Is the chosen self-annihilation of The West a matter of "Apoptosis"?

Apoptosis (usually pronounced ap-op-tosis) is a biological concept used to describe the self-triggered death of cells in various situations. 

One such situation is cancer - e.g. a cell that undergoes the kind of genetic mutation that would lead to cancer might instead kill itself - thereby safeguarding the organism as a whole. 

In other words; in this situation apoptosis is the result of a fail-safe mechanism, built-into each cell, and "designed" (e.g. by adaptive natural selection, but not wholly so) to eliminate a potential cause of life-threatening harm. 

In general terms; apoptosis forms part of a suite of adaptations that maintain the functionality of multi-cellular organisms. 

Most cell are a potential biological unit in their own right, each having its own genome, each reproducing; and therefore each potentially capable of evolving by natural selection to promote its selfish cellular reproductive interests, above the well-being of the multi-cellular organism as a while.

If this was unchecked, every multicellular organism would fall-apart into selfishly competing lineages of replicating cells that have evolved to promote their short-term reproduction, above the long-term functional-coherence of the organism. 

Multi-celled organisms are therefore only possible to sustain, when there are surveillance and control mechanisms that enforce the mutual cooperation of cells - these mechanisms include the immune system (to identify and eliminate "rogue" cells) and apoptosis. 

It strikes me that apoptosis provides an analogy, which may even be true at the causal level, for the self-destruction of Western Civilization. 

Each human being is an organism that is capable of selfishly pursuing its own self-interest at the expense of society; and this innate self-interest therefore requires to be suppressed, re-shaped, and harmonized across human society for the benefit of that society - if that society is to be sustained. 

Throughout known human history; the System for the harmonization of human society has always included what might be termed Religion; and it was characteristic of such Religion that it referenced human society to some-thing above-and-beyond human society - a world of spirits, gods or God - for example.

Religion can be regarded as an externally valid source of social regulation, and a justification for social regulation; and I am assuming that (over multiple generations) this biological fact was also internalized by each individual human being - including as a fail-safe mechanism, analogous to apoptosis. 

Put bluntly: until the past half-dozen or so generations in The West; all human beings that ever lived were born-into, raised, and functioned adaptively (overall) in Religious societies. This is all that humankind had ever known - so naturally it is the society to which human beings are adapted. 

In other words; in traditional society any individual human being who lost his belief-in or capacity for religion, would have experienced a kind of "suicide trigger" - some kind of self-deletion mechanism; by which the integrity of society was preserved against the short-term selfishness of its component individuals. 

But now, and for the first-time ever; we have a whole civilization that has deleted religion as the primary principle of social coherence and purpose. Modern Western people are born into an utterly alien social environment. We are biologically adapted to a society that has gone.  

If true; this means that religion has been absolutely essential to the formation and maintenance of all human societies - and the larger and more complex the society, the more important has been religion. 

Therefore, when Western Civilization deleted externally-valid religion as the primary reality; it deleted its external control mechanism of Religion - which included the external control mechanism which we might call The Church in all its many manifestations. 

However, the inner fail-safe mechanism of something like apoptosis was not deleted; and it still remains; because it was built-into all (normal, potentially social) human beings.   

What I am saying is that when Western Society deleted religion, it began to fall apart because of the lack of an "immune system". However, a non-religious society also triggered, and left unopposed, a self-destructive instinct in human beings.  

Therefore, individuals ceased to desire to reproduce - in order (implicitly, biologically) to eliminate their damaged and non-sustainable lineage from society. And also, in general terms - such people began to behave in ways that tended to eliminate their non-religious society, which was innerly-recognized as not-viable and dangerous. 

I am suggesting that - at an innate, inbuilt, instinctive level - Not-Religious human beings may be "biologically programmed" to eliminate themselves, and also any society that has become non-religious. 

Over-simplified: the idea is that unconscious human psychology detects "I am Not Religious"; concludes that "I am a threat and need to be eliminated" -- and this triggers innate self-destructive impulses that manifest in multiple ways - such as self-destructive attitudes, desires, ideology, evaluations, preferences, and behaviours. 

This would work both passively, e.g. by not-resisting destruction (which is something widely seen in The West); and also more actively, by Not Religious people and groups seeking their own destruction - not just biological destruction, but social destruction: in other words they seek to eliminate their own non-religious and unviable selves, culture and genetics. 

Because a non-religious, religion-rejecting culture like The West is a threat to all possible cultures; and needs to be eliminated if human society as such can survive.  

Apoptosis is an analogy, no matter how relevant it seems; and I do not believe that it (or any other biological cause) is the whole or even the primary reason for the self-willed self-destruction of The West. 

I personally believe the deepest and most profound reason for our situation is spiritual, not biological - as I have stated many hundreds of times on this blog. Nonetheless; taken in this larger spiritual context, biology may still have a role in aiding understanding, and providing a causal-mechanism. 

I am not talking morally here - I am not, for instance, saying that social survival is more important than the individual in God's eyes; but I am trying to describe the workings of a putative natural or biological mechanism for social survival. 

But I do find apoptosis quite helpful as a way of explaining why so many (apparently a large majority) people in The West exhibit attitudes and behaviours that will (pretty obviously) lead to the annihilation of themselves, and of their culture. 

In sum: while there have always been evil leaders (who are sometimes demonically aligned) - and we certainly have these in The West; the currently manifest widespread suicidal desire and willed socially destructive behaviour was not seen among the masses in earlier and religious cultures. 

The fact that self-elimination is so evident, endemic, powerful, and increasing in The West; invites explanation. 

***

Note: By the assumptions and terms used here, by historical standards: The Modern West is Not Religious. 

Even the minority of self-identified Religious people in The West (such as devout, active church members and leaders) are overwhelmingly Not Religious - not in the way nor to the degree that Men of traditional societies were Religious. 

This is clear from their attitudes as well as from behaviour (as was very evident in 2020 when supposed "health" considerations instantly and comprehensively overcame and displaced all inconvenient religious priorities). 

The West is this-worldly, and is ultimately dedicated to therapy (e.g. alleviation of here-and-now suffering, promotion of gratification). 

Whatever we may believe or assert about ourselves: our inbuilt biological mechanisms recognize the reality of our religion-rejection, and are acting accordingly. 

Therefore; if you genuinely desire to escape the instinct-level societal and personal self-destructivity; the real problem is not convincing yourself and/or "other people" that you are genuinely Religious (i.e. that your ultimate and bottom-line perspective is "not of this world" but directed at highest and eternal reality) -- the real problem is convincing that-within-you which recognizes and acts-upon religion-rejection. 

Poor Things - My first Hollywood movie (kind of...)

I've just heard that next week will see the release of a movie version of Alasdair Gray's 1992 novel - Poor Things. 

I have always had a kind of proprietorial interest in this work, because I was teaching in the Glasgow University Anatomy Department, and living nearby Alasdair at the time this was written - and went through the whole thing in draft, to correct the medical aspects (the story is about a doctor). 

Indeed, my recollection is that several whole sentences of my suggestions found their way into the final book; although I now have no clear idea which or where these were!

In my copy, Alasdair wrote a dedication:

14 August 1992. To Bruce who helped me get the medicine and surgery right, from a grateful Gray (Alasdair). 

I haven't re-read Poor Things since around that time, and my memory of it is hazy; but I recall it was a lively and witty story; and it seems the movie is supposed to be very good. 

Remote, minuscule, and indirect though my contribution is; this is probably the closest I shall ever get to "Hollywood" - thank heavens!

The Arrakis war has galvanized Leftist radicalism and channeled it back into the mainstream

As I feared; it seems that the Arrakis war has been successfully used to enthuse and inspire the "idealistic" and self-identified radicals of the left, has provoked a resurgence of the evil error of pacifism; and through support for the Fremen has channeled this "youthful enthusiasm" safely into Establishment control. 

People who were perhaps "in danger of" awakening to the demonic evils of the Global Totalitarian Agenda, are now enthusiastically enlisted in a multitude of Establishment-controlled "protest" and "charitable" activities - just like the (Good Old...) 1960s - Yay!

Thus, the easily-awakening desire of Westerners (and others) to Do Something To Help (to help, that is, a situation of which they are aware only very indirectly and via the major mass media); has inevitably led to working-through and thereby re-validating already-existing Establishment-controlled channels - such as the UN. 

People who, three months ago, would have had nothing but disdain for the totalitarian globalist puppet-masters of the UN, are now pouring all hopes into it, and following its machinations with avidity. 

Geopolitics is sexy again! Pseudo-edgy, covertly-officially-approved Leftist radical protest is back in the mass media spotlight. 

Yet again; the desire to influence this world on a large scale - for whatever reason - is readily subverted and redirected into strategic support for the totalitarian agenda of evil. 

Yet again; Christians are being given a lesson that Christ's Kingdom is "not of this world"; and we are yet again being shown that we absolutely need to fix our hopes beyond mortal life and this earth, and gain a perspective that sees life from a context of eternity. 

Yet again; we are being shown what is our business in this world, and what is not our business: What we ought to be placing as our personal and real priority - and what we should not be misled into thinking we understand, can affect, and ought to be working to change.  

The current intra-left civil war is top-down created and manipulated - both "sides" being manifestations of one will; such that whichever side we "support" in this fight, we shall be supporting the overall totalitarian strategy: the agenda of evil. 

And people have fallen for it yet again.   

The Law of Direct Knowing: or, why book recommendations are (mostly) useless and best-friends non-transferable

Have you ever noticed, as I did even in my teens, that your best-friend's other best friends were usually people you found to be distinctly... underwhelming. Sometimes, I even disliked them. And my own best friends often did not get-along very well - lacking any genuine affinity. 

This might be supposed to be due to jealousy, or that that each friend represented a different aspect in me; but I think the reason runs deeper.

Something similar applies with authors that I regard as mentors; my absolute favourite writers: those with whom I had a strong relationship, and whose influence on me has been significant. 

It is natural to seek further such mentors by tackling those who my favorite author regarded as his favourite authors... 

Yet this was typically a blind alley. No matter how deeply I admired and empathized with writer X; I nearly always discovered writer X's favourite, most significant, influences were disappointing; and often completely unappealing.

Furthermore, books recommended me by friends who liked the same things as I did, were often duds; and my own recommendations of the "you will love this" type, typically fell upon stony ground. 

The same applies with classical music, and indeed folk music - an exploration of the "influences" behind my favourite artistes and composers was almost uniformly unsatisfying.     

Such instances can be put-together; and a lesson drawn from them to make a kind of law: The Law of Direct Knowing.  

This is: We can only truly-know a person or personage in a direct and dyadic fashion.

We can - in other words - only truly know in terms of a meeting of just-two minds; and this applies whether in everyday-life or in our intense imaginative thinking-life. 

Thus; friendship and influence must alike be directly inter-personal - without any degrees of separation. 

Indeed; it strikes me that with the Law of Direct Knowing we are perhaps confronted here by a fundamental principle of divine creation - because (as I understand it) creation is rooted in love: and, more exactly, in dyadic love - love between "twos".

Love is both what holds-creation-together; and what gives creation its dynamism: its motivation and direction. 

Creation originated (I believe) in the love of our Heavenly Parents to constitute that which we term God; and divine creation began with God's love of all the Beings of reality - each individually relating back to God, via love, in a dyadic fashion. 

Creation then proceeds by multiple (and overlapping, interlocking) instances of dyadic love between the Beings of divine creation - to make the whole of creation bound and motivated by many mutual links.

What this means is that our evanescent mundane love/ relationships are -- in their partial and often temporary ways; and while continually being un-done by the depredations of entropy and the motivations of evil -- instances of that "power of love" which make creation. 

This mortal world is therefore a dynamic equilibrium - which may be strengthening or else falling-apart, at various scales - between the binding and creative powers of love - and that-which opposes love.  

And (at least, for Christians) Heaven can be understood as the place where such dyadic relations are permanent and pure in their nature - such that creation becomes wholly positive and progressive...

So that more-and-more of Heaven, is always being bound more-and-more strongly, by the direct knowing of dyadic love. 

 

Why "as above, so below" (macrocosm-microcosm) relations and correlations?

"As above, so below" or "the microcosm (the inner realm) reflects the macrocosm (the universe)" - seems to be one of those insights or assertions that has a core of truth; even though not always and literally true.

Why should this be?  

By my understanding of reality; the reason is that we inhabit a universe of Beings; and therefore there is a relationship between our Beingness and that of all and any other Beings. 

As the assumed ultimate "units of reality"; Beings are irreducible, and are not constituted by any definition. They are recognized, rather than constructed. 

But we can validly discuss the attributes of Beings; and these include that all are eternal and continuous in their existence; all are alive, conscious and have motivations. And all Beings change sequentially - which is the attribute we call Time.    

(Such attributes can be regarded as valid distinctions, but - because Beings are primary hence irreducible - the distinct attributes Cannot be divided from their wholes. Thus Time is a non-detachable attribute of Beings, and not a distinct abstract entity.) 

Therefore understanding of any one Being, provides some valid insight into all other Beings.

But on the other hand - for instance - consciousness varies significantly in both its quality and magnitude between - for example - "animal, vegetable, and mineral"; between never-incarnated spiritual Beings such as angels or demons, and resurrected Men; between The Sun and an ancient oak tree; between the human embryo and the adult...  

Many differences of many degrees; yet underlying all is that all that is knowable, everything conceptualize-able... all that is of divine creation - is A Being; and a created Being can, in principle, have direct (empathic, co-experienced) knowledge of another Being - linking above and below, the large and the small. 

Learning about one Being is therefore, in some sense, learning about any and all Beings.

 

Predictions for this New Year

Now that we have passed the winter solstice, we are in the New Year - or would be if there was any secular coherence to the concept! 

(A religious New Year can be any time; and indeed it was, even in England, where the New Year was March 25th - Lady Day - until just a few brief centuries ago; the residue of which is the "financial year" beginning on April 6th after some extra days were added to the calendar in 1752.)

However... One thing I have learned since 2020, is that I am hopeless at predictions - at least in the medium-terms of months to years. No matter how I feel that some-thing will, or will not, happen soon; this means next to nothing when compared with what actually happens. 

So, predictions are, for me, merely an indication of how I feel about the way that things-in-general are shaping. 

What has wrong-footed me is that British people still have basically the same general attitudes as they did in 2019, or 2000. Astonishing things have happened, and keep happening; but the basic mindset, the explanatory system, the underlying interpretative assumptions, have not changed significantly. 

At some point, I guess there will be a change (on the basis that I understand the world, which I cannot help but hold, without creating a self-refuting paradox!); because the mismatch between reality as I know it, and reality as it is generally assumed, is vast and widening.

Maybe that will happen in 2024? But even-if-so that is not necessarily, or likely, to be A Good Thing; because without a prior and cataclysmic spiritual awakening the outcome will be a despair that is likely to enhance self-loathing and accelerate the established cultural suicide. 

As I have often said, it seems likely to me (and this is being officially encouraged) that an epidemic of suicide will sooner or later happen in the West; including urgent demands for medical assistance in making this a painless procedure.

On the flip-side, will be murderous cults rooted in prideful and resentment-fuelled self-assertion (and some of these will probably include self-described traditionalist Christians).   

That Pride is not a legitimate antidote for Despair ought to be obvious, especially to Christians - but it isn't obvious, or, at least, the sin of Pride is strong enough to overcome scruples. 

Again on the flip side, the sin of despair is also capable of subverting and destroying real Christianity.

What is actually needed is - presumably, mutatis mutandis - modelled by the life of Jesus Christ; which is that fear should be defeated by faith, rooted in hope, validated by God's love of each of us. 

Death is a serious business, and while we are sustained alive than we have important spiritual work to do; but we cannot allow ourselves to regard death as the worst possible outcome. From a Christian perspective there are many things worse than death (as evidence by the Sainted martyrs, among many others).

To put matters differently; we need to recognize that survival cannot, and should not, be our priority. Partly because survival merely means some delay in dying. And partly because the price of surviving may be evil - and, indeed, that we are each asked to pay the cost of prolonging personal survival by embracing evil in our heart - is all-too-likely in these End Times.   

Above the nested agendas of human and group self-interest, there is the Sorathic agenda of destruction

From where I see things, it seems very clear that the powers of Sorathic evil have the whip-hand in globalist policy already and increasingly; and in nothing is this clearer than  the fact that their "friends" - those nations, entities (and persons) whom "They" support, are subject to escalating destruction. 

Thus the nation over whom The Fire Nation and NATO are at war; have been massively and monolithically supported by the Global Establishment - and that nation has been destroyed. 

In the ongoing Arrakis conflict, the CHOAM nation that is unconditionally-supported by the International Totalitarians, is in practice (surely this is obvious?) being set-up for complete annihilation. 

And the main base of operations for world-wide and multi-national evil - namely the USA - is itself being actively destroyed in a multi-pronged strategy of escalating an unwinnable world war, destruction by colossal cross-border invasion, and by the degradation then inversion of all major social institutions, encouragement of race war, and progressive elimination of sustainable native-population reproduction (social and biological). 

In other words - everywhere and always; the strategy is that nation gets pitted against nation, nations are subverted and encouraged/compelled to fight other nations, trade is inhibited/ prevented/ disrupted, socially harmful and anti-human policies are supported all-round and by many routes. 

It is facile but foolish to suppose that all this destruction can be explained by seeking to unmask self-interest; whether in terms of money or power; or by tracing the origins of evil to a particular nation or group. 

No nation is exempted from the plan of destruction, all groups are included - and the more a nation or group is supported by the Global Totalitarian Establishment*, then the more that nation-group is controlled - and the more-complete the annihilation that is planned for it.  

*Note - Whatever human beings may involved at this top-hierarchical level; the core strategy is demonic in origin - for demons the humans are disposable tools. Also; demons are immortal spirits - hence they are not-human, and indeed (for various reasons) anti-human. No matter how total the annihilation of the human world, demons will personally survive - and the lethal corruption of Men to demonic purposes is indeed their main source of pleasure, as well as energetic sustenance. 

Seeking power entails opening ourselves to manipulation by power

It is seldom explained explicitly; but experience of life teaches that those who seek power are thereby made more vulnerable to power. 

In general terms: those who seek to manipulate the world thereby open-themselves to manipulation by the world. And this applies whether the power sought is physical-material, or spiritual.

There are many routes and reasons by which this happens; but the general principle seems solid. It is a Faustian-type bargain; as if reality tells us:

"Yes, you can impose your will on the world, to some extent; but the price you must pay for this privilege is that your will itself becomes subject to elements within the world". 

Why this should be a kind-of law is perhaps abstractly explicable in terms of engagement: insofar as we engage with the world (for whatever purpose), we are Just Are engaged-with the world! And influence flows both ways, whether we like it or not. 

Another way to consider this interaction is relevant to the role of churches and religious structures such as priestly hierarchy, ritual, symbolism and sacred scriptures. These structures can generically be considered as intermediary between human and divine: a set of intermediary media. And these media are charged with power by the religious believer, who then seeks to lead the religious life by their intermediary power. 

Thus a religious symbol is effective in achieving its life-changing goals, only when and if it is made powerful; and when we yield to that symbol the ability to affect us. In a Good religion, that symbolic power will (on the whole) be wielded upon-us for our net-Good, and that is why we open ourselves to symbolism. 

But when the religious symbolism is used with evil intent, it has power over those who have (to some significant extent) previously yielded to it that personal power, and implicitly opened-themselves to the power of that symbol. 

(This is the principle behind a Black Mass, or other forms of subversion using distorted but traditional Christian symbols and rituals.) 

 

If we consider this issue very generally; it also applies to secular and physical power. At a material level; anyone (say a monarch or dictator) who intends to impose his will on society, must do so via "human technologies" such as powerful armies, police, spies, and bureaucrats; and by doing so, he becomes the subject of manipulation (individually, and in combination) by these same powerful institutions. 

This is a Big Problem in a world and society of increasingly-evil corruption, where all intermediate institutions, media, symbols, rituals... that whole world of abstractions and things by which we have traditionally related to Reality - gets subverted, destroyed and/or inverted. 

In a corrupting world; those entities by-which we sought power to do Good, to our-selves and to the world, are turned-against us - and with a power that we have previously given to them. And that power strikes home exactly because we have previously (but originally for Good intentions) made ourselves open-to it. 

So; in battling the evil manipulations of The World; we are also turning-against our-selves: turning-against our own former convictions and intentions. 

We are (inevitably) dis-engaging-from The World; and eschewing power - even the attempt to impose power on the world.  

It strikes me that this perspective may help us to understand why so many people are incrementally apostatizing from Christianity - and also why they seldom realize they are doing-so.  

Merry Christmas - Holly and the Ivy - Maddy Prior

Christmas has arrived! 

As usual, I am awake first, and the main business of the day has not yet begun - although my wife and I have exchanged stockings - she went back to sleep, and the kids are also asleep. 

It's still almost black dark outside (last I looked), and dry; although it rained a little during the early hours. I am warming the house, reading, writing notes; and listening to a CD of folk carols and medieval Christmas songs; from-which the above carol is taken - sung by the incomparable Maddy Prior. Exactly the right spirit for today. 

Ah! I hear sounds of movement upstairs... It begins. 

Merry Christmas to my co-bloggers, readers, and commenters. 

Is it "wishful thinking" to believe in continued existence after biological death?

It is more accurate to talk of “continued existence” after biological death, rather than an “after life” – because, while all pre-modern societies agreed that death was not the end; there was a very wide range of fates described. 

Even the post-mortal fate of “reincarnation” – which has probably been the majority view through the whole of history, due to its dominance in the East, as well as the earliest known societies – has multiple, and incompatible, sub-types. 

I find it very striking, and important, that most ancient and historical societies that believed in continued existence after death, anticipated a more-or-less miserable post-mortal fate – Sheol and Hades for example, or Ragnarok. 

This tells me that “wishful thinking” was certainly Not a major motivation through most of history and in most places; and to suppose it was is just a typical piece of modern self-willed ignorance and "projection": a consequence of our endemic incapacity for coherent thinking. 

And the Good News of resurrection and Heaven after death for those who followed Jesus Christ, was surely the single most powerful reason why Jews and early pagans embraced Christianity. 

If pagans or Jews came to believe that Jesus was divine, and that Jesus’s promises were true, then it was a “no brainer” to become a Christian because it was already assumed that there would be continued existence after death; and Christianity offered a far better continued existence than any other religion.

Note: The above came from a comment I made to a meditation on death by Bonald at the Orthosphere. Bonald responded to my comment thus: 

"Even Christianity and Islam only hold out heaven as a possibility, not a certainty. I can’t think of any religion whose idea of the afterlife matches what anyone would wish for". 

In other words; if religions really did manipulate the masses by offering to fulfil wishful thinking, then they could do a much better job of giving people exactly what they most wanted after death, and making this reward easier, surer, and more straightforward to obtain. 

If wishful thinking really was the basis of after-life claims; then it would be expected that religions would compete in offering better and better lives beyond death, on easier and easier terms. 

But this does not happen - to any significant degree, and not between the major religions.

This is one reason why I tend to believe that - in some overall sense - all religions are broadly accurate in terms of their claims for the after-life; because (within constraints) God gives people "what they ask for" or "what they want" after death. 

(What they want/desire provided subjectively, in his experience, for that person - not necessarily or usually in terms of what he wants for other persons: God does not sacrifice his children to each other. ) 

Damnation is therefore, in its essence, inducing an individual to ask-for and want damnation after his death; and annihilation is what (apparently) many or most modern people ask for and want, following death. 

It's metaphysically official: Father Christmas is real: Santa is true!

Exploring the goblin caves - from JRR Tolkien's documentary non-fiction collection of Father Christmas Letters

The Good News of Christmas includes that Father Christmas/ Santa Claus is neither a delusion nor a deception; but a living reality. 

For those of you who do not know of my earlier posts on this theme: here is a link. 

Why don't modern Christians want resurrected eternal Heavenly life as their first priority?

A few days ago I discussed why mainstream modern (mostly secular) people do not want the resurrected eternal Heavenly life that Jesus offered - especially in the Fourth ("John") Gospel.

But what applies to modern people also applies to Christians in the sense that eternal life features as such a low priority or interest for modern Christians, that it often gets left-out altogether!

(Whereas modern secular people don't want resurrection at all; modern Christians don't want resurrection all that much...)

I don't suppose any Christian would go so far as to deny resurrection after death; but it has been pushed a long way down the scale of importance (except, perhaps, for Mormons - at least in theory) - because it has been displaced by this-worldly concerns. 

Part of this relates to the word and concept of sin. If asked "what is Christianity?" most Christians will probably focus upon sin; and by sin they will mean (almost exclusively) moral transgressions. 

Therefore, the explanation of what Jesus Christ did for Men is focused upon how he negated the negation that is moral transgression. Behind this is typically an idea that moral transgressions will send us to hell by default - except that Jesus Christ has negated these through his work and The Church.  

Yet, if - like me - you regard the Fourth Gospel as the primary source; then it is evident that sin meant mostly death. When Jesus took away sin, he took away the necessity of death. And provided "everlasting" or "eternal" life. Jesus took away death by replacing it with resurrection into Heaven.   

However, in contrast, the actual everyday, and detailed theology and doctrines, of Christianity have apparently - for many, many centuries - concentrated upon moral behaviour in this mortal life. And, consequently, Christianity has neglected or relatively downplayed the purpose and endpoint of all this - which is resurrected eternal Heavenly life. 

For example, I recently attended a Christmas Carol concert at an evangelical church - in which many things were mentioned - Old Testament prophecies, the nativity story; virgin birth; angels, shepherds and wise men, Jesus as King, Jesus whose death saved us from sin etc. etc. - but never any explicit explanation that Christianity was directed-at and ultimately-about resurrected eternal Heavenly life.

Perhaps this was partly because such a focus does not "play well" with a modern secular audience; but I believe that it cuts much deeper than this - and that when a modern Christian tries to explain Christianity Made Simple, he does not recognize the promise of eternal life as the single key fact that absolutely must be put-across as the core and essence of the faith. 

There are, of course, also spiritual risks entailed by a strong and central emphasis on eternal life as the 'reward' of following Jesus. 

But there are always risks to any course - there is no "safe" way to be-a-Christian - certainly not in 2023 and in The West; and indeed we see all around us the appalling consequences of the Churches putting morality in this mortal life at the centre and as the main concern of Christianity. 

And expediency should not be the bottom-line: truth must be our ultimate guide. We each must decide for our-selves whether it is true that resurrected eternal life by following Jesus Christ really is the essence of Christianity; and that depends upon our assumptions as to where Christian truth lies, and how we as individuals may best get access to it, and know it once found. 

Virtuoso Uilleann Pipes from Tiarnan Ó Duinnchinn - the Saturday Music post

First time I have seen this bloke playing, and he is superb. 

It is a set of Highland Reels - a fast dance in 4/4 time. He starts by just playing the melody on the chanter, then gradually introduces a little of the regulators (chords, levers played with the right wrist)), and accelerates; then the drone (continuous background from the longest pipes), before using the full range of regulators to support the melody - both as background chords and rhythmically.

Exciting, stunning, and heart-breaking at the same time. And live!

The Primal Self - what's in a name?

Last week I came up with a new name - the Primal Self - for a concept that I have been trying to grasp for about a decade. 

Ever since I discovered the writings of William Arkle, and Rudolf Steiner, I have wanted to be able to understand clearly that of ourselves which I have previously, variously, termed the Divine, True or Real Self - which is our permanent Self (or Ego or I); that is our essence in some way, and which is relevant to our relationship with God and Reality. 

The word Primal has connotations of old, original, most fundamental, and primary in importance - all of meanings which are intended to be a part of the understanding I am striving to clarify. 

The implicit contrast is with that mundane, "personality-level" self that is concerned with everyday and practical matters of life; of which we may spontaneously be aware-of as the stream of consciousness or inner voice; which is so changeable and easily manipulated... 

And which, pretty obviously, has nothing necessarily divine or true about it, and indeed typically (in the Modern West, at least) opposes God and divine creation. 

At one level, Primal Self is just a new name; but in fact it seems to have made an impression of being valuable and helpful - not only to myself (the new name felt like some kind of a breakthrough in my understanding) but also to some of my most valued commenters. 

I have since been puzzling why this should be; because I don't think it is merely an illusion of novelty.

Because it seems that a better name for an entity really can help! 

Perhaps this is obvious. Just as we observe in mundane mainstream life that a worse name - e.g. when propagated by the totalitarian leadership and their mass media - really can harm... Can really harm our capacity to understand, and harm our values. Conversely, a better name ought to be able to enhance our understanding of reality, and (if our motivations are Good) enhance thereby our apprehension of true values. 

My guess - at present - is that Primal is clarifying of the truth that there is in-us, as part-of-us, of all-of-us and always; a Self that has always-been and always shall-be.

And that this eternal Self can experience, learn, choose - and thereby be transformed (for better or worse). 

(This being my simple understanding of theosis, or its opposite: corruption into a chosen alliance with with the spiritual Beings of evil.) 

And it is that Self - i.e. the Primal Self - of which we need to become-aware, to acknowledge as real and vital; and from-which we need to work in our valid and Good spiritual strivings.     

Why don't modern people want resurrected eternal life? Shallow, short-termist hedonism - mainly. (Tolkien on Beowulf.)

From Beowulf and the Critics by JRR Tolkien, edited by Michael DC Drout, 2002. 

[Drout:] Tolkien located civilization in the masculine institutions of the Beowulf poet (in particular the bright hall), outside of which the chaos-monsters ruled. The primary theme of Beowulf, Tolkien wrote, is "that man, each man and all men and all their works shall die." Beowulf is not subject to reproach for fighting with the dragon because he would have died anyway, albeit from a different sling or arrow of fortune. In Beowulf and the Critics Tolkien quotes from both the Seafarer and Hrothgar's words to Beowulf [translations by JRRT]: 

*

I believe not that the joys of earth will abide everlasting. Ever and in all cases will one of three things trouble his heart before the appointed day: sickness, or age, or the foeman's sword from the doomed men hastening hence will his life ravish. 

*

Soon hereafter it will come to pass that sickness or sword shall rob thee of strength, or grasping fire, or heaving flood, or biting blade, or flying spear, or dreadful age; or the flash of eyes shall foul and darken. Swiftly will it come that thee, o knight, shall death conquer. 

*

Comment. Thus it was and thus it is still...

Albeit that for us, in The West, death has recently conquered and the joys of earth been extinguished more by sickness or "dreadful age"; than by sword, fire, flood, or spear. 

Yet, it can been seen that our barbarian ancestors implicitly knew there was more to the world than the bright hall of mortal life and the chaos-monsters that surrounded such brief and fragile joys. Because these men had an ethic of courage; a morality that regarded death in battle against monsters, in obedience to duty to one's lord, in defence of one's people - as better ways to die than sickness or age.

There was therefore an unrecognized, implicit knowledge that - in spite of their belief that the monsters would eventually win, and chaos would consume the world of men; this ought to be resisted and delayed. 

In other words; although neither consciously known nor named, there was assumed to be some higher perspective, some point-of-view which stood above the apparent division of reality into temporary mortal joy and enveloping eternal chaos... 

And it was this higher perspective from-which came duty and values: and virtues. 

Such Men of the Dark Ages had an existential overview of reality and the human condition which is almost completely lacking in the modern West. 

We are, instead, so consumed by shallow, short-termist hedonic (utilitarian) concerns and fears; that we have genuinely lost sight of the reality and inevitability that all our joys and sufferings, our triumphs and disasters, are all temporary; and man, each man and all men and all their works shall die.

Knowing such facts-of life; to such men as Beowulf and his contemporaries; Jesus Christ's offer of the chance for resurrected eternal life in heaven; and a permanent escape from the tyranny of death, was a no-brainer!

Of course such Men wanted what Jesus Christ offered! 

That they wanted it was clear, certain and obvious - the only question was whether or not this "Jesus" really could fulfil his promises. Once convinced Jesus could do what he said - their decision was made. 

Once a pagan Anglo Saxon had been convinced that following Jesus really was a way to eternal Heavenly life; there was no question but he would seize the offer in both hands, and do whatever was required to obtain it.

(And the same applied to the Vikings who came some centuries after.) 

By contrast, modern Men of The West are so pathetically bound up in their everyday machinations, their hope for little pleasures and fears of possible suffering; that they cannot even comprehend the nature of Life; and failing to comprehend the problem, are indifferent to the solution. 

Consumed by trivia and selfish-utilitarianism; Modern Man is not sufficiently interested in the eternal questions to make an effort to investigate the real nature and potential validity of what Jesus offers. 

Our existential and spiritual inferiority to the Anglo Saxon pagans is an objective fact. We are so very inferior to them, that we have not even acknowledged the unavoidable existence of the question of Life - leave aside making an effort to evaluate the rightness of possible answers. 

Self-blinded optimism and Christian convergence with The System

It is somewhat dismaying to see Christians embarking, again and again, decade after decade, on delusory projects of "re-taking culture", including the established churches - and instead ending-up fundamentally (and whether they realize it or not) assimilated-to ("converged-with") mainstream (left-totalitarian) ideology.

This is often associated with the Boromir Strategy: "Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron!" - either deliberately ("It's time we learned from the success of the Left"), or else by unconsciously and incrementally becoming more like the Left in order to infiltrate the structures of power and (so the original intention is) seize control. 

This usually begins with some local and small scale goal; like getting control of a magazine or journal, reforming a college or a school, placing "our people" in local government, or electing a single national politician. The idea is that this then serves as a base and bridgehead for the next step, and the next... and eventually the whole System will be re-orientated in a Christian direction...

There are two things to be said: firstly, people have been saying this and trying it for more than fifty years, and therefore by any realistic and this-worldly appraisal it has an effectively zero chance of working. 

Therefore, by all reasonably probabilities, the needful investment of time, energy and resources Will Fail to achieve the strategic and cultural objectives (although, in the short term and on a small scale, the attempt may make a living for a smaller group of people - which is perhaps why the strategy keeps getting revived). 

So there are large opportunity costs; because if you are prioritizing one thing, you are not prioritizing another thing*; and personal resources expended on pursuing futile (or selfish) ventures are unavailable for potentially valid and successful projects.   

(*There can only be one priority: therefore choose it well!)

The second and more important thing to be said is from an inferred spiritual perspective. 

All talk about re-taking the culture is essentially to do with the material and physical realm, and is framed in terms of a communal activity. 

Now, many Christians have assimilated and committed to the idea that Christianity is essentially a group, communal activity; that must be pursued via an intermediary and material, this-worldly social system (i.e. their favoured church or denomination) - so they are self-painted into an ever-shrinking corner from which they can only imagine (or will only entertain the possibility) of the same-old form of Boromir Strategic escape: no matter how often this has failed, no matter how counter-productive is the attempt in practice. 

My own understanding is almost the opposite; which is that Life is trying to teach us that retaking culture, taking-over The System, or any version of the Boromir Startegy... is not what we should be attempting; because we are spiritual Beings with a direct-line to God and direct guidance from the Holy Ghost. 

And this decision has been made easy for us, by the repeatedly proved fact that church-centred, institution-centred, collective strategies will not work, anyway - so it ought to be facile for us to abandon them.  

Of course; if one is indeed painted-into a this-worldly corner, then this sounds like a counsel of despair! 

But if we are instead prepared to learn from the divine teachings of this-world; we can be completely hope-full that pursuing the strategy which God has laid-out for us, will be far more successful (when success is defined correctly - i.e. spiritually) than the same old useless delusions. 

Indeed, we can be utterly confident that - in the long-term and where-it-matters - we certainly will be successful; so we ought to feel joy, not despair. 

In other words, the reaction of despair is a product of self-blinding and a delusion; but joy is a consequence of that hope which derives from faith in God the creator, our Heavenly Father+, and we His children. 

+This argument works equally well; whether one believes that God is our Heavenly Father only; or, as I believe, our Heavenly Parents.

This-worldly pseudo-Christians cannot tolerate anything pessimistic, because that makes them feel despair

I have noticed that one of the barriers to (in the first place) valid Christian understanding, and (secondly) to a valid comprehension of how Very Bad things are in the world, now; is a mistakenly This-Worldly and Morality-Centred perspective. 

Furthermore, being this-worldly and morality-centred means that such Christians, almost-inevitably, are un-repentantly tainted by Residual Unresolved Leftism; since a TWMC perspective is also characteristics of the socio-political globalist totalitarian mainstream. 

Thus; this-worldly and morality-centred "Christians" gravitate towards a world view that could literally (non-pejoratively) be described as a type of Christianized fascism; since fascism was the early twentieth century's primarily-secular reaction against internationalist communism. 

Yet, of course, "fascism" is itself a species of Leftism - albeit a less complete and more-functional leftism than communism, socialism, or the current post-sixties "New Left"-ism.  

A Christianity that understands itself primarily in this-worldly and moral terms is catastrophically vulnerable to pessimism - where pessimism is understood as the belief that things in this world are already Very Bad Indeed, and most likely to continue getting worse. 

Anyone who is fundamentally this-worldly (whether self-identified as Christian, or not) will find it very difficult to avoid despair (which is, of course, a deadly sin) unless he is dogmatically and systematically optimistic; and this means that he cannot tolerate pessimism - no matter whether a pessimistic evaluation of this-world is valid or not. 

In other words, for the this-worldly "Christian" an optimistic understanding of this world is mandatory; and any pessimistic evaluation of current and future conditions is absolutely ruled-out, in-advance, by-assumption; otherwise the individual will be overwhelmed by despair.

This partly explains why so many Christians are so falsely optimistic about the condition of the world now, and its probably future; why they are so resistant to a realistic appraisal of this mortal life; and why they are so often drawn into advocating and supporting residually-Leftist and collectivist socio-political programs. 

Note: The answer to the impasse - which would enable Christians to be realistic about the nature and prospects of The World - would, of course, be to base one's Christianity primarily upon Jesus Christ's promise of  resurrected eternal life; as clearly set forth in the Fourth Gospel ("John").  

Residual Unresolved Collectivism (RUC)

Francis Berger: " I don't think speculating about consciousness development at the collective level is necessary or even helpful now."

My comment (edited): This articulates something that has been nagging at me for a while. In particular, I increasingly feel that the account of development of consciousness is valid for the past - and it is important to recognize that people have Not always been the same as now, nor are people the same everywhere at any particular time. 

But the Steiner/ Barfield theory of the Evolution of Consciousness went badly wrong in being used as a predictor. 

Thinking further about this exchange, I realize I have been guilty of significant Residual Unresolved Collectivism (RUC). 

In other words; while in-theory realizing that there is no legitimate optimism to be derived from expecting Good Leadership the The West or any of its constituent nations, institutions or churches; I still retain a residual expectation that there is a desirability hence need for some kind of communal or group-based spiritual awakening of the necessary kind. 

It is Residual because my habitual practice of thinking is different from what I believe (and even know) must be the case: the collectivism is left-over from an earlier set of assumptions and practices.  

And, to this extent, my habits sabotage my intentions. 

RUC is closely analogous-to, and indeed related-to, other left-over forms of wanting and thinking that I have previously described: Residual Unresolved Positivism (which I got from Owen Barfield), and Residual Unresolved Leftism. 

In other words; just as we have habits of considering the world as primarily material/ physical and abstract (e.g. as models) in terms of its reality and causes; and just as our values nowadays tend habitually to begin with leftist assumptions (such as equality, pacifism, antiracism) -- and just as these are difficult to eradicate even when that is our priority...

So, we tend to think about the human world primarily in terms of large human groupings; and understand the individual as a consequence of such groupings. 

The collective is how we analyze and understand problems; and the collective is where we seek for (or, at least hope-for) answers. 

Collective thinking is, indeed, woven-into Christianity from its historical basis; especially in the Old Testament where most things are conceptualized in terms of "a people": the nation (tribe) of Israel.

Even many relatively recent and current forms of Christianity (such as Mormonism) have usually adopted collective explanations of God's motivations, and tried to recreate collective dealings-with God - including envisaging salvation - and theosis - in collective terms of God's dealings with A People. 

As I have often explained on this blog over the past decade; this I regard as untrue for this time and place; and counter-productive in relation to what Christians (as the individuals we actually-are) ought to be doing here-and-now. 

I believe that we cannot, and should not attempt to, live collectively in terms of our relationship to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost - but should take personal responsibility, and should act, now, from our-selves to do what is right and necessary (rather than waiting and hoping for some collective grouping to tell us what to do, and support us in the doing). 

I hope that now I have - with some help from Francis Berger! - been able to recognize and give a name to this tendency; I may begin to eradicate it more fully from my metaphysical assumptions and habits of thinking.  

Theosis reconceptualized - the Primal Self transformed

Theosis (at root the same notion as sanctification, exaltation or deification) is the general idea that throughout our earthly mortal lives we are supposed to become (in some way) more like God, or perhaps more like "a god". 

"Supposed to" because this is why we are sustained alive -- After all, why stay-alive (in the past and now) rather than simply dying and achieving salvation as soon as we choose to follow Jesus Christ to eternal life?

(Because that would surely be a more certain salvation: To die at the split second we converted, at the instant we made a commitment to follow Jesus. There must therefore be a very important reason why it does not happen.)  

But theosis is difficult to conceptualize except in the rare instance of the greatest Saints; who have very obviously become more divine throughout their mortal lives (head in Heaven, feet still upon earth - as the Eastern Orthodox say). 

It has often, and truly, been observed that becoming a Christian does not (or only seldom) make somebody overall a better person - so that, if theosis is indeed an integral aspect of genuinely Christian living, then the process doesn't seem to work very well... 

I have, therefore, found it difficult to explain to myself - in some kind of comprehensible 'model' - what is supposedly going-on with theosis - but I now think I may have found a useful picture of the process, as it is intended to operate. 

My assumption is that we have a primal self - which could also be called our real, true or divine self; and it is this which is eternal, and has existed from eternity. My primal self is "encased" within a mortal and temporarily-incarnated self; which is (approximately) our body and our personality - that which other people observe, and which interacts with The World. 

The process called theosis describes the transformation of my primal self, across a timescale of eternity; but at present intended to be achieved by interaction-with, and learning-from, the experiences of my mortal self in this world. 

So -- if I succeed in my God-given task of learning from the experiences God has set-up for me in this mortal world; then it is my primal self that is positively-transformed by this learning. 

And it is this process of positive transformation of the primal self that can be called theosis. 

This model may explain why it is that theosis is not necessarily (or usually) observable in a Christian individual. 

What is happening is that the primal self is being-transformed positively and eternally - but the bodily behaviour and actions, and personality level motivations and thoughts; are Not (or not usually) being transformed. 

So the primal self is getting-better when we learn Godly-lessons from our life experiences  - whether or not the mortal self improves... or even gets worse!

This depiction maybe explains why and how it is that we may know someone who we are convinced has a Good Heart (i.e. the primal self); despite that his behaviour is clearly sinful and not improving; or exhibits grossly inconsistent, incoherent or chaotic behaviour.  

And, on the other side; why it often seems (to our intuitive inference) that someone who leads "a Christian life", who seems to think and do the Right Things, who is nice, socially responsible, devout, a good neighbour etc.; may strike us as heartless, cold, unloving - and certainly Not improving as a result of his continued-living. 

Or why we perhaps are sure that we our-selves are being made better by being-a-Christian; despite that we continue to sin in the same ways as much as ever, or in new ways, or backslide repeatedly - or even behave (to an external observer) overall worse than we did before becoming a Christian.  

Another aspect of this mismatch between primal self and mortal self, is that it becomes understandable why God would allow (or even want) such a divergence. 

The reason why we are sustained alive is to challenge us with repeated and multiple interactions with this world: experiences that are intended as learning opportunities. 

And this situation may be easier to arrange if our mortal selves are Not (or not much, or only unevenly) positively transformed by life. 

After all; the ultimate value of this mortal life is not within this temporary world, where nothing lasts and everything dies; its ultimate value is found in Heavenly life everlasting. 

Awareness versus knowledge of Beings

It seems like a high priority that we acknowledge that this is a living and conscious "universe", which (I think) means that creation is constituted by a multitude of Beings. 

Therefore, at some level, we need to experience this reality; which seems to mean some kind of personal awareness of Beings. 

In other words; when we contemplate or look-out-upon the world; we ought to know that this is made up of Beings; this includes the mineral and plant, as well as animal and human, realms. And it includes that many of these are Beings are immaterial: spiritual in nature. . 

This business of becoming aware of this reality-of-beings should probably be regarded as a separate matter from "contacting" (including potentially communicating with) Beings. 

Insofar as we do make personal contact with the multitude of non-human and not-incarnated Beings (including spiritual Beings) we probably ought to focus upon what might be termed "social" contacts with Beings of various kinds. These are rather analogous to the low-level but frequent communications between people that occur in casual everyday life (interactions with people at work, in shops, on line - and the like). 

These social interactions are mostly just "human contact"; and may be reassuring, or stimulating - but we are not relying upon the exact validity of what is being said or otherwise communicated. For instance, we do not expect exchanged remarks on the weather, or responses to "how are you?", to be of objective validity and relevance. 

In sum: We are not trying to learn from such interactions. We are mainly just maintaining a general awareness of living in human society. 

I think that much of the awareness that we need with respect to the world of Beings, including Spiritual Beings, is of the same kind. 

We should not (mostly not) be seeking to have deep and meaningful interactions; should not assume that everything we receive from such interactions is profound and valid teaching.

The main purpose should be to maintain a general awareness of eternally living in a society of living and conscious Beings; therefore a world of motivations and meanings - instead of (as is "officially" the case) temporarily inhabiting a dead, causally-determined and purposelessly-random reality. 

This seems like an essential basis for seeking more spiritually-significant interactions with particular personages from the wide world of Beings. 

A message to "preppers" who expect to survive the upcoming collapse of Western Civilization

It takes a lot to keep us alive*; but only one thing to kill us. 

*Almost certainly; far more than you realize or could conceivably plan for. 

The take-home message: Spiritual preparation is what is vital for all without exception and starting now; anything else is mere prudence.