Academic life - the niche that was, but is no longer

I was brought-up from my latter childhood in an academic environment; and through the teens of my schooldays I was strongly drawn to the idea of being a university teacher and/or researcher. 

I could easily imagine myself in such an environment - and the subject matter was somewhat secondary. 

But at the time I was applying for college and leaving school, I was instead going through a phase in which my idea was to become a clinical doctor - probably a general practitioner - half time, and spend the rest of the day growing my own food, and maybe keeping a few animals on a smallholding. 

Mostly I was drawn to the biological side of science, but I was also interested in economics and politics (from a left wing and 'environmentalist angle). In fact - as I recall - when I had done my pre-university A-level exams, I thought I had somewhat messed-up (objectively so, in a Chemistry practical) and would maybe fail to get-into medical school; which had, at the time, the most competitive entry requirements. 

If I failed; I then had a serious idea to change direction altogether, and to study economics and politics, applying a year later*. I can remember a conversation with a good friend in which I said exactly this. In retrospect it can be seen that I was more drawn to the university life generally, than to any specific subject.  

(In the event, I had done extremely well in my A-levels, and could probably have got in to any university to study anything for which the A-levels were appropriate. I never was able to predict my examination results - five years later I was seriously worried - on what seemed like rational grounds - that I had failed my final exams at medical school - yet again I had done extremely well). 

In a nutshell; I implicitly saw university as a kind of 'ecological niche' in which I might find a suitable environment; and later this implicit understanding became explicit as I realized that I was an unusual kind of person, with unusual motivations in life. I had a sense of 'destiny' but no clear idea of where it led - only that I could tell when I was off the path, and found such a situation intolerable. 

Within two weeks of starting work as a qualified doctor doing clinical practice; I knew I would not be able to function in that environment - and the only question was how best to extract myself from this path and return to my older idea of being an academic. Lack of courage, combined with unclarity of my own objectives, meant this process took two further years. 

I began doctoral research in medical bioscience; and it was rapidly obvious that academia was right for me. I felt at-home, confident; and I knew inwardly and by instinct what was right and wrong in that world. 

I used to say that - compared with medicine - I did a half-time job for half the salary - which 'bargain' provided the 'broad margin' to life that was essential to me. 

But the primary subject matter in which I should 'make a living' was still unclear; because my serious interests still straddled several subjects. 

I began to gravitate towards philosophy (which I had been reading for several years, and doing some evening classes), and got as far as being offered a place to do an accelerated degree in two (instead of the usual three) years at Trinity College, Cambridge. 

But then, as the possibility became concrete; I realized that this was not the right path - for several reasons; and that English Literature was closer to what I wanted or needed. In the end, after finishing my doctorate, I did an MA by research at Durham - which felt very helpful and positive, although did not answer any deep questions. 

By this time, I felt that my unusual combination of interests and abilities made me able to contribute something distinctive to academia. 

I was not doing any genuinely original and creative work - but the combination from my background made my contribution at least novel - and I thought that would suffice, for the time being, anyway... 

In retrospect, unconsciously, I think I was waiting. Waiting partly to mature (which took longer than for most people), and partly to find 'my subject' - a field in which I had aptitude, and that would mobilize my spontaneous and deep motivations; a subject into which I could pour my best mental efforts.  

And while I waited, I worked as an academic; teaching and doing research (and avoiding administration) - and pursuing other interests including journalism. I did not pursue an academic 'career' - because I kept moving 'sideways' and changing subjects; and I would not do more than the minimum necessary administration.

I was seeking a suitable niche rather than climbing a ladder. 

And when I eventually found my subject - and then further subjects; and began to do serious creative work, this academic niche enabled me to do so. 

I did not know of any other job that would have enabled it. 

It is a sadness that the niche which made possible my proper work no longer exists, nor has it been replaced by an alternative. Seriously-motivated and creative work can now only be done unpaid, as an amateur - which means unintegrated with whatever material means of support enables it. 

And the 'community' for which such work is done, has likewise been driven from all professions and exists only among voluntary affiliations of 'friends', rather than among professionals. 

For myself, I am pleased that the niche lasted long enough to enable my period of innerly-driven and intense scientific engagement - which ran from 1994 to 2016. 

By the time I retired, the job of being an academic had only a very superficial resemblance to forty years before, a job that went back in its essence to the Middle Ages. 

By 2019 - in depth and in nature, in its essence - the academic bureaucracy had become integrated into the global establishment with its core ideology of materialism-leftism and its ethic of value-inversion. The job of an academic had been transformed into that of a bureaucratic functionary. 

And, like all traditional institutions, the situation is irrevocable. Real universities and real academics are dead and gone; they cannot be revived, and the attempt should not be made. 

Whatever that is good and possible must start - here-and-now - from the personal and voluntary work of idealistically-dedicated individuals; outside of institutions.  

As for 2022 niches for people like I used-to-be?... well that is their problem, not mine; since my primary interests have changed. 

If someone is serious about his work, and insofar as that work is aligned with divine creation, it will be made possible.

One-off niches will be created for long-enough to enable what needs to be done. 

*I had no idea that university economics had (unfortunately for all of us) become highly mathematical by that time; which would in reality have ruled-out the subject for me; both in terms of aptitude and interest.  

The major test of these times is Fear - the temptation is Safety

We are tested every day by the sin of fear. And the temptation - offering a delusory escape from fear - is safety. 

If we compare our post 2020 world with life a few decades ago; it is clear that we are now controlled primarily by the negative sin of fear (with a side-order of spiteful resentment: the stock-in-trade of socialism, feminism, antiracism and the other leftisms). These are negative sins because they are directed-against. 

By contrast to the fear-dominated present, in the past other, and more 'positive' sins - desires-for-something rather than resistance-to-something - were often more dominant: sins such as power/ conquest, (capitalist) greed and (sexual) lust.

 

It is pretty obvious that nowadays the world is 'managed' primarily by the inculcation of fears; and by attempting to trigger those in fear, to 'escape' by means of fake-solutions that promote the totalitarian-demonic agenda.  

Major examples are the birdemic fear - with totalitarian lockdown/ masking/ social-distancing and the (unnecessary, ineffective, harmful) peck offering pseudo-safety. And global warming as the fear - with world economic destruction with totalitarian control (aka. the 'sustainable' Green Economy) as fake-escape. 

(Non-coincidentally; 'economic suicide' is also the major policy-answer to fear of the recent Fire Nation/ Earth Nation.)  

Fear is also the stock-in-trade of the 'secular Right': fear of mass immigration, violent social breakdown, starvation, civil war, mass poisoning and other health threats... 

The temptations, the fake solutions, on the secular Right include personal survivalism (prepping), a type of rigorous healthism/ body-building, organized aggressive political resistance, a Strong Man leader restoring militaristic patriarchy...

The difference between the left and the non-religious Right; is that secular Right fears are based on broadly realistic threats and potentially effective answers; while the mainstream Left fears are manufactured from very little - or nothing at all; and the proffered 'escapes' from fear make matters worse. 

Also, in general, among those who are living in fear and strategizing to escape; the typical leftist advocates passive and Establishment-obedient responses; while the secular Rightist is more likely to respond to his own fear with (at least verbal) aggression and (at least threats of) defiance. 

Yet, discourse concerning the reality or fakery of the fear, and the effectiveness or counter-productiveness of proposed escapes, are themselves part of the problem. 

Because fear is a sin in and of itself, it compounds the sin to try and escape fear by attempting to eliminate that which is feared. 

In a practical sense; it will not work - because yielding to any fear creates vulnerability to other fears; so that all escapes lead into a positive-feedback loop of fear generating fear. 

Since, on the one hand, the supply of fears is unlimited; whereas, on the other hand, mounting any potentially-effective response to even a single fear is time-, effort- and resource-consuming; constrained by multiple personal, societal and technical factors. 

But in a spiritual sense, matters are simple - fear is a sin and must be identified as such; then repented, then itself defeated. 

The one-and-only appropriate and effective response to any and all fears - and a response that has unbounded scope - is to trust in the power and love of God; and to frame the fears of this mortal life in the context of eternal Heaven. 

The proper spiritual response to fear is to eliminate fear - the sinful delusion is to address the supposed cause of the fear. 

(Whether or not we, personally, should engage in an active or passive attempt to remove the specific source of any specific fear; is a secondary, contingent, pragmatic matter - and thus always contentious.) 

This, therefore, is the nature of the test of these times. On a daily basis we will be assaulted by fears, and probably these assaults will have some effect - and we will experience fear. 

We therefore need to identify 'the latest fear' as always an evil - whether it is real or fake. 

And instead of immediately seeking for 'safety' and escape-from-the-fear in some physical activity (regardless of whether that activity is potentially-effective, or not)...

The proper response is that we need to repent fear (any fear) and bring to mind that God is our loving parent and the ongoing-creator of this world - and that those who desire it, may follow Jesus Christ to everlasting resurrection after this mortal life. 

Fear is the recurring test, and love of God is the proper response. 

Only after fear has been thus conquered, may we attempt to address its supposed cause.  

As such; then testing-times may become learning-times; and every repeated and novel demonic assault and delusion, may be converted to an increase in the strength of our Christian orientation. 

What is the primary form of social organization for a Christian society? Family.

What is the primary form of social organization for a Christian society? 

Certainly not 'democracy' nor a republic - but neither a monarchy, nor a theocracy. 

Not rule-of-law. Not arbitrary rule by a dictator. 

Indeed not anything 'organized' or imposed or abstract. 

Instead a Christian society should be organized by the prime Christian value of love; which means that love of God and Jesus Christ is what makes possible and sustains Christian love of fellow Men; as it generates creation itself...

And the most powerful and lasting form of 'group' Christian love is that which emerges from the fundamental reality and primacy of the family - which ideally means the natural, 'extended' family.

The family is spontaneous, and the ideal family coheres by love. This predates Christianity. 

Then, by free agency, Christianity became possible through the work of Jesus Christ. 

A Man chooses to become Christian. 

When the members of a family become Christian, we get the only form of love-rooted Christian social group.

Christianity is therefore added-to the natural social form that is the family; and because love of God is the first principle; the family cohere by this love of God; and are given purpose and direction by their commitment to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life eternal in Heaven. 

Families may be extended and joined by Marriage (when marriage is a genuinely spiritual commitment). 

Men and women may move between families by marriage; and 'adoption' into another family - when adoption is a love (not legal) relationship (this is rare - but sometimes happens). 

Or by committed friendship (for example: the love that bound Jesus and his disciples) may become a type of family (albeit genuine loving friendships as strong as family love are rare, and seldom stable - even on a mortal timescale). 

Family is the true and relationship of love; as we each may experience in Heaven (Heaven is 'organized' in families). 

And in this earthly mortal life; the above concept of Christian family is is the partial and intermittent model of the true and mystical church. 

Or, to put matters the other way around; unless a human group is organized on the basis of love; then that group is not primarily a Christian group (even when it calls itself a Church, or a Christian Nation or Empire). 

We are Christians as a spiritual group only in the context of loving familial relations (as defined above). 

Such groups are sufficient for Christian life, and have spiritual priority above all other groupings (Empire, Nation, Church) that lack their origin in love. 

New metaphysical assumptions needed; because "Patriarchy" cannot/ should-not be 'restored'

It can easily be shown that - overall - the world was a more coherent place, with better values, under the system now termed 'patriarchy' than under the current official-bureaucratic-media System of 'feminism'. 

(Accepting what ought - by now - to be obvious: that the rhetoric of 'equality' was a dishonest and evil-motivated deception - and that equality is impossible, as well as wicked.) 

But history is linear, cumulative - people change. Modern Men are far more self-aware than ever before; indeed, it seems that most are trapped within their own awareness (i.e. 'alienated') such that even other people - as well as God, the spiritual realm, and the innate understanding of this as a purpose and meaningful world) - seem unreal, remote, incomprehensible. 

Modern Man's self perception is of looking-out on an alien world - and great efforts are expended to trying to eliminate this awareness by intoxication, immersion in 'media', and seeking novel (overwhelming) stimulation from e.g. sexuality, and indulgence in emotions generally. 

From where we actually are, therefore, any kind of 'restoration' is impossible - including restoration of Patriarchy. 

We are not what we were, cannot want we wanted (as a whole, as the package it was), cannot become what we were by asking. And, therefore as well as being doomed to fail, it is Not Good (anti-Good, evil) to engage in attempted restoration.  

So the first step is to set aside half-baked fantasies of the past, to acknowledge that there are no valid off-the-peg solutions, to begin from our current unprecedented state of being and circumstances; and by means of intuition to seek forward, into uncharted territory - for where a profoundly Christian understanding direct us (which will be somewhere human culture has never yet been). 

Where my intuitions lead me is something I have discussed in many posts over many years. But the point is that this must be discovered each for himself.  

CP Snow on Alan Turing

From CP Snow: an oral biography by John Halperin (1983) page 104. My editorial insertions are in square brackets:

Snow: Intelligence isn't done by spies: that's absurd, romantic conception. It's done by studious young gentlemen in spectacles sitting down... On our side [World War II intelligence] was marvellous... Mind you we had our failures. 

There was Turing [here misspelled Turning], who also had fatal pathological passions for small boys. We got him into the Royal Society, we did everything we could for him, but he killed himself. 

And in fact he was worth to the combined Anglo-American side something like ten divisions [i.e. approximately 160,000 army personnel].

Halperin: Because of the work he was doing?

Snow: Yes. He really understood how to make decoding into a computer science. He was a man of genius. 

**

As well as being a fine novelist; CP Snow was a high-level scientific administrator for the UK during WWII; with a particular role in discovering and directing scientific personnel for projects such as atomic research, radar and code-breaking. 

Snow was therefore certainly in a position to know details concerning Turing's life; and Snow's evaluation of Turing's abilities and importance have been confirmed by others (including myself and Ed Dutton, in The Genius Famine).  

I have read a fair bit about Turing, and seen a movie and some TV documentaries; but most of what I know derives from recent sources - which are therefore filtered by the imperatives of political correctness. 

Perhaps this is why I had not come across any statement concerning the specific nature of this particular "fatal pathological passion" of Turing's? Although, Snow is speaking rather as if it was common knowledge in his circles, at the time: e.g. we did everything we could for him. 

Either some kind of error by Snow; or else it is interesting what details get left-out from history, nowadays. 

Attack the assumptions - not particular abuses. The counter-productive effect of mainstream outrage at *specific* lies and other corruptions

There is a type of lie which implies general truthfulness of discourse by pointing-at, analyzing, outraging-over specific lies. Yet the fact that so much fuss is made over specific lies implies that these specific lies took place against a truthful background.

Thus (for instance) lies about a new (or historical) incident of 'scientific fraud' are indirectly contributing to propaganda that the rest of science - the stuff Not currently being pointed-at - is truthful. Therefore, The System of 'science' is supported, even though parts of The System are attacked. More specifically so when, for instance, some parts of mainstream 'scientific' discourse are used to 'prove' the wrongness of the current outrage. 

But the reality is that 'science' itself is thoroughly, systematically, purposively corrupt. Mainstream, modern - and especially high-status - 'science' neither aims-at nor speaks the truth; but has quite other purposes and reasons. And this has been the case, and increasingly, for several decades. 

So; to isolate and critique some specific aspect of the birdemic-peck narrative or the climate scam; is, in fact, to play-into the hands of the enemy. These are wholly fraudulent discourses, manufactured from the propaganda and control requirements of an evil rulership - and that is all we need to know. 

Getting enmeshed in wrangling over details, sustains the assumption that these agendas are basically genuine; created and sustained by are well-meaning and honest people - people who are truth-seekers that will respond honestly to having their particular 'errors' pointed-out...  

The phenomenon goes beyond lies, to include other forms of social corruption in all the other major social systems. The system of Law is essentially and pervasively unjust: i.e. the Legal System is no longer being about real morality and justice; which would entail acknowledging the reality of God and the choice to serve His purposes). 

The same applies to public administration, education, the arts, health and medicine, the police and military, the mass media... 

...All the major (powerful, wealthy, high-status, officially permitted) sub-systems of the global System are corrupted-away from their supposedly functional concerns, and actually - primarily in active pursuit of the global/ leftist/ materialist agenda directed-against God, Jesus Christ and divine creation. 

And this applies to the major churches (of all denominations). To expose specific anti-Christian activities in the major churches indirectly sustains the assumption that these abuses and corruptions are exceptional and accidental (i.e. not aimed-at) - rather than being primary and structural aspects of these organizations.  

Therefore; all mainstream instances of expose, critique, and policy-reform-suggestions are a part of The System; are enlisted on the side of evil; and operate to sustain Systemic evil. 

...Which is exactly why they are allowed to remain mainstream; and why those persons and organizations who propagate this kind of 'moderate, circumscribed dissent' are supported and sustained. 

Because even when specific critiques happen to be accurate in a circumscribed sense; they are false in their assumptions. And assumptions matter more than anything else - assumptions (i.e. metaphysics) are the framework that determines our experienced reality, our purposes, and our deepest motivations. 

In a world of evil assumptions; when we are not operating at the deep level of exposing and correcting those assumptions - we are then reinforcing those false and evil-motivated assumptions; and actually doing more harm than good. 

Why we must do it for our-selves: Clairvoyance versus Intuition (i.e. Primary Thinking)

'Clairvoyance' implies clear-seeing - and usually means perceiving that which is normally unseen; and it can include being a 'seer' - who can more clearly perceive the future. (I am using the term clairvoyance to include all kinds of perceived experiences - seeing visions, hearing voices, performing divination etc.).

'Seeing' more generally implies perception, and this reflects that clairvoyant-type experiences are necessarily at several removes from reality, indirect. 

In this respect 'clairvoyance' - perhaps surprisingly - can be seen as typical of all the normal, everyday, indirect - including 'official' - forms of knowing. 

Intuition, by contrast, is direct-knowing of the primary level of reality.

Therefore, intuition (in its pure form) must not include anything that renders experience indirect or mediated; e.g. no language or symbolism, nor translation, nor interpretation. 

In this respect intuition (in its essential, original, private form*) can be regarded as categorically different from any other kind of knowing. 

I believe that intuition can best be understood as Primary Thinking; when Thinking is itself the 'primary' (ultimate) reality: such that God and creation are to be understood as (primarily) Thinking. 

This means that when we engage in Primary Thinking, we are directly participating-in ultimate reality. 

There is no 'mediation' - such that in Primary Thinking (and only in PT) we are part-of the ultimate reality of things. 

This means that clairvoyance - because it includes perceptions - is at several removes from reality. 

For instance:

1. If Primary Thinking is ultimate reality... 

2. Reality needs to be translated into symbolism, such as language... 

3. This symbolism needs to be communicated, transmitted...

4. The received communication needs to be interpreted and understood. 

This same, multi-layered indirectness (selectivity, summary, hence distortion) implies to all external sources that are received by the senses - even when it is assumed that the external source is working honestly on the basis of valid knowledge of reality. 

This constraint applies to external personal and institutional authority, to all written (and spoken, and visual) inputs, to all socialization, training, education...

In sum - the above explains why we must ultimately, at the deepest and foundational level of knowledge of reality level know for ourselves.  

No form of external and indirect knowledge can substitute: 

We must do Primary Thinking for ourselves - or it will not be done; and we cannot be grounded in knowledge of reality. 

**

We must do Primary Thinking for ourselves if we want a direct relationship with the world; yet there is no 'method' for doing it; and many or most people probably assume that they cannot do it - and have no idea how to start...

There is no 'method' for Primary Thinking - but there is a 'framework' of sorts; various 'assumptions' which enable Primary Thinking to happen.

For example: to know that Primary Thinking is both real and possible, both necessary and a Good Thing. To knowing that this is a creation we inhabit; that God is the creator; and that God loves us each as his child and desires our salvation - and will therefore ensure that anything we need in this mortal life will be possible. 

And then by wanting to do it: by wanting to know the truth of things, wanting to experience reality - and wanting to participate in reality by Primary Thinking.  

If, then, we experience what seems (on reflection and examination) be be Primary Thinking, then we would be wise to regard it as true (unless or until further intuition modifies it) - because there is no comparably valid source. 

Yet (again I emphasize) we cannot communicate the results of intuition to others, nor should we expect others to be bound by our own Primary Thinking; and in general this 'trying to convince others' ought not to be attempted because public discourse can only use public language/ symbolism/ imagery etc.

On the other hand, intuitive knowing can and should affect public discourse indirectly; as the most important influence for an individual on evaluating public knowledge claims, and discerning between rival claims. 

And - insofar as a intuitions is a valid participation in reality; then another-person's intuition of the same part-of-reality (if indeed, it is the identical part-of-reality that is being considered) will be the same insight - albeit within constraints of ability, time, effort etc. 

But this is only true when mortal Men are living as-if already in Heaven. 

*Note: The commonest criticisms of intuition come from those who focus on secondary and indirect communications of the (alleged) experience of intuition - in other words, the criticisms are directed against those who are regarded as arguing that 'other people' should accept as valid, linguistic interpretations and summaries of experiences that were originally wordless and private. 

Did Radagast the wizard fail in his mission?

The Wizards/ Istari were incarnated Maia (angelic spirits) who were sent to Middle Earth in about the thousandth year of the Third Age to resist Sauron. They were five in number: Gandalf the Grey, Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown and two Blue Wizards named Alatar and Pallando. 

Most of what we know of the Wizards, as a group, can be found in the (mostly unpublished during JRR Tolkien's lifetime) texts collected in the chapter The Istari in Unfinished Tales. These texts include discussions relating to Radagast, and which are somewhat undecided about whether he failed in his mission - by turning aside from engagement with Elves and Men, and becoming 'enamoured' by plants and animals. 

Recently, a further discussion of Radagast, written in 1970, was published in The Nature of Middle Earth edited by Carl F Hostetter, page 193:  

[Gandalf] differed from Radagast and Saruman in that he never turned aside from his appointed mission... and was unsparing of himself. Radagast was fond of beasts and birds, and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud and domineering, but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves and Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage), his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments. Though it is clear that Gandalf (with greater insight and compassion) had in fact more knowledge of birds and beasts than Radagast, and was regarded by them with more respect and affection. (This contrast is already to be seen in The Hobbit 124-5. Beorn, a lover of animals, but also of gardens and flowers, though Radagast a good enough fellow, but evidently not very effective.)

This is somewhat damning of Radagast - as he is depicted as inferior to Gandalf in even his area of special expertise!

However, taking a wider perspective; I think we can make an interpretation of Radagast that gives him a great deal more credit for his activities in resisting Sauron. 

In the first place, it seems likely that when Valar sent five emissaries, it is probable that each one (or pair in the case of the Blue Wizards who are considered as a dyad) - being angelic spirits each was of different nature and abilities; and these characteristic were no doubt chosen with the mission as priority. Even though Radagast was lesser in 'stature' among the Maia than Gandalf (as Gandalf was lesser than Saruman) - this does not preclude Radagast being better suited than Gandalf to Radagast's particular intended role. 

Furthermore, each Wizard was probably affiliated with a different Vala; according to an idea developed by Tolkien in The Istari essay - which suggests that Gandalf was representing Manwe, Sauruman was of the people of Aule, and Radagast was chosen by Yavanna - whose special care was for plants and animals, and who in Middle Earth was represented by the Ents. I think we should infer from this that Radagast - despite his preference for dealing with plants and animals, and lacking confrontational courage - was especially well-suited by his nature and abilities for the task he was sent to perform. 

In other words; although all wizards were intended to resist Sauron, each Wizard had a different specialist sub-mission. I suggest that Radagast's particular task was precisely to work with animals and plants to resist the attempts of Sauron to enlist them in his plans. 

It is - after all - clear from The Lord of the Rings that Sauron had enlisted many birds and beasts in his service; especially as spies: 

[Aragorn]: If the Riders fail to find us in the wilderness, they are likely to make for Weathertop themselves. It commands a wide view all round. Indeed, there are many birds and beasts in this country that could see us, as we stand here, from that hill-top. Not all the birds are to be trusted, and there are other spies more evil than they are... The Riders can use men and other creatures as spies... Soon I became aware that spies of many sorts, even beasts and birds, were gathered round the Shire... Regiments of black crows are flying over all the land between the Mountains and the Greyflood,' he said, `and they have passed over Hollin. They are not natives here; they are crebain out of Fangorn and Dunland. I do not know what they are about: possibly there is some trouble away south from which they are fleeing; but I think they are spying out the land. 

[Elrond]: Soon now his [i.e. Sauron's] spies on foot and wing will be abroad in the northern lands.  

Therefore it is clear that there was value in having a wizard who specialized in building alliances among birds and beasts - and presumably also among trees and other plants - in resistance to Sauron; and in opposition to the attempts of Sauron to enlist ever-more of the natural world in his evil schemes in hostility to Men and Elves. 

And this - I think - was Radagast's special role. 

If so, it is likely that Radagast was at-least somewhat successful; in so far as many (if not most) of the living beings in the North West of Middle earth (where Radagast operated) were Not on the side of Sauron; but cooperated with the powers for Good. The Eagles are one clear example; but most of the nature encountered by The Fellowship seems mostly-uncorrupted.  

In sum: if Radagast is regarded as an emissary of Yavanna, with a mission primarily to the plants, birds and beasts (rather than Men and Elves) - then he may well have stayed true to this mission. 

So much so, that (we are indirectly informed in The Istari essay) Radagast remained in Middle Earth after the defeat of Sauron - presumably because of his deep love for non-human 'nature'; choosing not to return over the sea to dwell in the Undying Lands. 

Maybe, therefore, he is still here!

When, in the past, would you like to have lived? (Being who you now are)... Understanding the evolutionary-development of Mankind

I expect that we have all day-dreamed about living in the past - and when the present is acutely miserable, or when we cannot seriously imagine a good future; then such dreams are more insistent.  

If you are like me; then these pleasant day-dreams are almost like 'snapshots' - holiday photos in reverse - whereby some particularly appealing scene is conjured and entered-into. 

For example, just before I went to sleep at night, I would sometimes imagine myself on a sultry summer's afternoon beside the Concord River or Walden Pond in the 'transcendentalist' era of Ralph Waldo Emerson. I could feel - physically - an idealized sense of repose against an implicit background of close-knit friends and associates, who shared an opening-out of ideas and possibilities.   

After becoming a Christian; I had a mental picture of Constantinople under a crystalline-blue sky; the city and its streets gleaming white, and with bright and rich colour; the music, painting, statuary, mosaics; and dignified ritual of divine liturgy under the vast dome of Hagia Sophia. 

Behind such pictures lay an imagined sense of what it was like to live, immersively, in a society where Christianity permeated the whole of life - a medium into which one was born, and through which one swam. 

This idea of 'immersion' in life; of life as unselfconscious - of living in the world as given and joyfully embraced - was at the back of most of these pleasant, yearning, day-dreams. 

This bears a more-than-coincidental relationship to similar day-dreams of early childhood; where I can remember some of what it was like to be a happy child in a happy family, in the years before I was five. For instance; Christmas day aged three or four was a total and immersive experience of being swept along in colour, warmth, joy and unfolding excitement. My life in early childhood - when it was good - was good without comparison; it was living in the best possible world. 

When, from the late 1990s, I began to read accounts of the life of 'simple', nomadic, foraging, hunter-gatherer societies; it was impossible to miss the similarity with childhood - which was indeed often pointed-out by anthropologists (before the cancer of leftism utterly destroyed their capacity to experience and think). 

Yet, although there was intense nostalgia for states of being; I could seldom whole-heartedly take the inward step of wanting actually to live in any previous state of society - in the sense that I could not imagine me-as-I-am-now, finding life better in any past society as-it-was-then. 

For the daydream to work properly, I would have to be a different person from the modern Man I had become. 

The problem was 'consciousness' - the problem was my modern self-awareness, my modern knowledge of possibilities and comparisons - and of what happened next. For any fantasy of the imagined past to "work" - I would need to leave-behind a lot of myself-in-the-present. 

This leads onto the next question concerning what I would need to leave-behind. Some of the 'modern' stuff about 'the way I think' that would need to be left-behind is evil - and I would be much better rid of it... not just in order to live in the past, but anyway. I have been corrupted by the evils of modernity - and, like any evil, this needs to be recognized and repented.

But... even when I could imagine being cleansed of characteristically modern corruptions of consciousness; there was a residue of 'me-here-now' compared with people of the past that was different in nature - but not evil; and this made it difficult to want to live in the past except by wanting to be a different person: a fundamentally different person. 

To live 'idyllically' as a simple hunter-gatherer in my fantasy past - or even in Byzantium, or in New England circa 1835 - I had to imagine myself as somebody-else; which really does not make sense, if you think about it...

Indeed; this wishing has the same incoherence as transhumanism - which aims to cure the ills consequent on being a human by abolishing humans!

Or, it resembles the Western oneness spiritualities - which offer a cure of the ills of Modern self-consciousness in the abolition of consciousness of the self.  

Or, it resembles the 'spiritual' strategy of intoxication - whereby consciousness is (pathologically) obliterated by (usually temporary) self-poisoning. A person escapes the miseries of self-consciousness by deliberately causing cerebral dysfunction; such that (e.g.) alertness, self-awareness and memory are rendered physically inoperative. When a drug has euphoriant properties, there may also be a state of pleasure or at least painlessness. 

In a sense; such intoxication - with its obliteration of that which causes and enables angst - implicitly aims at a simulation of earlier (or child-like) consciousness in terms of the experience of here-and-now immersion in the here-and-now. Insofar as it can be achieved, such simulation of unselfconscious immersion is necessarily achieved at the cost of significant dysfunction. 

It was such insights that prepared my mind for understanding the insights of Owen Barfield concerning what he terms 'the evolution of consciousness' - evolution being used in a pre-natural-selection sense of purposive change; much like the psychological aspects of development of a human from baby, through childhood and adolescence to sexual maturity (the purpose ultimately coming from God).  

To regard human history as including a change in the nature of Man's thinking, and relationship with the world - a change analogous to (and sharing similar purposes with)  that of the development of a single Man - is to find meaning in the mental differences between myself and the hunter-gatherer or resident of Constantinople in the middle hundreds AD. 

It is to recognize that for me to live in the past in the same spirit as people did then, would require fundamental changes in my consciousness; but to regard at least some of these changes as on the one hand impossible - in the same sense that an adult cannot really, in essence, become a child again; and also undesirable - in the sense that development is not meant to be reversed. 

This is to assume that when a person develops through adolescence to sexual maturity; this is what God wants - and the 'job' of the adult is to deal with the situation - not to try and reverse it. This is our divinely-appointed task - it is our destiny. 

Likewise; when God has enabled his creation of Mankind to develop from hunter gatherer, through agrarian societies into the industrial revolution - in some broad yet essential sense this is what God wants; and our job is to deal with it - starting from where we are; and not trying to reverse the fundamentals of the later situation in search of recreating the earlier situation. 

Of Course we Modern Men must recognize and repent sin; and insofar (and it is very far) that Modern Man is corrupt, and Modern society not only encourages but increasingly enforces such corruption, we are right to desire that this be changed. 

But the consciousness of Modern Man is unprecedented - and cannot lead-to, nor function-in, any previous type of society. 

Just as the adolescent's consciousness is unprecedented in his own experience - and the only way out is forward; no matter how corrupt an individual he has become, the same applies to Modern Society: that the only way out is forward. 

The only way out is forward; because we cannot find solutions to our unprecedented situation in our past. 

Part of this is due to an increase in sin; but part of it is also due to a change in the nature of Men through time - so that even if past social forms could be re-created, Modern men would not function in them, and they could not be sustained in the same way as they once were - they would be unsustainable, and they would not lead to Good. 

We cannot become unselfconsciously immersed in society again; and even if we could, it would be in defiance of God's expressed creative will - and would therefore lead to demonic outcomes. 

Thus, an understanding and acceptance of the development of human consciousness can make a fundamental difference in how we intend and hope to deal with the evils of modern society. 

These evils are seen, to a significant and crucial degree, as due to a failure to deal-with the development of Man's consciousness. 

An analogy might be when the (common) corruptions of adolescence are seen as a failure to deal with the unfolding inner changes in consciousness. That unfolding was itself a necessary, and a good (God-given) thing. 

But development leads to unavoidable challenges and choices - and if the challenges are avoided and the choices are wrong - then there is a turn towards evil that needs repentance.  

We, here, now are living at the end of innumerable failures to acknowledge challenges, and innumerable bad choices by vast numbers of people - an accumulated legacy of evil which is unrecognized and unrepented.   

But behind all this was a development of consciousness, a growing-up of Mankind, which was divinely-intended; and is irreversible. 

Therefore, although we are not supposed to leave history behind (just as we ought to remember, honour and cherish all which was good in our childhoods); nonetheless, but we ought not to seek to recreate our childhood, nor seek childrens' solutions to adolescent problems: they will not work, and they will do harm - even when well-intended. 

Instead; we must seek solutions appropriate to where we are and what we have become; and the right answers will be unprecedented in fundamental ways.

This quest will almost certainly entail trials and errors; so we need both faith and hope, together with a willingness to discern and repent when things do not work-out. 

But we each have divine guidance (of several kinds) to lead us through the maze of options and alternatives, successes and failures. 

That is the nature of our task.   

God the creator and the Holy Ghost work from opposite directions

(Where shall we seek guidance in navigating a Christian path through this mortal life? One potentially helpful way of thinking about it might be this...)

 

If we regard Goodness as living in harmony with God's creation and creative purposes: then we are able to do this because there is divinity within each of us. In other words: we are God's sons and daughters; which I understand to mean that there is a literal (procreative, not symbolic) sense in which we have been made divine, in our souls. 

We are not fully divine (as was Jesus Christ) but we each have that potential - and to have that potential we must be (and are) partly divine. 

It is this aspect of "God-within" that enables us to want Good, and also enables us each to discern and know The Good. 

OK. So we are each a God-containing, partly-divine being - living our mortal lives in this world. 

As such; and we need to learn from our experiences in mortal life, lessons that which will be of value in resurrected eternal life (i.e. theosis); and we also need to desire and make choices such as to reach that resurrected eternal life after our biological deaths (i.e. salvation). 

How are we enabled to discover guidance in navigating through this complex world? Especially considering that we are each unique and changing, and live in unique and changing circumstances. 

Because our guidance needs to cope with unique and changing personal and life problems - then it seems clear that generic and fixed answers will be insufficient.  

Salvation and theosis must therefore be 'bespoke' - that is, 'made to measure' for each particular human soul; because 'off-the-peg' guidance (such as that provided by generic church teaching, practices, supervision etc.) cannot take into account our unique circumstances and nature. This generic guidance is always inadequate (even though it may be helpful). 

Our personal guidance is available from both directions: from outside us, and from inside. 

From outside; God is the primary creator; and continues His work of creation - and (because we are God's children) this creating extends right down to the level of each of our lives. 

Therefore, we are guided by God by means of his creative work in arranging of the circumstances of our each of lives. 

This guidance may take many and various forms, starting with our nature, abilities, circumstances of birth and parents; and including what might be termed 'luck' and 'coincidence' or 'synchronicity'. 

This guidance from God ensures that we are given the necessary opportunities and choices by which we can (from our our agency and by 'free will') attain salvation, and learn valuable lessons from mortal life. 

External guidance from God is therefore from the direction of outside - by creation acting upon our lives. This is met by the guidance of the Holy Ghost which is experienced from 'inside' us. 

Led by the Fourth Gospel (called John); I regard the Holy Ghost as our (potential) relationship with the ascended Jesus Christ. Such guidance is accessible by those who (whether explicitly, or implicitly) desire Heaven and have chosen to follow Jesus Christ - i.e. be guided by Jesus Christ. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is therefore an inner personal relationship (which is why the Fourth Gospel uses the synonym of 'comforter') that will inform us of... whatever we need to know for salvation and theosis. 

Again, it is a matter of our chosen free agency whether we follow this guidance. 

In sum: we can envisage the scheme of guidance as coming from from outside us - as God creatively-shapes the circumstances of our specific mortal life; and also from the opposite direction: from inside us - as Jesus personally-guides-us through the unique circumstances of our unique lives. 

       

Aquaphibian life

 

"Sorry about that - it just sorta slipped-out..."

"This low-carb diet really is working, isn't it?" 

(Thinks) I've made up my mind, I'm sick of being a puppet. 

I will audition for The Master in Doctor Who.

How atheists can indignantly (and honestly) claim they they Do believe in the reality of purpose and meaning; truth-beauty and virtue!

Note added to my earlier post: 

It strikes me that the 'ultimate' pure consciousness of life in the above scheme is able to account for the fact that atheists (of which I was one for most of my life) are able honestly and indignantly to claim that they believe in truth and objective morality and beauty:

Metaphysics is the most fundamental, basic, deepest of all discourses - but also that there may, in principle, be a deeper level below metaphysics, i.e. the assumptions of pure consciousness and the pure thought; that of which 'consciousness is conscious'! Such might be expressed by analogy in a (metaphysical!) model; that we are living beings that have a kind of ultimate 'life' (with motivations) which Just Is; and this being also necessarily includes a (very variable) degree of consciousness of itself. 

What is happening is that the atheist is introspectively aware of his own belief in a purposeful and meaningful universe, and the reality of truth/ beauty/ virtue, at the most fundamental level of pure consciousness; but is not aware that such deeper-than-metaphysical assumptions are in stark contradiction to his explicit, expressed-in-language metaphysical discourse.  

To be aware of pure consciousness, and then to be aware of one's own metaphysical model of reality, are two different experiences; and the analytic comparison of the coherence of these two experiences is a third thing. 

Not many people have (apparently) done this third thing, and actually made this analytic comparison between metaphysical discourse and wordless intuition - and so they are not aware that their inmost intuition are actually in stark and ineradicable conflict with their expressed metaphysics. 

Once the comparison has been made; then something will 'have to give'. 

Either the metaphysics must be brought into harmony with intuition; or else some additional metaphysical assumption (or obfuscation) will need to be inserted between metaphysics and intuition - to bridge the gap. 

(Such obfuscations include 'it's a mystery', 'the human mind cannot comprehend this' and the introduction of reason-stunning abstractions and paradoxes such as infinitudes and assumptions of timelessness.) 

Saturday excitement from Barry Gray and Stingray

I've previously posted concerning the excellent TV themes of Barry Gray, especially for Gerry Anderson's shows. 

In my occasional series of 'music on Saturdays'; here's a reprise of the Stingray theme in a terrific version for concert band. It looks as if they are having a great time:

What provokes someone to start thinking about metaphysics?

Our disagreement with the World comes down to metaphysics. How does one choose a metaphysics? Rather, how does one choose between rival metaphysical assumptions? One cannot derive metaphysical beliefs from something more fundamental, because there is nothing more fundamental. One’s metaphysics must not conflict with experience, but that is a low bar; many systems provide some way of reading the observed facts. There are also internal checks. Whitehead says that a metaphysical system should be coherent, meaning not only that its parts don’t conflict, but that they all interrelate and co-depend.

From "Bonald" at the Orthosphere

Metaphysics could be defined as the public expression (i.e. in language or other symbols) of an understanding of the most fundamental nature of reality. 

This means that metaphysics is the most fundamental, basic, deepest of all discourses - but also that there may, in principle, be a deeper level below metaphysics, i.e. the assumptions of pure consciousness and the pure thought; that of which 'consciousness is conscious'! 

Such might be expressed by analogy in a (metaphysical!) model; that we are living beings that have a kind of ultimate 'life' (with motivations) which Just Is; and this being also necessarily includes a (very variable) degree of consciousness of itself. 

But the evaluation of our own metaphysics by (as Bonald says) 'not conflicting with experience', doesn't happen often; because metaphysics shapes what counts as experience and how we interpret it; such that apparent 'conflicts of metaphysics with experience' tend to be dealt with by denying or distorting the reality of experience - not vice versa. 

(This is why and how people can believe metaphysical assertions that appear to be conflicting with experienced reality; such as the mandatory current assumptions that there is 'no such thing' as race, and men can really be turned into women.)  

 

And the criterion of 'internal checks' to ensure that a metaphysics must be coherent with itself, while true, depends upon another set of metaphysical assumptions as to 'what counts as coherent'; plus both the ability and the motivation to carry out these checks with sustained concentration and rigour.  Yet it seems that neither the ability nor the rigour for such checking are very common. 

For such reasons; I would emphasize that in practice the motivation to embark on metaphysical analysis probably has different roots than the detection of incoherence. 

Insofar as we can purely (without translation into words) be conscious of our own being, then we can become aware of a discrepancy between this inner awareness, and the public expression and discourse which is metaphysics. 

This is a conflict between our innermost understanding of reality, and the way we talk or think about ultimate reality. 

However, I think this is primarily 'negatively' experienced as a kind of 'existential uneasiness', a nagging dissatisfaction, rather than anything as exact as a comparison between two conflicting descriptions. That is we are negatively aware of what is Not working - hence not-true, rather than of what is true. 

Perhaps a personal example will help. Up until the middle 2000s I had a metaphysical description of reality that ruled-out any possibility of a person's soul or spirit surviving after biological death. The furthest this would take me towards 'life after death' was a quasi-biological notion that the essence of a person's nature might be transmitted genetically to descendants...

So that it might be observed that a grandmother was 'reborn' in her grand-daughter - in that the grand-daughter was essentially the same nature as her grandmother. But that this genetic inheritance was Not Mendelian - so that such sameness of nature could skip several or many generations and appear in rather remote relatives.  

Another (fictional) example would be Tolkien's idea that the Numenorean nature - with its special wisdom and elvish/ magical aspects - 'ran true ' in Aragorn (and, to a somewhat lesser degree; in Denethor and Faramir) despite many intervening generations in which this was not the case. 

I still regard the above as broadly true; but I still experienced a sense of dishonesty whenever I asserted (mostly to myself) that there was no survival of a particular Man's soul or spirit after death. I became aware that - at this deepest and wordless level - I actually believed that personal survival actually happened, in some way.

In other words; I became aware that (at this deepest level) I apparently assumed that at least some people who had died biologically, were still alive in some way.

I also became aware that I - again deep down and without being put into words - apparently regarded the universe as purposive, not 'random'; and that the universe had preferences about me and what I thought, said and did. 

Why, then, did I become negatively aware of such (seemingly) life-long assumptions at this particular point in my life? 

I think it was related to the public/ social collapse of my previous metaphysics which was rooted in science and scholarship, and in particular the way that science and scholarship had all-but abandoned a belief in real truth. 

Of course, this abandonment of truth became apparent in the 1960s and was gaining ground rapidly through the 1980s; but for a while I assumed that this was just a societal 'blip'; and that it would soon become normal again for scientists and academics to believe that there was a real truth, and that it was their duty to seek and speak this truth. 

In trying to justify such assumptions to my 'colleagues', and to myself; I became aware of this serious mismatch between my innermost assumptions and awareness of them; and the public discourse into which I had formulated what was supposedly my ultimate metaphysics. 

This eventually led to my conversion to Christianity, and later to a similarly-motivated rejection of the standard/ classical/ traditional public discourse of metaphysics that was used to explain Christianity.  

The point I wish to make here is that events in the public and social world can bring-metaphysics-to-the-surface; where some kind of existential and chronic dissatisfaction and unease may become evident. 

Such unease may provide a strong motivation to embark on the difficult task of metaphysical self-examination - in search of a way of alleviating this unpleasant insecurity at the heart of one's sense of being.

And, in principle, I think this kind of motivation is sufficient for anybody to escape a metaphysics that is causing such feelings.   

To take a step further back; I would suggest that God (as creator) is behind the situations that tend to lead to awareness of dissatisfaction and unease; and the Holy Ghost is behind such feelings of existential unease - and this is a very fundamental way in which God and the Holy Ghost guide us through this mortal life.  

And, although metaphysics may seem terribly difficult (because so abstract) I think that anybody can - if motivated to address this feeling, reach a basis of positive deep metaphysical assumptions that is sufficient for his salvation and theosis. 

All systems of metaphysics will ultimately be wrong; to the extent that we cannot capture in explicit language the innate reality of our true selves; but several possible metaphysical 'systems' (some of them simple enough for a child to hold) will work well-enough for the divine and creative, yet temporary, purposes of this mortal life.

Therefore, we may at any time become negatively aware that our explicit metaphysical system is 'not working' well-enough. But we can (by personal effort and with divine help) always find something positively better-enough sufficiently to resolve the unease that we are motivated and guided enough to reach salvation (resurrection to eternal Heavenly life) and to learn from our experiences of mortal life (i.e. theosis).  

In sum; once identified, negative dissatisfaction will be helped to positive motivations. 

And this, everyone can know - in accordance with his nature and capacities - by means of the guidance provided (directly and to each individual): by God and the Holy Ghost. 

NOTE ADDED: It strikes me that the 'ultimate' pure consciousness of life in the above scheme is able to account for the fact that atheists (of which I was one for most of my life) are able honestly and indignantly to claim that they believe in truth and objective morality and beauty:

Metaphysics is the most fundamental, basic, deepest of all discourses - but also that there may, in principle, be a deeper level below metaphysics, i.e. the assumptions of pure consciousness and the pure thought; that of which 'consciousness is conscious'! Such might be expressed by analogy in a (metaphysical!) model; that we are living beings that have a kind of ultimate 'life' (with motivations) which Just Is; and this being also necessarily includes a (very variable) degree of consciousness of itself. 

What is happening is that the atheist is introspectively aware of his own belief in a purposeful and meaningful universe, and the reality of truth/ beauty/ virtue, at the most fundamental level of pure consciousness; but is not aware that such deeper-than-metaphysical assumptions are in stark contradiction to his explicit, expressed-in-language metaphysical discourse.  

To be aware of pure consciousness, and then to be aware of one's own metaphysical model of reality, are two different experiences; and the analytic comparison of the coherence of these two experiences is a third thing. 

Not many people have (apparently) done this third thing, and actually made this analytic comparison between metaphysical discourse and wordless intuition - and so they are not aware that their inmost intuition are actually in stark and ineradicable conflict with their expressed metaphysics. 

Once the comparison has been made; then something will 'have to give'. 

Either the metaphysics must be brought into harmony with intuition; or else some additional metaphysical assumption (or obfuscation) will need to be inserted between metaphysics and intuition - to bridge the gap. 

(Such obfuscations include 'it's a mystery', 'the human mind cannot comprehend this' and the introduction of reason-stunning abstractions and paradoxes such as infinitudes and assumptions of timelessness.) 

What did the Ents look like? Tree-ish Men (but Not Man-like trees)

 

I have never seen an accurate picture of an Ent; i.e. a picture that conforms to Tolkien's descriptions in the text of Lord of the Rings where they are depicted as large Men, much like trolls; and possible to mistake for large Men or trolls from a distance - but with tree-ish aspects. 

The problem is that this information is scattered through the text of the Two Towers; while the fact that Merry and Pippin initially suppose that Treebeard is himself a tree, seems to prejudice the reader (and illustrators) to suppose that Ents are mostly like trees (i.e. resembling Man-like trees).

This misunderstanding is then sustained by the Hourns - who are trees that (apparently) move by means of their roots coming out of the ground, and operating like many legs. 

Yet Treebeard says that - since sexual reproduction become impossible due to the 'loss' of the Ent-wives (female Ents) - Ents can become trees; and trees can become Ents implying that Huorns are part-way through this transformation.  

Nonetheless, I think we can be confident that Tolkien saw Ents as troll-like and man-shaped; as is evident in an earlier draft of the Two Towers:

As they were gazing north, they were suddenly aware of a strange figure striding south along the east bank of the stream. It went at great speed, walking stilted like a wading heron, and yet the long paces were as quick, rather, as the beat of wings; and as it approached they saw that it was very tall, a troll in height, or a young tree... 

Theoden was silent, and all the company halted, watching the strange figure with wondering eyes as it came quickly on to meet them. 

Man or troll, he was ten or twelve feet high, strong but slim, clad in glistening close-fitted grey and dappled brown, or else his smooth skin was like the rind of a fair rowan tree. 

He had no weapon, and as he came his long shapely arms and many-fingered hands were raised in sign of peace. Now he stood before them, a few paces off, and his clear eyes, deep grey with glints of green, looked solemnly from face to face of the men that were gathered round him. 

Then he spoke slowly, and his voice was resonant and musical.

From Pages 29-30, The War of the Ring; The History of Middle Earth (1997), Volume 8 - edited by Christopher Tolkien. 

Assuming that Tolkien mind-picture of Ents did not change from this earlier conception; I think we must conclude that Ents should be Man-like enough to be, initially, mistaken for some kind of large Man or Troll from a distance. 

None of the illustrations or animations of Ents that I have yet seen conform to this requirement of being mistake-able for a Man-Troll; which suggests that Tolkien's text is widely misunderstood. 

The problem with magical 'contacts' (and, by contrast, how simple intuitions can be valid)

Two twentieth century Christian ritual magicians I like as people and whose work is valuable are Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight. Having said this; I regard them both as of-their-time, and their methods as no longer effective or valid.  

Both worked (partly) via what they termed 'contacts' - that is, spiritual beings with whom they made contact and who provided instruction, advice and conversation - using language. Such contacts were achieved by persons of suitable ability and motives, and also as the culmination of a long period of mental training that encompassed concentration and visualization. 

(I regard such magical contacts as a more active and conscious form of the varieties channeling and automatic  writing that have been a part of New Age spirituality, generally.) 

While I acknowledge that such contacts had some valuable effects and consequences up to the later parts of the twentieth century; I believe they are intrinsically prone to error - and these errors are amplified when the results are transmitted to a wider audience. 

Even assuming that the magician is well-motivated, that the spiritual contact is genuine, and that the spirit contacted is of a good and competent nature; then there are nonetheless two layers of problems about the use of language in these communications. 

Contacts work by a double-translation. In the first place; the spirit must translate from his thinking into words - in the second place the magician must understand the words, and translate into his own understanding. Thus thinking into words, then words back to thinking - before the recipient can know what is being communicated.

And the training of magicians is double-edged; because the capacity to concentrate and visualize entail a mental discipline that tends to perpetuate any distortions or errors in the magician. In particular; when the magician has not fully formulated his questions, or asks an unanswerable question (because the question contains false assumptions) - then there will nonetheless an answer will be generated - because that is how the training has made things. 

So the recurrent problem with magical contacts seems to be that of generating too-precise answers to too many and poorly formulated questions.   

 **

By contrast, what I mean by intuitions operate in a wordless sense, without language. As I have written before; almost everything hinges on the 'question' which needs to be fully, clearly and validly understood. 

It may take someone a long time to become clear about what exactly it is that he needs to know. The question needs to be clarified to the point of being wordlessly grasped as a whole and held in mind. And motivations need to be clarified - because only genuinely Christian motivations will lead to Christianly-valid intuitions. 

In practice such questions seek equally simple - binary-type - answers such as Yes-No, True-False, Good-Evil.  

And in practice - as soon as the question has been clearly and simply known - the 'intuitive' answer is immediately forthcoming. 

No media, language, technologies or symbols are involved; therefore no training in concentration, visualization, meditation etc is needed - indeed such training will do more harm than good insofar as it has become an unconscious habit. 

And any attempt to explain the reasons for the intuitive understanding will therefore necessarily misrepresent the situation - and tend to reduce the solid assurance of the intuition. Because as soon as the intuition has been reduced to words, it will be distorted and incompletely represented; and these wrong reasons may then become a target for rationalistic-public critique such that the knowledge is no longer intuitive. 

Therefore true intuitions are private, clear and simple; and cannot be captured in language, nor can their intuitive nature be communicated. In a sense, each is a personal miracle that sustains faith, and potentially guides thought and conduct.  

The point where lies take-over - but discourse continues...

My world of public discourse - or, at least large-ish sections of it - used to be mostly-honest; such that the lies could potentially be detected and worked-around. 

But from around the millennium, the lies took-over all public discourse - including those special areas that were especially supposed to be about truth: such as science, academia, education, medicine, law. 

And soon the lies took-over. What this means is that people were "not even trying" to be honest - but only, aimed not to be caught being-dishonest, and when they were caught - covering-up their lies.    

From then onward we were living in a discourse-of-lies - and yet the discourse continued...

I experienced this myself in science (especially medical science) as a scientist, editor, and teacher. 

The discourse of science continued - indeed it continued to grow very rapidly; yet the 'new' claims within the fields had zero validity since they were woven-from from material that included many lies, and woven-by people who were not primarily concerned with honesty. 

It became ever less possible to teach, research or write honestly; except using only (selected) historical or personally-validated information, and dedicated to historically important matters - utterly avoiding new work and current issues. 

And, in fact, such practice is not allowed; therefore honesty is excluded. 

In such a situation, truth is not discernable; because truth does not 'stand-out' when evaluations and evidence are dishonest - quite the opposite. 

Yet the discourse continues... Examples: We know that the mass media discourse is a tissue of lies; and yet people continue to take it seriously, discuss and analyze it as if the truth could be sifted-out. State and Corporate controlled research - wholly orientated towards the expediencies of the state and corporations - continues to claim special validity, and indeed increasingly demands and enforces unquestioning/ enthusiastic obedience. The law is become a weapon of leftist totalitarianism; and yet is taken to define 'justice'. 

In all the areas of public discourse - and increasingly in private, among friends and in the family - the lies have taken-over; yet the discourse continues as if the lies were rare and exceptional! 

The identification exposure of specific 'frauds' in 'science', or lies in journalism, or corruption in politics; all reinforce the assumption that these are exceptional; when in fact these whole-systems (science, media, politics - add law, military, universities etc.) are built-on lies and function dishonestly.  

The truth is that we cannot participate in dishonest discourse, without ourselves being corrupted by dishonesty - and this means that we then need to acknowledge and repent our own dishonesty, as often as it happens. 

...Which repentance rarely happens - and therefore the corruption remains and accumulates. 

This, I believe, is a major reason for the corruption of the Christian churches. By increasingly participating in the dishonest discourse of politics, economics, finance, law, the media, 'science', education etc - by therefore being dishonest but not acknowledging or repenting this dishonesty - churches have themselves become a part of the discourse of lies; the leadership lying to- and among-themselves, as well as to laity.   

Thus all institutions are corrupt; and aid in the corruption of each other, and of individual persons. 

The only possible escape from general and increasing corruption and untruthfulness, is to detach oneself to a situation which is sufficiently honest that dishonesty stands-out and can be repented; and this means either small (family-like) groupings (if we are fortunate); or else (if less fortunate) to escape to the discourse of one's own self (which is, after all, for a Christian not alone, never alone).

 

Step one in modern Christian conversion is always... intuitive individual discernment. The only question is whether the convert acknowledges this fact

If we start from the actuality of a potential Christian confronted by "Christianity 2022"; he cannot take a single step towards conversion without making a personal discernment; and this can only be intuitive because there is nothing else it can be. 

(And, as of 2022; all real Christians are essentially converts; and need to remain perpetual converts if they are not to leave the faith.) 

Where does he look, who are the authorities, who should he take seriously? By what criteria should he judge? 

Nothing at all can happen towards conversion until some assumptions are made, and these assumptions are either made by the potential Christian or by... somebody-else - and for it to be somebody-else the potential Christian must have made assumptions about who has the authority to make those assumptions. 

Someone who ends-up as a traditionalist Christian, and who believes that his church is divinely ordained and the prime locus of spiritual truth; and this church has authority to define Christianity; and authority to define theology and doctrine, and to define ritual, and to define and interpret scripture and so on and forth... can only have-arrived at that position by many, many personal discernments that can have no foundation beyond personal intuition.

Once the convert is in the position of subscribing to a traditionalist church - he can point to that church's interlocking authority on all manner of matters to make a coherent case as to why that church is God's ordained church - but the convert cannot get to that position without a hidden history of personal intuitions.    

The traditionalist church member can then decry intuition, can then assert the primacy of His Church over all crucial matters of definition and interpretation - he can then decry 'mysticism' as dangerous, can denounce individualism as evidence of pride, can assert that nothing is more important that to worship and obey in accordance with his church's rules...

But All of this is only reached via multiple-intuitions - which may be forgotten, denied, decried and denounced - but they happened; and continue to happen...

The intuitions continue to happen because the traditionalist Christian can - as of 2020 - only become and remain a traditionalist by discerning as wrong some of what his church leaders tell him; and typically by adopting a minority view within his church. 

Such selections and rejections of the obvious majority and higher authority represent a continuing history of personal discernments, based on intuitions - because the criteria for judgment that is the basis for all such discernments is also an intuitive decision. 

In sum - as of her-and-now; the traditionalist position (whether it is really true, or not) has the structure of a logical tautology. It is a system of circular reasoning - and to enter that circle cannot, in principle, be done by means of already-knowing the validity of criteria and judgment from within the circle - because these criteria are rare and alien to modern society. 

In 2022 in the West; Nobody is be raised to adulthood regarding the within-circle criteria as unconsciously valid and knowing no other. 

This was possible in ancient, medieval and perhaps later societies - it is not possible now. Thus the circularity of traditionalism has been, can only be, entered via multiple intuitions. 

Conclusion. All modern Christian faith - including the mort traditional, orthodox and church-primary - is based-on, rooted-in intuitions - therefore Not in any kind of traditionalist Christianity itself.

This is a universal and necessary fact.

The only difference between Christians is that some are aware of the fundamental role of intuition (i.e. 'Romantic Christians); while others are unaware, have forgotten, are insane and incapable of reasoning; or dishonestly deny the fact. 

Renewal by Schism: How might Christian churches be purged of corruption and affiliation to evil, and restored to God-affiliation?

One difficult lesson of these times is that institutions are finished - in the sense that they are irreversibly corrupted, no longer what they were (what they were, in some instances, even just a few decades ago); they no longer effectively (never mind efficiently) perform the core/ mission functions that are supposed to justify their existence - and indeed, have near zero interest in performing these functions. 

Overall-corruption is the case (to different degrees, but always to a significant extent) of all large institutions that are a part of the mainstream bureaucratic system - because in order to survive, they must satisfy a great raft of bureaucratic demands; and these bureaucratic demands are purposively evil - hence deliberately function-destroying (because evil is anti-creation, and pro-chaos). 

This is true of all large, powerful, wealthy, and high status institutions - and it is increasingly true even of many small institutions such as family businesses, farms, shops, clubs and churches. 

We saw from the birdemic (and globally antiracist, and protrans) year of 2020 how many of these small institutions willingly, indeed enthusiastically, supported and assimilated-to the globalist imperatives - going beyond minimum requirements, and maintaining requirements beyond the period of compulsion. 

What this means is that the corruption is irreversible, especially for the largest/ most-powerful etc. institutions, because it is very difficult indeed (and extremely rare) to turn-around any large institutions when it has been corrupted thoroughly for a prolonged period. 

And even less likely when this corruption is almost universal - so that forces from external corruption tend to sustain, and increase, inner corruption. 

And reversing of corruption is all-but impossible when there are extremely few individual persons who do not substantially share in the ideology of corruption - and when there are essentially zero individuals in positions of power who are not active in their desire for sustained and increased corruption.  

I regard the likeliest outcome as a general civilizational collapse (the giga-death scenario, triggered by one or many possible triggers - spiritual, biological and economic-political). 

But in the mean time, unless or until that collapse, the only realistic possibility of renewal at the institutional level is likely to be by creative destruction. 

Insofar as there is truth in the economic doctrines of 'free markets' and of improvement in efficiency by competition; economic growth seems to work very little by corporations improving themselves in order to better compete; and much more often by creative destruction - meaning de facto deletion of the old - less effective, less efficient institutions/ technologies/ industries/ firms - and replacement by new. 

(As when railways replaced canals, cars replaced horses, or the internet replaced print.)

So, when there is a seriously/ extremely/ long-term corrupt factory/ school/ hospital/ police force or whatever - this is unreformable. The inertia and corrupted motivations of established personnel and dysfunctional systems will oppose and overwhelm any gradual internal attempts at improvement. 

Therefore; the best way (and in practice perhaps the Only way) to improve the situation is by creative destruction: to abolish and renew. 

That is; the strategy should be for the uncorrupted to leave and (if possible) shut-down the corrupt institution altogether; and make a new and better institution - rebuilding from whatever is good, uncorrupted and properly-orientated personnel that remain. 

This applies to the corrupted major religions and specific churches, whenever they are large/ wealthy/ powerful, and are therefore integrated with the corrupting global bureaucracies. 

These churches are unreformable as-a-whole - and therefore need to be abandoned, and their Christian functionality rebuilt from what Pope Benedict XVI called a creative minority. 

In other words, there needs to be schism if the corruption of major churches is to be addressed effectively, and if their Christian mission is to be renewed. 

The real Christians need to leave the evil-corrupted majority; and rebuild new institutions. And this applies to all types and denominations of Christian: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Nonconformist, Mormon etc. - because all of these are converged to the Satanic totalitarian globalist agenda; and all are increasing in corruption: directed by top-down leadership and a majority of overall-leftist-assimilated (hence evil-affiliated) 'laity'. 

This creative destruction may or may not work - who knows the future? 

If it goes wrong, there will be an increase of destruction but without creation. It may indeed turn-out that All institutions are now inevitably corrupted to evil at this time and place in human history. 

In which case Christianity must revert (or rather, move forward, voluntarily) to a family-type and scale of organization.

But renewal by schism seems the only strategy with a realistic chance of achieving the goal of an institutional church that is net-Christian and affiliated with God, creation and Jesus Christ; rather than - as a present - net-anti-Christian/ pro-demonic. 

 

When you find yourself saying absurd things that you don't believe

There is a philosophical argument called the reductio ad absurdum - which is has it that when premises are rigorously pursued but lead to absurd consequences; then we should infer that the premises are faulty. 

In broad terms I have found this to be a good learning tool in my life. Sometimes, I have ignored the absurdity of the assumptions - for example when I was an atheist, and found that it destroyed the possibility of morality, art and science. 

I found myself stating deep and foundational convictions (for which I was prepared to make big sacrifices - such as truthfulness in science) yet unable coherently to defend them. And, at the opposite end, my basic assumptions about reality led me to start thinking, saying and believing things that shocked me with their repellant immorality.

Another time, I realized that the denial of the reality of 'free will' led to absurd consequences, and therefore must be rejected; such that free will must be a reality. Yet, for many years I could not understand how free will was possible; because FW seemed to be excluded as a possibility by other assumptions that I still held-to. 

It took a while before I realized that these 'other assumptions' that excluded free will should also be rejected, and that I therefore needed to seek assumptions that explained the existence of free will.

Anyway, to my mind this post-millennial era is the era of the reductio ad absurdum - in more, and yet-more, domains of our lives, and in the world at large. 

Absurd consequences and implications are the defining characteristic of mainstream public life; and the absurdity of official/ mandatory facts and theories become ever starker with each passing year. 

But instead of learning from this that the premises must be faulty - either the absurdity is denied (and to notice or comment on it forbidden) or else the inferential process linking consequences with premises is denied, ignored or dishonestly corrupted. 

Public discourse is now merely a tissue of absurd assertions, sheer insanities presented as obvious sense, and dishonest-denials. 

Yet in private/ personal life it seems increasingly characteristic of this era that the process of generating absurdity has worked down to deeper and more precise levels of inference; and the confrontations become less and less avoidable. 

For Christians, the ideas that have worked for people for years, and have worked for churches/ denominations for generations (or even many centuries), are leading to more and more obvious absurdities. 

In order to defend their assumptions; Christians are compelled to deny, accept or even celebrate and support the absurdities which these assumptions imply. 

This creates all kinds of spiritual, and psychological, problems - from the cognitive dissonances between incompatible beliefs, assertions and practices. 

The question is whether people recognize and learn-from these reductio situations - whether each Christian takes personal responsibility for his faith; or whether instead he doubles-down on the assumptions and denies the absurdities they generate. But the conflict of assumptions and outcomes, premises and consequences, is unavoidable - and the crisis is inescapable.