What would be best; is a gut-level emotional demand for an urgent bureaucratic response - which entails getting people to 'demand' an irreversible power-grab by an all-powerful centralised authority.
Exactly as is currently happening with 'Climate Emergency' - get some precocious school girl (with pigtails to make her seem younger); and have her make a passionate appeal to the 'grown-ups' to Save the planet NOW (no questions asked).
And Save the Planet by monitoring and regulating a universally-produced, necessary for life, natural metabolite.
And Save the Planet by means that you know for sure will not work; thus requiring ever more concentration of power, and ever more intrusive management of everything: omni-surveillance and micro-control.
Against this manipulation; what defence do the Western masses have?
None so far.
Because they have no stronger motivation than their own (short term) gratifications... And these are precisely what is being manipulated.
Only a religion - or some such cohesive and powerful positive motivation held with long-term and religious conviction (if such a thing exists) - can protect the masses against such manipulation.
Thursday, 11 July 2019
If this inverted world were turned upside-down... A restored discourse of truthfulness
Perhaps the most obvious fruits of repentance and awakening would be public honesty - in small things as much as large. It would be startlingly obvious, and would have immense consequences.
In no other area have there been such changes in my adult life as the expansion of dishonesty; from a few enclaves such as advertising and government to embrace all major institutions and activities, all of the time - in private as much as in public.
For example, in the worlds I worked in - universities, science, the medical profession - honesty was normal and almost complete at the lower and middling levels. Dishonesty (including deliberate misleading) while considerably more frequent, was not common even at the leadership levels - rare enough that it stood-out, and attracted explicit adverse comment, often sanctions.
But lying and misleading rapidly got more common from the late 1980s until the present situation when almost all public discourse is essentially dishonest - only containing enough factual truth to sustain the basic and motivating lies.
I found this particularly shocking in science which - in Britain at any rate - was almost ridiculously honest about almost everything forty to fifty years ago. Honest to the point of pedantic dullness (but, in retrospect, what an admirable fault!)
Even more widely in academia (I knew English Literature and Philosophy pretty well), there was an aversion to exaggeration, to one-sided selectiveness, to anything smacking of self-promotion.
Yet now, scientists do not write or speak even a paragraph without 'massaging' the spirit of truth into something more expedient. And as for Western politicians...
Because of all this systematic dishonesty everywhere, we inhabit a virtual reality - our world is a tissue of lies; and honesty strikes most people as a brutal act of aggression. Indeed, they regard honest men as obvious liars, because they assume truth is the mass consensus. Plain honesty is insensitive: one of the worst of crimes.
If ever Western Society turns-around and becomes qualitatively better; it must include a restoration of the transcendental Good of Honesty in all public discourse - and this would be so shocking as to seem cataclysmic.
If this unlikely event ever were to happen, you won't miss it: Imagine the sensation of this inverted world being upended, and restored to stand right-way-up, on a solid base of truth...
In no other area have there been such changes in my adult life as the expansion of dishonesty; from a few enclaves such as advertising and government to embrace all major institutions and activities, all of the time - in private as much as in public.
For example, in the worlds I worked in - universities, science, the medical profession - honesty was normal and almost complete at the lower and middling levels. Dishonesty (including deliberate misleading) while considerably more frequent, was not common even at the leadership levels - rare enough that it stood-out, and attracted explicit adverse comment, often sanctions.
But lying and misleading rapidly got more common from the late 1980s until the present situation when almost all public discourse is essentially dishonest - only containing enough factual truth to sustain the basic and motivating lies.
I found this particularly shocking in science which - in Britain at any rate - was almost ridiculously honest about almost everything forty to fifty years ago. Honest to the point of pedantic dullness (but, in retrospect, what an admirable fault!)
Even more widely in academia (I knew English Literature and Philosophy pretty well), there was an aversion to exaggeration, to one-sided selectiveness, to anything smacking of self-promotion.
Yet now, scientists do not write or speak even a paragraph without 'massaging' the spirit of truth into something more expedient. And as for Western politicians...
Because of all this systematic dishonesty everywhere, we inhabit a virtual reality - our world is a tissue of lies; and honesty strikes most people as a brutal act of aggression. Indeed, they regard honest men as obvious liars, because they assume truth is the mass consensus. Plain honesty is insensitive: one of the worst of crimes.
If ever Western Society turns-around and becomes qualitatively better; it must include a restoration of the transcendental Good of Honesty in all public discourse - and this would be so shocking as to seem cataclysmic.
If this unlikely event ever were to happen, you won't miss it: Imagine the sensation of this inverted world being upended, and restored to stand right-way-up, on a solid base of truth...
Wednesday, 10 July 2019
If That is Christianity - then I want nothing to do with it! The need to be an Outsider Christian
As grown-up people, we need to overcome groupishness and passive acceptance of external sources of authority - and this applies to Christianity as much as anything else.
At present, many/ most people regard it as a satisfactory evaluation analysis of Christianity to encounter somebody self-described as A Christian who does something abhorrent to the evaluator; and then to deploy some version of the phrase: If that is Christianity - then I want nothing to do with it!
Yet on that basis, there is nothing-at-all which could be regarded as Good.
By saying 'if that is Christianity...', all we are deciding is that we do not want to be that. But we are not correct in assuming that that is indeed real Christianity, merely because somebody-else says-so...
To know the reality of a situation, we cannot evaluate by group categories, neither as an average nor as the worst member of a group - we must go behind the group and into our-selves. And in going behind the group, the evaluation must come from our-selves.
And in evaluating from our-selves, the evaluation needs to be of the heart, of the intuition of the real self - because it is useless to deploy superficial and socialised evaluations because they are mutually-contradictory, labile and manipulable.
We must also go beneath the surface of our multiple false selves. Only when we can get down to the level of our the real-self evaluating the essence of the situation, can we attain the stability and validity that is pre-requisite to truth; attain to something we can build-upon.
Behind the group, beneath the surface... this clarifies why the general level of normal public discourse is absolutely worthless to us if we really want to evaluate the truth of anything - and this constraint naturally applies to evaluating Christianity.
Nobody-else and nothing-else can do this for us; so if we really want it done, we must do it our-selves. We can do it ourselves, but doing it absolutely entails stepping outwith the current and prevailing ways of thinking and being, the usual conventions of what counts as true.
And this means that we will not be able to justify our evaluations to other people, not be able convincingly to explain our reasoning - or at least not to people operating in the mainstream of social discourse; and especially not to those in leadership positions (i.e. those whose role is to monitor and implement the current, prevailing, usual ways of thinking and behaving).
In conclusion, we can know-for-our-selves the truth and validity of Christianity, or of other vital matters; but only by stepping outside the mainstream ways of discoursing.
To those remaining on the inside, who have assimilated and endorse the assumptions of the mainstream, we will seem to be stupid or irrational - or simply dishonest and manipulative.
Yet if we really want to know the real truth, Christians will need to expect and accept this Outsider status.
At present, many/ most people regard it as a satisfactory evaluation analysis of Christianity to encounter somebody self-described as A Christian who does something abhorrent to the evaluator; and then to deploy some version of the phrase: If that is Christianity - then I want nothing to do with it!
Yet on that basis, there is nothing-at-all which could be regarded as Good.
By saying 'if that is Christianity...', all we are deciding is that we do not want to be that. But we are not correct in assuming that that is indeed real Christianity, merely because somebody-else says-so...
To know the reality of a situation, we cannot evaluate by group categories, neither as an average nor as the worst member of a group - we must go behind the group and into our-selves. And in going behind the group, the evaluation must come from our-selves.
And in evaluating from our-selves, the evaluation needs to be of the heart, of the intuition of the real self - because it is useless to deploy superficial and socialised evaluations because they are mutually-contradictory, labile and manipulable.
We must also go beneath the surface of our multiple false selves. Only when we can get down to the level of our the real-self evaluating the essence of the situation, can we attain the stability and validity that is pre-requisite to truth; attain to something we can build-upon.
Behind the group, beneath the surface... this clarifies why the general level of normal public discourse is absolutely worthless to us if we really want to evaluate the truth of anything - and this constraint naturally applies to evaluating Christianity.
Nobody-else and nothing-else can do this for us; so if we really want it done, we must do it our-selves. We can do it ourselves, but doing it absolutely entails stepping outwith the current and prevailing ways of thinking and being, the usual conventions of what counts as true.
And this means that we will not be able to justify our evaluations to other people, not be able convincingly to explain our reasoning - or at least not to people operating in the mainstream of social discourse; and especially not to those in leadership positions (i.e. those whose role is to monitor and implement the current, prevailing, usual ways of thinking and behaving).
In conclusion, we can know-for-our-selves the truth and validity of Christianity, or of other vital matters; but only by stepping outside the mainstream ways of discoursing.
To those remaining on the inside, who have assimilated and endorse the assumptions of the mainstream, we will seem to be stupid or irrational - or simply dishonest and manipulative.
Yet if we really want to know the real truth, Christians will need to expect and accept this Outsider status.
Tuesday, 9 July 2019
Albion's folk heroes - Arthur, Merlin and Robin Hood compared
These are the three best-known British folk heroes, and each has a different archetypal quality.
Arthur is the earliest - dating from the time after the Roman Legions had left the island, and associated with a decades-long period of successful British resistance to the Saxons. He is the archetypal Good King, Father of the nation (although, strangely, not an actual father of children - except Mordred...) who presided over a golden age; brought-down by human frailty and supernatural evil.
Interestingly, the documented historical figure that most resembles Arthur is Alfred the Great - warrior, scholar, lawyer and devout Christian; who was, of course, a descendant of the Saxon invaders whom Arthur resisted. This perhaps shows that Arthur is an archetype of land and spirit, not primarily a matter of genetic descent.
When modern people think about Arthur there is the yearning, and perhaps hope, for Arthur to return (revive, reincarnate or as a modern spiritual descendant) and vanquish the powers of evil and reinstate the golden age.
Merlin is from a generation or two later; and is perhaps a composite of a Welsh poet and wizard with a Scottish-English border seer and prophet. Despite his well-attested decline from high rank into exile, madness and poverty - and a well-known 'grave' near Peebles in Scotland; the most imaginatively vivid legends have Merlin's time being curtailed by spiritual imprisonment (in a crystal cave, or oak) - with the promise of eventual return.
Spiritually some regard Merlin as the last of the (good) druids; others as a transitional figure - with one foot in pagan Druidism and the other in the new Christianity (of the Celtic variety).
Modern English people have assimilated Merlin in many archetypal versions, from Gandalf, through Doctor Who, to Dumbledore. We see him mainly as a potent combination of magician, prophet, seer and wise-man; but in an eccentric, unpredictable, 'irresponsible' personality. Someone who operates behind the scenes, indifferent to power, status, wealth - probably also indifferent to sex, marriage, children and the like.
This latter idea finds an allegorical equivalent in the stories of Merlin's conception as a devil and a nun with a monkish baptism; or a virgin and an incubus; Merlin therefore having some aspects attributed to Jesus and 'the light', but mixed with something darker and more instinctive.
Robin Hood is 'the people's hero' from the Middle Ages, leading a successful resistance to the Norman aristocracy. Robin is not much of a spiritual figure, but exponent of a 'pastoral idyll', a paradisal life of leisure, music and poetry - hunting, competing and helping the needy; lived-out in beautiful English woodland.
Robin is the escape from authority, liberation from work, brotherhood of all Men - and Robin's men are a fellowship of oddballs, eccentrics and drop-outs. Again, he is not a Father. (We Britons seem uninterested in patriarchs when it comes to folk heroes!)
Interestingly, Robin seems never to die, but to be a permanent presence - always young, always the same; always in his role of the impulsive and pleasure-seeking but honest and kindly counter-cultural rebel. All this makes him seem kin to the fairies, or a nature spirit - although Robin Wood is not magic except for his supernatural skill with the bow.
Of these folk heroes of Albion, the one who most appeals to me, and who seems to be most what we need, is Merlin. This is because I think we cannot - and should not - look to being rescued by a King, nor saved by an outlaw. We need to help-ourselves; and what we therefore most need is the wisdom of a wizard.
Arthur is the earliest - dating from the time after the Roman Legions had left the island, and associated with a decades-long period of successful British resistance to the Saxons. He is the archetypal Good King, Father of the nation (although, strangely, not an actual father of children - except Mordred...) who presided over a golden age; brought-down by human frailty and supernatural evil.
Interestingly, the documented historical figure that most resembles Arthur is Alfred the Great - warrior, scholar, lawyer and devout Christian; who was, of course, a descendant of the Saxon invaders whom Arthur resisted. This perhaps shows that Arthur is an archetype of land and spirit, not primarily a matter of genetic descent.
When modern people think about Arthur there is the yearning, and perhaps hope, for Arthur to return (revive, reincarnate or as a modern spiritual descendant) and vanquish the powers of evil and reinstate the golden age.
Merlin is from a generation or two later; and is perhaps a composite of a Welsh poet and wizard with a Scottish-English border seer and prophet. Despite his well-attested decline from high rank into exile, madness and poverty - and a well-known 'grave' near Peebles in Scotland; the most imaginatively vivid legends have Merlin's time being curtailed by spiritual imprisonment (in a crystal cave, or oak) - with the promise of eventual return.
Spiritually some regard Merlin as the last of the (good) druids; others as a transitional figure - with one foot in pagan Druidism and the other in the new Christianity (of the Celtic variety).
Modern English people have assimilated Merlin in many archetypal versions, from Gandalf, through Doctor Who, to Dumbledore. We see him mainly as a potent combination of magician, prophet, seer and wise-man; but in an eccentric, unpredictable, 'irresponsible' personality. Someone who operates behind the scenes, indifferent to power, status, wealth - probably also indifferent to sex, marriage, children and the like.
This latter idea finds an allegorical equivalent in the stories of Merlin's conception as a devil and a nun with a monkish baptism; or a virgin and an incubus; Merlin therefore having some aspects attributed to Jesus and 'the light', but mixed with something darker and more instinctive.
Robin Hood is 'the people's hero' from the Middle Ages, leading a successful resistance to the Norman aristocracy. Robin is not much of a spiritual figure, but exponent of a 'pastoral idyll', a paradisal life of leisure, music and poetry - hunting, competing and helping the needy; lived-out in beautiful English woodland.
Robin is the escape from authority, liberation from work, brotherhood of all Men - and Robin's men are a fellowship of oddballs, eccentrics and drop-outs. Again, he is not a Father. (We Britons seem uninterested in patriarchs when it comes to folk heroes!)
Interestingly, Robin seems never to die, but to be a permanent presence - always young, always the same; always in his role of the impulsive and pleasure-seeking but honest and kindly counter-cultural rebel. All this makes him seem kin to the fairies, or a nature spirit - although Robin Wood is not magic except for his supernatural skill with the bow.
Of these folk heroes of Albion, the one who most appeals to me, and who seems to be most what we need, is Merlin. This is because I think we cannot - and should not - look to being rescued by a King, nor saved by an outlaw. We need to help-ourselves; and what we therefore most need is the wisdom of a wizard.
Why is the sexual revolution so potent as an agent of self-damnation?
It is when evil is consented that it does spiritual damage.
If evil entities torment people without their consent, the person may be spiritually enhanced by the experience. This is why wars may (like WWII in the UK) apparently lead to a Christian revival - as people fight evil.
But evil consented-to is evil internalised - like with the sexual revolution.
The magnitude of an evil is, in the end, less important than whether it is resisted or embraced. An embraced trivial sin is generally far more harmful to the soul than a major sin repented. Even a trivial sin unrecognised as such, leads inexorably to more and worse sin; but a major sin repented is not harmful to the soul, and may be beneficial (St Paul, for example).
Sex is probably the second-most-powerful motivation in 'natural' men - religion being the first. Now moderns have dispensed-with (real) religion; for modern Men, sex reigns supreme as human motivator.
Most of the sexual sins are relatively trivial, in the great scheme of things. Therefore, modern people say: why not? Unasked, since they deny God in their hearts, is the proper question of whether some-sexual-thing is what God could plausibly want from them?
The danger is that with the sexual revolution what starts as why-not-it's-trivial? remains unrepented; then becomes no sin at all; then - since there are only two sides in the spiritual war - then becomes a virtue (to be defended, celebrated, funded, enforced...).
In such a situation, even a trivial sin rapidly becomes spiritually lethal; as we see all around us.
The Big Problem with the sexual revolution is, therefore, the combination of relatively-trivial sins combined with powerful motivation to embrace one or more such sins.
Obsessive desire synergizes with a perfect excuse to yield pride-full self-damnation and public advocacy of the same for other - which is an extremely evil result.
If evil entities torment people without their consent, the person may be spiritually enhanced by the experience. This is why wars may (like WWII in the UK) apparently lead to a Christian revival - as people fight evil.
But evil consented-to is evil internalised - like with the sexual revolution.
The magnitude of an evil is, in the end, less important than whether it is resisted or embraced. An embraced trivial sin is generally far more harmful to the soul than a major sin repented. Even a trivial sin unrecognised as such, leads inexorably to more and worse sin; but a major sin repented is not harmful to the soul, and may be beneficial (St Paul, for example).
Sex is probably the second-most-powerful motivation in 'natural' men - religion being the first. Now moderns have dispensed-with (real) religion; for modern Men, sex reigns supreme as human motivator.
Most of the sexual sins are relatively trivial, in the great scheme of things. Therefore, modern people say: why not? Unasked, since they deny God in their hearts, is the proper question of whether some-sexual-thing is what God could plausibly want from them?
The danger is that with the sexual revolution what starts as why-not-it's-trivial? remains unrepented; then becomes no sin at all; then - since there are only two sides in the spiritual war - then becomes a virtue (to be defended, celebrated, funded, enforced...).
In such a situation, even a trivial sin rapidly becomes spiritually lethal; as we see all around us.
The Big Problem with the sexual revolution is, therefore, the combination of relatively-trivial sins combined with powerful motivation to embrace one or more such sins.
Obsessive desire synergizes with a perfect excuse to yield pride-full self-damnation and public advocacy of the same for other - which is an extremely evil result.
How should one evaluate ambivalent/ ambiguous people in the public domain? (like Jordan Peterson)
When things are coming to a point - there is In Reality no neutral ground.
One is either For or Against God, the Good and Divine Creation.
And (because things have come to a point) if one is not obviously For, then one is, as a matter of fact, Against.
(Therefore all the people about whom one is 'not sure' - or who seem ambivalent/ ambiguous - are actually on the wrong side. Of course everybody has some Good in them - I am talking about which side a person serves in the spiritual war of this mortal world. Remember: There are only two sides, and they are getting further separated.)
One is either For or Against God, the Good and Divine Creation.
And (because things have come to a point) if one is not obviously For, then one is, as a matter of fact, Against.
(Therefore all the people about whom one is 'not sure' - or who seem ambivalent/ ambiguous - are actually on the wrong side. Of course everybody has some Good in them - I am talking about which side a person serves in the spiritual war of this mortal world. Remember: There are only two sides, and they are getting further separated.)
Evil must be invited-in; protection asked-for
Evil is very powerful and pervasive; but must be invited-within if evil is to damage our souls. Otherwise, we can grow and develop by our interaction with evil - we may build our strength against its resistance.
Protection (spiritual protection) is universally available, but must be asked-for. The Good Shepherd, the Holy Ghost, are always there; but we must choose to follow them.
This is because we are all mini-gods, gods in embryo; spiritual beings of (in some ways) immense power.
Especially in a negative sense. We can defy any amount or intensity of evil, simply by knowing evil and repenting it in our-selves. We can also - alone, unaided - deny, defy, or reject God the creator! (Many do.)
Of course, such inviting and asking is not merely verbal; but is an act of thinking; what is more, a conscious act of thinking. And because it is an act of thinking; it cannot be compelled, nor can it be prevented.
(To invite evil or ask for protection is a free act - which it could not be if it were unconscious.)
The devil cannot take us against our explicit wishes; and also God cannot shape our lives without our request; not even 'for our own good'.
We must consent. This is how it is.
Protection (spiritual protection) is universally available, but must be asked-for. The Good Shepherd, the Holy Ghost, are always there; but we must choose to follow them.
This is because we are all mini-gods, gods in embryo; spiritual beings of (in some ways) immense power.
Especially in a negative sense. We can defy any amount or intensity of evil, simply by knowing evil and repenting it in our-selves. We can also - alone, unaided - deny, defy, or reject God the creator! (Many do.)
Of course, such inviting and asking is not merely verbal; but is an act of thinking; what is more, a conscious act of thinking. And because it is an act of thinking; it cannot be compelled, nor can it be prevented.
(To invite evil or ask for protection is a free act - which it could not be if it were unconscious.)
The devil cannot take us against our explicit wishes; and also God cannot shape our lives without our request; not even 'for our own good'.
We must consent. This is how it is.
Monday, 8 July 2019
Bulverism and the mainstream dominant Left - incoherent all the way down.
In a famous essay, CS Lewis described a particularly insidious rhetorical trick which is called Bulverism. By Bulverism he meant the device of assuming what ought first to be proved; by jumping straight to explaining why something is the case, without ever establishing that it is the case.
Bulverism is all-but universal in the mass media - indeed, it is the distinguishing feature of almost all mainstream communications in the modern world.
In a 'soft sense' everybody does Bulverism, at least when they are among people of similar beliefs and views, because then we can take assumptions for granted and move on to other matters. Therefore, strictly, Bulverism ought to be reserved for the manipulative ('rhetorical') use of the device.
Its ubiquity is because power is nowadays almost-wholly in the hands of the Left, of those whose ideology is worldly, materialistic, scientistic. Weasel-words like justice, freedom, equality, democracy are themselves types of Bulverism; because they hide the false assumption that users share an understanding - when in fact the understanding is neither shared, not indeed is genuine understanding of such terms available at all.
The serious, insidious, dishonest and manipulative type of Bulverism can be detected by the response to a request for clarification and justification of assumptions. The mainstream modern participants in public discourse will never, because they cannot, clarify or justify their core assumptions. Therefore, they respond to all such questions either by ignoring them; or with anger, aggression, escalating accusation, suppression of the questioner.
Once a person or an organisation has been assumed to be - for example - racist; then any attempt to discover what is meant by racism in this context, or why this implied definition of racism is bad, will be disregarded or met by hostility; and probably collateral accusations of... racism. The very act of trying to understand terms and establish assumptions and facts is regarded as intrinsically denial, evasion, obfuscation - advocacy of evil. Which may then be 'explained' by further Bulverism.
(On the lines of: "By questioning my accusation of racism you reveal yourself as racist; and you are racist because you are a privileged white middle-class man.")
I have encountered Bulverism times beyond count. For example, organisations all over the West made major changes due to their pursuit of 'Quality'. Yet, in actual practice, in the places where Quality Assurance systems were being implemented, any attempt to understand what was actually, operationally being meant by Quality in this specific context, was regarded either as fine-spun abstract theorising ('we haven't got time to go into that stuff'), or as the questioner being opposed to Quality.
('So, you excuse and want to do nothing-about all the errors, incompetence, abuses and evils perpetrated by this type of organisation throughout history until this moment!').
The thing is, the people guilty of Bulverisms - the journalists, politicians, middle managers, academics, lawyers, health service bureaucrats etc - do not have any basis for their assumptions. 'Basis' is not there to be had. The primary assumptions that they deploy in their thinking have merely been absorbed passively and unconsciously.
Having never consciously been aware-of nor deliberately having-adopted, these assumptions; Bulverists deny that they are assumptions (I don't think anything of the kind!'). Having assimilated their assumptions from high status sources in their environment, Bulverists regard these implicit but pervasive assumptions as obvious and self-evident facts - to doubt-which can only be insane, incompetent or dishonest.
But, even if they did try to isolate and examine their assumptions; mainstream modern System-bureaucrats and apologists cannot find conceptual clarity, because there is nothing there. The mainstream modern world is incoherent all the way down.
Because The West has no over-arching purpose, it has no logical cohesion; there is no shared baseline of common-sense or intuitive assumptions.
Therefore, there can be no real meaning to the terms employed, there can be no deep-validity to the arguments.
Everything at the point of implementation is at the superficial level of unstated, vague, unshared assumptions being manipulated to achieve short-termist objectives.
To be more exact, there is indeed an overall plan - but its coherence is actually in-coherence. The plan is incoherence-generating.
All these phenomena are in reality the multiple distal manifestations of core opposition to God, the Good and Creation. Only God/ Good/ Creation is coherent; and the Global Establishment's systematic opposition to GGC is merely anti-coherent.
Wherever we observe Bulversism - which will be hundreds of times per day, if we are not substantially isolated from the modern world - we see the manifold acts of destruction or subversion of truth, beauty and virtue. In short, Bulverism is purposive demonic evil in action.
The fact that Bulverism is everywhere and (nearly) all of the time in public discourse, is a measure of the extremity of our actual situation.
Sunday, 7 July 2019
Charlton's First Law and the Submissive Flaccidity of Secular Modernity
I was always puzzled by the submissive flaccidity of modern Western societies: the way that - although they live to maximise gratification and minimise suffering - they will in practice do nothing to protect their future happiness nor to defend against future suffering.
But the reason is encapsulated by Charlton's First Law: Things must always get worse before they can get better; because otherwise they already would be better.
When a beneficial policy is a win-win option, then it gets done automatically, and we don't need to think about it - probably we don't even notice it. But most beneficial policies have a down-side. Typically, long-term benefit can be attained only at the cost of short-term disadvantage or suffering of some kind, to some people.
So that the hedonic secular goal of making life overall as pleasant as possible in the long-term is continually being subverted by the short-term and specific gratification.
The hedonic ideal has reached such an extremity among the ruling elites that they pursue policies which will in the long term lead to lifestyles that they regard as miserable and abhorrent, because effectively to prevent these outcomes makes them feel bad now.
In other words, secular hedonism cannot take tough decisions.
A tough decision is precisely a decision in which the correct decision leads to short term harm.
I first recognised this dilemma in medicine, when it is often the case that in order to make a person probably feel better overall in the long term, they must suffer immediate and certain short term misery: for example, surgery. Surgeons live with this on a daily basis, and consequently to be a good surgeon requires a 'tough' attitude.
The point is that someone who was psychologically unable to make tough decisions, but always sought to maximise the immediate comfort and well-being of patients and to take minimum risk, would be a bad surgeon.
Modern society is soft in precisely this fashion - its rulers have lost the ability take tough decisions: to seek long term benefits when these come at the price the cost of short term costs to themselves.
The ultimate reason is, I believe, that humans can only make tough decisions when these are supported by transcendental aims, in the sense that humans do not want to forgo short term gratification in this world unless life is believed to be about something more than gratification.
This entails that non-worldly realities (God, heaven, truth, beauty etc.) are seen as more real and more enduring than immediate gratification - and therefore more important.
If human life is (as secular modernity asserts) ultimately about gratification (about maximising happiness and minimising suffering) then it will always seem tempting to take the short-term choice leading to immediate and certain happiness and avoid immediate and certain suffering; and to ignore the long-term consequences of these choices on the basis that the future cannot be known with certainty, and we might be dead anyway before the future arrives.
A society that regards the 'purpose of life' as being to while-away the time between birth and death as pleasantly as possible, is a society which cannot make tough decisions. It is a society which will always take the easy-way-out, will pursue short-termist and certain benefits, and which will therefore always submit to its enemies - because to resist enemies makes life less pleasant than to appease them.
Even to recognize the reality of threats and enemies is unpleasant, distressing, generative of negative emotions such as fear and anger – better if we can pretend that threats and enemies are harmless or benign, really; and the only truly nasty people are those who make us feel bad about ourselves, here and now…
So a society that values nothing higher than a pleasant life, and which will seek the pleasant life wherever and whenever possible is a society that will be morally flaccid in face of opposition, will appease rather than resist, will submit rather than fight, and will therefore end-up being ruled by its most relentless and long-termist enemies - and by having an extremely un-pleasant life.
Note: Edited from a post of nine years ago.
But the reason is encapsulated by Charlton's First Law: Things must always get worse before they can get better; because otherwise they already would be better.
When a beneficial policy is a win-win option, then it gets done automatically, and we don't need to think about it - probably we don't even notice it. But most beneficial policies have a down-side. Typically, long-term benefit can be attained only at the cost of short-term disadvantage or suffering of some kind, to some people.
So that the hedonic secular goal of making life overall as pleasant as possible in the long-term is continually being subverted by the short-term and specific gratification.
The hedonic ideal has reached such an extremity among the ruling elites that they pursue policies which will in the long term lead to lifestyles that they regard as miserable and abhorrent, because effectively to prevent these outcomes makes them feel bad now.
In other words, secular hedonism cannot take tough decisions.
A tough decision is precisely a decision in which the correct decision leads to short term harm.
I first recognised this dilemma in medicine, when it is often the case that in order to make a person probably feel better overall in the long term, they must suffer immediate and certain short term misery: for example, surgery. Surgeons live with this on a daily basis, and consequently to be a good surgeon requires a 'tough' attitude.
The point is that someone who was psychologically unable to make tough decisions, but always sought to maximise the immediate comfort and well-being of patients and to take minimum risk, would be a bad surgeon.
Modern society is soft in precisely this fashion - its rulers have lost the ability take tough decisions: to seek long term benefits when these come at the price the cost of short term costs to themselves.
The ultimate reason is, I believe, that humans can only make tough decisions when these are supported by transcendental aims, in the sense that humans do not want to forgo short term gratification in this world unless life is believed to be about something more than gratification.
This entails that non-worldly realities (God, heaven, truth, beauty etc.) are seen as more real and more enduring than immediate gratification - and therefore more important.
If human life is (as secular modernity asserts) ultimately about gratification (about maximising happiness and minimising suffering) then it will always seem tempting to take the short-term choice leading to immediate and certain happiness and avoid immediate and certain suffering; and to ignore the long-term consequences of these choices on the basis that the future cannot be known with certainty, and we might be dead anyway before the future arrives.
A society that regards the 'purpose of life' as being to while-away the time between birth and death as pleasantly as possible, is a society which cannot make tough decisions. It is a society which will always take the easy-way-out, will pursue short-termist and certain benefits, and which will therefore always submit to its enemies - because to resist enemies makes life less pleasant than to appease them.
Even to recognize the reality of threats and enemies is unpleasant, distressing, generative of negative emotions such as fear and anger – better if we can pretend that threats and enemies are harmless or benign, really; and the only truly nasty people are those who make us feel bad about ourselves, here and now…
So a society that values nothing higher than a pleasant life, and which will seek the pleasant life wherever and whenever possible is a society that will be morally flaccid in face of opposition, will appease rather than resist, will submit rather than fight, and will therefore end-up being ruled by its most relentless and long-termist enemies - and by having an extremely un-pleasant life.
Note: Edited from a post of nine years ago.
The problem of false selves (William Arkle)
One of William Arkle's core insights is that - in normal, everyday life - people act from a multitude of false selves. The true self, which is of divine origin and potentially able to become a god, is what makes us what we are - but it may be completely buried beneath false selves; the true self may be utterly ineffectual.
These false selves are of many types. Some are the collections of traits - hereditary and socialised - that constitute our 'personality' as described and measured by psychology. Others are that mass of automatic, robotic skills and responses that we learn to deal with the problems of living; including skills like typing or driving, small-talk and routine social interaction.
You can see that false selves are the totality of what a person presents to the world; and usually also everything that a person is aware of in himself, insofar as he is aware of anything. So, our consciousness is not the same thing as our true self, because it may be unaware of the true self, may even deny the reality of any such thing as a true self.
False selves are therefore necessary but a problem, because whenever we make an effort to change ourselves in any way, the probability is that this will be a matter of one or more of the false selves trying to change us in a superficial and false direction.
This is why methods of meditation,. methods of self-improvement, will-power... all such endeavours are nearly always ineffective. It is just a matter of distorting ourselves by exaggerating one or more false selves.
And how can we consciously strive to discover and nurture our true self, when the striving is being done by a false self?
Or if we try to relax and let-go the true self; simply 'allowing' the true self to emerge from under the false ones; there is a likelihood that we will instead be releasing one or more of the false selves...
The problem is not insoluble, because it has been achieved by others (and perhaps even by our-selves, albeit infrequently and briefly); but Arkle makes clear that there is no method to it; and indeed part of solving the problem is to recognise why there is no method. We must 'quarry out' our real self from the false ones, by some kind of trial and error - discovering what works for us, here and now; but never able to make the process a standard one.
The answer can be summarised as 'intuition' - but that is just giving a name to the fact that there is no method. But the start of a solution is to define the problem - and after that to recognise when the true self is emerging and strengthening. And this can be done by learning to recognise the uniquely self-validating quality of the true self.
Once you know it is there, real and vital - we can feel the reality of the true self in an absolutely distinctive way - even though we cannot describe it.
These false selves are of many types. Some are the collections of traits - hereditary and socialised - that constitute our 'personality' as described and measured by psychology. Others are that mass of automatic, robotic skills and responses that we learn to deal with the problems of living; including skills like typing or driving, small-talk and routine social interaction.
You can see that false selves are the totality of what a person presents to the world; and usually also everything that a person is aware of in himself, insofar as he is aware of anything. So, our consciousness is not the same thing as our true self, because it may be unaware of the true self, may even deny the reality of any such thing as a true self.
False selves are therefore necessary but a problem, because whenever we make an effort to change ourselves in any way, the probability is that this will be a matter of one or more of the false selves trying to change us in a superficial and false direction.
This is why methods of meditation,. methods of self-improvement, will-power... all such endeavours are nearly always ineffective. It is just a matter of distorting ourselves by exaggerating one or more false selves.
And how can we consciously strive to discover and nurture our true self, when the striving is being done by a false self?
Or if we try to relax and let-go the true self; simply 'allowing' the true self to emerge from under the false ones; there is a likelihood that we will instead be releasing one or more of the false selves...
The problem is not insoluble, because it has been achieved by others (and perhaps even by our-selves, albeit infrequently and briefly); but Arkle makes clear that there is no method to it; and indeed part of solving the problem is to recognise why there is no method. We must 'quarry out' our real self from the false ones, by some kind of trial and error - discovering what works for us, here and now; but never able to make the process a standard one.
The answer can be summarised as 'intuition' - but that is just giving a name to the fact that there is no method. But the start of a solution is to define the problem - and after that to recognise when the true self is emerging and strengthening. And this can be done by learning to recognise the uniquely self-validating quality of the true self.
Once you know it is there, real and vital - we can feel the reality of the true self in an absolutely distinctive way - even though we cannot describe it.
Implications of the opposite of abstraction being experience (and experience being thinking)
I've been reading Rudolf Steiner and listening to his ideas being expounded; and realise that a fundamental problem is that Steiner tended to end with abstraction. Although he stated that reality consisted of living Beings; these were explained in their nature and effect using abstractions.
The opposite of abstraction - and the nature of reality - is experience (i.e. the experience of Beings) - thus reality is within-time, and happens through time; experience is process not category.
Abstraction (as in my sentences above) is usually the fate of human discussion and exposition, since these are conducted in language, and language is abstract. We can use language to point-at experience, to describe the context of experience; but of course this will be secondary.
It is perhaps this that makes people sake that mystical experience is ineffable, un-expressible - but that is true of all experience, so the property of ineffability is not distinctive to the mystical. e.g. We cannot capture being-in-love - or any other emotion - in language.
Behind all abstraction, language and any other form of interpersonal communication there is direct, unmediated experience, a 'knowing' that is potentially a shared experience of Beings. And this is going-on all the time, in all of us - but nearly always unconsciously.
In other words, our true and divine self is always there; even when it is never attended-to. Because the real self is not inside us, so much as a perspective on reality. Reality is universally accessible, but each of us has a perspective on it; and we can only come to know reality in a linear and sequential fashion.
So, in a way, the real self is like a peephole opening onto the totality of reality (the underworld, the dwat, the collective conscious and unconscious...). Of course it is more than just a peephole; because the real self is also the source of real freedom; and a producer of (uncaused) thought; and potentially the mans of our participation in divine creation.
But in terms of our ability directly to know, we might imagine it as a peephole through which we can incrementally discover everything there is to know, eventually (but of course, that everything will keep growing, and we may contribute to it)- but always from our unique perspective.
There is an abstraction for you! A crude and simple abstract model of reality - looking through a peephole at the ocean of reality that is always everywhere and within... As such it is certainly false - both ridiculously partial, and seriously distorted. What, then is the point of it?
By my understanding, much of our learning - nowadays in this mortal life - is a matter of becoming conscious of something that is already happening, but beyond our awareness. Thus, the abstraction is helpful if or when it draws attention to some neglected reality that we may then - by experiencing it in our thinking - come to know for ourselves.
However, probably only when we come to know it for ourselves. Abstractions at the level of abstraction - and locked into that level by the need for language in public discourse - are a lethal tyranny for the soul.
And all public discourse, all institutions and organisations, operate solely at the level of abstract language or other symbolism; and so are always partial and distorted - always false. This is a big lesson that we need to learn - it is one of the big lessons of our time.
And our learning is assisted by the fact that our institutions and their leaders are so obviously corrupt and increasingly evil that we are quickly learning that they are wrong - and the abstract laws, rules and guidelines by which they attempt to control us are also wrong.
And if we want to know what is right we can derive it only from that which is validated by direct personal experience. and we are wrong.
The opposite of abstraction - and the nature of reality - is experience (i.e. the experience of Beings) - thus reality is within-time, and happens through time; experience is process not category.
Abstraction (as in my sentences above) is usually the fate of human discussion and exposition, since these are conducted in language, and language is abstract. We can use language to point-at experience, to describe the context of experience; but of course this will be secondary.
It is perhaps this that makes people sake that mystical experience is ineffable, un-expressible - but that is true of all experience, so the property of ineffability is not distinctive to the mystical. e.g. We cannot capture being-in-love - or any other emotion - in language.
Behind all abstraction, language and any other form of interpersonal communication there is direct, unmediated experience, a 'knowing' that is potentially a shared experience of Beings. And this is going-on all the time, in all of us - but nearly always unconsciously.
In other words, our true and divine self is always there; even when it is never attended-to. Because the real self is not inside us, so much as a perspective on reality. Reality is universally accessible, but each of us has a perspective on it; and we can only come to know reality in a linear and sequential fashion.
So, in a way, the real self is like a peephole opening onto the totality of reality (the underworld, the dwat, the collective conscious and unconscious...). Of course it is more than just a peephole; because the real self is also the source of real freedom; and a producer of (uncaused) thought; and potentially the mans of our participation in divine creation.
But in terms of our ability directly to know, we might imagine it as a peephole through which we can incrementally discover everything there is to know, eventually (but of course, that everything will keep growing, and we may contribute to it)- but always from our unique perspective.
There is an abstraction for you! A crude and simple abstract model of reality - looking through a peephole at the ocean of reality that is always everywhere and within... As such it is certainly false - both ridiculously partial, and seriously distorted. What, then is the point of it?
By my understanding, much of our learning - nowadays in this mortal life - is a matter of becoming conscious of something that is already happening, but beyond our awareness. Thus, the abstraction is helpful if or when it draws attention to some neglected reality that we may then - by experiencing it in our thinking - come to know for ourselves.
However, probably only when we come to know it for ourselves. Abstractions at the level of abstraction - and locked into that level by the need for language in public discourse - are a lethal tyranny for the soul.
And all public discourse, all institutions and organisations, operate solely at the level of abstract language or other symbolism; and so are always partial and distorted - always false. This is a big lesson that we need to learn - it is one of the big lessons of our time.
And our learning is assisted by the fact that our institutions and their leaders are so obviously corrupt and increasingly evil that we are quickly learning that they are wrong - and the abstract laws, rules and guidelines by which they attempt to control us are also wrong.
And if we want to know what is right we can derive it only from that which is validated by direct personal experience. and we are wrong.
Saturday, 6 July 2019
What have the Normans ever done for us?
The Norman invasion was the greatest catastophe in the history of England (and of the British Isles); because the Normans (for all their higher intelligence and talents e.g. as warriors, administrators, architects) were basically evil. As a ruling class, and in stark contrast to the Anglo Saxons and Celts; the Normans and their legacy have been unspiritual in nature, hostile to real Christianity.
Even nowadays, it can be seen (in the eyes) and felt (by the heart) that the Norman descendents and those assimilated to them have 'something missing', are lacking in 'soul'. I would regard this as related to their service to evil. Face-to-face, they are not fully human; although often good at pretending.
Yet, starting from this insight, we can ask why this was 'allowed to happen'. Terry Boardman argues throughought his work that - yes, the Normans were evil, and also they set-up an ultimately beneficial interaction.
This mortal world is not meant to be a paradise of ease and comfort and pleasure - but is designed as a place of learning from experience; aimed at attaining and benefitting our eternal resurrected life.
Thus evil is not just tolerated, but may be deployed for optimal benefit (within necessary constraints of human agency) - and something of the kind happened with the Normans. (Note: The 'process' actually occurs primarily at an individual level, not by groups; and every individual is a mix of good and evil - even though they will serve one side or the other, overeall. Clearly some individual Normans have repented, been on the side of Good, and spiritually beneficial.)
The Norman ruling class provided skills and perspective; a challenge which the English spirit could grow-against; and that led to England becoming a world power and achieving the world-transforming industrial revolution - and at the spiritual level bringing-forth the 'consciousness soul', with its separation of subjectivity from objectivity: this providing the ultimate basis of spiritual freedom (a necessary step towards greater divinity).
But for the English to go beyond the consciousness soul and on towards the destined Final Participation required that the English spirit overcome the Norman - and this has not (or not yet) happened. The Norman-derived English Establishment have instead (pretty much) ideologically taken-over the world (US, UN, EU), and are well-advanced in imposing their long term goal of totalitarian materialism in service of their evil masters.
So, the Normans have done a great deal for us in a spiritual sense, but that good now lies more than two centuries in the past; and it is by now long overdue that the English spirit resisted their long-term idological colonisation; and overcame their corrupt-and-corrupting rulers.
What we need to do is the same whether or not you agree-with or understand the above analysis; but it is helpful to know your real enemy, esepcially when they are so powerful and influential - and therefore avoid mistaking your enemies for your allies.
Even nowadays, it can be seen (in the eyes) and felt (by the heart) that the Norman descendents and those assimilated to them have 'something missing', are lacking in 'soul'. I would regard this as related to their service to evil. Face-to-face, they are not fully human; although often good at pretending.
Yet, starting from this insight, we can ask why this was 'allowed to happen'. Terry Boardman argues throughought his work that - yes, the Normans were evil, and also they set-up an ultimately beneficial interaction.
This mortal world is not meant to be a paradise of ease and comfort and pleasure - but is designed as a place of learning from experience; aimed at attaining and benefitting our eternal resurrected life.
Thus evil is not just tolerated, but may be deployed for optimal benefit (within necessary constraints of human agency) - and something of the kind happened with the Normans. (Note: The 'process' actually occurs primarily at an individual level, not by groups; and every individual is a mix of good and evil - even though they will serve one side or the other, overeall. Clearly some individual Normans have repented, been on the side of Good, and spiritually beneficial.)
The Norman ruling class provided skills and perspective; a challenge which the English spirit could grow-against; and that led to England becoming a world power and achieving the world-transforming industrial revolution - and at the spiritual level bringing-forth the 'consciousness soul', with its separation of subjectivity from objectivity: this providing the ultimate basis of spiritual freedom (a necessary step towards greater divinity).
But for the English to go beyond the consciousness soul and on towards the destined Final Participation required that the English spirit overcome the Norman - and this has not (or not yet) happened. The Norman-derived English Establishment have instead (pretty much) ideologically taken-over the world (US, UN, EU), and are well-advanced in imposing their long term goal of totalitarian materialism in service of their evil masters.
So, the Normans have done a great deal for us in a spiritual sense, but that good now lies more than two centuries in the past; and it is by now long overdue that the English spirit resisted their long-term idological colonisation; and overcame their corrupt-and-corrupting rulers.
What we need to do is the same whether or not you agree-with or understand the above analysis; but it is helpful to know your real enemy, esepcially when they are so powerful and influential - and therefore avoid mistaking your enemies for your allies.
The Nebby Nurse type - a nightmare vision of the future
There is a Nebby Nurse type, to use some Geordie dialect. Most aren't nurses, most nurses aren't nebby (poking their nebs/ noses in everywhere, all of the time), but when they are...
The Nebby Nurse is all too common, because encouraged nowadays. It's when you're in a mixed group of men and women in a pub or on a committee, and there is one of those women who is neither attractive, nor charming, nor interesting; but so full of her opinions on everything that she takes-up nearly all the conversation, and sucks the life out of everybody.
In modern bureaucracies these girls can go all the way to the top, and they want to - because that gives them abundant victims to herd into 'meetings' and harangue endlessly.
They want women to run everything but most decent women dislike meetings, and don't want to boss people. So we get Nebby Nurses running everything.
It's a modern version of Orwell's nightmare. If you want a vision of the future; imagine A Nebby Nurse whining in your face, Forever...
Friday, 5 July 2019
The Climate Emergency Big Lie - what it tells us about Them
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
The evolving hoax of 'Climate Change', is incomparably the biggest Big Lie that has ever been perpetrated on the world. Indeed, starting with the falsehood that climate can be predicted; the Big Climate Lie is many-many lies-piled-upon-lies to reach the insane conviction that a world government can control the world climate to within a degree - if only it is given complete surveillance and micro-control over everything.
In other words - the totalitarian agenda.
Okay - that's been the last 25-plus years. A quarter century, trillions of dollars, trillions of man-hours, galactic volumes of verbal hot-air; an incomprehensibly massive drain of effort, time and resources; infliction of heavy economic damage; and immense environmental destruction - all because The Big Lie.
But now we have a state of Climate Emergency. In other words, the global Establishment is pushing very hard, everywhere, by all means at its disposal, to be given totalitarian powers as a matter of emergency.
This is a Power Grab, the power grab: a coup d'etat intended to be complete and final - this is the urgent and rapid attempt at totalitarian takeover - and it is happening here and now.
First of it, it is helpful to contemplate the sheer insanity of this situation. Truly it is hard to comprehend that so many could collaborate in fabricating such colossal untruth; and to believe the sheer impudence of such infamous distortion of reality. It beggars belief that this, of all imaginable issues, should have become the core rationale for the implementation of a totalitarian world dictatorship.
Yet here we are.
Why this? Why now?
Why this? Because this lie works - it has been tested and developed over a quarter century. Okay...
But why now? That's the interesting question. Why now, and why not sometime before or later?
My answer is that the answer is not that this time is optimal. It is not optimal. The Climate Emergency movement did not emerge from a rising groundswell of public opinion. To the contrary, the Climate Emergency came out of the blue, and after several years during which - in the mass public mind - climate change had faded in significance and was the subject of increasing doubts (as reality stubbornly failed to conform to delusion).
Yet, They (i.e. the global establishment) regard it as necessary to do this Now. Why?
My assumption is either that They regard it as either possible for the first time, or necessary because of some risk to the project.
On the one hand, the expansion of population demoralisation, surveillance and control; mass population migration and the ability to trigger deadly civil disorder etc... - these may all be in place now; such that - for the first time - centralised dictatorship is a genuine possibility, easily graspable.
So let's get on with it...
(They may be right or wrong about this. I am suggesting how it may look to Them in order that the Climate Emergency button was pushed.)
Or else, conversely; They are worried about something going wrong with their plans; such that They suddenly feel the need to press-ahead, despite the fact that the ground has Not been optimally prepared, and Not enough people are sufficiently ready for what is being proposed.
(They may be right or wrong about the rising risk to their plans. Again, I am simply suggesting how things may seem to Them.)
Two opposite possibilities.
The totalitarian power grab that is Climate Emergency is happening Now; either because of Their strength, or because of Their weakness.
Whatever the answer you decide does not change what you ought-to be doing; but it should be encouraging to speculate that the international attempted coup that is Climate Emergency may be product of panic, rather than the long anticipated final step of step of a decades long master plan.
From 'My Struggle' by Herr A. Hitler, painter and politician (1889-1945)
The evolving hoax of 'Climate Change', is incomparably the biggest Big Lie that has ever been perpetrated on the world. Indeed, starting with the falsehood that climate can be predicted; the Big Climate Lie is many-many lies-piled-upon-lies to reach the insane conviction that a world government can control the world climate to within a degree - if only it is given complete surveillance and micro-control over everything.
In other words - the totalitarian agenda.
Okay - that's been the last 25-plus years. A quarter century, trillions of dollars, trillions of man-hours, galactic volumes of verbal hot-air; an incomprehensibly massive drain of effort, time and resources; infliction of heavy economic damage; and immense environmental destruction - all because The Big Lie.
But now we have a state of Climate Emergency. In other words, the global Establishment is pushing very hard, everywhere, by all means at its disposal, to be given totalitarian powers as a matter of emergency.
This is a Power Grab, the power grab: a coup d'etat intended to be complete and final - this is the urgent and rapid attempt at totalitarian takeover - and it is happening here and now.
First of it, it is helpful to contemplate the sheer insanity of this situation. Truly it is hard to comprehend that so many could collaborate in fabricating such colossal untruth; and to believe the sheer impudence of such infamous distortion of reality. It beggars belief that this, of all imaginable issues, should have become the core rationale for the implementation of a totalitarian world dictatorship.
Yet here we are.
Why this? Why now?
Why this? Because this lie works - it has been tested and developed over a quarter century. Okay...
But why now? That's the interesting question. Why now, and why not sometime before or later?
My answer is that the answer is not that this time is optimal. It is not optimal. The Climate Emergency movement did not emerge from a rising groundswell of public opinion. To the contrary, the Climate Emergency came out of the blue, and after several years during which - in the mass public mind - climate change had faded in significance and was the subject of increasing doubts (as reality stubbornly failed to conform to delusion).
Yet, They (i.e. the global establishment) regard it as necessary to do this Now. Why?
My assumption is either that They regard it as either possible for the first time, or necessary because of some risk to the project.
On the one hand, the expansion of population demoralisation, surveillance and control; mass population migration and the ability to trigger deadly civil disorder etc... - these may all be in place now; such that - for the first time - centralised dictatorship is a genuine possibility, easily graspable.
So let's get on with it...
(They may be right or wrong about this. I am suggesting how it may look to Them in order that the Climate Emergency button was pushed.)
Or else, conversely; They are worried about something going wrong with their plans; such that They suddenly feel the need to press-ahead, despite the fact that the ground has Not been optimally prepared, and Not enough people are sufficiently ready for what is being proposed.
(They may be right or wrong about the rising risk to their plans. Again, I am simply suggesting how things may seem to Them.)
Two opposite possibilities.
The totalitarian power grab that is Climate Emergency is happening Now; either because of Their strength, or because of Their weakness.
Whatever the answer you decide does not change what you ought-to be doing; but it should be encouraging to speculate that the international attempted coup that is Climate Emergency may be product of panic, rather than the long anticipated final step of step of a decades long master plan.
The evil inversion of mainstream evaluations: Collateral Beauty (2016) - a movie review
We live in an inverted world when it comes to the arts and entertainment - as I mentioned recently - where a superbly-crafted, thought-provoking and inspiring movie like Collateral Beauty - starring (I would have thought) bulletproof stars like Will Smith (Mr Bankable), Dame Helen Mirren, and Keira Knightley) can be universally panned by critics such that it was commercially killed, made big losses at the box office, and was elected as The Worst movie of the year*.
It is important that the viewer sees Collateral Beauty without prior knowledge, in order properly to appreciate its achievement - so there are no spoilers here; and I would advise you neither to read reviews nor to watch trailers. Also, you must watch and pay-attention up to the very last minute; or you will miss something vital.
So, I am not going to tell you anything in advance about Collateral Beauty other than that anyone who knows anything about movies can see that it is extremely well-scripted, deftly-structured and directed, magnificently-acted, gorgeously-filmed and tightly-edited.
It is also very emotionally gruelling, due to its theme of the death of a young child and the devastating effect it has on the Will Smith character. Such emotions are neither easy nor pleasant to experience, even vicariously. If you don't want to cry and be wrung-out; don't watch.
More broadly, the movie is about the absolute need for transcendent meaning and purpose in life; and its big 'mistake', its 'fatal flaw', its gaffe - i.e. the reason that it was universally, viciously, dishonestly and (grossly) incompetently slaughtered by the professional reviewers (their lock-step unanimity being coordinated by orders from above) - is that after raising every doubt and depicting total despair; Collateral Beauty eventually and subtly (but firmly) implies that there really is an objectively-real and transcendent meaning and purpose to Life.
You can easily see why, in our Ahrimanic world; such a movie, aimed at a mass audience, had to be mocked, slandered and crushed. It has become vital to the Global Establishment that any potential source of hope and courage is snuffed-out ASAP, whenever it (unfortunately, albeit seldom) emerges.
CB is not a Christian movie, not at all, although broadly-compatible with Christianity. But it is a good movie; an honest movie that has a very serious purpose of doing good (so far as I can infer).
How such a thing can emerge from mainstream mass Hollywood is in itself quite extraordinary, and very rare. But we must not miss noticing how such an event was dealt-with. Such is the fate of any good person, thing, phenomenon in the mainstream modern world.
*Collateral Beauty's Rotten Tomatoes consensus-approval rating was 14% (one star), in a venue where the (first) sequel to Sharknado got 59% (three stars) from the professional reviewers... Just think about that. I'm not dissing Sharknado - the original movie - which is so-extremely-bad that it's good, and deliberately so. But after watching it the once, I felt, quite strongly in fact, that humankind had by-then seen enough variations on the theme of great white sharks sucked-up by a storm and then falling from the sky onto people. A follow-up was not strictly necessary.
Thursday, 4 July 2019
Why don't we let ourselves be happy? (There is a good reason - William Arkle)
We like to be loved and admired but we also like to love and admire other people.
When we love and admire other people, we are able to believe in the joy and merit of their nature. When we are loved and admired we are able to believe in the joy and merit of our Self.
When we receive and give love and admiration we are in either case gaining something wholly delightful and desirable. But we do not take the trouble to look more closely at this situation, for the situation seems to be an end in itself.
If it is examined, however, the sensation in question reveals that it is not so much the giving and receiving of love which matters but that the love and admiration helps to liberate an aspect of our nature which is joy and is happiness and is a sort of virtuous affectionate delight.
The trouble with life as we ordinarily experience it is that this part of our nature is always being suppressed and not liberated. Not only do other people continually restrict it but we find that we are restricting it ourselves.
The problem however is not as simple as it looks. The difficulty is not simply liberating our Selves but the fact that in trying to do this we liberate our not-Selves. When we liberate a not-Self we are not freeing outselves for an experience of great affection or delight but rather for an experience of misery, frustration and disappointment. The pain of this makes us think twice about any further attempts at liberation.
We are inclined to leave liberation alone for we are not sure if we are going to liberate a God or a Devil.
These are the very first words by which Arkle addresses us in his magnum opus; and characteristically they are densely meaningful.
He notes that a world in which people express love and admiration for each other would be a much happier, more delight-full, world - and one in which we would all have greater self-belief and confidence. We all know this, and feel sorry that this situation of emotional benefit does not occur.
But there is more to it. We vaguely suppose that positive emotions such as love, admiration, joy, happiness, delight... are justified simply because they are pleasant to experience - and more pleasant than the alternatives.
That is, we look no deeper than psychology, and the set-up of the human body; which makes us enjoy some feelings and suffer-from others (such as pain, guilt, fear etc). We feel that feeling good is self-justifying, and therefore needs no further examination or justification.
Yet, it does not happen. We do not, as a matter of common observation, do those things that would make everybody feel happier. Partly this is because other people don't treat us with love and respect; but also because we don't treat ourselves that way.
We make our-selves feel bad - and this is a very rooted and resistant habit or practice. We might want to stop feeling bad about ourselves, but - when tried - actually proves to be almost impossible!
If feelings were the bottom-line this would be incomprehensible - and our strong resistance to stopping inflicting bad feelings upon our-selves (as well as others) would also be incomprehensible.
Arkle is saying that the feelings are not the bottom line. He says that the feelings are a means to the end of 'liberating', of bringing-forward, an aspect of our nature that is joy/ happiness/ virtuous affectionate delight.
In other words, Arkle is saying that - properly considered - the feelings ought-to-be transformative of our nature; and that this transformation (this development or 'evolution' of the person) is the real purpose of the feelings (if this is allowed to happen).
There is, however, a problem - and it was a problem that became very evident in The West during the late 1960s while this book was being developed. The problem is that by 'relaxing our guard' ('letting it all hang out') and adopting a general attitude of liberating the feelings; the actual result was often, perhaps usually, malign rather than beneficial.
What came-out from this process was not so much 'peace and love'; but aggression, lust, greed, envy and the like. And instead of being happy and relaxed; the individuals became miserable, frustrated and (perpetually) disappointed. Instead of beats, hippies and drop-outs evolving towards godlike goodness and generosity; they devolved into sin and demonic selfishness - junkies, murderers and rapists, and Hell's Angels.
Elsewhere in the book; Arkle explains this in terms of the deep, real or true Self - which has a divine origin; versus the surface-level not-selves - or 'personality' - that are inculcated by society, derive from selfishness, or are merely mechanical devices ('algorithms', or 'robots') for performing some repetitive function.
Trying to liberate the real Self by merely removing the filters and barriers to expression; the individual merely gives greater power and scope to the the conflicting group of false selves.
Instead of the individual becoming transformed towards the divine and more attuned to God's purposes; the individual merely grasps-after pleasurable emotions, finds these emotions fade with repetition; and then goes into a spiral of seeking novelties and increasing the dose of hedonic activity.
Instead of actively participating in creation, the individual hope passively to be Made Happy by strong (and ever-stronger) stimuli; when his psychology is fighting against this.
In sum, happiness cannot be an end, but only a means to an end.
If we seek no more than happy feelings here-and-now, then we will Not get even them - because that is to treat ourselves as merely animals. And at our animal (non-divine) level of merely psychology, we are set-up such that a state of permanent happiness is impossible, and indeed rapidly lethal.
Arkle is setting the scene for his book to tell us how to understand our own 'geography of consciousness', that is the structure of our minds and thinking; so that we can navigate towards what we most deeply want: which is to liberate and nourish specifically our real and divine self, in pursuit of becoming more divine.
And that state of being more divine is the true basis of everlasting joy and delight.
When we love and admire other people, we are able to believe in the joy and merit of their nature. When we are loved and admired we are able to believe in the joy and merit of our Self.
When we receive and give love and admiration we are in either case gaining something wholly delightful and desirable. But we do not take the trouble to look more closely at this situation, for the situation seems to be an end in itself.
If it is examined, however, the sensation in question reveals that it is not so much the giving and receiving of love which matters but that the love and admiration helps to liberate an aspect of our nature which is joy and is happiness and is a sort of virtuous affectionate delight.
The trouble with life as we ordinarily experience it is that this part of our nature is always being suppressed and not liberated. Not only do other people continually restrict it but we find that we are restricting it ourselves.
The problem however is not as simple as it looks. The difficulty is not simply liberating our Selves but the fact that in trying to do this we liberate our not-Selves. When we liberate a not-Self we are not freeing outselves for an experience of great affection or delight but rather for an experience of misery, frustration and disappointment. The pain of this makes us think twice about any further attempts at liberation.
We are inclined to leave liberation alone for we are not sure if we are going to liberate a God or a Devil.
From the Preface to A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle (1974)
These are the very first words by which Arkle addresses us in his magnum opus; and characteristically they are densely meaningful.
He notes that a world in which people express love and admiration for each other would be a much happier, more delight-full, world - and one in which we would all have greater self-belief and confidence. We all know this, and feel sorry that this situation of emotional benefit does not occur.
But there is more to it. We vaguely suppose that positive emotions such as love, admiration, joy, happiness, delight... are justified simply because they are pleasant to experience - and more pleasant than the alternatives.
That is, we look no deeper than psychology, and the set-up of the human body; which makes us enjoy some feelings and suffer-from others (such as pain, guilt, fear etc). We feel that feeling good is self-justifying, and therefore needs no further examination or justification.
Yet, it does not happen. We do not, as a matter of common observation, do those things that would make everybody feel happier. Partly this is because other people don't treat us with love and respect; but also because we don't treat ourselves that way.
We make our-selves feel bad - and this is a very rooted and resistant habit or practice. We might want to stop feeling bad about ourselves, but - when tried - actually proves to be almost impossible!
If feelings were the bottom-line this would be incomprehensible - and our strong resistance to stopping inflicting bad feelings upon our-selves (as well as others) would also be incomprehensible.
Arkle is saying that the feelings are not the bottom line. He says that the feelings are a means to the end of 'liberating', of bringing-forward, an aspect of our nature that is joy/ happiness/ virtuous affectionate delight.
In other words, Arkle is saying that - properly considered - the feelings ought-to-be transformative of our nature; and that this transformation (this development or 'evolution' of the person) is the real purpose of the feelings (if this is allowed to happen).
There is, however, a problem - and it was a problem that became very evident in The West during the late 1960s while this book was being developed. The problem is that by 'relaxing our guard' ('letting it all hang out') and adopting a general attitude of liberating the feelings; the actual result was often, perhaps usually, malign rather than beneficial.
What came-out from this process was not so much 'peace and love'; but aggression, lust, greed, envy and the like. And instead of being happy and relaxed; the individuals became miserable, frustrated and (perpetually) disappointed. Instead of beats, hippies and drop-outs evolving towards godlike goodness and generosity; they devolved into sin and demonic selfishness - junkies, murderers and rapists, and Hell's Angels.
Elsewhere in the book; Arkle explains this in terms of the deep, real or true Self - which has a divine origin; versus the surface-level not-selves - or 'personality' - that are inculcated by society, derive from selfishness, or are merely mechanical devices ('algorithms', or 'robots') for performing some repetitive function.
Trying to liberate the real Self by merely removing the filters and barriers to expression; the individual merely gives greater power and scope to the the conflicting group of false selves.
Instead of the individual becoming transformed towards the divine and more attuned to God's purposes; the individual merely grasps-after pleasurable emotions, finds these emotions fade with repetition; and then goes into a spiral of seeking novelties and increasing the dose of hedonic activity.
Instead of actively participating in creation, the individual hope passively to be Made Happy by strong (and ever-stronger) stimuli; when his psychology is fighting against this.
In sum, happiness cannot be an end, but only a means to an end.
If we seek no more than happy feelings here-and-now, then we will Not get even them - because that is to treat ourselves as merely animals. And at our animal (non-divine) level of merely psychology, we are set-up such that a state of permanent happiness is impossible, and indeed rapidly lethal.
Arkle is setting the scene for his book to tell us how to understand our own 'geography of consciousness', that is the structure of our minds and thinking; so that we can navigate towards what we most deeply want: which is to liberate and nourish specifically our real and divine self, in pursuit of becoming more divine.
And that state of being more divine is the true basis of everlasting joy and delight.
Who wants freedom? You should.
Who really wants freedom? Well I do, and I long have wanted it - and that is what makes me recognise that I am a rare outlier.
Of course, there are endless and (by design) inconclusive debates about what freedom 'really' is; but these are only relevant if you want it. And extremely few people do - judging by their lives and decisions; by the choices they make, how they spend their time, how much time they free-up to spend.
Yet freedom is at the heart of why we are in this mortal life; because freedom is an attribute of deity and our destiny (if we choose it) is to become more divine, including more free.
Rudolf Steiner's magnum opus is called The Philosophy of Freedom, and it gives an idea of what this freedom means and why it is an attribute of deity. And we already are deities - in embryo; we are children of God, we have God in each of us. The long term project is to become more godlike, and for this deity to increase in scope.
Deity is essentially a creative thing, and creativity is based upon love (love is the cohesion of reality) - and creativity is an aspect of freedom - that's how freedom fits into the scheme. For your creativity or mine to be of value to God's creation; our creativity must be free - that is, our creativity must come from that within each of us that is both divine and unique.
So, that is the importance of freedom, and what it is 'for'. And if you are not concerned by freedom, then you ought to be - because not to be concerned about freedom, is not to be concerned about your reason for being.
Of course, there are endless and (by design) inconclusive debates about what freedom 'really' is; but these are only relevant if you want it. And extremely few people do - judging by their lives and decisions; by the choices they make, how they spend their time, how much time they free-up to spend.
Yet freedom is at the heart of why we are in this mortal life; because freedom is an attribute of deity and our destiny (if we choose it) is to become more divine, including more free.
Rudolf Steiner's magnum opus is called The Philosophy of Freedom, and it gives an idea of what this freedom means and why it is an attribute of deity. And we already are deities - in embryo; we are children of God, we have God in each of us. The long term project is to become more godlike, and for this deity to increase in scope.
Deity is essentially a creative thing, and creativity is based upon love (love is the cohesion of reality) - and creativity is an aspect of freedom - that's how freedom fits into the scheme. For your creativity or mine to be of value to God's creation; our creativity must be free - that is, our creativity must come from that within each of us that is both divine and unique.
So, that is the importance of freedom, and what it is 'for'. And if you are not concerned by freedom, then you ought to be - because not to be concerned about freedom, is not to be concerned about your reason for being.
Wednesday, 3 July 2019
What shall I do today? (William Arkle)
Monsieur Hulot serves in the game of life...
What shall I do to-day? What will to-day do with me? What will I do to to-day? What will we do to each other?
Hello, play-friend day, here we are so wonderfully arranged, each on our own side of the tennis net of life, neither of us concerned to win but only to be the best companion in the game.
...Play is play and one thing leads to another, but there are times when I wish that your fever of dominant self-wilfulness would subside, with all its contrary forms of unplayful activity, for these confuse you and you don't realise that life is meant to be an opportunity for you to live out your best joys with as much definition as possible...
From A Cup of Day by William Arkle
Arkle wrote the above shortly before his death at the age of seventy six. It seems to be about that feeling which we often get at the beginning of each day. Of course, the day may be filled with work and chores, and we may feel we have no scope for exerting any control upon it. Or - even at weekends, day's off, or during holidays - we may have pre-filled our day with a busy-list of fun activities; so that there is neither time nor energy to ask 'What shall I do today?'...
Nonetheless, it is a real question. And - contrary to appearances - each day is unique, and brings us unprecedented experiences - our personal interaction with the world is never repeated nor is it repeatable (even when we try to make it repeat).
And - since God, as well as our personal agency, is ultimately responsible for each day - we may assume that each day is an interaction, a 'tennis match' between us and God.
Perhaps the 'game' of the day begins with God serving-up some stimulus - some event, stress, good news - for us to respond to; so we return it across the net as best we can. Perhaps we make the serve, and begin with some act or thought or intervention in the world; and God smashes or lobs it back to us...
The metaphor breaks-down if we regard tennis as merely a means to the end of determining a winner; because the game of life is not a competition but a training. It is a learning experience; and because no two bouts are identical, there is always something to learn.
This means that - in an ultimate sense - we can relax and enjoy the day's game, however it turns-out. The only total failure would be a failure to learn from the day's play.
And this insight leaves us free to play the game of life joyfully.
Tuesday, 2 July 2019
Evidence of long-term demonic infiltration of conservative evangelical leadership in the Church of England, and the British Establishment
I'm not going to attempt to explain this ongoing news story in detail - you will need to piece it together from the videos. But it is important.
The basic story is about many-decades-long, strategic, manipulative homoerotic and sado-masochistic practices among an elite group of upper class Conservative Evangelicals in the Church of England.
The key point is that among Establishment intellectuals (i.e. people from aristocratic families, who attended famous private schools and/ elite universities, who were given official honours and high status roles) CofE conservative evangelicals have been the only group who publicly and explicitly opposed the agenda of the sexual revolution.
Who were indeed vilified for this opposition to the sexual revolution agenda. And yet among the most powerful and important leadership of exactly this group were men who practiced perverse and manipulative sexuality in a sustained, systematic and organised fashion.
This goes way beyond 'hypocrisy', because it raises the question of why on earth anybody who wants to do this kind of stuff should take up a career as a conservative evangelical pastor? Yet They Do Exactly That; and this is what we need to understand.
We need to understand why someone might spend his entire life apparently working against something that is such a powerful motivator in his own life. Why he specifically chose such a hostile environment for the practice of his own very unusual and specific sin.
Importantly - this particular group of upper class men is linked by strong personal (class) ties with the groups in the other major social institutions. The 'top people' in the UK generally went to school and college together, are in the same clubs, socialise and holiday together - and quite possibly have engaged in the same kind of sexualised rituals together
So what we have is an upper class conspiracy that cuts-across many or all of the major social institutions (politics, media, law, police, military etc), and operates to an agenda. Loyalty to this private, secretive group ultimately (over the long term) transcends all other loyalties.
Pretty clearly this is a revelation of one small corner of a large conspiracy of long-term spiritual corruption. For me, demonic fingerprints are evident from the conspiracy's extraordinarily extended timescale - longer than any human individual, longer than any plausible human political strategy. And also from the way that the long-term behaviour goes against personal self-interest.
Socialists have tried to explain this in terms of class interests; but its motivations go beyond worldly interests, and there is often a sacrifice of personal interests. Why - for merely personal interests - would an S&M homosexual choose to be a conservative evangelical, and subject to massive hostility from the mainstream media and organised Left; when he might be lavishly praised and rewarded for doing the same things, if instead he was a mainstream leftist?
Why would he preach, argue and write apparently to persuade other people that exactly the kind of things he does in private are wrong (with the possibility of disgrace or blackmail); when if only he was in a different profession, he could advocate the goodness and superiority of his own preferences - as do so many people in the mainstream mass media, universities and schools, and indeed almost everywhere except specifically conservative evangelical circles.
What we are looking-at is the question of what causes people to live and work for decades and across generations against their own interests.
The answer would seem to be that this was part of a very long-term strategy of subversion and inversion; which involved people working (in effect) undercover, as 'sleepers' awaiting activation; and not just for decades, but for lifetimes - several lifetimes perhaps.Presumably, the idea was that - when needed - this group, these people, this cult; would be in-position and ready to do what their controllers (behind the scenes) wanted to be done.
The chilling conclusion is that even long-term, even life-time, personal self-sacrifice is Not evidence of sincerity. Behaviour and speech are not sufficient evidence. To discern a man's ultimate allegiance - whether to God or Satan - we need to know, to intuit, the motivation of that man's heart.
As I see matters, the problem is with the upper class elite 'English', ultimately those of Norman descent although constantly recruiting more widely. Since this group arrived in England, there has been a pattern of coercion, exploitation. Jumping a few steps; what I take from this that the British Establishment is (and has always been) strategically working-for ultimate evil. And that a key part of this corruption is either rooted in sex and/ or uses sex as the means of initiation and to enforce loyalty.
The personal consequences are perceptible. As a middle class non-elite person; it has always been evident to me that there is a shallowness/ hollowness/ unemotionality; a robotic, dead-eyed or snake eyed - quality in most of the upper class people I met. There is no depth, no reality, no soul.
I did not know what this meant; and vaguely assumed it was damage done by unloving parents, being sent away to school too young, or something like that. But having observed this group over many years, I now take this 'blankness' to be the outcome of demonic influence.
But that void, caused by the sealing-off of the real and divine self - may be hidden by all kinds of good words, good behaviours, good teachings, good expressed attitudes. A person may seem exemplary on the surface; may be jovial, charming, articulate, able, hardworking... and it is very tempting to ignore that nagging conviction from one's own true self, that here we are dealing with a mere shell of a Man.
Anyway, knowing all this as we now do, it is then no mystery why - very suddenly and swiftly - a whole nation can become corrupted and evil-working in all of its social institutions (including Christian churches) almost simultaneously.
There is, and long has been, for generations, a fifth column of demonically-motivated spies and traitors, at or near the top of this nation.
Because, when a cult including homoerotic S&M could permeate and substantially-influence even conservative evangelical Christians, how much easier was it for them to conquer and rule everywhere else?
Monday, 1 July 2019
What if Time is primary, instead of Space?
Transformation - a process in Time - has been described as the underlying principle (or assumption) of nomadic hunter-gatherer life and spiritual belief - a metaphysics to which I believe Man is destined to return, but in a freely-chosen and conscious way (Final Participation)
Most philosophy (and classical Christian theology) assumes that Space is primary, and therefore end-up (when pushing analysis to the limit of metaphysics) by discarding Time.
For instance, Plato had the ultimate reality as a Time-less realm of eternal, archetypal forms. Classical Christian theology follows this by making God outside of Time; in an eternity in which past, present and future are one.
But if, instead, we regard Time as the primary reality, then things look very different. Things exist in Time, which means that their reality stretches back either to eternity or to when they are made. Things are not defined by their cross-sectional 'spatial' properties - because they exist longitudinally, through-Time.
What we see now is a probably-ephemeral property of an entity defined as a self that goes backwards... More exactly, the entity is (in physics terms) a process. Its cross-sectional properties may, probably will, change - but it stays itself because it is lineally related to its earlier selves.
More simply, the ultimate entities are Beings, and Beings are distinguished historically. There need not be any specific thing or things about a Being that remains constant through the changes a Being undergoes in Time. It stays the same being, even if everything about it has changed.
In a system in which Time is primary, the 'units' are Beings, and the principle of their continued reality could be described as continuing-Life; and continuing-Life may entail Transformation.
A Being may transform (like a caterpillar to a butterfly, or a Man to a god) so completely that nothing about it remains unchanged - yet it is the same Being; lineally the same and going back forever without beginning.
So which is primary, Space or Time? It cannot be both although it could be neither. The question is one of metaphysics, hence answerable only by primary, direct personal intuition - each for himself. But unless asked and answered; you will merely passively, unconsciously, be absorbing the metaphysical assumptions of others.
Christians attributing false motivations to God (William Arkle)
The superstitious attitude assumes that there is some cunning and perverted consciousness presiding over all our acts and, if we fail to keep to the special and secret rules, this presiding entity causes unpleasant things to happen to us and to our loved ones.
This sort of thing concerns touching wood, sitting thirteen people at a table, spilling salt, breaking mirrors, putting up umbrellas in the house, wearing certain colours at a wedding and many, many other peculiar activities.
These are at first harmless and childish thoughts, but they do become more serious when they enter the filed of a religion. The examples one can give in this context are many. They start with offerings and supplications and they finish up with the ideas that dispensation can be bough from God with hard cash.
There is no doubt that the teaching of the fear of the Lord has much to do with this, but there is still a great deal of pagan and demoniac thinking behind a lot of outwardly religious observances and ceremonies. This type of attitude leads into the one which considers that God is not only capable of knowing and judging our smallest act and thought, but that He considers each one important enough to merit separate and distinct response in the form of applause or rebuke.
Then there is the attitude which considers that our acts are secret enough that they will not come within the realm of any sort of judgement either from man or God.
There is also the attitude of science which sees everything as 'mechanical' cause and effect.
Lastly, there is that vague frame of mind, which many of us are in, which accepts that we have runs of good and bad luck.
Most of us oscillate between the idea of luck and the idea that somewhere along the line we get what we deserve, but have no picture in our minds of how these processes can work.
We must, if we are going to attempt to understand seriously our position in the scheme of nature, try to construct some system of reciprocal effect which is neither purely mechanical nor dependent upon the constant personal attention of God.
Notes:
This passage by William Arkle has had a big impact on me, because it made me realise that I myself was prone to attribute adverse events to 'bad luck', and to get worried about saying things that are 'tempting fate', without thinking what this implied.
Because much of this kind of superstitious belief implies a malicious God, a God quite contrary to what Jesus revealed of God's nature - and in stark contrast to what any of us can know about God by reflection and direct personal intuition.
Indeed, superstition is a demonic lure, a habit that poisons and degrades our relationship with God. Any God that would inflict suffering in response to someone expressing gratitude at his current good fortune ('tempting ftae') is not the Christian God. But in fact attributing false motivations to is common among Christians - for various reasons.
One reason is there is a great deal of this kind of thing in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament - describing God's motivations, or indirectly implying motivations of God, that would be unworthy of any loving mortal human Father. But because of the idea that canonical scripture is inerrant, many Christians feel obliged to incorporate this into their faith.
At worst this degrades and inverts the understanding of God's nature; often it leads to an attitude that only expert theologians can understand what God wants from us - meaning that Christian faith is reliant upon the (nowadays corrupted) traditions of academic scholarship; and even at best, it leads to the imputation of a false 'mystery' concerning God's motivations.
Yet if there is One Thing about which all Christians should be crystal clear, it is the Goodness, Lovingness of God's motivations - and (the incarnation, example and teaching of Jesus tells us) this Loving Goodness of God's nature is an amplification to the extreme of ordinary mortal human virtue - therefore understandable by anyone capable of understanding (even children and the simple-minded).
Many Christians are (understandably) extremely wary of critiquing the validity of any part of scripture, on the basis that even a little of this will lead to the kind of picking and choosing that have led Liberal Christians to apostasy; and to the unravelling of the whole tapestry of doctrine. (This is why I regard it as important that scripture be regarded hierarchically, with the Fourth Gospel at the pinnacle of authority.) But in this as nearly all things, motivation is the key. What is wrong with mainstream Liberal Christianity is its covertly-evil motivation.
By contrast, challenging scripture is necessary for all serious Christians in the modern age (where all institutions including churches are significantly, sometimes mostly, corrupted). Selecting and prioritising in scripture is therefore A Good Thing; insofar as the motivation is genuinely Christian.
Which is why Christians need to evaluate scripture in light of their own direct, inner knowledge of God's nature and by direct and personal revelations. It is the fact that we are God's children, with divinity in each of us; and that everyone potentially has access to revelations of the Holy Ghost, that enables each individual validly to evaluate any claim about Christianity.
The difficulty is that each evaluation needs to be from our divine self, and not from our superficial or expedient personality aspects; and that we need really to listen to the direct conviction derived from the Holy Ghost, and not to equate revelation with mainstream media/ political ideology. But revelation is self-validating for any person that is honest with himself - and whether or not such conviction can be argued or justified to others is a secondary matter.
Arkle explained to me that 'God the creator is our loving Father' ought to be the primary conviction and guiding principle of a Christian - and any 'evidence' (whether from scripture, church authority, tradition or theology) which contradicts with this principle needs to be rejected.
Christians need not tie ourselves in knots over this - simply check any significant statement against our understanding of the attitude of an ideal loving Father or Mother towards his or her children - taking into account that that these divine children are immortal beings destined to be (if they choose) gods; and not merely the earth-bound mortal animals, that mainstream modern materialism tells us we are.
This sort of thing concerns touching wood, sitting thirteen people at a table, spilling salt, breaking mirrors, putting up umbrellas in the house, wearing certain colours at a wedding and many, many other peculiar activities.
These are at first harmless and childish thoughts, but they do become more serious when they enter the filed of a religion. The examples one can give in this context are many. They start with offerings and supplications and they finish up with the ideas that dispensation can be bough from God with hard cash.
There is no doubt that the teaching of the fear of the Lord has much to do with this, but there is still a great deal of pagan and demoniac thinking behind a lot of outwardly religious observances and ceremonies. This type of attitude leads into the one which considers that God is not only capable of knowing and judging our smallest act and thought, but that He considers each one important enough to merit separate and distinct response in the form of applause or rebuke.
Then there is the attitude which considers that our acts are secret enough that they will not come within the realm of any sort of judgement either from man or God.
There is also the attitude of science which sees everything as 'mechanical' cause and effect.
Lastly, there is that vague frame of mind, which many of us are in, which accepts that we have runs of good and bad luck.
Most of us oscillate between the idea of luck and the idea that somewhere along the line we get what we deserve, but have no picture in our minds of how these processes can work.
We must, if we are going to attempt to understand seriously our position in the scheme of nature, try to construct some system of reciprocal effect which is neither purely mechanical nor dependent upon the constant personal attention of God.
From A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle (1974) - Justice - Section 2
Notes:
This passage by William Arkle has had a big impact on me, because it made me realise that I myself was prone to attribute adverse events to 'bad luck', and to get worried about saying things that are 'tempting fate', without thinking what this implied.
Because much of this kind of superstitious belief implies a malicious God, a God quite contrary to what Jesus revealed of God's nature - and in stark contrast to what any of us can know about God by reflection and direct personal intuition.
Indeed, superstition is a demonic lure, a habit that poisons and degrades our relationship with God. Any God that would inflict suffering in response to someone expressing gratitude at his current good fortune ('tempting ftae') is not the Christian God. But in fact attributing false motivations to is common among Christians - for various reasons.
One reason is there is a great deal of this kind of thing in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament - describing God's motivations, or indirectly implying motivations of God, that would be unworthy of any loving mortal human Father. But because of the idea that canonical scripture is inerrant, many Christians feel obliged to incorporate this into their faith.
At worst this degrades and inverts the understanding of God's nature; often it leads to an attitude that only expert theologians can understand what God wants from us - meaning that Christian faith is reliant upon the (nowadays corrupted) traditions of academic scholarship; and even at best, it leads to the imputation of a false 'mystery' concerning God's motivations.
Yet if there is One Thing about which all Christians should be crystal clear, it is the Goodness, Lovingness of God's motivations - and (the incarnation, example and teaching of Jesus tells us) this Loving Goodness of God's nature is an amplification to the extreme of ordinary mortal human virtue - therefore understandable by anyone capable of understanding (even children and the simple-minded).
Many Christians are (understandably) extremely wary of critiquing the validity of any part of scripture, on the basis that even a little of this will lead to the kind of picking and choosing that have led Liberal Christians to apostasy; and to the unravelling of the whole tapestry of doctrine. (This is why I regard it as important that scripture be regarded hierarchically, with the Fourth Gospel at the pinnacle of authority.) But in this as nearly all things, motivation is the key. What is wrong with mainstream Liberal Christianity is its covertly-evil motivation.
By contrast, challenging scripture is necessary for all serious Christians in the modern age (where all institutions including churches are significantly, sometimes mostly, corrupted). Selecting and prioritising in scripture is therefore A Good Thing; insofar as the motivation is genuinely Christian.
Which is why Christians need to evaluate scripture in light of their own direct, inner knowledge of God's nature and by direct and personal revelations. It is the fact that we are God's children, with divinity in each of us; and that everyone potentially has access to revelations of the Holy Ghost, that enables each individual validly to evaluate any claim about Christianity.
The difficulty is that each evaluation needs to be from our divine self, and not from our superficial or expedient personality aspects; and that we need really to listen to the direct conviction derived from the Holy Ghost, and not to equate revelation with mainstream media/ political ideology. But revelation is self-validating for any person that is honest with himself - and whether or not such conviction can be argued or justified to others is a secondary matter.
Arkle explained to me that 'God the creator is our loving Father' ought to be the primary conviction and guiding principle of a Christian - and any 'evidence' (whether from scripture, church authority, tradition or theology) which contradicts with this principle needs to be rejected.
Christians need not tie ourselves in knots over this - simply check any significant statement against our understanding of the attitude of an ideal loving Father or Mother towards his or her children - taking into account that that these divine children are immortal beings destined to be (if they choose) gods; and not merely the earth-bound mortal animals, that mainstream modern materialism tells us we are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)