The quote is slightly adapted from Charles Williams; it struck me as both absurd and true.
Absurd, because of the idea of the modern masses looking up from their mobile phones and asking their Christian pastors (which they don't have) for metaphysics!
(However, if they did; they would still be given morals.)
But the statement is true, nonetheless - in the sense that nothing less will suffice to address the modern malaise than a different basic understanding of the nature of ultimate reality.
Christianity gets nowhere in stressing morals rather than metaphysics; because morals depend on metaphysics; and when the basic understanding is modern materialism, then morals will inevitably be some species of the hedonistic (as well as incoherent): there is nothing else for them to be.
But when Christian metaphysics is dry and abstract - as so much of mainstream traditional Christian theology is dry and abstract; and as Charles William's own metaphysics was dry and abstract - then the sheep may feel that their fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The sheep find The World - the world as described by their assumptions and as experienced in daily life; and indeed them-selves as people, as souls - to be utterly dull and deadly: hence the mobile phones.
Modern Romanticism, as accessed via those mobile phones, and social media; is nothing but distraction, escapism, superficial stimulation: thus cumulative despair. It is just politics, sex and pleasure; the mere stimulation of responses - anger, hatred, resentment, schadenfreude, lust, laughter, luxury, smugness etc.
What the sheep need, what they 'really want' is a Romantic Metaphysics that is true, hence liveable. They don't know they want it; but nothing less will suffice.
Metaphysics needs to be Romantic, hence desirable; and True, hence liveable.
Luckily, it is.
But so far, Romantic Christians have done a poor job of explaining their metaphysics - often because they understand it in ways that are abstract, over-complex, too systematic - until Romantic metaphysics sound like just-more-bureaucracy...
Charles Williams fell into this trap with his writings on Romantic Theology. His basic ideas were exciting: that falling- and being-in love could be a path of Christian life; that a life of creative activity could be a path of Christian life; that life was an adventure quest and we were part of an altruistic and mutually helping fellowship.
But when Williams got down to specifics; the exciting ideas dissolved into complex, incomprehensible terminology. More crucially, Williams's detailed ideas were either wrong or simply incoherent.
In fact, Williams could in practice make around-himself a world of Romance, in which he and his circle of friends, disciples, colleagues could live their lives. It was this magical personal charisma that so impressed so many people; which made Williams so popular and admired.
But this was the person, not the metaphysics. Once Williams had died, it could be seen that his writings held only the shadows of that ecstasy in living that the man' presence could impart.
So, the problem of Romantic metaphysics remains unsolved.. at least by Williams. But there is an answer.
The answer can be found in the writings of fellow Inkling Owen Barfield; albeit again in a complex and abstract way. The answer can also can be found in William Arkle, and at times much more simply expressed; but Arkle is hardly known.
Probably, in practice, people will have to solve it for themselves or it will not be solved at all. And one would suppose that there are strong incentives to do so. Yet who - of the millions of mainstream, miserable, modern hedonists - is making any serious attempt?
There exists an answer. But one thing is sure: without personal effort, there will be no answer.
Saturday, 10 November 2018
Friday, 9 November 2018
The lineage of Romantic Christianity in England (a sort-of manifesto: a testimony)
To define Romanticism with precision has proved impossible - because it is a movement, a phase in human consciousness; but those who feel it will recognise it when we see it.
To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):
William Blake
William Wordsworth
ST Coleridge
Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.
Charles Williams
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Owen Barfield
William Arkle
Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.
Comments:
The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.
The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.
It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.
There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).
However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.
Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.
But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.
Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.
The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.
Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.
The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.
Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary.
To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):
William Blake
William Wordsworth
ST Coleridge
Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.
Charles Williams
JRR Tolkien
CS Lewis
Owen Barfield
William Arkle
Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.
Comments:
The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.
The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.
It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.
There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).
However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.
Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.
But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.
Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.
The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.
Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.
The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.
Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary.
Thursday, 8 November 2018
Blondie: Atomic - For your Beautiful Doomed Youth moods...
Blondie were one of the very best New Wave bands (late 1970s early 80s); with several first rate singles. Atomic is certainly one of their finest - an extraordinary composition and superbly performed, which repays repeated listening
What I like about this: The Duane Eddy style guitar riff repeating over modal harmonies, the driving hi-hat percussion, and superb bass playing - here and throughout. The unexpected key changes between sections. The subtle way that synthesisers are used - hardly noticeable early and coming forward throughout. The way that the everything drops-out to almost nothing halfway, merely synth keeping-time, before rebuilding via a bass solo, and drum break, leading back to the main riff and the full-on sound.
As usual, Debbie Harry's vocals are outstanding; especially her low register singing.
The general atmosphere projected is decadent, appropriate to that era and that stage of my life: partying on the verge of (perceived) annihilation - alluring but deadly.
If you want a better world then never vote, and don't participate in committees
We aren't winning - we are losing; and we never will start winning - so long as we expect change via participation in the instruments of our bureaucratic-totalitarian oppression; all that demonic-Democratic System of votes and committees...
Votes and committees are anti-Romantic, anti-Christian and intrinsically evil. Of course, Goodness comes only from people - not from systems - and Good people may be able to work-around and manipulate votes and committees in order to do Good* - but as soon as they start to assume that votes and committee decisions are, by their nature. authoritative over the individual - they will be doomed.
Once a system of Vs and Cs is in-place - then the individual is rendered structurally helpless; and can only change The System by participating in The System, which then strengthens The System.
If genuine and positive change is to come in The West; it will come from people rejecting the authority of votes and committees; and of recognising the individual as the only possible source of discernment and judgement - and authority.
No impersonal System can save us, all Systems will kill us - kill if not totally, then system will kill a part of us.
We see around us an actual collapse of the Goodness of Systems; the triumph of totalitarian bureaucracy; and we see this advocated, pushed and celebrated - more and bigger bureaucracy is wanted, a single all-pervasive Global bureaucracy - as the only possible way of attaining universal (hence inescapable) justice, equality, democracy, flourishing, health, education, freedom...!
All of this is rooted-in and flows-from impersonal System, in votes and committees. If you want to do something about stopping it, if you are serious about stopping it - you must, minimally, cease participating in votes and committees.
That's only a Start, of course - but it is the necessary beginning.
*To clarify: Voting and committees are also an evil within churches - evil both in effect and tendency. This evil may be compensated and overcome in the short-term by Good individuals; but the evil of V&C in churches (and elsewhere) can be seen to be long-term cumulative, by the bureaucratic attitude that they implicitly inculcate.
Votes and committees are anti-Romantic, anti-Christian and intrinsically evil. Of course, Goodness comes only from people - not from systems - and Good people may be able to work-around and manipulate votes and committees in order to do Good* - but as soon as they start to assume that votes and committee decisions are, by their nature. authoritative over the individual - they will be doomed.
Once a system of Vs and Cs is in-place - then the individual is rendered structurally helpless; and can only change The System by participating in The System, which then strengthens The System.
If genuine and positive change is to come in The West; it will come from people rejecting the authority of votes and committees; and of recognising the individual as the only possible source of discernment and judgement - and authority.
No impersonal System can save us, all Systems will kill us - kill if not totally, then system will kill a part of us.
We see around us an actual collapse of the Goodness of Systems; the triumph of totalitarian bureaucracy; and we see this advocated, pushed and celebrated - more and bigger bureaucracy is wanted, a single all-pervasive Global bureaucracy - as the only possible way of attaining universal (hence inescapable) justice, equality, democracy, flourishing, health, education, freedom...!
All of this is rooted-in and flows-from impersonal System, in votes and committees. If you want to do something about stopping it, if you are serious about stopping it - you must, minimally, cease participating in votes and committees.
That's only a Start, of course - but it is the necessary beginning.
*To clarify: Voting and committees are also an evil within churches - evil both in effect and tendency. This evil may be compensated and overcome in the short-term by Good individuals; but the evil of V&C in churches (and elsewhere) can be seen to be long-term cumulative, by the bureaucratic attitude that they implicitly inculcate.
Wednesday, 7 November 2018
Can a Westerner be a real Buddhist (or Hindu)?
Dalai Lama explaining why-not to a potential Western convert?
William Wildblood and the Dalai Lama both say - No, not really.
As I say - the first task for everyone who does not want to be a Leftist nihilist hedonist is Pick Your Religion.
So that's two down, and not many to go...
To make matters easier for us; in the end there are only two genuine religious options for potential Western converts. So, make your choice...
Romantic Religion: A Study of Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien by RJ Reilly (1971/ 2006)
Over the past couple of years I have come to regard Romantic Religion by RJ Reilly as one of the very best books I have read - I am now on my third slow, detailed read-through.
The book is probably the earliest (1971) serious study of the ideas of The Inklings - and its central chapters focus on Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien. As such, and despite its narrowish selectivity; RR remains far-and-away the deepest and best explanation/ analysis/ advocacy of the underlying (implicit) significance of this literary, philosophical and theological group of friends.
The title Romantic Religion encapsulates the thesis; although in fact it would be more accurate if the title were Romantic Christianity, since that is The religion at issue here; and one that could not be substituted by any other.
The method is to define Romanticism, mainly by means of its historical lineage; and then (in the first main section) to use Barfield as the philosopher who best understood Romanticism and its unique significance and necessity. Lewis, Williams and Tolkien are then considered separately in terms of how they exemplify, and how diverge from, the framework of Barfield.
This time reading; I have become convinced that Romantic Christianity is the best term for what I personally believe, and regard as the essential future of Western Man - and especially English Man! I shall probably be referring to myself, in shorthand, as a Romantic Christian from now onward.
Of course Romantic (and Romanticism) are mostly, in the cultural mainstream of the past century and more, rather widely differently understood from the Inklings (and especially Barfield) mode. Indeed, 'romantic' is usually a pejorative or pitying term, signifying escapist, wish-fulfilling unrealism.
Nonetheless, Romantic remains the best term, for both its historical and etymological accuracy - and because many of the common ideas of 'Romantic' are entirely appropriate and correct from a Barfieldian-Inklings perspective: for example, a focus on love, creativity, fantasy and imagination, nature, ecstatic emotion, inspiration and intuition.
All of these seem to me desirable, as well as necessary; so long as they are rooted in Christianity. Indeed, it was-and-is the subtraction of Christianity from Romanticism, as early as Byron and Shelley, that led to the degeneration of the historical Romantic movement: degeneration into hedonism, Leftist politics and the sexual revolution.
No doubt I shall quote from Romantic Religion in the future; but anyone who shares my conviction on these matters, and who is prepared to make the effort to engage with such a book, would need to read RR if note entirely, then at least extensively.
Note: I find it significant that such an outstanding piece of intellectual and critical work, by such an deeply intelligent and rigorous scholar, should originally have been done as a PhD thesis at Michigan State University (a long way from the Ivy League); by an academic who was teaching rather than research orientated (he spent his career at the University of Detroit); and it was issued by an obscure publisher: The University of Georgia Press. This confirms a pattern I have often observed with genuinely high quality and original work in the late 20th century - it comes from the cultural periphery, not the centre. Or rather - what is officially the centre is actually trivial, derivative or corrupting - almost wholly, and vice versa. The reasons will be obvious to regular readers of this blog.
The book is probably the earliest (1971) serious study of the ideas of The Inklings - and its central chapters focus on Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien. As such, and despite its narrowish selectivity; RR remains far-and-away the deepest and best explanation/ analysis/ advocacy of the underlying (implicit) significance of this literary, philosophical and theological group of friends.
The title Romantic Religion encapsulates the thesis; although in fact it would be more accurate if the title were Romantic Christianity, since that is The religion at issue here; and one that could not be substituted by any other.
The method is to define Romanticism, mainly by means of its historical lineage; and then (in the first main section) to use Barfield as the philosopher who best understood Romanticism and its unique significance and necessity. Lewis, Williams and Tolkien are then considered separately in terms of how they exemplify, and how diverge from, the framework of Barfield.
This time reading; I have become convinced that Romantic Christianity is the best term for what I personally believe, and regard as the essential future of Western Man - and especially English Man! I shall probably be referring to myself, in shorthand, as a Romantic Christian from now onward.
Of course Romantic (and Romanticism) are mostly, in the cultural mainstream of the past century and more, rather widely differently understood from the Inklings (and especially Barfield) mode. Indeed, 'romantic' is usually a pejorative or pitying term, signifying escapist, wish-fulfilling unrealism.
Nonetheless, Romantic remains the best term, for both its historical and etymological accuracy - and because many of the common ideas of 'Romantic' are entirely appropriate and correct from a Barfieldian-Inklings perspective: for example, a focus on love, creativity, fantasy and imagination, nature, ecstatic emotion, inspiration and intuition.
All of these seem to me desirable, as well as necessary; so long as they are rooted in Christianity. Indeed, it was-and-is the subtraction of Christianity from Romanticism, as early as Byron and Shelley, that led to the degeneration of the historical Romantic movement: degeneration into hedonism, Leftist politics and the sexual revolution.
No doubt I shall quote from Romantic Religion in the future; but anyone who shares my conviction on these matters, and who is prepared to make the effort to engage with such a book, would need to read RR if note entirely, then at least extensively.
Note: I find it significant that such an outstanding piece of intellectual and critical work, by such an deeply intelligent and rigorous scholar, should originally have been done as a PhD thesis at Michigan State University (a long way from the Ivy League); by an academic who was teaching rather than research orientated (he spent his career at the University of Detroit); and it was issued by an obscure publisher: The University of Georgia Press. This confirms a pattern I have often observed with genuinely high quality and original work in the late 20th century - it comes from the cultural periphery, not the centre. Or rather - what is officially the centre is actually trivial, derivative or corrupting - almost wholly, and vice versa. The reasons will be obvious to regular readers of this blog.
Between metaphysical assumptions and Life
We moderns need to, must - almost, examine our metaphysical assumptions concerning the basic nature of reality.
Having done so, and made a conscious decision about what is true... what then?
1. Acknowledge, in a theoretical way, that truth: that reality.
2. Consciously and deliberately reference that acknowledged reality. Test habitual thinking...
3. Experience Life from that tested metaphysical reality.
Having done so, and made a conscious decision about what is true... what then?
1. Acknowledge, in a theoretical way, that truth: that reality.
2. Consciously and deliberately reference that acknowledged reality. Test habitual thinking...
3. Experience Life from that tested metaphysical reality.
If premortal life is like childhood...
Less like this...
& more like this...
I have had a tendency to think of premortal life as being like me, now; but 'floating around' without a body. However, it seems likely that my mind was more like the mind of a young child.
So my agency was like that of a young child. Because I was a fully-physically-competent spirit living in a Heavenly realm I could do lots of stuff. And I was immersed-in divine love (something like a perfectly happy childhood in a perfect family) - God's will could flow-through me to do all sorts of things in obedience. I mostly operated by 'channeling' divine knowledge, motivation, competence...
But my capacity for autonomous thinking and choice was more like that of a child.
This is why (perhaps) I have few and vague memories of that time and state of being (and why many people claim to have none) - because it resembled the memories of early childhood, which are also diffuse and relatively-few (albeit extremely important to me).
And perhaps it also explains the nature of my positive desire and choice (and of almost all of our choices) to live a mortal and incarnate life - to accept the risks in pursuit of progression towards greater divinity (theosis)...
To incarnate in this body, this family, this time and place was the desire, the free and informed choice, of a spiritual-child - and necessarily so, because it was precisely in order to 'grow-up' that the choice had to be made.
But thinking of things like this may help explain not just why we don't remember much about pre-mortal life; but also why some people apparently 'regret' their choice to accept the specific mortal life they once regarded as 'a good prospect'.
They regret, rebel, resent... because all choices are always made on the basis of incomplete information; but this choice was also made by a being of greater spiritual immaturity trying to predict his future response to a situation experienced by a transformed self...
Tuesday, 6 November 2018
Who was Doctor Who in real life?
No - this isn't John Pertwee...
For those who don't recognise the picture - the answer is at Albion Awakening...
Spiritual war, transhumanism and the transgender agenda
Modern media and public policy has reached a point where it cannot be understood except in the light of spiritual warfare: Good versus evil, God v the demons, Heaven v hell...
Creation versus the Transhumanism - i.e Man claiming to have-become God-the-creator, and to offer (Here! Now!) an 'Alternative' and better 'Reality'.
Satan has a big problem - which is that he and we and everything are part of God's creation: how then can they be rejected?
The answer is to create what is claimed to be an immaterial Alternative Reality; to choose to inhabit that AR, and by denying that we have made such a choice to claim that the Alternative is really real. In other words, Satan is the lead architect of the transhumanist agenda.
There is no need for you to do a thought experiment and imagine this situation - we are already there (albeit not yet fully so) - with the transgender agenda that has been very rapidly and aggressively imposed by the entirety of the Western ruling Establishment over the past decade.
The transgender agenda (by which self-defined gender incrementally-replaces, completely replaces, sexuality) needs to be recognised as a component of the transhumanist agenda; and both as the major strategy of the demonic agenda in the spiritual war.
Because most of this analysis (God, Good, Creation) is denied; dissenters and realists in The West have been helpless to prevent the imposed-reality of transgenderism - which is now assumed by law, and dissent from which is punished by law (and, worse, by mass media and bureaucratic employers).
The trans-agenda should be seen as a perfectly rational step towards the kind of Alternative Reality that the demonic powers need to be successful in the context of God's creation. It is part of a world picture that has been building-up over several generations; which has denied God, Creation and Reality - and asserted that this world is humanly constructed ('socially' constructed). The 'Reality' in the phrase itself assumes that reality is man-made, at will.
The appeal of the AR is the promise of freedom and pleasure - since, IF the AR really-was equivalent to created-reality, then in principle we might make Reality any way we pleased; without constraint. For instance; people could choose to be men or women, and swap back and forth at whim! Differences between sexes, classes, races, nations, individual people could be made or abolished!
If all that was true and possible (which of course it is not) there would still be the question of Who Exactly Is In Charge? - and the overwhelming probability that they would be evil-motivated people, who would shape reality to their own selfish ends.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that it is evil demons that are in charge of AR - it is their project; and demonic motivations are different and worse than human motivations; and their agenda goes beyond the gratification of their their own short-term selfishness into the long-term desire for universal damnation.
And - finally - the the very desire to create and dwell in an Alternative Reality on the assumption it is the Only Reality is itself intrinsically evil; because dishonest, because prideful, because of its hedonic hence self-centred/ self-ish motivations.
At some level, perhaps deep, we all know this to be true; which serves only to make its denial more shrill and spiteful.
In a world that denies Good, the Creation and God; the desire for life inside a 'reality' built-around our own pleasures and preferences, yet wholly convincing, is so great that all objections are swept aside by this desperate craving.
And so, Ladies and Gentlemen (to use forbidden terminology): This is the modern world!
Here. Now. Compulsory!
Creation versus the Transhumanism - i.e Man claiming to have-become God-the-creator, and to offer (Here! Now!) an 'Alternative' and better 'Reality'.
Satan has a big problem - which is that he and we and everything are part of God's creation: how then can they be rejected?
The answer is to create what is claimed to be an immaterial Alternative Reality; to choose to inhabit that AR, and by denying that we have made such a choice to claim that the Alternative is really real. In other words, Satan is the lead architect of the transhumanist agenda.
There is no need for you to do a thought experiment and imagine this situation - we are already there (albeit not yet fully so) - with the transgender agenda that has been very rapidly and aggressively imposed by the entirety of the Western ruling Establishment over the past decade.
The transgender agenda (by which self-defined gender incrementally-replaces, completely replaces, sexuality) needs to be recognised as a component of the transhumanist agenda; and both as the major strategy of the demonic agenda in the spiritual war.
Because most of this analysis (God, Good, Creation) is denied; dissenters and realists in The West have been helpless to prevent the imposed-reality of transgenderism - which is now assumed by law, and dissent from which is punished by law (and, worse, by mass media and bureaucratic employers).
The trans-agenda should be seen as a perfectly rational step towards the kind of Alternative Reality that the demonic powers need to be successful in the context of God's creation. It is part of a world picture that has been building-up over several generations; which has denied God, Creation and Reality - and asserted that this world is humanly constructed ('socially' constructed). The 'Reality' in the phrase itself assumes that reality is man-made, at will.
The appeal of the AR is the promise of freedom and pleasure - since, IF the AR really-was equivalent to created-reality, then in principle we might make Reality any way we pleased; without constraint. For instance; people could choose to be men or women, and swap back and forth at whim! Differences between sexes, classes, races, nations, individual people could be made or abolished!
If all that was true and possible (which of course it is not) there would still be the question of Who Exactly Is In Charge? - and the overwhelming probability that they would be evil-motivated people, who would shape reality to their own selfish ends.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that it is evil demons that are in charge of AR - it is their project; and demonic motivations are different and worse than human motivations; and their agenda goes beyond the gratification of their their own short-term selfishness into the long-term desire for universal damnation.
And - finally - the the very desire to create and dwell in an Alternative Reality on the assumption it is the Only Reality is itself intrinsically evil; because dishonest, because prideful, because of its hedonic hence self-centred/ self-ish motivations.
At some level, perhaps deep, we all know this to be true; which serves only to make its denial more shrill and spiteful.
In a world that denies Good, the Creation and God; the desire for life inside a 'reality' built-around our own pleasures and preferences, yet wholly convincing, is so great that all objections are swept aside by this desperate craving.
And so, Ladies and Gentlemen (to use forbidden terminology): This is the modern world!
Here. Now. Compulsory!
Monday, 5 November 2018
Dr Who and the Abomination of Desolation....
The second Doctor - "quintessentially and eccentrically English"...
Over on Albion Awakening, John Fitzgerald shares his spontaneous reaction to the 'vicious, calculated and deliberate spoiling' of an English institution.
Interestingly, it is exactly three years ago that I finally walked away from this programme, never to return.
Nothing less than The Good will suffice
For the past couple of hundred years in The West, influential groups of people have been trying to get-by with less than the unified-Good.
For example, aesthetics - the beautiful, the idea of Art for Arts sake - was popular in the late 19th century, and recurrently since. But it does not suffice. One intrinsic reason is that The Beautiful is a part of that unified totality which is The Good, and while beauty may be distinguished from the totality it cannot be conceptually separated.
We also know this because living with beauty as priority has been thoroughly tried, and comprehensively failed. We ourselves can try the experiment, and discover this.
We may try to put aesthetics first and final; but will find that Truth and Virtue are unavoidable. People can, and do, split The Good into components - assert one or some and omit another - but the rejected will return. People will find themselves asserting that the Beautiful is also the Virtuous, and that it is also True.
If they try to escape this by focusing on feelings, and reduce Beauty to that which evokes Pleasure - they will find themselves asserting that this is True, that Pleasure is a Right, that the promotion of pleasure is a Virtue; that the infliction of pain, suffering, misery is Sin...
(I am here describing mainstream modern morality as asserted in the public sphere: hedonic utilitarianism.)
When Beauty is rejected, they will find themselves asserting the the Ugly is really, deep-down or when you properly consider it, Beauty. And that this is True.
Or - they may reject Morality, but find themselves asserting that Morality-rejection is the proper form of Virtue.
The Good turns-out to be unified and primary; and then the Good turns-out to be a part of Creation...
(Because if the universe was caused by physics, life caused by chemistry, and consciousness by biology - then The Good is merely a product of meaningless and purposeless and non-human historical processes - so is not really Good.).
And so we get back to a Creator.
It's an all-or-nothing situation - deny any component of The Good/ Creation/ Creator - and you are put into the position of denying everything - including the reasons for your first denial. THIS fact may, of course, itself be denied - but That denial doesn't affect the fact that the resulting is incoherent and contradicts itself all the time and in multiple ways...
...Which has consequences (even when these consequences are denied!)
For example, aesthetics - the beautiful, the idea of Art for Arts sake - was popular in the late 19th century, and recurrently since. But it does not suffice. One intrinsic reason is that The Beautiful is a part of that unified totality which is The Good, and while beauty may be distinguished from the totality it cannot be conceptually separated.
We also know this because living with beauty as priority has been thoroughly tried, and comprehensively failed. We ourselves can try the experiment, and discover this.
We may try to put aesthetics first and final; but will find that Truth and Virtue are unavoidable. People can, and do, split The Good into components - assert one or some and omit another - but the rejected will return. People will find themselves asserting that the Beautiful is also the Virtuous, and that it is also True.
If they try to escape this by focusing on feelings, and reduce Beauty to that which evokes Pleasure - they will find themselves asserting that this is True, that Pleasure is a Right, that the promotion of pleasure is a Virtue; that the infliction of pain, suffering, misery is Sin...
(I am here describing mainstream modern morality as asserted in the public sphere: hedonic utilitarianism.)
When Beauty is rejected, they will find themselves asserting the the Ugly is really, deep-down or when you properly consider it, Beauty. And that this is True.
Or - they may reject Morality, but find themselves asserting that Morality-rejection is the proper form of Virtue.
The Good turns-out to be unified and primary; and then the Good turns-out to be a part of Creation...
(Because if the universe was caused by physics, life caused by chemistry, and consciousness by biology - then The Good is merely a product of meaningless and purposeless and non-human historical processes - so is not really Good.).
And so we get back to a Creator.
It's an all-or-nothing situation - deny any component of The Good/ Creation/ Creator - and you are put into the position of denying everything - including the reasons for your first denial. THIS fact may, of course, itself be denied - but That denial doesn't affect the fact that the resulting is incoherent and contradicts itself all the time and in multiple ways...
...Which has consequences (even when these consequences are denied!)
End Times - when the default choice becomes self-damnation
My basic assumption is that in God's creation the default is that we need to choose damnation: that damnation is self-damnation. (A loving creator who is our father would not have set-up this reality - for his spirit children - on any other basis.)
However, we must agree to be saved. We just-are free, we have agency, we cannot be compelled to accept what is best for us. Jesus Christ has given us great possibilities, but if we do not 'believe on' him, if we do not love him; then we will not want his gift.
I guess that throughout most of history, and perhaps even now throughout most of the world, nearly everybody has chosen/ will choose to accept Christ's gifts; and do what that acceptance entails - but in the End Times this is Not the case.
The End Times are when the default state in a society is chosen damnation.
This could be for a variety of reasons; one might be the denial of any alternative - regarding the gifts of Jesus as a falsehood, a delusion, untrue.
A situation can be created and sustained in which the societal default is to choose damnation - in which expression of this choice becomes (in public discourse) normal, approved and rewarded. In which the expression of a desire for salvation is treated the opposite way: as unusual/ foolish/ insane/ evil; is condemned and punished.
Choice is - ultimately - individual and free; and cannot be compelled - but a society may embrace self-damnation and call it Good. Insofar as the individual follows mainstream, modern society - so he will choose damnation.
So we can see that The West is, indeed, here-and-now in the End Times.
However, we must agree to be saved. We just-are free, we have agency, we cannot be compelled to accept what is best for us. Jesus Christ has given us great possibilities, but if we do not 'believe on' him, if we do not love him; then we will not want his gift.
I guess that throughout most of history, and perhaps even now throughout most of the world, nearly everybody has chosen/ will choose to accept Christ's gifts; and do what that acceptance entails - but in the End Times this is Not the case.
The End Times are when the default state in a society is chosen damnation.
This could be for a variety of reasons; one might be the denial of any alternative - regarding the gifts of Jesus as a falsehood, a delusion, untrue.
A situation can be created and sustained in which the societal default is to choose damnation - in which expression of this choice becomes (in public discourse) normal, approved and rewarded. In which the expression of a desire for salvation is treated the opposite way: as unusual/ foolish/ insane/ evil; is condemned and punished.
Choice is - ultimately - individual and free; and cannot be compelled - but a society may embrace self-damnation and call it Good. Insofar as the individual follows mainstream, modern society - so he will choose damnation.
So we can see that The West is, indeed, here-and-now in the End Times.
Implications of Steiner's great 1918 Zurich prophecy
As I keep revisiting Rudolf Steiner's now-validated century old prophecy; I realise that, although the prophecy is about Western society, and what it needed to do - but hasn't done; and although the prophecy has been fulfilled at this social level - its true implications are for the individual.
The prophecy was based upon an understanding of what would happen if Western man continued in the path of increasing materialism/ positivism, scientism/ reductionism in public discourse and private thinking - and we did continue.
The spiritual realm is now regarded as purely 'subjective' - hence not really real, hence without relevance for social living. Reality is mainstream-structurally-regarded as meaningless, hope-less, going-nowhere; and we our-selves as irrelevant.
It is, of course, a disaster that The West has made these choices; but the lesson of the prophecy was actually for individuals primarily - it was that we must (and must means must) develop our spiritual consciousness into new realms - more exactly into a 'animism of thinking': a recognition that ultimate reality consists of living, conscious, purposive Beings in a creation that has been transformed by Christ.
This means that the modern public discourse has become - in rejecting God, Christ and the Holy Ghost - (quite literally) insane - as well as calamitous and dull.
But this operates at the individual level - and the social level cannot budge without first the transformation of individual consciousness - and this transformation can only be done by conscious choice; it cannot be coerced or compelled; nor can people be induced to do it by unconscious manipulation/ propaganda/ habit-training.
We must now choose the Good - because evil is the default.
The the lesson of the true prophecy is for you, and me, and everyone as an individual. It tells us what we must do if we are to avoid the general fate of our society: mental sickness, despair and demotivation.
The prophecy was based upon an understanding of what would happen if Western man continued in the path of increasing materialism/ positivism, scientism/ reductionism in public discourse and private thinking - and we did continue.
The spiritual realm is now regarded as purely 'subjective' - hence not really real, hence without relevance for social living. Reality is mainstream-structurally-regarded as meaningless, hope-less, going-nowhere; and we our-selves as irrelevant.
It is, of course, a disaster that The West has made these choices; but the lesson of the prophecy was actually for individuals primarily - it was that we must (and must means must) develop our spiritual consciousness into new realms - more exactly into a 'animism of thinking': a recognition that ultimate reality consists of living, conscious, purposive Beings in a creation that has been transformed by Christ.
This means that the modern public discourse has become - in rejecting God, Christ and the Holy Ghost - (quite literally) insane - as well as calamitous and dull.
But this operates at the individual level - and the social level cannot budge without first the transformation of individual consciousness - and this transformation can only be done by conscious choice; it cannot be coerced or compelled; nor can people be induced to do it by unconscious manipulation/ propaganda/ habit-training.
We must now choose the Good - because evil is the default.
The the lesson of the true prophecy is for you, and me, and everyone as an individual. It tells us what we must do if we are to avoid the general fate of our society: mental sickness, despair and demotivation.
A gaseous Model of consciousness
Regular readers will know my principle of rejecting physics-based ways of thinking of metaphysics... Here I break my own rule - as this notion popped into my head yesterday and I found it somewhat helpful. But bear in mind it isn't True - it's just a model.
Most people nowadays see consciousness as software running on the computer that is the human brain. This means that consciousness is localised, and communicates with the 'environment' of the brain-computer by some kind of interface. etc.... It also means that consciousness is (like software) fragile, and tends to break-down - it can also be destroyed.
My idea was that consciousness happens in a gas - and gas is unbounded and everywhere (except where it is excluded) - so all consciousness is intrinsically-connected over time.
I imagined consciousness as something like a dynamic pattern of molecules within this gas, creating a concentration that is consciousness.
The degree of concentration could be higher or lower, and could become greater or less over time. So that a greater concentration of consciousness comes from a greater and more-internally-communicating concentration within this extensive gas.
Where does this concentration within the gas come-from, and why is it sustained across time - when the tendency would be for any 'randomly-occuring' concentration to randomly-disperse?
Well, my assumption is that the concentrations are the living Beings of reality, and these Beings Just Are present, from eternity; and to be a living Being is exactly to have the innate attribute of sustaining these concentrations of consciousness.
This is 'why' the 'self' is immortal - why our souls or spirits are immortal, why some kind of consciousness is eternal. Because each concentration of consciousness has-been from eternity, has sustained-itself across eternity, each 'therefore' is indestructible and persists forever.
That is 'why' there is direct direct knowledge of everything (except where the gas is excluded) because each concentration is a part-of the universal gaseous medium, and has experienced the entire history of that medium.
This model (but just a model - not True, because Being is primary - not physics) seemed a helpful tool for (sort of) conceptualising some realities; so I thought I'd share it on the off-chance it works for someone else.
Sunday, 4 November 2018
William Wildblood on the End Times
Very interesting piece - including William's distinctive take on the complex matter of reincarnation.
My metaphysics (brief, uncompromising)
Because thinking is primary (from Rudolf Steiner) we immediately need to distinguish thinking - because thinking knows itself to be self-contradicting. We need (at least) a thinking that can withstand the scrutiny of thinking.
We need, that is, a coherent Primary thinking - i.e. which satisfies all other kinds of thinking - which explains all other kinds of thinking - which explains itself.
...Although the conviction that this explanation is true must be intuitive.
In short, we need a thinking that rests solidly upon intuition, and which is never contradicted by itself.
A thinking that is both coherent and validly experienced.
To move to metaphysics; why should intuitive validity be true? (Rather than a delusion.) Only if it is built into Men by a personal creator god... This requires, minimally, a god that has equipped Man with the ability to know reality (including god itself).
However, this ability to know reality is Not the same as Man's original essence of being; Not the same as Man's agency.
Thinking is primary, agency is primary...
Therefore, there is an intrinsic potential conflict between agency and intuitive thinking.
In other words, Man can know - by Primary thinking; but Man's agency must choose to know.
We need, that is, a coherent Primary thinking - i.e. which satisfies all other kinds of thinking - which explains all other kinds of thinking - which explains itself.
...Although the conviction that this explanation is true must be intuitive.
In short, we need a thinking that rests solidly upon intuition, and which is never contradicted by itself.
A thinking that is both coherent and validly experienced.
To move to metaphysics; why should intuitive validity be true? (Rather than a delusion.) Only if it is built into Men by a personal creator god... This requires, minimally, a god that has equipped Man with the ability to know reality (including god itself).
However, this ability to know reality is Not the same as Man's original essence of being; Not the same as Man's agency.
Thinking is primary, agency is primary...
Therefore, there is an intrinsic potential conflict between agency and intuitive thinking.
In other words, Man can know - by Primary thinking; but Man's agency must choose to know.
Where are we going, where do we Want to go?
The reason for the current - increasingly wild - accusations of Conspiracy Theory in the mainstream mass media - is that it is becoming increasingly obvious where things are going.
Anyone who notices where we are going and says it in public discourse, is accused of being a Conspiracy Theorist, therefore a mad/ evil/ idiot - therefore ought to be Shut-Up: quickly and forcibly.
And as it becomes more obvious where we are going; it is also obvious that the mass of people do not wish to go there.
But... for this reluctance to amount to anything other than a delay; there would need to be some alternative idea of where we want instead to go. It just isn't enough to say No Thanks! It isn't enough to keep walking, but drag your feet... You will still, for sure, end-up at the intended place.
If we don't want to go There, we must go somewhere else - must, Stop going there, turn to face a different direction, and start moving in that different direction.
(Fortunately...) That Other Direction does Not, in fact, have to be one single direction towards everybody suddenly begins marching in lock-step... No.
It could indeed be a multitude of different directions, with each direction pursued by an individual, or just small cohesive and supportive groups; people turning and walking towards many destinations; but simply Not the destination towards which the Global Establishment want us all to proceed.
We don't need to provide a unitary cohesive plan for what to do, don't need to align everybody to do that one thing together - so long as each individual is seriously motivated to do something other-than slouching together towards totalitarian damnation.
And this is why current persecution of dissent goes down to the capillary level of even tiny groups, families, individuals... Every-body, every-mind, every-soul matters.
What is vital is individual strength of motivation; and what is vital for strength of motivation is that the Whole Man be engaged. Which means that the Whole of Reality - including the currently-excluded-divine, including the excluded spiritual - becomes known as true, re-appropriated; becomes the basis of daily living.
And that is a job that can only be done by each individual - for himself. And each individual makes a significant difference; as should be obvious by now...
Anyone who notices where we are going and says it in public discourse, is accused of being a Conspiracy Theorist, therefore a mad/ evil/ idiot - therefore ought to be Shut-Up: quickly and forcibly.
And as it becomes more obvious where we are going; it is also obvious that the mass of people do not wish to go there.
But... for this reluctance to amount to anything other than a delay; there would need to be some alternative idea of where we want instead to go. It just isn't enough to say No Thanks! It isn't enough to keep walking, but drag your feet... You will still, for sure, end-up at the intended place.
If we don't want to go There, we must go somewhere else - must, Stop going there, turn to face a different direction, and start moving in that different direction.
(Fortunately...) That Other Direction does Not, in fact, have to be one single direction towards everybody suddenly begins marching in lock-step... No.
It could indeed be a multitude of different directions, with each direction pursued by an individual, or just small cohesive and supportive groups; people turning and walking towards many destinations; but simply Not the destination towards which the Global Establishment want us all to proceed.
We don't need to provide a unitary cohesive plan for what to do, don't need to align everybody to do that one thing together - so long as each individual is seriously motivated to do something other-than slouching together towards totalitarian damnation.
And this is why current persecution of dissent goes down to the capillary level of even tiny groups, families, individuals... Every-body, every-mind, every-soul matters.
What is vital is individual strength of motivation; and what is vital for strength of motivation is that the Whole Man be engaged. Which means that the Whole of Reality - including the currently-excluded-divine, including the excluded spiritual - becomes known as true, re-appropriated; becomes the basis of daily living.
And that is a job that can only be done by each individual - for himself. And each individual makes a significant difference; as should be obvious by now...
Saturday, 3 November 2018
Traditionalist Christianity, Biblical inerrancy and their residuum of unresolved positivism
The deep and ineradicable problem with all forms of backward-looking, traditionalist Christianity is explained by Owen Barfield's idea of 'RUP' - the Residue of Unresolved Positivism.
Of course, understanding the full power of this critique depends upon accepting the idea that human consciousness has developed/ evolved; such that throughout Man's history possibilities are closed-off, as other possibilities emerge. Nonetheless the negative critique can be appreciated even without this; if we take into account what is known about the Hunter-Gatherer societies that preceded the agricultural - and if it is acknowledged that the conditions of H-G societies were closer to Man's natural and spontaneous behaviour.
Anyway; the insight is that all agricultural-based - or 'agrarian' - societies are a development from H-G conditions, and contain ways of life that are specific to them - they are an historically-contingent society, as we can now appreciate since we are aware of the H-G societies that preceded them and the post-industrial revolution/ modern societies that replaced them. The Agrarian are 'middle' societies.
It is an historical fact that Christianity emerged and grew in developed-Agrarian societies - and many of its features were (either therefore or contingently) those of such Agrarian societies (and probably-therefore have declined since) - for example Christianity depends on literacy (which was not a feature of H-G societies), sedentary settlement, social-function hierarchy and specialisation - eg. a priesthood, an institutional church... and so on.
Furthermore, Christianity emerged and grew in societies where people were less able to attain direct contact with the 'spirit world' than H-G societies, and less 'animistic' than these societies; but much more spiritual and animistic than modern societies.
To put is another way, the agrarian Christian societies were not as positivistic/ materialistic/ reductionist as modern societies, but far more positivistic than H-G societies.
This Agrarian positivism is evident in - for example - their highly systematised, formal, abstract theology; their dependence on literacy with its requirement for interpretation, memorisation, analysis and synthesis of texts; the existence of specialised systems of law and philosophy - and so on. For instance; any system of Christianity based-upon the textual inerrancy of The Bible (which underpins much 'evangleical' Christianity of the post-industrial modern era) is significantly positivistic.
In other words, all backward-looking traditionalist Christian systems have a great deal of positivism in them - a great deal of materialism; with the consequent distance from the livingness of the world, the experience of the spirit realm and instead the experience of alienation (only sometimes and temporarily overcome in specialised situations such as ritual and prayer).
If it is agreed that we moderns need to get beyond positivism/ materialism, going back to traditionalism, going back to The Bible, just Will Not Work.
We would need to do something more, and different.
Of course, understanding the full power of this critique depends upon accepting the idea that human consciousness has developed/ evolved; such that throughout Man's history possibilities are closed-off, as other possibilities emerge. Nonetheless the negative critique can be appreciated even without this; if we take into account what is known about the Hunter-Gatherer societies that preceded the agricultural - and if it is acknowledged that the conditions of H-G societies were closer to Man's natural and spontaneous behaviour.
Anyway; the insight is that all agricultural-based - or 'agrarian' - societies are a development from H-G conditions, and contain ways of life that are specific to them - they are an historically-contingent society, as we can now appreciate since we are aware of the H-G societies that preceded them and the post-industrial revolution/ modern societies that replaced them. The Agrarian are 'middle' societies.
It is an historical fact that Christianity emerged and grew in developed-Agrarian societies - and many of its features were (either therefore or contingently) those of such Agrarian societies (and probably-therefore have declined since) - for example Christianity depends on literacy (which was not a feature of H-G societies), sedentary settlement, social-function hierarchy and specialisation - eg. a priesthood, an institutional church... and so on.
Furthermore, Christianity emerged and grew in societies where people were less able to attain direct contact with the 'spirit world' than H-G societies, and less 'animistic' than these societies; but much more spiritual and animistic than modern societies.
To put is another way, the agrarian Christian societies were not as positivistic/ materialistic/ reductionist as modern societies, but far more positivistic than H-G societies.
This Agrarian positivism is evident in - for example - their highly systematised, formal, abstract theology; their dependence on literacy with its requirement for interpretation, memorisation, analysis and synthesis of texts; the existence of specialised systems of law and philosophy - and so on. For instance; any system of Christianity based-upon the textual inerrancy of The Bible (which underpins much 'evangleical' Christianity of the post-industrial modern era) is significantly positivistic.
In other words, all backward-looking traditionalist Christian systems have a great deal of positivism in them - a great deal of materialism; with the consequent distance from the livingness of the world, the experience of the spirit realm and instead the experience of alienation (only sometimes and temporarily overcome in specialised situations such as ritual and prayer).
If it is agreed that we moderns need to get beyond positivism/ materialism, going back to traditionalism, going back to The Bible, just Will Not Work.
We would need to do something more, and different.
Thursday, 1 November 2018
Church convergence-corruption and a spiritual-direct practice of Christianity are two sides of a coin
The collapse and corruption of most Christian churches is an aspect of the convergence of modern Western institutions, and consequently many Christians cannot find a church which both
1. Will accept them as a convert, and
2. Is worth joining (i.e. really Christian rather than a Leftist political fake, as is usual);
This means that there are going to be many lone Christians - that is, many Christians who pursue their religion rooted outside of any church.
'Rooted outside' means that someone may attend or support a church, or several churches, with varying degrees of intensity and seriousness - but he does not consider himself to be an obedient or devout member. His belief is primarily individual rather than institutional. Such a situation is de facto the case even with respect to many devout church members - in actuality they base their faith and practice upon their own discernment and judgment.
Lacking the benefits of institutional membership, protection and support - there must be some up-front, proximate compensation for these 'lacks' - or else real Christianity will be so negative, so bleak, so unrewarded, so unappealing as to be a non-viable life-path.
This means that the individual modern Christian normally requires to be sustained by a much greater spiritual-experiential element than was the case in the past - the lone Christian needs to experience direct contact with the divine in prayer, meditation and other aspects of daily life.
And this awareness needs to be conscious and explicit.
For example, we all experience everyday miracles, but very few people are explicitly aware of them - however, the lone Christian needs to become conscious of these many ways in which God intervenes in his daily life. And all Christians have an unique destiny, due to the uniqueness of their-divine selves - but the lone Christian needs to be aware of treading this path - and of when he has stepped-off it.
Having spiritual ('mystical') experiences used to be very much an 'optional extra' for observant church-obedient Christians of the past - indeed 'esoteric' experience was often regarded as a hazardous (because self-indulgent) possibility, and better avoided.
But things have now changed; and more and more serious Christians will need to develop their capacity for, and awareness of, spiritual experiences - if they are to remain Christian.
1. Will accept them as a convert, and
2. Is worth joining (i.e. really Christian rather than a Leftist political fake, as is usual);
This means that there are going to be many lone Christians - that is, many Christians who pursue their religion rooted outside of any church.
'Rooted outside' means that someone may attend or support a church, or several churches, with varying degrees of intensity and seriousness - but he does not consider himself to be an obedient or devout member. His belief is primarily individual rather than institutional. Such a situation is de facto the case even with respect to many devout church members - in actuality they base their faith and practice upon their own discernment and judgment.
Lacking the benefits of institutional membership, protection and support - there must be some up-front, proximate compensation for these 'lacks' - or else real Christianity will be so negative, so bleak, so unrewarded, so unappealing as to be a non-viable life-path.
This means that the individual modern Christian normally requires to be sustained by a much greater spiritual-experiential element than was the case in the past - the lone Christian needs to experience direct contact with the divine in prayer, meditation and other aspects of daily life.
And this awareness needs to be conscious and explicit.
For example, we all experience everyday miracles, but very few people are explicitly aware of them - however, the lone Christian needs to become conscious of these many ways in which God intervenes in his daily life. And all Christians have an unique destiny, due to the uniqueness of their-divine selves - but the lone Christian needs to be aware of treading this path - and of when he has stepped-off it.
Having spiritual ('mystical') experiences used to be very much an 'optional extra' for observant church-obedient Christians of the past - indeed 'esoteric' experience was often regarded as a hazardous (because self-indulgent) possibility, and better avoided.
But things have now changed; and more and more serious Christians will need to develop their capacity for, and awareness of, spiritual experiences - if they are to remain Christian.
A fake Brexit might stir the English people for the first time in 400 years - Terry Boardman
Over at Albion Awakening; Anthroposophist and historian Terry Boardman believes that the last time the English were justifiably strirred - across both sexes, all classes, and in all regions - was the English Civil War (1642-51) - but that a fake Brexit would have the potential to do the same again.
And Brexit-in-name-only seems more likely with every passing week...
So, we shall probably find-out quite soon whether TB's prediction is correct.
And Brexit-in-name-only seems more likely with every passing week...
So, we shall probably find-out quite soon whether TB's prediction is correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)