, when politics is so corrupting and evil.
If we reject (or cannot live by) a detailed-prescribed lifestyle; and if we also reject the mainstream 'social activism' of the mainstream churches - what then?
Another way forward is the spiritual - to cultivate and strengthen the spiritual side of of Christianity. In other words, to work on the form as well as the content of our faith.
Another way to put this is to try and change our consciousness. That is the very texture of the way we think and feel - and to make it more Christian. Because the spiritual is not restricted to believing in Jesus in the same way we believe in the factual validity of an Encyclopedia; Christian belief is supposed to be a different, deeper, wider, personally-involved way of believing.
Because mainstream modern consciousness, the way that most people including Christians think and feel, is in conflict with Christianity. We are materialists, prone to positivism, scientism - we live in a world of dead (un-alive) 'things'. We experience being cut-off from the world.
So long as people experience and think this way, they are falling far short of the way that we ought to be experiencing and thinking.
So, this is something that a newly-minted Christian could do; something to work-on that would enrich and strengthen their faith; a life's work, indeed.
Traditionally, the convert spends the rest of his mortal days learning and practising the Christian 'lifestyle' as it is understood by the denomination of his church in a particular time and place. That is one possibility.
Modern liberal Christians - a many evangelicals - reject a highly detailed prescribed lifestyle as being unscriptural; and there is a tendency for such to put their efforts into 'politics' of one sort or another: into trying to achieve Social Change. This usually ends, sooner or later, by leading out of Christianity; at least it does nowadays, when politics is so corrupting and evil.
If we reject (or cannot live by) a detailed-prescribed lifestyle; and if we also reject the mainstream 'social activism' of the mainstream churches - what then?
Another way forward is the spiritual - to cultivate and strengthen the spiritual side of of Christianity. In other words, to work on the form as well as the content of our faith.
Another way to put this is to try and change our consciousness. That is the very texture of the way we think and feel - and to make it more Christian. Because the spiritual is not restricted to believing in Jesus in the same way we believe in the factual validity of an Encyclopedia; Christian belief is supposed to be a different, deeper, wider, personally-involved way of believing.
Because mainstream modern consciousness, the way that most people including Christians think and feel, is in conflict with Christianity. We are materialists, prone to positivism, scientism - we live in a world of dead (un-alive) 'things'. We experience being cut-off from the world.
So long as people experience and think this way, they are falling far short of the way that we ought to be experiencing and thinking.
So, this is something that a newly-minted Christian could do; something to work-on that would enrich and strengthen their faith; a life's work, indeed.
Sunday, 3 June 2018
Men may become fully divine (like Jesus) - from the Fourth Gospel
Although the idea that Men may become fully divine is often regarded as being a distinctive doctrine of Mormon Christianity (and an heretical and obnoxious one!).
Yet, this idea is pretty clearly implied by the Fourth Gospel from three sets of statements: that Jesus is the son of God, that Men may become sons of God, and that Jesus is God.
However, the fact is not usually noticed due to the near-universal practice of reading scripture with a prior (non-scriptural) assumption of strict-monotheism - leading to the mystical-paradox of standard Trinity theology, which itself assumes that God is qualitatively distinct from Men.
Also, the Synoptic Gospels (and/ or Pauline Epistles) are, in practice, regarded as primarily authoritative - whereas I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the most authoritative book of scripture.
Anyway, the passages in the Fourth Gospel which lead to the conclusion that Men can become fully divine include the following (there are others).
John
20: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name.
John 1: 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
20: 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Yet, this idea is pretty clearly implied by the Fourth Gospel from three sets of statements: that Jesus is the son of God, that Men may become sons of God, and that Jesus is God.
However, the fact is not usually noticed due to the near-universal practice of reading scripture with a prior (non-scriptural) assumption of strict-monotheism - leading to the mystical-paradox of standard Trinity theology, which itself assumes that God is qualitatively distinct from Men.
Also, the Synoptic Gospels (and/ or Pauline Epistles) are, in practice, regarded as primarily authoritative - whereas I believe that the Fourth Gospel is the most authoritative book of scripture.
Anyway, the passages in the Fourth Gospel which lead to the conclusion that Men can become fully divine include the following (there are others).
Jesus is the son of God
Men may also become sons of God (like Jesus already is)
John 1: 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus is himself God
John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
20: 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Saturday, 2 June 2018
The People want Bad things - so political change can't do any Good
This is something I find it hard to get across - I have been harping on the theme for about nine years, and apparently few other have reached the same conclusion, if the sustained massive interest-in and hopes-from political change is any guide.
My baseline understanding that that, in modern Western countries, hardly-any-people (only a small minority) want Good things.
Quite the contrary, in fact. If their behaviour is anything to go by, then most people want Bad things for most of the time.
And if people want Bad things; then how could politics do any Good? Improving The System will only make the mass majority of Badly-motivated people more successful at accomplishing the Bad things that they wish-for...
A Christian spiritual awakening is therefore not some kind of luxury, not something added-on after the prior and necessary political changes; but the pre-requisite to all Good political change.
When the people are Bad, nothing positive can be accomplished by political action of any kind. It is misplaced activity.
Christian spiritual awakening is therefore the priority. It must happen before there is any possibility of Good politics.
...First your own awakening; then see if you can help others awaken, in some way that you consider potentially to be effective.
My baseline understanding that that, in modern Western countries, hardly-any-people (only a small minority) want Good things.
Quite the contrary, in fact. If their behaviour is anything to go by, then most people want Bad things for most of the time.
And if people want Bad things; then how could politics do any Good? Improving The System will only make the mass majority of Badly-motivated people more successful at accomplishing the Bad things that they wish-for...
A Christian spiritual awakening is therefore not some kind of luxury, not something added-on after the prior and necessary political changes; but the pre-requisite to all Good political change.
When the people are Bad, nothing positive can be accomplished by political action of any kind. It is misplaced activity.
Christian spiritual awakening is therefore the priority. It must happen before there is any possibility of Good politics.
...First your own awakening; then see if you can help others awaken, in some way that you consider potentially to be effective.
Is there a Spirituality Quotient akin to IQ?
William Wildblood, with tongue-in-cheek, plays with this idea as a way of exploring the obvious 'dissociation' (i.e lack of correlation) between intelligence and spirituality; including the idea that it is ideal to be high in both.
The Origins of Life
What are the origins of life?
What is life? is the title of an influential book by Schroedinger (1944). The current answer is, implicitly: that is ‘life’ which reproduces or replicates and is subject to natural selection.
But this answer includes viruses, phages and prions – which hardly seem to be ‘alive’ in that they lack a dynamic metabolism; and also some forms of crystal – which are usually regarded as certainly not-alive (Cairns-Smith, 1990). Furthermore, some economic theories and computational programmes explicitly use the mechanisms of natural selection - and these are not regarded as part of biology.
Strikingly, there has been no success in the attempts over sixty-plus years to create life in the laboratory under plausible ancestral earth conditions – not even the complex bio-molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. It has, indeed, been well-argued that this is impossible; and that ‘living life’ must therefore have evolved from an intermediate stage (or stages) of non-living but evolvable molecules such as crystals – perhaps clays (Cairns-Smith, 1987). But nobody has succeeded in doing that in the lab either, despite that artificial selection can be orders of magnitude faster than natural selection.
Since there is no acknowledged boundary dividing biology and not-biology, then it would seem that biology as currently understood has zero validity as a subject. What are the implications of our failure to divide the living from the non-living world: the failure to draw a line around the subject? Well, since there is no coherent boundary, then common sense leads us to infer in that case either everything is not-alive or everything is-alive. If nothing is-alive, not even ourselves, there seems to be no coherent possibility of us knowing that we ourselves are not-alive, or indeed of anything knowing anything – which, I take it, means we should reject that possibility as a reductio ad absurdum.
Alternatively, the implication is that if anything is-alive, then everything is-alive, including the mineral world – so we dwell in a wholly animated universe, all that there is being alive but – presumably – alive in very different degrees and with different qualities of life. This inference I intend to regard as valid: it will be my working metaphysical assumption, and is one to which we will return later.
So; if life is to be regarded as universal, it seems that the presence of ‘life’ can no longer be used as definitive of biology; and since reproduction/ replication is also inadequate, then we need a new basis or principle around-which may be made a different definition of the subject ‘biology’. I will argue, below, why this new principle should be ‘development’.
Friday, 1 June 2018
More on Modern Magic (and its lack)
Tolkien's great parable of Men and magic is Numenor.
In the Second Age of the world; Men were given the magical power of elves, and used it - at first - in appreciation of life, in art and learning. But soon they began to use their magic in technology - and then in warfare applied to expanding their power, conquering weaker peoples, and finally assaulting the Valar (gods) in the futile attempt to wrest immortality from them - and the paradise island of Numenor was drowned and destroyed.
Since then, it is implied, such power, such magic, has been withdrawn from Men - for our own good; and modern Men (of the Fourth Age) are mundane.
Magic, enchantment, has departed from our world...
More can be found at Albion Awakening...
In the Second Age of the world; Men were given the magical power of elves, and used it - at first - in appreciation of life, in art and learning. But soon they began to use their magic in technology - and then in warfare applied to expanding their power, conquering weaker peoples, and finally assaulting the Valar (gods) in the futile attempt to wrest immortality from them - and the paradise island of Numenor was drowned and destroyed.
Since then, it is implied, such power, such magic, has been withdrawn from Men - for our own good; and modern Men (of the Fourth Age) are mundane.
Magic, enchantment, has departed from our world...
More can be found at Albion Awakening...
Why aren't things much worse - or are they?
It is often said that 'things aren't as bad as all that'. And the point may be accurate, if 'things' are described in materialist terms.
Materially, in The West, there is unprecedented comfort, convenience, prosperity, diversions and pleasures...
So, in that sense things aren't that bad... It all depends on what is regarded as important. And if materialism is important - if it is the only thing, then overall, things aren't bad. Maybe things are, in fact, the best they've ever been, and getting better...
But when we apply a different measure of importance, a different scale of evaluation; things are very bad indeed. For instance, biologically; Modern Man is so damaged that he suffers reproductive suppression; and fails even to replace himself i conditions of material prosperity.
Spiritually, we live in a wasteland - where it is normal, indeed mandatory at senior levels, to profess and live as if there was no meaning or purpose to Life - except the material.
Morally, we live in a Bizarro World of inversion; where sexuality, marriage, family, tribe, national are all mocked, vilified, subverted and given negative evaluations - and the system propagandises and enforces an upside-down ethical system (including dishonestly denying about the fact that this is what it is doing).
So things are either okay; or so bad that they are off the charts - depending entirely on your scale of evaluation... As usual, it is the prior assumption that determines everything else.
So, what do we assume is important - more than that: what is real?
Materially, in The West, there is unprecedented comfort, convenience, prosperity, diversions and pleasures...
So, in that sense things aren't that bad... It all depends on what is regarded as important. And if materialism is important - if it is the only thing, then overall, things aren't bad. Maybe things are, in fact, the best they've ever been, and getting better...
But when we apply a different measure of importance, a different scale of evaluation; things are very bad indeed. For instance, biologically; Modern Man is so damaged that he suffers reproductive suppression; and fails even to replace himself i conditions of material prosperity.
Spiritually, we live in a wasteland - where it is normal, indeed mandatory at senior levels, to profess and live as if there was no meaning or purpose to Life - except the material.
Morally, we live in a Bizarro World of inversion; where sexuality, marriage, family, tribe, national are all mocked, vilified, subverted and given negative evaluations - and the system propagandises and enforces an upside-down ethical system (including dishonestly denying about the fact that this is what it is doing).
So things are either okay; or so bad that they are off the charts - depending entirely on your scale of evaluation... As usual, it is the prior assumption that determines everything else.
So, what do we assume is important - more than that: what is real?
Thursday, 31 May 2018
Virtue-signalling versus corporate income: How system selection makes modern management indifferent to profits
Why do modern managers engage in 'virtue signalling' at the expense of income and profits?
This can be understood in terms of system-adaptive short-termist selfishness...
Edited from Charlton BG, Andras P. What is management and what do managers do? A systems theory account. Philosophy of Management. 2003; 3: 1-15.
Understanding the functionality of management, or any other complex system, is best approached by considering the factors that lead to the evolution of complex systems. Complex systems cannot arise in a single step by pure chance but are built-up incrementally and elaborated from simpler systems.
Complex management systems are therefore a consequence of selection processes, and the functionality of the system will depend on its history of selection.
For example, a management system may be a product of the selection of organisations by interaction with their economic market environments. The nature of the management system affects the nature of the organisation, and the organisation interacts with an environment in which economics is the major selection pressure. The major determinant of managerial replication is then the economic viability of the organisation.
On the other hand, the main environmental selection pressure on organisations may be political rather than economic. This often applies in the ‘public sector’ and nationalised industries. The main interaction of public sector organisations is with government and the public administration bureaucracy, and this shapes their functionality.
Organisations that disobey or antagonise the state apparatus will decline or disappear over time, while those that remain are those that have been relatively better at satisfying the demands of the state.
In a long-lasting centralised command economic system such as the former-USSR, the survival and growth of organisations was often more dependent upon political factors than economic efficiency. The function of management in this context was related to political goals - for instance maintenance of good relations with The Party, full-employment, and political discipline.
The point is that both a market-place and command economy management system may be equally functional in the sense that both may be equally-well adapted to their environments. However, they may have adapted to radically different environments. It is the history of environmental interaction that accounts for different function of management systems.
The Soviet Union management of a car factory was presumably economically inefficient by comparison with a Japanese manufacturer - but likewise a Japanese-style organisation with Japanese-style management could not have survived in the political environment of the USSR.
*
The same mechanism applies to senior executive managers at the level who make major decisions - and who, in the modern West, engage in virtue-signalling at the cost of corporate income and profits. Senior executive managers are - in effect - not part-of the corporation system, but are each individually A System, a unit of selection.
(i.e. The corporation is selected by the system it operates in; and so are senior executive managers.)
The background context in the modern West is of institutions that have been subjected to fifty years of increasingly severe selection pressure from the leftist socio-political system. The larger the organisation, the more dominant is socio-political selection; hence their massive expenditure on PR propaganda, lobbying, funding parties and media, and deniably-bribing decision makers (e.g. by massive 'consultancy' and 'lecture' fees).
Beyond this, no large modern organisation is autonomous but all large organisations are linked by the unified bureaucracy, which includes - by a vast and intricately interconnected web of laws and regulations - political and governmental systems and also (via regulation, taxes and subsidies) private corporations, media, health services, education, police and military, major churches... everything.
And increasingly this vast and intricately interconnected web of laws and regulations is multi-national, tending towards being global... A unified global bureaucracy.
The unified bureaucracy is the origin and basis of political correctness or New Leftism - which is social not economic. Indeed, political correctness just-is the inner rules and system workings of the unified bureaucracy.
(The unified bureaucracy has properties which I described for the mass media in a book called Addicted to Distraction.)
Each individual senior executive manager's behaviour in any specific organisations has been selected-for by an environment which favours what-it-takes to progress the career of a senior executive manager. Rising managers typically move between corporations after making some qualitative change that conforms to the favoured dominant within-bureaucracy selection pressure.
Within-bureaucracy selection of senior executive managers is a very different thing from the usual assumption that strategic decisions are determined by between-corporation selection by 'the market'; i.e. by the economic-success of the institution being-managed. In the modern West, the market is itself embedded-in and controlled-by 'the unified bureaucracy'.
Modern executive managers of large corporations are therefore not really signalling their 'virtue' when pursuing a politically correct agenda - they are instead demonstrating their compliance with the unified bureaucracy and its internal system procedures. By conforming their (temporarily inhabited) organisation to the dominant selection pressure - by restructuring an individual corporation to the unified bureaucracy - senior executive managers reveal they have been selected-by a system that is not economic but socio-political.
Executive behaviour is not related to the specific corporation or organisation which currently but temporarily happens to employ them, but to each managers future personal career within the unified bureaucracy.
Thus executive managers, senior decision-makers in general, use their companies to enhance their careers... As do most people with most organisation. But for senior decision-makers the system of selection is the unified bureaucracy.
So do politicians who routinely act to destroy their specifically-political careers (and, if leaders, act to damage their political parties) by what appears to be virtue-signalling - but which is system-adaptive behaviour.
We can see that individuals in senior government positions routinely leave behind the wreckage of a specifically-political career, and failure of the political parties they have 'led'; and move on to occupy higher positions within the unified global bureaucracy. And this applies equally to senior executive managers in all the other major social institutions.
Political correctness in leaders has been competitively selected-for by a politically correct world (a politically correct system); and selection causes adaptation.
If you follow-up the careers of the individual managers responsible for making politically-correct decisions that have lost their companies large sums of money - I think you will discover that they, personally, have usually done very well out of it.
In a nutshell: Management is parasitic; but senior executive managers are fuel-injected, turbocharged parasites... on steroids.
This can be understood in terms of system-adaptive short-termist selfishness...
Edited from Charlton BG, Andras P. What is management and what do managers do? A systems theory account. Philosophy of Management. 2003; 3: 1-15.
Understanding the functionality of management, or any other complex system, is best approached by considering the factors that lead to the evolution of complex systems. Complex systems cannot arise in a single step by pure chance but are built-up incrementally and elaborated from simpler systems.
Complex management systems are therefore a consequence of selection processes, and the functionality of the system will depend on its history of selection.
For example, a management system may be a product of the selection of organisations by interaction with their economic market environments. The nature of the management system affects the nature of the organisation, and the organisation interacts with an environment in which economics is the major selection pressure. The major determinant of managerial replication is then the economic viability of the organisation.
On the other hand, the main environmental selection pressure on organisations may be political rather than economic. This often applies in the ‘public sector’ and nationalised industries. The main interaction of public sector organisations is with government and the public administration bureaucracy, and this shapes their functionality.
Organisations that disobey or antagonise the state apparatus will decline or disappear over time, while those that remain are those that have been relatively better at satisfying the demands of the state.
In a long-lasting centralised command economic system such as the former-USSR, the survival and growth of organisations was often more dependent upon political factors than economic efficiency. The function of management in this context was related to political goals - for instance maintenance of good relations with The Party, full-employment, and political discipline.
The point is that both a market-place and command economy management system may be equally functional in the sense that both may be equally-well adapted to their environments. However, they may have adapted to radically different environments. It is the history of environmental interaction that accounts for different function of management systems.
The Soviet Union management of a car factory was presumably economically inefficient by comparison with a Japanese manufacturer - but likewise a Japanese-style organisation with Japanese-style management could not have survived in the political environment of the USSR.
*
The same mechanism applies to senior executive managers at the level who make major decisions - and who, in the modern West, engage in virtue-signalling at the cost of corporate income and profits. Senior executive managers are - in effect - not part-of the corporation system, but are each individually A System, a unit of selection.
(i.e. The corporation is selected by the system it operates in; and so are senior executive managers.)
The background context in the modern West is of institutions that have been subjected to fifty years of increasingly severe selection pressure from the leftist socio-political system. The larger the organisation, the more dominant is socio-political selection; hence their massive expenditure on PR propaganda, lobbying, funding parties and media, and deniably-bribing decision makers (e.g. by massive 'consultancy' and 'lecture' fees).
Beyond this, no large modern organisation is autonomous but all large organisations are linked by the unified bureaucracy, which includes - by a vast and intricately interconnected web of laws and regulations - political and governmental systems and also (via regulation, taxes and subsidies) private corporations, media, health services, education, police and military, major churches... everything.
And increasingly this vast and intricately interconnected web of laws and regulations is multi-national, tending towards being global... A unified global bureaucracy.
The unified bureaucracy is the origin and basis of political correctness or New Leftism - which is social not economic. Indeed, political correctness just-is the inner rules and system workings of the unified bureaucracy.
(The unified bureaucracy has properties which I described for the mass media in a book called Addicted to Distraction.)
Each individual senior executive manager's behaviour in any specific organisations has been selected-for by an environment which favours what-it-takes to progress the career of a senior executive manager. Rising managers typically move between corporations after making some qualitative change that conforms to the favoured dominant within-bureaucracy selection pressure.
Within-bureaucracy selection of senior executive managers is a very different thing from the usual assumption that strategic decisions are determined by between-corporation selection by 'the market'; i.e. by the economic-success of the institution being-managed. In the modern West, the market is itself embedded-in and controlled-by 'the unified bureaucracy'.
Modern executive managers of large corporations are therefore not really signalling their 'virtue' when pursuing a politically correct agenda - they are instead demonstrating their compliance with the unified bureaucracy and its internal system procedures. By conforming their (temporarily inhabited) organisation to the dominant selection pressure - by restructuring an individual corporation to the unified bureaucracy - senior executive managers reveal they have been selected-by a system that is not economic but socio-political.
Executive behaviour is not related to the specific corporation or organisation which currently but temporarily happens to employ them, but to each managers future personal career within the unified bureaucracy.
Thus executive managers, senior decision-makers in general, use their companies to enhance their careers... As do most people with most organisation. But for senior decision-makers the system of selection is the unified bureaucracy.
So do politicians who routinely act to destroy their specifically-political careers (and, if leaders, act to damage their political parties) by what appears to be virtue-signalling - but which is system-adaptive behaviour.
We can see that individuals in senior government positions routinely leave behind the wreckage of a specifically-political career, and failure of the political parties they have 'led'; and move on to occupy higher positions within the unified global bureaucracy. And this applies equally to senior executive managers in all the other major social institutions.
Political correctness in leaders has been competitively selected-for by a politically correct world (a politically correct system); and selection causes adaptation.
If you follow-up the careers of the individual managers responsible for making politically-correct decisions that have lost their companies large sums of money - I think you will discover that they, personally, have usually done very well out of it.
In a nutshell: Management is parasitic; but senior executive managers are fuel-injected, turbocharged parasites... on steroids.
Pseudonyms are not True Names - and corrupt the soul
My comment, to be appended to William Wildblood's excerpted-article yesterday which concludes the time has come to call things by their true names and not worry about the consequences.
Among the True Names, ought to be the use of real personal names instead of pseudonyms; internet 'anonymity' has shown its real nature by-now.
When 'they' want to get you, pseudonyms will be no protection (instead, 'evidence' of thought crime); but, whatever the probable risk-benefit pragmatics; hiding behind anonymity while firing-off judgement is corrupting for the soul; as is made obvious on a daily basis.
Among the True Names, ought to be the use of real personal names instead of pseudonyms; internet 'anonymity' has shown its real nature by-now.
When 'they' want to get you, pseudonyms will be no protection (instead, 'evidence' of thought crime); but, whatever the probable risk-benefit pragmatics; hiding behind anonymity while firing-off judgement is corrupting for the soul; as is made obvious on a daily basis.
Explicitness is strength
Back in the sixties 'explicit' was a euphemism for pornographic - this term was important in propagating evil; nonetheless, we do need to be explicit in order to be strong.
Well - not everybody needs to be explicit - young children don't; they can and should know Good unconsciously and immersively - not explicitly. Simple people likewise - but people and like you and me? We need to be explicit.
The forces of materialist Leftism which rule this world have used explicitness to subvert and invert The World.
What happened was that in the past Good was im-plicit; it was embedded in the unconscious, the unexamined, the passive.
Materialist modernity destroyed (past tense, because it has-happened already) unconscious, accepting, traditional authority - by making things explicit; by asking repeatedly 'Why?' - or more exactly 'Why not?'
They asked why until Goodness had crumbled - but stopped asking why, long before they got to the root of things; before they got to the fundamental metaphysical assumptions upon which all 'why/ why-not questions are based...
In modern conditions, I personally have found no greater source of strength than metaphysics. When one has gone to the bottom of things; the superficiality, triviality and evasiveness of modernity is known by experience.
And having done so, I am aware that extremely few others have even tried. Among the forces of evil, none of the mass of lower level minions have done so: they merely obey their demonic masters.
To be a demonic leader, a full demon; I suppose that - by definition - one must have got to the bottom of things - reached the metaphysical root assumptions - and then actively-chosen evil, knowing the implications and consequences. That is the fall of angels, I think.
But among the people one meets and encounters in the public sphere, it is clear that their evil is secondary and superficial; a consequence of them having chosen to worship and serve evil personages and ideologies, rather than truly understanding evil.
They have chosen damnation at second-hand.
At any rate - among the things Ive written here over the past eight years - these pieces about the 'incredible' are among the most significant to me; because by thinking and writing them I recognised what-metaphysics-really-is - which is to get to the point where we recognise that our agency must step-in...
Life is not about 'evidence' - evidence is about metaphysics.
I feel secure in my Christian beliefs because I chose them, chose them in my freedom and from my agency; and knowing that they must be chosen and cannot be compelled.
True beliefs are reality (not invented) - but reality must be chosen; it does not impose itself upon us.
Furthermore, I came up against my limitations of comprehension, expression, explanation; so I am now less likely to regard expressed/ written metaphysics as the reality - I know from experience that the written is merely a simplified and distorted model of reality.
Anyway, in a world that is almost entirely hostile and which works by materialism, mockery, distraction; there is no greater path of strength and encouragement that I could recommend, than to think down to primary metaphysics; to your own bedrock assumptions.
Well - not everybody needs to be explicit - young children don't; they can and should know Good unconsciously and immersively - not explicitly. Simple people likewise - but people and like you and me? We need to be explicit.
The forces of materialist Leftism which rule this world have used explicitness to subvert and invert The World.
What happened was that in the past Good was im-plicit; it was embedded in the unconscious, the unexamined, the passive.
Materialist modernity destroyed (past tense, because it has-happened already) unconscious, accepting, traditional authority - by making things explicit; by asking repeatedly 'Why?' - or more exactly 'Why not?'
They asked why until Goodness had crumbled - but stopped asking why, long before they got to the root of things; before they got to the fundamental metaphysical assumptions upon which all 'why/ why-not questions are based...
In modern conditions, I personally have found no greater source of strength than metaphysics. When one has gone to the bottom of things; the superficiality, triviality and evasiveness of modernity is known by experience.
And having done so, I am aware that extremely few others have even tried. Among the forces of evil, none of the mass of lower level minions have done so: they merely obey their demonic masters.
To be a demonic leader, a full demon; I suppose that - by definition - one must have got to the bottom of things - reached the metaphysical root assumptions - and then actively-chosen evil, knowing the implications and consequences. That is the fall of angels, I think.
But among the people one meets and encounters in the public sphere, it is clear that their evil is secondary and superficial; a consequence of them having chosen to worship and serve evil personages and ideologies, rather than truly understanding evil.
They have chosen damnation at second-hand.
At any rate - among the things Ive written here over the past eight years - these pieces about the 'incredible' are among the most significant to me; because by thinking and writing them I recognised what-metaphysics-really-is - which is to get to the point where we recognise that our agency must step-in...
Life is not about 'evidence' - evidence is about metaphysics.
I feel secure in my Christian beliefs because I chose them, chose them in my freedom and from my agency; and knowing that they must be chosen and cannot be compelled.
True beliefs are reality (not invented) - but reality must be chosen; it does not impose itself upon us.
Furthermore, I came up against my limitations of comprehension, expression, explanation; so I am now less likely to regard expressed/ written metaphysics as the reality - I know from experience that the written is merely a simplified and distorted model of reality.
Anyway, in a world that is almost entirely hostile and which works by materialism, mockery, distraction; there is no greater path of strength and encouragement that I could recommend, than to think down to primary metaphysics; to your own bedrock assumptions.
Superversive Inklings - Notice of a new blog
Superversive Inklings
This is going to be run by L Jagi Lamplighter (author of the on-going Rachel Griffin series of fantasy novels). One of my essays is featured, and I hope others will appear there.
BTW: The word 'superversive' was made to be the opposite of 'subversive'.
This is going to be run by L Jagi Lamplighter (author of the on-going Rachel Griffin series of fantasy novels). One of my essays is featured, and I hope others will appear there.
BTW: The word 'superversive' was made to be the opposite of 'subversive'.
Wednesday, 30 May 2018
Inflation, lies and the "Twitter Rant" - and the people who notice
Word inflation seems built into language - words lose their force and urgency by the inbuilt tendency for exaggeration. Of course this has been accelerated to absurdity by the mass media.
Just as a small allotment shed cannot 'blaze' - the brief comments possible on Twitter can never amount to a 'rant' - and yet the term has been used at least 1.5 million times so far...
Therefore, anybody who describes anything on Twitter as a 'rant' is a liar; therefore anybody who describes a Twitter rant should not be believed - Because, that's the thing about liars: they should not be believed!
But of course the Establishment, the mass media, all large institutions, all individuals in leadership positions lie, every hour of every day; in every paragraph (they sometimes include a true sentence or two, to make their lies more effective) - we swim in a sea of lies: liars lying about liars.
We need a new word to describe 'us' - the kind of people who spend many hours per day reading, watching and discussing the lies that liars tell about each other...
Or maybe the word 'people' will itself suffice; given their massive majority.
Just as a small allotment shed cannot 'blaze' - the brief comments possible on Twitter can never amount to a 'rant' - and yet the term has been used at least 1.5 million times so far...
Therefore, anybody who describes anything on Twitter as a 'rant' is a liar; therefore anybody who describes a Twitter rant should not be believed - Because, that's the thing about liars: they should not be believed!
But of course the Establishment, the mass media, all large institutions, all individuals in leadership positions lie, every hour of every day; in every paragraph (they sometimes include a true sentence or two, to make their lies more effective) - we swim in a sea of lies: liars lying about liars.
We need a new word to describe 'us' - the kind of people who spend many hours per day reading, watching and discussing the lies that liars tell about each other...
Or maybe the word 'people' will itself suffice; given their massive majority.
How bad are 'things'? (Has Satan won?)
This is a major issue in my (so-called...) Life!
I think 'things' are very bad indeed - but hardly anybody agrees.
And I know exactly why: because we have been inculcated since birth with the idea that 'things' amount to current material conditions: and the idea that an Evil regime is one that deliberately causes excessive suffering and death.
Clearly that is the general idea of a bad life; all the future dystopias that are so popular nowadays in movies, on TV, in adult and - especially - teen fiction; are dystopian precisely because the rulers deliberately imprison, torture, and kill people in large numbers - often without reason (or, at least, the nastiness is disproportionate to the reason for it).
The usual villain is someone who enjoys inflicting pain and killing people. Also - modern villains are, almost always, depicted as snobbish, racist, sexist... (so-called...) Right Wing. Hence the idea of Hitler as the archetype.
The idea of Evil as socialist, feminist, and favouring the historically repressed - is off-the-map. hence the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (ie. the vast majority of Evil totalitarian dictators of recent memory) are down the memory hole.
The idea of a spiritual dystopia is off-the-map.
It is literally incomprehensible that an Evil society (much like Huxley's Brave New World) might satisfy all material needs, might refrain from tormenting its citizens, and keep the population distracted and pleasured.
For a Christian, this means (so far as observable, public life is concerned) that Satan has won. Not that Satan is win-ning, not that Satan will win unless...
But that Satan has - here and now, and as things actually are - has won.
Past tense. Done.
In public discourse; the idea that Evil is primarily spiritual - that is that Life is about salvation and damnation, about souls rather than bodies, about eternity rather than now-and-next - that idea is not merely omitted, not merely suppressed and excluded: it has-been and is sense-less, literally incomprehensible.
That is the current situation.
Hope resides in the fact that public discourse does not represent private thoughts and feelings. Not yet, at any rate.
But, as the mass media and especially social media continue to expand - we are getting ever closer to that situation: I mean when public is all.
In sum: Satan has won in the public realm - and the current spiritual war is over the private realm.
Yet this isn't much of a war, so far - it is only being fought on one side, on Satan's side
Since the public - en masse, by their revealed preferences and behaviours - want, ASAP, to fuse their once-private thoughts and feelings with the public realm.
From where I stand: that's how bad 'things' are.
I think 'things' are very bad indeed - but hardly anybody agrees.
And I know exactly why: because we have been inculcated since birth with the idea that 'things' amount to current material conditions: and the idea that an Evil regime is one that deliberately causes excessive suffering and death.
Clearly that is the general idea of a bad life; all the future dystopias that are so popular nowadays in movies, on TV, in adult and - especially - teen fiction; are dystopian precisely because the rulers deliberately imprison, torture, and kill people in large numbers - often without reason (or, at least, the nastiness is disproportionate to the reason for it).
The usual villain is someone who enjoys inflicting pain and killing people. Also - modern villains are, almost always, depicted as snobbish, racist, sexist... (so-called...) Right Wing. Hence the idea of Hitler as the archetype.
The idea of Evil as socialist, feminist, and favouring the historically repressed - is off-the-map. hence the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (ie. the vast majority of Evil totalitarian dictators of recent memory) are down the memory hole.
The idea of a spiritual dystopia is off-the-map.
It is literally incomprehensible that an Evil society (much like Huxley's Brave New World) might satisfy all material needs, might refrain from tormenting its citizens, and keep the population distracted and pleasured.
For a Christian, this means (so far as observable, public life is concerned) that Satan has won. Not that Satan is win-ning, not that Satan will win unless...
But that Satan has - here and now, and as things actually are - has won.
Past tense. Done.
In public discourse; the idea that Evil is primarily spiritual - that is that Life is about salvation and damnation, about souls rather than bodies, about eternity rather than now-and-next - that idea is not merely omitted, not merely suppressed and excluded: it has-been and is sense-less, literally incomprehensible.
That is the current situation.
Hope resides in the fact that public discourse does not represent private thoughts and feelings. Not yet, at any rate.
But, as the mass media and especially social media continue to expand - we are getting ever closer to that situation: I mean when public is all.
In sum: Satan has won in the public realm - and the current spiritual war is over the private realm.
Yet this isn't much of a war, so far - it is only being fought on one side, on Satan's side
Since the public - en masse, by their revealed preferences and behaviours - want, ASAP, to fuse their once-private thoughts and feelings with the public realm.
From where I stand: that's how bad 'things' are.
True names - Wildblood again
An excerpt from William Wildblood's latest:
"We live in a world of lies. Anyone who tries to break free of that will be attacked and the attempt made to depict that person as mad, bad or stupid.
"I know this might sound rather an extreme statement, maybe even bordering on paranoia, but it is really just a simple observation of how falsehood seeks to protect itself. On some level those who represent falsehood, who maintain and promote it, know that what they are doing is contrary to reality. When truth appears, it threatens them and must be destroyed. Specifically, the reputation of the person who speaks it must be destroyed...
"You cannot adapt a spiritual world view to a non-spiritual one. If you try to compromise with the default non-spiritual position of the present time, which embraces most of the apparent advances that have been made in recent decades (in the form they are understood at least), you will either end up betraying yourself and falling back into the non-spiritual or else being made to look hypocritical and foolish.
"You really have to start from a completely different position, one that does not take any of the standard liberal nostrums, panaceas and assumptions as necessarily and indisputably true. If you try to include these as part of your spiritual understanding, they will just take over and the spiritual will become secondary...
"We live at a time when there is an all out assault on truth through science, through politics, through art, through various social movements and even through forms of spirituality that subtly and not so subtly distort the real. This is why it is important to speak the truth from the highest point one can and not to compromise. Compromise means failure...
"Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour - but this discretion must be for reasons of prudence not fear.
"In general, the time has come to call things by their true names and not worry about the consequences."
"We live in a world of lies. Anyone who tries to break free of that will be attacked and the attempt made to depict that person as mad, bad or stupid.
"I know this might sound rather an extreme statement, maybe even bordering on paranoia, but it is really just a simple observation of how falsehood seeks to protect itself. On some level those who represent falsehood, who maintain and promote it, know that what they are doing is contrary to reality. When truth appears, it threatens them and must be destroyed. Specifically, the reputation of the person who speaks it must be destroyed...
"You cannot adapt a spiritual world view to a non-spiritual one. If you try to compromise with the default non-spiritual position of the present time, which embraces most of the apparent advances that have been made in recent decades (in the form they are understood at least), you will either end up betraying yourself and falling back into the non-spiritual or else being made to look hypocritical and foolish.
"You really have to start from a completely different position, one that does not take any of the standard liberal nostrums, panaceas and assumptions as necessarily and indisputably true. If you try to include these as part of your spiritual understanding, they will just take over and the spiritual will become secondary...
"We live at a time when there is an all out assault on truth through science, through politics, through art, through various social movements and even through forms of spirituality that subtly and not so subtly distort the real. This is why it is important to speak the truth from the highest point one can and not to compromise. Compromise means failure...
"Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour - but this discretion must be for reasons of prudence not fear.
"In general, the time has come to call things by their true names and not worry about the consequences."
Tuesday, 29 May 2018
In the beginning
Have there ever been greater or more important words written in the English language, than the opening of the Gospel called John in the King James Bible? I don't think so. (Cited in full below)
I feel that 'the whole thing' is there, if only we could take-it-in. It isn't that the words are obscure, not really; because by continuing to read the Gospel the hard words can be understood - but the limitation is rather of what we each, personally, are capable of understanding.
The words give us as much as words can give... I was about to write 'as mere words can give' - but that would be inaccurate as well as ungrateful. These words are, like Jesus himself (The Word), giving us something as great as we our-selves can have; they are a gift limited only by the receiver.
This blog post is something I have tried to write several times - I have tried to re-explain, in modern 'plain' language' what these verses mean - but that is to paraphrase Hamlet into bullet points (except much worse).
What I draw from these words today (coming at them from an earlier reading of the Chapters 15-18 of the same Gospel) is to 'notice' the extreme importance of John (the Baptist) and of the word 'witness' applied to him; to see that this word witness means far more than might be suggested by the modern definition - coming as it does immediately after the cosmic vision of creation and godhood. And of course John recurs throughout this Gospel.
Some have said this is 'because' the author of the Gospel had been John's disciple before he was Jesus's... but that 'because' is failing to read Scripture as Scripture, failing to recognise the inspired nature of this Gospel and the special nature of this Gospel's witness.
We need to understand that John the Baptist's role in the ministry of Jesus was such that it required to be interwoven with this ultimate statement of Jesus's nature and work. That is hard to grasp, but it is what we are being told.
As we look around the world, here and now, we need simply to recognise the simple reality that Jesus was and is the light shining in the darkness, and that the darkness did not and does not comprehend the light.
I find that a great consolation and inspiration. That is just how it is: and ought not deter us, ought not change us. It is no cause for despair - then or now. Because the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us!
John 1: 1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I feel that 'the whole thing' is there, if only we could take-it-in. It isn't that the words are obscure, not really; because by continuing to read the Gospel the hard words can be understood - but the limitation is rather of what we each, personally, are capable of understanding.
The words give us as much as words can give... I was about to write 'as mere words can give' - but that would be inaccurate as well as ungrateful. These words are, like Jesus himself (The Word), giving us something as great as we our-selves can have; they are a gift limited only by the receiver.
This blog post is something I have tried to write several times - I have tried to re-explain, in modern 'plain' language' what these verses mean - but that is to paraphrase Hamlet into bullet points (except much worse).
What I draw from these words today (coming at them from an earlier reading of the Chapters 15-18 of the same Gospel) is to 'notice' the extreme importance of John (the Baptist) and of the word 'witness' applied to him; to see that this word witness means far more than might be suggested by the modern definition - coming as it does immediately after the cosmic vision of creation and godhood. And of course John recurs throughout this Gospel.
Some have said this is 'because' the author of the Gospel had been John's disciple before he was Jesus's... but that 'because' is failing to read Scripture as Scripture, failing to recognise the inspired nature of this Gospel and the special nature of this Gospel's witness.
We need to understand that John the Baptist's role in the ministry of Jesus was such that it required to be interwoven with this ultimate statement of Jesus's nature and work. That is hard to grasp, but it is what we are being told.
As we look around the world, here and now, we need simply to recognise the simple reality that Jesus was and is the light shining in the darkness, and that the darkness did not and does not comprehend the light.
I find that a great consolation and inspiration. That is just how it is: and ought not deter us, ought not change us. It is no cause for despair - then or now. Because the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us!
John 1: 1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Monday, 28 May 2018
Negative notice of Dark Star Rising: magick and power in the age of Trump (2018) by Gary Lachman
First I will reproduce a comment I published on Steve Sailer's blog a couple of days ago:
I read Dark Star Rising a couple of months ago, in a review copy; but have been holding-off publishing my thoughts until the official publication date.
Gary Lachman is a very solid and well known writer on ‘occult’ topics – I have read quite a few of his previous books (e.g. on Rudolf Steiner, Swedenborg, and historical surveys of sixties spiritual counter culture, Western esotericism etc). All are very good.
He also wrote a really *excellent* biography of Colin Wilson called Beyond the Robot (indeed, I first came across Lachman around 2000 when we both used to contribute to a small, Colin Wilson oriented magazine).
Having said all that positive stuff, and to my surprise and disappointment – I found Dark Star Rising a poor book; far below the high standards I have come to expect from GL – lacking both (minimal) objectivity; and with a meagre, distorted, and fundamentally mistaken factual basis. Histrionic and sloppy. I’ll say more specifically, when I review it properly on my blog.
But I would say: please don’t be put off reading Lachman’s earlier work by this book; which is probably, unfortunately, going to get a fair bit of publicity…
I now find that I have not the heart to review Dark Star Rising in any kind of detail, as I intended. It's not just that it is a very poorly researched book - in which all the evidence about the 'Alt-Right' comes from its mass media/ party political enemies (amazingly; nothing at all about the roots in Mencius Moldbug nor the current domination by Vox Day and his gang, to mention two egregious omissions).
This means that the straw man which Lachman is attacking is essentially just another variant of his own secular progressivism.
(Trump himself is, of course, a progressive and a sexual revolutionary - a child of materialism, utilitarianism, economism, big business, public relations and propaganda; a figure of the mass media, advertising, social media... He also has virtues (including courage and independence of mind); and Trump's enemies are far worse than Trump himself; and Trump is almost always attacked most viciously for what he does right, not for his flaws. But Trump Just-Is A Man of the Left, by world-historical standards. Obviously!)
Lachman leaves out genuine religious reactionaries - or rather, explains-them-away; I think because he personally does not believe that people could genuinely and primarily be motivated by a religion (especially not Christianity) but that it is a front for reactionary (i.e. racist, sexist, 'phobic' politics). In his comments on Russia, it is clear that he regards the massive Christian revival there as a complete fake; a cover-up.
It's not just that all kind of prejudicial assumptions are built-into this book's argument - unexamined, undefined, untested - especially about key concepts like 'extreme right wing', 'white supremacists' (that mythical power bloc, consisting mainly of false flag operatives, subversive infiltrators and agents provocateurs) and the like: the slur words of the billionaire/ big-finance-subsidised Social Justice Warrior activists in the mass/ social media; in pressure-groups, NGOs and 'charities; and dominating all powerful or well-funded institutions...
It seems just a waste of time to be specific in analysis and critique, because the book is written from that point of view of moral inversion which is mainstream among the Global Elites - so it is clear that Gary Lachman has been corrupted.
However valuable I found Gary Lachman's earlier work; it is clear that he now has crossed the line, abandoned all his earlier standards of scholarship and fairness; and joined the forces of darkness. He has been confronted by a moment-of-truth, he has made a decision, he has taken a crucial step; and the process of corruption has apparently been very rapid.
But there is a lesson to be learned here. Lachman's previous stance was broadly 'agnostic' - at least, that was the perspective from which his books were written. He seems like a decent kind of man, worked hard, wrote clearly, did useful stuff...
Yet it was always clear that Lachman shared the mainstream 'anything but Christianity' kind of reflexive leftist/ progressive/ pro-sexual revolution perspective... which is all-but universal among those active in the perennialist, spiritual, esoteric, neo-pagan, self-help, personal development world.
Here and now, this agnostic stance of suspended judgement is non-viable: things have come to a point; because of the pervasive domination of New Left/ Political Correctness in all major social institutions everyone is incrementally being brought to a fork in the path, a decision yes or no.
I see this all around me. We live in a world of spiritual warfare. It cannot be hidden from, choice cannot be evaded. We cannot 'keep our heads down' because everyone is located and they must stand-up and raise their hands (and voices) to endorse and promote the current, evolving Leftist totalitarian narrative in all its respects - or else...
For the past decade and more, I have been seeing people whom I have known (sometimes for decades), very suddenly and swiftly (so fast I only see the after-effects) become fundamentally-corrupt - becoming allies, servants and advocates of evil.
The number who make the right choice is very small indeed - and I am talking about a really tiny percentage.
That's how it is.
These times are times of clarity - clarity so long as we don't imagine there is anything like a quantitatively-equal division between those who choose good and evil.
So long as we are prepared to see what ought-to-be obvious - that nearly-everybody is choosing evil. It may well be that every-single-person in your social group has chosen evil: it is that common, it is that kind of proportion.
Then, if we have been noticing; we will be dismayed and disappointed but we will not be at all surprised - when friends and relations, as well as bosses, colleagues and public figures - when they nearly-all get it wrong.
Given what they believe and disbelieve; given what they prioritise in Life: what did we expect?
I read Dark Star Rising a couple of months ago, in a review copy; but have been holding-off publishing my thoughts until the official publication date.
Gary Lachman is a very solid and well known writer on ‘occult’ topics – I have read quite a few of his previous books (e.g. on Rudolf Steiner, Swedenborg, and historical surveys of sixties spiritual counter culture, Western esotericism etc). All are very good.
He also wrote a really *excellent* biography of Colin Wilson called Beyond the Robot (indeed, I first came across Lachman around 2000 when we both used to contribute to a small, Colin Wilson oriented magazine).
Having said all that positive stuff, and to my surprise and disappointment – I found Dark Star Rising a poor book; far below the high standards I have come to expect from GL – lacking both (minimal) objectivity; and with a meagre, distorted, and fundamentally mistaken factual basis. Histrionic and sloppy. I’ll say more specifically, when I review it properly on my blog.
But I would say: please don’t be put off reading Lachman’s earlier work by this book; which is probably, unfortunately, going to get a fair bit of publicity…
I now find that I have not the heart to review Dark Star Rising in any kind of detail, as I intended. It's not just that it is a very poorly researched book - in which all the evidence about the 'Alt-Right' comes from its mass media/ party political enemies (amazingly; nothing at all about the roots in Mencius Moldbug nor the current domination by Vox Day and his gang, to mention two egregious omissions).
This means that the straw man which Lachman is attacking is essentially just another variant of his own secular progressivism.
(Trump himself is, of course, a progressive and a sexual revolutionary - a child of materialism, utilitarianism, economism, big business, public relations and propaganda; a figure of the mass media, advertising, social media... He also has virtues (including courage and independence of mind); and Trump's enemies are far worse than Trump himself; and Trump is almost always attacked most viciously for what he does right, not for his flaws. But Trump Just-Is A Man of the Left, by world-historical standards. Obviously!)
Lachman leaves out genuine religious reactionaries - or rather, explains-them-away; I think because he personally does not believe that people could genuinely and primarily be motivated by a religion (especially not Christianity) but that it is a front for reactionary (i.e. racist, sexist, 'phobic' politics). In his comments on Russia, it is clear that he regards the massive Christian revival there as a complete fake; a cover-up.
It's not just that all kind of prejudicial assumptions are built-into this book's argument - unexamined, undefined, untested - especially about key concepts like 'extreme right wing', 'white supremacists' (that mythical power bloc, consisting mainly of false flag operatives, subversive infiltrators and agents provocateurs) and the like: the slur words of the billionaire/ big-finance-subsidised Social Justice Warrior activists in the mass/ social media; in pressure-groups, NGOs and 'charities; and dominating all powerful or well-funded institutions...
It seems just a waste of time to be specific in analysis and critique, because the book is written from that point of view of moral inversion which is mainstream among the Global Elites - so it is clear that Gary Lachman has been corrupted.
However valuable I found Gary Lachman's earlier work; it is clear that he now has crossed the line, abandoned all his earlier standards of scholarship and fairness; and joined the forces of darkness. He has been confronted by a moment-of-truth, he has made a decision, he has taken a crucial step; and the process of corruption has apparently been very rapid.
But there is a lesson to be learned here. Lachman's previous stance was broadly 'agnostic' - at least, that was the perspective from which his books were written. He seems like a decent kind of man, worked hard, wrote clearly, did useful stuff...
Yet it was always clear that Lachman shared the mainstream 'anything but Christianity' kind of reflexive leftist/ progressive/ pro-sexual revolution perspective... which is all-but universal among those active in the perennialist, spiritual, esoteric, neo-pagan, self-help, personal development world.
Here and now, this agnostic stance of suspended judgement is non-viable: things have come to a point; because of the pervasive domination of New Left/ Political Correctness in all major social institutions everyone is incrementally being brought to a fork in the path, a decision yes or no.
I see this all around me. We live in a world of spiritual warfare. It cannot be hidden from, choice cannot be evaded. We cannot 'keep our heads down' because everyone is located and they must stand-up and raise their hands (and voices) to endorse and promote the current, evolving Leftist totalitarian narrative in all its respects - or else...
For the past decade and more, I have been seeing people whom I have known (sometimes for decades), very suddenly and swiftly (so fast I only see the after-effects) become fundamentally-corrupt - becoming allies, servants and advocates of evil.
The number who make the right choice is very small indeed - and I am talking about a really tiny percentage.
That's how it is.
These times are times of clarity - clarity so long as we don't imagine there is anything like a quantitatively-equal division between those who choose good and evil.
So long as we are prepared to see what ought-to-be obvious - that nearly-everybody is choosing evil. It may well be that every-single-person in your social group has chosen evil: it is that common, it is that kind of proportion.
Then, if we have been noticing; we will be dismayed and disappointed but we will not be at all surprised - when friends and relations, as well as bosses, colleagues and public figures - when they nearly-all get it wrong.
Given what they believe and disbelieve; given what they prioritise in Life: what did we expect?
Worry is anti-Christian
Worry is fear-spread-thin; and fear is the opposite of Love.
(Fear is, indeed, cast-out by Love - and the injunction Not to fear is almost a refrain in the New Testament.)
Yet we can, and many do, spend their entire conscious lives worrying; and if they accidentally stop worrying for a few moments, then they feel guilty - they apparently suppose that the world is being held-up by their worrying.
But this is evil - by which I mean to worry is to Be evil: to spend life worrying is evil, it is a state of sin.
Worry is (therefore) anti-Christian.
But what if I can't Help It! - what when can't help worrying?
Of course you can't help it, neither can I - but that doesn't stop worry being evil - it means we must repent the fact that we worry, instead of feeling guilty if we don't worry.
Worrying about stuff, being worried about 'other people'/ the environment/ poverty/ freedom/ global warming/ disease/ death... this doesn't make you a good person - but the opposite.
Because Fear is A Bad Thing, then it doesn't matter what you fear - choosing a worthy subject for your fears does not change fear into a virtue; any more than it would make resentment or spite into a virtue.
Re-naming fear as 'concern' does not make it good!
The false rationalisation is that Not to worry is to be Uncaring... You've heard this...
Hah! So, if somebody, somewhere, has had or might-have something bad happen to them - then we ought to worry about it! Yeah, right...
It is time for you to stop thinking you have a duty to worry; and instead think about your duty to Be Not Afraid.
(Fear is, indeed, cast-out by Love - and the injunction Not to fear is almost a refrain in the New Testament.)
Yet we can, and many do, spend their entire conscious lives worrying; and if they accidentally stop worrying for a few moments, then they feel guilty - they apparently suppose that the world is being held-up by their worrying.
But this is evil - by which I mean to worry is to Be evil: to spend life worrying is evil, it is a state of sin.
Worry is (therefore) anti-Christian.
But what if I can't Help It! - what when can't help worrying?
Of course you can't help it, neither can I - but that doesn't stop worry being evil - it means we must repent the fact that we worry, instead of feeling guilty if we don't worry.
Worrying about stuff, being worried about 'other people'/ the environment/ poverty/ freedom/ global warming/ disease/ death... this doesn't make you a good person - but the opposite.
Because Fear is A Bad Thing, then it doesn't matter what you fear - choosing a worthy subject for your fears does not change fear into a virtue; any more than it would make resentment or spite into a virtue.
Re-naming fear as 'concern' does not make it good!
The false rationalisation is that Not to worry is to be Uncaring... You've heard this...
Hah! So, if somebody, somewhere, has had or might-have something bad happen to them - then we ought to worry about it! Yeah, right...
It is time for you to stop thinking you have a duty to worry; and instead think about your duty to Be Not Afraid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)