Relationships with the world of spiritual Beings: Characterizing stronger and weaker interactions between people (and other Beings)

Since I understand reality ultimately to consist of Beings (i.e. Beings are the only final and objective categories of reality); and creation to consist of their interactions and relationships* (so that the laws, processes, forces, fields etc) --  naturally, the question of what influences the relationship between Beings is of interest.  

I try to seek such understanding in what we spontaneously know (for example as young children) - or at least seek validation of my ideas in this (because I regard our genuinely innate and spontaneous knowledge as ultimately God-given - because a Good creator God who loves us would - I think - want to build-into us essentially-valid, as well as useful, knowledge). 

On this basis. relationships need to be possible between incarnated people - including those in remote places; and also between us and "the dead", and with un-incarnated spirits (angels, demons, other kinds of spiritual entity) - so we must go beyond the usual materialist ideas of how relationships work. 

So, on the one hand, it seems that there are no absolute physical limits to the possibility of relationships - which is what would be expected given that all Beings are first-and-foremost of a spiritual nature. 

Yet at the same time, I notice that the strength of relationships is influenced by a variety of factors. Most obviously spatio-temporal proximity is a factor that increases the likelihood of a relationship and tends to increase its strength. In other words, Incarnated Beings that are nearby, and are currently "alive", are the easiest to make relationships with, and indeed it may be difficult Not to have relationships with nearby incarnate Beings. 

(Nonetheless, modern city dwellers seem completely to ignore the vast majority of proximate living Beings - so the modern mind seems to block relationships as a default - hence our default state of alienation and isolation.) 

Consciousness also has a positive effect on strength of relationships; such that relationships are more likely, and more likely to be strong, when we are aware of an other Being - than when we are unconscious/ unaware. 

Attention is another positively reinforcing factor on relationships. When we are spiritually orientated-towards another Being, then we are more likely to relate to them, and more strongly. Attention, in turn, may be a product of motivation (and the factors that affect motivation - interest, impulses etc). 

Such a consideration of relationships can be helpful in understanding their strength, or weakness. And it can be helpful in understanding the nature and reason for incarnation - for the material instantiation of spiritual Beings (such as mortal Men) in bodies. 

An embodied Being increases the strength of spatio-temporally close relationships - the relationship between beings her-and-now; at the cost of weakening relationships between incarnate and discarnate (i.e. spirit-) Beings.

In other words; our default insensitivity to spirits that are unincarnated, with non-human and non-biological beings, and with people who are distant in time or space; is the flip-side of our spontaneous social bias in favour of the human beings around us, now. 

This gives insight into why few modern people experience spontaneous and strong relationship with spirits. 

It also explains why consciousness of the reality of spirits (of spirits in general, and also specific spirits - including "dead" humans), and directing attention to spirits, can overcome this default insensitivity. 

...Which fits rather neatly with my oft-expressed conviction that our task as modern Men includes increased conscious and explicit understanding of the ultimate nature of reality (ie. "metaphysics") as including the spiritual as primary; and also that we must make choices, exercise our agency, take responsibility for the bottom-line freedom of our situation in the world. 

In a nutshell: we need to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual world, and choose to engage with it.

But of itself this conscious engagement with the spirit world may be good or evil according to the side with which we affiliate in the spiritual war of this world. 

So, to be Good; all the above should take place in the context of what can briefly be characterized as "Christian Love". 

*NOTE: Relationships between Beings are a primary assumption of this metaphysics, which means that relationships cannot be defined. Relationships can, however, partially be described in terms of attributes - and this is of value in clarifying what is meant by relationships. Just as Beings can be described in terms of attributes such as purpose, life, consciousness, self-sustaining ability, possibilities of growth and transformation... These attributes are open-ended in number, and vary very-widely in quantity between Beings, hence they are not definitive. So relationships can also be described in terms of their attributes. That "description of relationships in terms of some of their attributes" is what this post is attempting. 

Beings and Selves in Time

Reality is made up of Beings. And these Beings exist 'in' Time.

In physics terminology, Beings are analogous to processes. If you try to think of a process outside of Time, it becomes frozen and not really a process anymore - and the same kind of thing happens with Beings.

If you try to think of a universe of Beings that are not 'inside time' then you will get something very unlike Beings - maybe a reality made of indestructible inert spheres, or something like that.  But beings are intrinsically active, doing - to some degree.

Because Beings are in-Time, then they must be 'doing' something - and what Beings are doing is having Relationships with other Beings.

So, this is the irreducible basis of Reality - Beings have-ing Relationships... Time cannot be subtracted from ultimate reality.


Because Beings are active (like processes) and eternal (because fundamental aspects of reality) - Beings are self-generating, self-creating.

If beings were like physics things, Beings would be perpetual motion machines, with infinite inner resources for self-creation.

But as Beings are the most fundamental units, we infer that self-creation is simply a 'property' of ultimate reality.


What about the Self? Well, Self is what a Being calls it own Being - so a Being and it's Self are the same 'thing' - but the Being is externally and abstractly regarded, whereas the Self is a Being's conceptualisation of itself.

I assume that this is an intrinsic property of Beings - that Beings know they are Selves, to some degree distinct from other Beings.

There is no 'inside' to the Self. It is a primary unit of reality, indivisible, unanalysable - and this (I think) means that the Self is 'immaterial' - it is not solid, not localised, does not have a surface, cannot be perceived or detected...

This sounds like lots of negatives, but this is simply to state that when it comes to the primary units of reality, there can be no further analysis. We can describe what a Being is and what it does (much like describing the character of a person in terms of his attributes, or inferred dominant motivations), but we cannot discuss its 'inner workings'. 


What is Consciousness? Consciousness is something outside-of and different-from the Self. The Consciousness observes - and one of the things Consciousness observes is the Self.

All Beings have some degree of Consciousness; although some entities (of what we call the mineral world, especially; but also the plant world) have a Consciousness that is relatively slow and weak, compared with men and some animals.

So all Beings are in relationships with other Beings, and all are somewhat Conscious of themselves and of this relationship with other Beings. All Beings therefore know themselves located within ongoing Time and reality.

What this means is that Self and and Consciousness are both attributes of Being. We can distinguish Self and Consciousness, but they are not divisible - you cannot have a Self without Consciousness or vice versa; S & C are characteristics of Being (which it may be helpful to distinguish), but S & C are not 'components' of Being.


This is a strange way of reasoning! ('Coleridge apparently called it Polar Logic; and you can read about it in Owen Barfield's What Coleridge Thought.)

But it essential to think in this way if we are to avoid the unresolvable paradoxes and problems that have plagued and paralysed Western Philosophy (and Christian Theology) since the Ancient Greeks invented it.

The key is to include Time in our fundamental metaphysical assumptions about ultimate reality - and this fits with (or naturally flows-from) the Christian scheme; since the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus happens in history, in time.

Christianity is linear, sequential and purposive.

Ultimate reality does Not consist of "true statements" and "true concepts" - these are Secondary values

Truth is usually supposed to consist in something like "facts" and "concepts" - especially in the form of true statements; expressed symbolically as language, numbers, formulae...

And these true facts and concepts are supposed to be true for everybody and every-thing, in all times and places and circumstances. 

Indeed, it is often assumed that truth is the main thing about reality; truth is regarded as a non-negotiable that will impose upon us - sooner or later, like it or not. 

This primacy of truth (reflected in the primacy of epistemology within philosophy) has been, throughout the period of "modernity", the bottom-line metaphysical assumption of our civilization...

An assumption so deep that its metaphysical nature is denied, and people with circularity claim that it is a result of "evidence" - by which they mean the facts and concepts derived from the assumption that ultimate reality consists in facts and concepts! 

But the world does not come to us pre-divided into discrete units about which we could make true statements - on the contrary, all divisions are Man-made and subject to argument. 

All conceptualizations (such as "what are facts" and "what does this fact mean?") are, likewise, via the consciousness of Men. 

We cannot eliminate the human mind (or minds) from definitions of Truth; hence we cannot ever find what is true in the way that would be necessary if Truth was to be our primary value, and if truths were the primary way of conceptualizing the world.  

It seems that we cannot make sense of the assumption that reality consists of truths... So, if not, then what does reality consist in? I mean: how can we instead distinguish and divide reality? 

As I have often said in the past decade or so; I think the ultimate distinctions of real-reality consist in Beings. 

If they really are primary, then Beings cannot be "defined" - but we can list their attributes (especially considering that we ourselves are beings); and these attributes include (to varying degrees) life, purpose, consciousness, self-sustaining, potential for growth. 

And instead of organizing concepts; the "organization" of reality actually consists in the relationships of Beings... 

(Thus, in a sense: in this metaphysics; Beings replace Facts; and Relationships replace Concepts.) 

An implication of the metaphysics of beings and relationships is that truth is secondary. 

That does not mean that truth is "whatever we want it to be"; but that truth derives from the nature of Beings and of their relationships. 

Change the Beings - their purposes, motivations, way of perceiving etc - and truth will be differently conceived...

Change the relationships-between Beings - eg. from love to resentment; from positive to negative motivation, from the impulse to create to the motivation of destruction... 

And you will recognize and believe truth differently.   

We can see this by the contrast between "truth" as its was conceptualized when our civilization was religious; and how truth is conceptualized in atheistic-materialist mainstream-official discourse as-of 2026. 

We can see why there is nowadays almost no relationship between these; no possible coherent compromise between them, no meaningful dialogue even. They are built on different foundations.  

And we can also trace how all this has changed incrementally (then suddenly) across the generations over the past few hundred years - and even over the past several decades.

  

What counts as truth has changed; because truth is a value secondary to Beings and their relationships; and because Beings and their relationships have changed. 

 

The re-enchantment of the world - a matter of direct spiritual contacts

Since the emergence of Romanticism in the late 1700s, the "disenchantment" of our modern world has been a constant cultural theme; and there have been may analyses of its cause; and suggestions concerning the possibilities for re-enchantment. 

I have, over the past half century, read many books and essays on this theme; and I observe that more continue to be published. 

In recent years I have expanded my explorations to include the tradition of Christian ceremonial magic, in particular the works of Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight. Knight, in particular, confronts this issue head-on, especially in his autobiography "I called it magic" (2011) - which describes the (almost) life-long quest for re-enchantment of his life. 

What follows derives from such considerations; and takes the form of notes-to-myself, as a kind of aide memoire concerning a partial crystallization of ideas. 

++

In our world, here and now, the proper aim of magical activity is to establish the greatest possible range of loving contacts. 

By which I mean, in particular, direct inter-Being contacts of a spiritual kind. 

By "direct" contacts I mean mind-to-mind - therefore unmediated; not-perceptual, not symbolic nor linguistic.  

By "Beings" I mean any of the primary units of reality - because I regard reality as consisting of eternally existing and developing, Beings: that are alive, purposive, and (to some extent) conscious.

Therefore; re-enchantment is not about abstractions or atmospheres; nor particular qualities of consciousness or thinking. 

Re-enchantment is concrete and specific - like the interpersonal relationships with those we love.  

Re-enchantment is about an expanded awareness-of and interaction-with many Beings of many kinds; and especially awareness of those entities that are (by mainstream modern ideas and ideologies) considered to be imaginary, not to exist, to be unalive/ dead, or not-to-be-Beings/ never-alive.  

Re-enchantment is piecemeal and quantitative; because expanded awareness could include so many contacts with so many Beings of so many kinds. 

Here is an incomplete list of the kind of contacts that constitute re-enchantment.:

Telepathy with living human beings.

So-called dead people - resurrected Men

Pre-mortal spirit humans

Animals, plants, and mineral-beings

Nature spirits

Fairies

Divine beings (including the Holy Ghost)

Planets and stars

The scope of "magical" contacts, is as wide as the nature of Beings. 

To simplify somewhat; these contacts are what is missing from the alienated, materialistic and mundane life of Modern men; and a person who lived in continuous contact with all these kinds of Beings (and other Beings) would be living the "enchanted" life.  

But more needs to be said, and that includes that the contacts be of the right quality; which is to say loving. 

The point is Not (as so often has been sought) to make contact with Beings in order to "use" them to seek power/ wealth/ sex/ status; nor to get information from them; nor to be healed by them; nor to get guidance from them...

If other Beings are regarded as means to an end, any relationship will be dis-enchanted. 

An enchanted relationship cannot be instrumental. 

The "point" of these contacts is the value of loving relationships in and of themselves.

The point of these contacts is expanded awareness.  

However, contacts are not static nor merely contemplative; because contacts are two-way, they are dynamic, developmental. 

Beings in a loving relationship therefore aspire to a active relationship. 

The interaction of Beings - their mutual influencing - is the context of creativity. 

Creation (for an individual) is actively participating in the "web" of his relationships - by this activity he "makes a difference" to divine creation. 

In sum: Contemplation is a passive participation in relationships on one side; however, Creativity is active participation on both sides. 

Re-enchanting the world is thus about restoring and gaining the fullest range of contacts. 

And, for the seeking of loving-contacts to be a meaningful activity in our actual lives (not to be regarded as trivial, nor explained-away in materialistic terms); we need to be able to explain to ourselves how this really happens, and why it is really significant in terms of eternal creation. 

We do not think the work of God; but of Satan

Reality consists of Beings - in relationships. Beings are alive, conscious, self-sustaining, eternal. 

If something knowable is not a Being, then it is part of a Being or a consequence of relationships - but everything needs to be related to Beings.

(Outwith Beings and their relationships, nothing in knowable - there is by inference chaos.)

We know Beings by inferring their character, motivations etc - and causality is (something like) the kind of things that a Being wants and does...

The point of all this is that we modern people think we know stuff without reference to Beings - indeed that is the only stuff that is taken seriously as knowledge in the modern West. 

I mean so-called science, evidence, data, programmes and the like... What is studied is ripped clear of any reference to the Beings that generated this stuff - the stuff has a line drawn around it, and is treated as pure abstraction...

Except that it isn't really - everything knowable comes from beings -- but the input and sustaining activities of Beings (including the fact that it is Beings who are discussing these things) are just ignored and excluded. 

Real science is (or was) of course done by Beings (human beings) and interpreted by other Beings - but that is now forgotten or denied. Science is now supposedly (by implication) done by anybody or anything that is following some method, formula, algorithm - it is regarded and treated as a process ("science tells us"... "scientists say"... "follow the science"). 

And other attributes of Beings are supposedly processes - treated in abstraction, regardless of any Beings - like intelligence: so any-thing can be "intelligent" if it follows some process, yields some kinds of result. 

We can't stop doing this! We are thinking the work of Satan!

Love is (surely?) something to do with Beings, but it is talked about and dealt-with either as a temporary emotion, a kind of pulse of neurotransmitters and hormones. 

Or maybe Love is treated abstractly - as if it was a branch of occult physics, some kind of force-field, or vibrational state; which has impersonal properties such as being "unconditional" or "universal" - so that mere people, mere Beings don't affect Love. 

Such ways of conceptualizing Love mean that it can't be genuinely important, not really, to "society" - not when it comes to serious decision-making about serious matters... 

People yammer incessantly about Love in their gossip, in the news, and in songs, stories, and soaps; but what impact did this emotional-Love have upon the management of the birdemic in 2020 - the lockdowns, social-distancing, masking, pecking-campaigns? 

How did Love affect the closure of Christian churches in 2020; the fleeing of priests, the shut-down of Lourdes; the churches refusal to administer the Eucharist, wed people, conduct funerals? 

Despite everybody asserting its immense importance all-the-time; despite the constant whittering of pseudo-Christians and materialist-hedonists alike over "God is love", and that Love is "the most important thing of all": Love made not the slightest perceptible difference to anything at all when something that the Establishment regarded as serious was at stake. Neither did Love lead to rebellion or even dissent in thought or in deed; among the docile, obedient masses. 

We have created and we sustain a world in which (more and more) everything important is abstracted from actual people. 

Actual individuals are, indeed, regarded mainly as a threat, as potential errors and selfishness. 

Goodness comes from pure abstractions and rigorous processes. The most important decisions are made either by algorithm, or by pooling and averaging individual judgment - as with voting, committees, "democracy". 

What is needed is such a fundamental change in our current and recent attitudes and understanding as to be mind-exploding; a living world, a conscious world, a world primarily of Beings, a world primarily of spirit, a world that is God's creation and directed towards Christ's salvation... 

Yet anything less leaves us exactly where we are. 

For far too long, Christians have been pouring the new-wine of a life of Love following Jesus, into the old-bottle of abstract, materialist thinking that posits the irrelevance of Love and regards following Jesus as just-another-set-of-processes - firmly located within the usual kinds of social process. 

Christians do some different things; but they think in the same way as everybody else - so that when times are tough, their ingrained and habitual materialistic-abstract-externally-driven mode of thinking limits and controls everything they do. 

Christians shall persist in getting absolutely nowhere - except to remain a "lifestyle option" within a hell-bound totalitarianism; unless and until we begin and continue to think the work of God. 

The spirit world, and what to do about it?

There is the physical or material world inhabited by incarnated mortal Beings (i.e. the only world acknowledged as real by the modern mainstream ideology). This contains a mixture of good and evil, some Beings on the side of God and divine creation; other Beings opposed to this - and all mortal Beings are some mixture of these motivations. The material world is subject to entropy - subject to change, decay, disease, degeneration, and death - the irrevocable dissolution of physical forms. 

Then there is the Divine World - "inhabited" by God, the ascended Jesus Christ/ The Holy Ghost. And also - since the work of Jesus Christ, the divine world is inhabited by the denizens of Heaven - resurrected Men (and, presumably, other Beings). It is a realm entirely of Good, that is to say that all is motivated by love. It is also an eternal realm, without entropy. 

But there is another realm: the underworld/ dream-world realm of spirit Beings. 

The spirit world. 

For ancients, this was the realm of dreams, the place where souls went after death (perhaps being reincarnated from there). 

A wide range of Beings have been supposed to inhabit this "psychic" realm: gods, angels, demons, nature spirits, chthonic monsters, ghosts, non-human sentient spirits of many kinds and degrees.

Like the physical realm the "underworld" is mixed; with Beings that contain both good and evil motives - and including Beings affiliated to the agenda of evil. 

However; this realm, like the physical realm, will also be "visited" by the wholly-good denizens of the Divine Realm.  

The spirit realm is like the physical world in being also subject to entropy - in that, although spirits do not "die" in the way that physical Beings die; they are subject to destructive change - to degeneration, disease, loss of self... 

The spirit world is a fact of life. It is "all around" us, always, and wherever we happen to be; and has influences. 

This means the spirit world is (like the physical world) differentiated, heterogeneous, varied by time and place.

Thus the spirit world (whether we are aware of it or not) will affect us - somewhat like geography, climate, seasons and weather affect us. At some times and/or some situations the spirit world will be benign and helpful, maybe enjoyable. 

But in other circumstances, the spirit world will be net hostile, fear- or misery-inducing perhaps, or having evil influences - therefore hostile in specific ways.  

The striking fact of modern life for Men - including most, not all, Christians - is that we have all-but lost any spontaneous consciousness of the spirit realm. We live "in" it, but unaware, typically denying its reality. 

It is as if we wandered from the Arctic to the Sahara, while unaware of the differences, and taking no account of them in our lives. 

This is part of our alienation: modern Man is cut-off from a multitude of relationships with the world. These relationships are potentially bad and good both, as with the physical world: but most importantly they are real and unavoidable. 

The consequence is that we "miss" the spiritual realm - and (even if unconsciously) we know that our experience and knowledge of reality is incomplete. We are, to that extent, maimed. 

Further: this situation is made worse by many Christians, who regard the spirit realm as nothing but a threat, a spiritual danger, the domain of demonic temptation - that must be avoided. They regard the underworld as at best inessential, at worst a constant threat. 

More moderately, but with the same result; Christians regard the spirit world as an "optional extra" for life; something that we do not need, and is therefore best avoided because of its spiritual hazards. 

This is one way in which mainstream, orthodox, traditional Christianity has not just failed to meet the challenge of modernity; but has indeed worsened the situation. 

But suppose that we do - as a matter of fact - both need the spirit world, just as we need the physical world; and anyway cannot avoid it - even when we want to? 

We may fence ourselves in - but we cannot fence the spirit world out. We can only make ourselves unaware of it, and explain away its effects. 

What then?

Well, in my judgment there are no really good models from the past, that work for this present among Western people, no good models concerning how we ought to regard and relate-to the spirit world.  

There are, of course, plenty of people who - even nowadays - are aware of the spirit world in some way - "clairvoyants" or "psychics" of many kinds. Maybe they have visions of spirits, converse with spirits; and seek-out such contacts. 

The problem is that these are mostly Not wise or knowledgeable people. They are often silly, or motivated badly. By my evaluations; their knowledge (apparently derived from contacts with spirits) is unreliable, and often incoherent nonsense, or rather blatant self-gratifying fantasy. 

They often seem to be seeking spirits to help them gain worldly gratifications (health, sex, power status - the usual stuff). 

Or, on the other side, they seem to be seeking to surrender to the world of spirits, to be overpowered and controlled by the spirits they encounter. Self-annihilation... Not good.  

At any rate, the "fruits" are often bad - in that a majority of those who are (or claim to be) in contact with the spirit world are (to me) unimpressive, and usually have taken the side of evil in the spiritual wars. But then again, so have most self-identified "Christians", and those of other religions! 

(There is no "safe" path to salvation and theosis that can be objectively described or externally imposed - and the greatest danger is for those who believe there is.)   

To me, "the Spiritual" are mostly unimpressive... and yet not always! 

While - like all mortal Men - mixed-Beings who are prone to errors and being misled; there have been some people (and in the "modern" era) such as William Blake, Rudolf Steiner, Dion Fortune, and Gareth Knight - who seem in important ways to have benefitted from their contact with the spirit realms. These I like, respect and admire. 

Nonetheless, we cannot assume that any of these people are themselves a model for other people differently constituted, and belonging to later generations, whose consciousness is different. Nor (whatever they may have claimed) can we assume that such past-exemplars were able to describe a general model by which other people can (or should) attain a positive relation with the spirit world. 

In particular; I am increasingly convinced that past attempts (and maybe successes) in positively affecting human society (e.g. nations, or relations between nations) are not possible here-and-now - due to the change in human consciousness. 

Those same changes that have made spontaneous spirit awareness so rare, have also enhanced the potential human spiritual autonomy and individual agency. Past human consciousness was social, pooled, in ways that is no longer the case. 

Our situation is different. What was effective and good then, is often feeble and harmful now.  

As so often nowadays, external influences are overwhelmingly likely to be bad; so we need to (and should) rely on our personal judgment and take spiritual responsibility for our choices. 

My own notions are as follows:

We should be aware that there is a spirit world of Beings, that it is real and important. 

And, on general principles in this era, we should strive to become aware of whatever is real; so, in some fashion, it is good to become conscious of the spirit world as it is affecting us "here-and-now"; and where possible be prepared to act on the implications of that effect. 

(Maybe avoiding situations in which the spirit world is exerting a malign influence - or continuing a life-path that seems to be sustained by that which is good in the spirit world.)  

What about developing personal relationships with specific spirit Beings? 

Well; many spirit Beings are benign; and some of these are likely to have a positive and personal interest in ourselves. 

For instance, there may be deceased and resurrected relatives or close friends whom we loved, or willing "spiritual mentors".  And such Beings may be in spiritual-proximity ("near") to us in the spirit world, and maybe be actively-desirous of aiding us in particular ways. 

My best guess is that such potential relationships with spirit Beings, are good and perhaps necessary. 

How to develop such relationships, while avoiding deceptions and temptations, and shallow or wishful thinking; is, in principle, a problem not different from the same question about our social relations among human beings in the physical realm. 

We cannot plan a good human-social life in the physical world - and rules or blueprints for good relationships are a misguided or malign attempt to subordinate the personal soul to inhuman materialistic-bureaucratic thought processes. Same for the spirit world. 

What is needed is realistic assumptions about the nature and purpose of life, then a secure rooting in personal intuition and responsibility - with a willingness to recognize and repent our errors.

Since, as Christians; we know that we inhabit a divine creation within-which we have a personal destiny; and that we are God's children capable of valid judgment, and that the guidance of the Holy Ghost is always available when required...

Knowing all this, and if our attitudes can also be grounded in such knowledge; there is every reason to suppose that we will be able to navigate the spirit realm in such a way as will benefit us spiritually - now and in the context of eternity.  

Analysis by cause and effect acting on categories of things is Not Ultimately True; because relationships between Beings are primary

The analysis by causes and effects, using abstract categories of entities, developed in the classical and medieval periods when there was still a great deal of spontaneous, unconscious "participation" of human consciousness. 

In other words, when these abstractions cause/ effect/ category were devised; even "things" were regarded - quite naturally, and by experience - as personifications, with the kind of innate nature and desires of a living being. 

But for the modern (especially adult) consciousness participation has dwindled almost to nothing; and even living beings, even human beings, are regarded as if non-living "things". 

Therefore, to seek understanding of people, the abstractions of category, cause and effects are deployed as if these are the primary and bottom line realities - more real and important than the relationships between people...

Indeed; relationships between people are themselves subordinated to categorical, cause & effect analysis. 

The mainstream Christian churches have largely apostatized into modern consciousness, but even the  most traditionalist of church Christians have continued to use the classical and medieval versions of abstract analyses - but nowadays, because modern consciousness is so different, these abstractions are not-participated, they are alienated and alienating. 

This is why, for instance, Scholastic or Calvinist theologies are so cold and material-mechanical to the modern mind: because we cannot help but take them literally, while when they originated the rigorous philosophy was experienced (quite spontaneously) in what we might regard as a poetic, mystical, animistic way.  

And would-be spiritual explanations for group prayer, ritual, sacredness are often explained (or, at least, asserted) in a kind of pseudo-scientific fashion: as if constituting a laboratory procedure, or a computer program: If you do this, then this, in such a fashion - then these will be the objective outcomes...

But if, as I believe, the ultimate (metaphysical) reality is that of beings in relationships; then we ought to be trying to understand in these personal and interpersonal terms.

After all, within a good and loving family; the members are Not understood in terms of categories, and their relationships are not conducted as if cause and effect recipes for producing desired results. 

Instead; we realize that we cannot, and should not, treat each other in this mechanistic way; and that our influences on each other are not of a cause and effect nature. 

To read many "Trad" Christians; one would think that getting married, raising a family and living in a family ought to be a matter of slotting members into the proper categories, then following the correct (and God-approved) procedures for implementing the desired changes and outcomes! 

But this is to reduce the family to a bureaucracy; and bureaucracy is intrinsically evil. 

And it matters not whether the particular bureaucracy is secular- or church-derived; or if purports to be conducted according to laws and regulations from some interpretation of the Bible, Church authority, tradition, theology, or whatnot.

The de-humanization, the reduction of Beings to things, is just the same. 

We have all been ingrained with bad habits, actively-evil habits, of depersonalization; of mechanizing humans and other beings - and regarding such mechanizing as not just valid but superior - as (supposedly) validated by our understanding of ancient law and practice.  

Yet such behaviour leads us away from salvation - and by a very direct route; by making salvation impersonal, actually non-personal; reduced to a business of the abstract operations of cause and effect on things. 

Fortunately, it is quick and easy to repent such habits - once we have noticed them, and understood their nature and tendency. 

We all have built-into us - innately, from childhood - the instinct and tendency to understand other people and the world by means of relationships between living, purposive, conscious beings. 

All we require is to know, to be clear about, to decide; is that this is indeed the right and good way of understanding and acting. 

Our inevitably many lapses can then be repented - which is (mercifully!) all that is absolutely required of us. 

**

The Example of Prayer:

An an instance of the above, we may consider the influence of prayer on other people, as explained by Christians. 

In the medieval past, the individual conscious was less differentiated-from, more immersed-in, group consciousness. 

Therefore a prayer did not come entirely from any individual, and did not express the personal wants of any individual; but all valid prayer was significantly from the group-consciousness, it actually arose from the group. 

Its effect was because of this - from the group, to the group. 

The medievals may have interpreted prayer in a cause and effect way if asked to explain it: e.g. I pray for this to happen to him and it happens. But in reality, when prayer was effectual, it was because prayer operated in an unconscious and implicit group context. 

The modern person has become detached (almost wholly) from the group-consciousness. This is our freedom and agency, it is part of our development (and growing-up in consciousness towards the divine) - but it also means that our prayers have a different origin. 

Our prayers may come from our selves alone - and without connection with other consciousnesses. There is no obvious reason why a prayer from our self will affect other selves - especially when those other selves are understood as (like our selves) free agents. 

If our prayers "caused" effects in others, then the others would not be truly free - and vice versa.  

Or our prayers (especially group prayers) may derive from second-hand and external sources, from perceived stimuli interpreted by learned-concepts. 

(Such as prayers aimed at changing phenomena, knowledge of which has been derived-from political propaganda and the mass media, or from social media. This accounts for many prayers in church concerning official-media accounts of wars, famines, diseases - as well as those prayers directed at enhancing the agendas of evil such as antiracism, anthropogenic climate emergency, supposed or actual atrocities.)  

In sum: Modern people lack a plausible or real basis to explain (to themselves, as well as others) the effect of prayers. Mainstream people probably regard prayers as operating on the consciousness of the pray-er, with a secondary "group-psychological" effect, derived from the (psychological) experience of praying as a group. 

Modern traditionalists regard prayer (and indeed the church) rather as if it were an engineering project: a matter of assembling appropriate personnel, performing particular words in a particular ritual and symbolic context - leading leading to particular effects...

Albeit and importantly by the Grace of God, and not effectual from purely human and material causes. 

Yet despite the necessity of God; there is a very considerable quasi-objective "positivism" (materialism, reductionism, scientism) about the way that prayer, ritual, sacraments - even miracles - are understood by modern traditionalists (who have, innately and like-it-or-not, the modern alienated consciousness). 

For Trads; our business as mortal men is to regard Christian realities as objectively-real categories with necessary cause and effect interactions -- yet this is, in practice and intrinsically, to reduce humans to things, whatever protestations otherwise.  

What I am suggesting is that we ought not to think of prayer in a cause and effect fashion, operating between our-selves and other people or other things. 

We should instead regard prayer in the context of those entities with whom we ourselves are bound by relationships of love - as we and they were of a family. 

Where there is not this inter-personal (inter-being) love, then there will be no real prayer - but with love, all prayer will be significant, will make-a-difference. 

Where there is love, then prayer does not work by cause and effect, but works on "the relationships". 

And by this, I means prayer works on the real and ultimate spiritual relationships, relationships that transcend and encompass physical relationships, and potentially extend to post mortal life, and potentially eternally. 

In everyday life, our beneficial relationships are those which are loving, and which regard the other persona as an unique person, our relationship as unique. 

Actual benefits in relationships are seldom planned, and seldom contrived; but are consequent on living our loving relationships. 

We live in accordance with Christian love - and what actually happens always benefits from that, in some way - but not in a cause and effect way, and not leading to predictable outcomes -- because we are relating to real people who are free agents. 

And that is how our prayers work also. 

Explaining the origin of irredeemable, never-incarnated, demonic spirits

Following from yesterday's discussion; I shall put forward here an explanation for those beings who are traditionally regarded as demons in orthodox Christian theology:

The definition of which is that they are spirit-beings, that have never incarnated, and which are eternally committed to evil such that they cannot be redeemed or saved. 

There are several other kinds of being that might be termed "demons"* - and these might include currently-incarnated beings, or beings that have previously been incarnated and died (analogous to evil ghosts)...

But here I am focusing on beings that have always been spirits - and I am trying to understand and explain how any being might be outwith the scope of the salvation of Jesus Christ.   

I will first outline my metaphysical assumptions: those who want to cut straight to the explanation of demons will find this after the break: indicated +++

My metaphysical understanding of reality is that it comprises beings in relationships; and that beings have attributes such that they are alive, conscious (to some degree), purposive, self-sustaining and so forth. 

Beings are eternal, always have existed - including before creation.

All beings are unique: that is important. Some Christians (perhaps influenced by oneness spiritualty) assume that all Men are originally equal, and diverge - and then spiritually develop and converge towards becoming very similar, or even identical. 

But in contrast I assume that all beings began as unique (and un-cooperative) and God's plan of salvation is a matter of progressively achieving harmony. At first a partly-imposed and temporary harmony, but a process that is completed by the Second Creation, of Heaven; where each resurrected being has chosen to be remade such as to live wholly from-love, and harmony between unalike beings is then innate and spontaneous**.

That is: living-beings are the primary unit of reality; and "beings" include humans, animals, plants, as well as what are usually considered to be "mineral" entities and materials. 

Everything primary in reality is thus either itself a being, or part of a being. 

A further assumption is that all beings were originally spirits. 

Only later, and only for some beings, there may be incarnation into some material form. 

Many spirits have never been incarnated.  

Originally (before creation) beings may have been aware of each other, to varying degrees, and with varying attitudes - but each being is assumed to have been autonomous, separate, pursuing its own goals. 

Before creation, reality was a "chaos" of beings. 

Divine creation happened when God's love became the means of "coordinating" or harmonizing these already-existing beings. 

However, to become a part of divine creation, a being must first be capable of love; then secondly a being-capable-of-love must choose to live by, or from, this love.

(Because it is love that harmonizes the disparate beings, and this harmonization is creation.)

Hence the formulation "God is love", and the great commandments to love God and fellow Men - which can be interpreted to make the choice to embrace the loving purpose of God as ideal, and to aspire to live wholly from love of other beings. 

+++

Now I will explain the origin of demons:

All beings are unique. To participate in creation, a being must be capable of love; but not all beings are capable of love. 

A love-incapable being happens to be constituted that way. Such a being will not be part of creation, and cannot ever become a part of creation. 

Demons are here regarded as spirits that are incapable of love. 

For a being to be saved or redeemed includes death and resurrection such as to live entirely from love. 

It follows that any being constitutionally incapable of love, cannot undergo salvation, indeed, such a being cannot even want salvation.

Some love-incapable beings might remain passive, detached from creation. But demons are assumed to be those love-incapable beings who have chosen to oppose creation - for various motives. 

For instance; demons may aim to exploit creation, or may seek to destroy it. They may be motivated by their own pleasure, by negative resentment, or sheer spiteful desire to inflict suffering. Or mixture of motivation; and demonic motivations may change over time. 

But although capable of changing their behaviours; a love-incapable demon can never become part of creation, and can never seek or attain salvation through following Jesus Christ. 

The above scheme may explain the occurrence of those demons - traditionally-defined: demons that are spirits, have never incarnated, and are eternally outwith even the possibility of salvation. 

*(And some of these are capable of choosing salvation.)

**(An analogy is that the first creation is like a State ruled by a loving creator God with a mixture of coercion and consent; while the Second Creation is a perfectly loving family.) 

Can "the planet earth" choose to be damned (or saved)?

I have developed the metaphysical assumption that reality consists of Beings in relationships; this is a version of the spontaneous ('animistic') assumptions of 'all' young children and (so far as is known) hunter-gatherers - including our ancestors. 

I assume that this is an essentially true way of understanding reality which is why it was and is innate, 'built-into' Men - by God. 

Beings are therefore regarded as the ultimate, fundamental, metaphysically primary units of reality; Beings that are alive, with attributes such as consciousness, and purpose.  

In other words: there are ultimately no 'things' (or, more exactly, no knowable things - because chaos is not knowable - it can only be a label for uncreated stuff, including the primordial background state). Ultimately; there is no 'it' - but only 'him' or 'her' (or some other linguistic term that refers to Beings). 

This seems to mean that the spiritual war of this world includes all Beings, not just us human Beings; but animals, plants, and features of what we refer to as the 'mineral' world - sea, sky, and aspects of the earth - and the earth herself. 

And as usual, as with humans, there are Beings within Beings - just as we contain innumerable cells that are beings - for instance the white blood cells which roam our blood and lymph, consuming germs and debris, that are very similar to amoebae. 

And we Men, as individual Beings, are also biologically (and spiritually) 'social animals', with a 'Beingness' of some kinds of human groups, that is difficult to conceptualize yet also traditionally regarded as true; and which seems to exist above the individual level.    

One among many aspects of this situation is that all Beings have an analogous choice to that of Men, of whether to accepts the salvation made possible by Jesus Christ. Whether, that is, to choose resurrection into Heaven.

(Or not - and thus by default [whether actively or passively] to choose... something else.) 

I assume all Beings are - in their very different ways, due to their different qualities and degrees of consciousness - able to choose resurrection - or not. 

And this would apply to that Being which is 'the planet earth'. 

That there is indeed some such Being as 'planet earth', I am assuming on the basis that it seems to be spontaneous knowledge, and a feature of many cultures of many kinds through history. 

This earth will therefore - like you and me - at some point need to make an eternal commitment to Heaven - if the earth is to become immortal, everlasting... resurrected. 

And resurrection entails death; death is the only portal to eternal life of individual Beings. 

So, in order to become part of heavenly Life Eternal; the earth (as a Being) would first need to die; and must then choose - by an eternal commitment - to be resurrected. 

The death of the earth seems 'inevitable', given entropy; which seems to apply to all material stuff in this reality. And then, after death; will the earth choose to be resurrected? 

It seems to me that the earth will not have made this eternally-binding choice to 'discard' all sin and corruption and become everlasting; until after she actually has made this final commitment; because in this mortal and entropic material world, nothing is or can be eternal - including not our choices.

Our choices are open to change, to revision, until they are final choices; which happens only after death: when the spirit has separated from the (dead) body.  

In conclusion; we cannot know in advance whether the planet earth as a Being will, or will not, be part of Heaven; because that final choice has not yet been made by the Being that is Earth. 

This means that the question is still open; and we can be sure that Satan will be trying to influence the choice of Earth; such that she will reject Heaven; and by using broadly the same kind of methods that Satan uses against Men, to induce Men to reject Heaven.

How might this be working? Well, since the modern era (developing from circa 1500 in The West), and even more since the industrial revolution; Men have been set against Earth. Men's assumptions include that the Earth is Not a Being, that 'it' is dead, and can therefore be manipulated and explained as desired. 

The Earth is not even despised; but is regarded as outside of the drama of creation, because unalive. 

Atheists do this, Christians do this, modern environmentalists do this... 

Environmentalists - in particular - have reduced the living earth to an abstract concept called 'the environment'; which is broken down into a multitude of dead sub-concepts derived from science. 

Indeed - at present - the environment is in practice being reduced to mathematical models concerned with Carbon Dioxide; and everything else is ignored or subjugated to these models and their implications. 

In sum; there are many, many reasons why the planet earth might have developed the same kind of sinful, negative, sins that beset modern Man: I mean such sins as fear, resentment and despair. 

We might suppose that such negative attitudes could lead the modern (here-and-now) earth towards the same kind of attitudes to God, divine creation and Heaven as beset modern Men; and might lead to the same salvation-rejecting attitudes as are characteristic of so many modern Men. 

Indeed, it may be that when Christians (or anybody else - but I am addressing Christians in particular) make assumptions about what Will Happen to the planet earth; by acting as-if the earth had no say in the matter, they may be making matters worse! 

When Christians assume that the planet earth Will Be resurrected into the New Jerusalem - that Heaven Will Be on some version of this earth - are they actually taking-for-grated that the living-conscious earth will do exactly what human beings want earth to do, and thereby treating the earth as unalive, just 'a thing' which exists for the convenience of Men?

Just as if we were to assume that we knew for sure whether some particular human being would necessarily ultimately choose or reject salvation and resurrection; because that outcome is part of our own plans. 

To speak 'anthropomorphically' (which may not be far from the literal truth); when we think, speak and behave concerning the earth as an 'it' consisting of 'things' - the earth knows about this! and presumably does not like it, and may develop negative attitudes in consequence - and yet we continue and increase this way of not-relating to the earth. 

(How many of the troubles of Men with 'natural disasters' that we put down to 'bad luck' are actually a direct consequence of the way we regard the earth as a dead it and an unalive thing - and the same for Beings composing, and dwelling on, the earth? Some of the troubles, for sure.)

If we really dwell in this reality as Beings among Beings; then such matters are of fundamental importance: I mean recognizing the agency of other Beings, and recognizing that each Just Is responsible for his or her own salvation. 

It is so easy for us modern Men to fall-into the evil practice of regarding 'the universe' as a 'machine' - and this is wrong even when what is being-assumed is 'a machine for salvation'. 

We are not components in a mechanism, or elements in a determined-plan - and neither is the planet earth! 

We are all Beings, engaged in a free quest, located in a world which is engaged in spiritual war; a vital aspect of which is relationships. 

And one primary principle of such relationships is that we recognize each other as Beings - not as things. 

Conversely; it is a plank of the devil's program of damnation, that Men cease to do this; and instead habitually (and by conviction) regard 'the environment', animals, plants and other Men - as things instead of Beings.

Making Men into things, and he/ she into 'it'; is the malign intent behind such core evil-strategies as bureaucracy, totalitarianism, transhumanism, 'Artificial Intelligence', the transagenda, and the incremental and coercive computerization and digitalization of Life. 

Beings are not necessarily-determined, nor are they random. Instead; Beings have natures (dispositions), and purposes, can learn, make choices - and until they have made eternal choices, their fate cannot be known in advance.

To think and talk otherwise, is choosing to become a component part of the agenda of evil. 

Note added: On re-reading the above, I find it rather unsatisfactorily expressed; and I think this is because I am preaching something I cannot practice - although I want to! For instance, I found several examples (which I needed to edit out) in which I had used 'it/ its' about the planet earth! Nonetheless; this merely emphasizes how deep and pervasive is this 'objectivizing' and dead-ly way of thinking. It has even permeated what most adults (and indeed older children) regard as 'common sense' - so that it strikes most people as dumb or insane to acknowledge the livingness and consciousness of the universe and its true-components. I myself had to be driven to this conclusion (metaphorically 'kicking and screaming') via theoretical biology, and the attempt to define 'life', discuss the 'origins' of 'life', understand the nature of creativity - and indeed to map the proper boundaries of biology... All of which attempts I found to be impossible without the artificial drawing of boundaries that seemed too-obviously arbitrary. When confronted by the dilemma that - therefore - everything must either be alive, or else unalive. (In reductionist scientific terms; all of reality is either 'biology' or physics.) I felt intuitively compelled to assume the truth of the former - given that the idea that all of reality is ultimately physics (or maybe abstract mathematics), has underpinned the assumptions that have led Western Civilization to where we are now. That life consists in irreducible and primary Beings, arose from noticing the abstract - and again artificial - nature of any other conceptualization of biology/ life/ creation.  

Why "AI" is qualitatively worse than the internet/ social media/ smartphones

People apparently have difficulty understanding (or explaining to themselves) just why post-November 2022 "AI" is qualitatively worse than the previously-existing computer-media phenomena - such as the internet, social media and smartphones. 

The answer is quite simple: upfront and no secret. 

As usual; probably because evil must be invited into the heart in order to damage the soul; the agents of strategic evil always tell us what they intend for us, before they try to do it. 

In this case, "They" have told us explicitly that the purpose of "AI" is to replace human thinking, judgment, creativity - and loving-relationships. 

Again: "AI" is intended to replace humans in the realms of:

1. Thinking

2. Judgment

3. Creativity

4. Loving-relationships

In other words, the explicit intent of "AI" is to replace human beings in their most distinctive and spiritually-highest aspects. 

And that is what people are agreeing-to, when they defend and promote the "AI" project. 

The fact (and I regard it as a simple and sure fact) that "AI" cannot replace human beings in these aspects is almost irrelevant to the purpose of "AI"; because the purpose does not depend upon "AI" actually being able to do these things; but only on convincing human beings that "AI" can do these thing. 

In sum; the reason for the tera-dollar investment and subsidy of "AI"; the mandatory top-down societal transformations, the colossal pro-"AI" career and status incentivization of the intellectual, technical, and managerial class...

Is simply that people will believe that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships.  

The endemic condition of AI-dolatry can therefore be defined the belief that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships. 

Because if you believe that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships; then you will almost-inevitably (sooner or later) conclude that "AI" should replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships.

The "should" follows the "can", because "AI" is (and has been grossly subsidized, at our expense, so as to be) quicker, easier, and more reliable than human beings. 

In other words; if we believe "AI" can do X as well as (or better) than humans, then it follows that "AI" should do X.  

To conclude: It is the belief about "AI" that does the spiritual harm to human beings. 

We have been told explicitly what "AI" is intended to do, and there is a trillions-dollars international program tasked with implementing this...

Thus, those who justify and advocate "AI" just-are agreeing-with, justifying and advocating; the actual and on-going totalitarian strategy of replacing human beings in their most distinctive and highest aspects. 

This is the side the AI-dolators have chosen, in the spiritual war of this-world. 

And who could deny that the global totalitarian "AI" project and strategy has (so far) been overwhelmingly successful in convincing great swathes of people (especially in the managerial, technical, and intellectual classes) that "AI" can (and therefore, implicitly, should) replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships? 

In three short years; AI-dolatry has become not just statistically normal; not just a functional requisite for tens of millions; not just ubiquitous and unavoidable on and around the internet and social media; not just socially-rewarded...

But AI-dolatry has become positively-valued. 

Given the provenance, intent, and effects of "AI"; we have here an explanation for the observation of a unique and qualitatively-enhanced nature of personal spiritual corruption; directly resulting from the high and increasing prevalence of AI-dolatry. 

Seeking spiritual contacts - the advantages of deceased persons over the still-living

As a spiritual goal and method, seeking spiritual contacts with individual people* is the best strategy - and superior to the use of abstract models. 

The difference is that the division of reality into persons (into "beings") is the primary division of reality - reality actually is divided into beings; whereas any other scheme of analysis (eg by symbolism) is, ultimately, an artificial and simplified-scheme, imposed-upon real-reality.  

Much of this mortal life is about our relationships with the people familiarly-related to us, and typically around us in the material environment; and especially those whom we love. That is with "material" contacts, among people whom we know "physically". 

But our relationship with the wider world and universe; ideally includes "spiritual contacts" - by which I mean relationships with those whom we know spiritually rather than physically.

(Of course there is a much wider range of possible spiritual contacts, than physically-present people.)  

Spiritual contacts can be with people who are still alive, in this mortal life; and they can also be with those who are deceased - and especially those who have died and resurrected to eternal life. 

It might be supposed that material relationships are always the best, and spiritual relationships are secondary or even optional. This ranking is probably usually true - our family, spouse, best friends are usually the most significant relationships. 

But physical relationships are not the most important for everybody, and they are not necessarily most important at all phases and stages of a human's life. 

Even for those who are most deeply engaged by physical relationships; a better, fuller, more creative and integrative life may be possible if there are important spiritual as-well-as physical relationships. 

In my own life, the most profound and enduring relationships have often been spiritual in nature; examples include JRR Tolkien (the first such), Glenn Gould, and William Arkle. 

What is interesting is that these people were alive when I first knew of them, and I even met Arkle face to face (once, very briefly - he lived in the same village as me). But in all cases; the spiritual relationships became much more important after the person had died; and I think this may be significant.

To explain: I had a more powerful sense of spiritual contact with these people after they had died, than while they were alive. 

I think it possible that spiritual contacts may be stronger and more significant than physical relationships; and spiritual relationships may potentially be stronger with the deceased, than with the still living.  

One plausible reason (i.e. plausible to me) is that the resurrected dead are wholly good, wholly loving beings in a way that is impossible during mortal life; therefore the relationship has potential to be wholly-beneficial to us (in so far as we ourselves are able to respond to this goodness, which is inevitably only-partly). 

Another reason (reciprocally related to this) is that the still-living are often more or less dominated by this-world. They may be dominated (at any particular moment) by the corrupt, selfish, misguided, evil, or otherwise negative aspects of their natures. 

Such factors may make spiritual contact with the living both more difficult to achieve, and less beneficial - less-Good - if it does happen. 

Furthermore, living mortals often (to a greater or lesser degree) close their minds to spiritual contact (whether consciously, compulsively, or unconsciously); such that there can be little or no spiritual contact with them. 

This mind-closing may be for good reasons as well as bad ones - e.g. a need to conserve energy and attention for what seem like (and may be) important spiritual tasks, or to exclude potential spiritual subversions and other attacks. 

Nonetheless, it seems to be a fact (in my experience) that I am usually unable to feel any sense of spiritual contact with even those among the living whose works (e.g. writings) have benefitted me greatly, and therefore for whom I sometimes feel drawn to establish some kind of spiritual contact.

It just doesn't happen.  

However, many or most of all those who have died are not resurrected Heaven-dwellers - and some are "evil spirits" or one sort or another. 

It is possible, indeed perhaps easier, to achieve spiritual contact with these than with the resurrected - and such contacts will most likely be harmful to the still-living. 

IMO this especially applies when spiritual contact is being sought for present and selfish gain - to impose one's will upon the world. This motive surely tends to attract the more mischievous, pitiful, and even demonic type of discarnate spirits - those spirits who aim to manipulate and exploit the still-living for their own benefit. 

It also may well apply when spirit contact is being sought for less obviously selfish motives such as to be taught knowledge or provided with life-guidance. 

The kind of discarnate spirits who are likely to respond to a "demand" for knowledge include include those spirits who are foolishly conceited about their own knowledge and capabilities, and seek disciples. Those among the living who seek life-guidance from the dead, will presumably attract discarnate spirits who delusionally regard themselves as experts in what is best for other people.

(Spiritually analogous to the many professional counsellors, life coaches, "influencers", psychoanalysts, and psychotherapists in this mortal world - each convinced by his or her own superior wisdom and expertise.) 

I conclude that when it comes to developing profound and beneficial spiritual contacts, "dead" people are (usually) superior to the still-living. 

And that the main motive for such contacts should be a kind of personal love, or the sense that real and mutual friendship may be possible. 

After all; the truest physical friends in our mortal life are not those from whom we hope to get the most benefit; nor even those with whom we set-up some kind of a mutually-beneficial exchange. 

The best physical friends are those with whom we feel an affinity, and for whom we have lasting affection; and when this feeling is mutual. 

When we seek spiritual contacts much the same applies as to mortal physical life. Initially we feel drawn to the person (often for no known reason, but spontaneously, from the heart). We feel that he or she is perhaps the kind of person with whom we may have a friendship. So we strike up an acquaintance, and begin interaction. 

Friendship (whether physical or spiritual) may, or may not, develop as each discovers more about the other - and the friendship may develop to varying degrees and depths (not every true friend is also a best friend). 

But there can be no one-sided compulsion; because all real friendship is mutual and - at root - exists for its own sake, for mutual joy.

The benefits we get from true friendship flow from its love, and the joy and creative stimulus that brings.

*Or other kinds of Being. 

Un-resurrected Men are not perfectible and there can be no Heaven on this earth (Jesus Christ is the only Way to eternal love)

I have often come across variations on the theme that this world and the Men, animals and plants who dwell here are perfectible: that this mortal life can be transformed into Heaven. 

The transformation has been variously expressed; one idea is that the gross materiality of bodies will be transformed into light; or that matter becomes spirit; or (in New Age type thinking) that the vibrational-state or frequency of the planet and everything on it will be raised. 

The underlying idea seems to be that this world as-it-is is "entropically" subject to death, decay, disease, and sin; but that the corruptible "stuff" of mortality and imperfection can be transformed and replaced by in-corruptible stuff... Thus Earth is changed into Heaven.

I regard this metaphysical belief as an early manifestation of Mankind's alienation, of our diminishing participation, of the loss of primal "animism" by which we knew that this reality is constituted by Beings - loving, conscious, purposive beings - and these are the bottom-line explanation. 

Because reality is Beings - therefore restatements of ultimate reality in such terms as vibrations or frequencies, of matter-spirit distinctions, or of light or any other physical property - are all abstractions. (All "physicsy").

That is these ways of understanding reality are all distanced, symbolic, representative - but not reality itself; and only a secondary form of understanding.

If, instead, we embrace the original and spontaneous human understanding of reality in terms of Beings, then we can recognize that what prevents Heaven on Earth is not a matter of matter, not about the "substance" of this world (as if it could be separated from the spirit). But instead that death, sin, insufficiency, "entropy" are a consequence on the inharmoniousness of relationships between Beings. 

In a nutshell: it is the lack of complete and eternal love that prevents our eternal lives and Heaven. 

We must rectify relationships and enable eternal Love to have Heaven. 

Heaven can arise only by Loving God first - that is, recognizing and committing ourselves to God's creation and creative methods and purposes. 

And second: by loving our neighbours/ fellow-Men - in other words Loving All Other Beings - forever.

These are the two Great Commandments articulated by Jesus Christ; and can be seen as shorthand for the eternal and irrevocable commitment to live by Love; in harmony with God's creative will. 

When beings live by Love, this is eternal - because there is nothing in Heaven (thus conceived) to disrupt or destroy divine creation.  

Since Love is what is needed, and since Love is a choice - we need to recognize that Love is the free act of a Being with agency as an essential attribute. 

Therefore (because Love cannot be imposed, top-down, from-externally); everlasting life and Heaven cannot be imposed, but must instead be chosen: indeed there must be a commitment to live eternally by Love. 

To make our lives eternal and dwell in Heaven is therefore a matter of relationship, and that relationship is voluntary (again, Love cannot be imposed)... 

Thus Heaven cannot be imposed on Earth by any means - what must instead happen is that all the beings of Earth (including the being of Earth itself) must choose to live by Love.   

I cannot see any way that such a lot of choices would be simultaneous, and Heaven cannot be partial; which would seem to mean that either Heaven must be delayed until every Being has chosen it -- which delay seems contradicted by Jesus's teachings (esepcially in the Fourth Gospel - of "John"). Or Heaven is elsewhere. 

(And also there is the fact of at least some apparently eternally-self-damned demons; which would prevent Heaven ever from happening - if indeed all must repent before eternal life can ensue.) 

Heaven surely cannot be partial; because the dwelling in Heaven of selfish or cruel Beings would not be Heaven! It would lead to destruction of that Loving creation which enables both perfection and eternity - and is itself the state of Heaven.

So, it seems to me that Heaven, and our eternal resurrected life therein, must be elsewhere than this earth; and segregated from this world of sin/ death - such that those Beings who have not committed to Love, do-not and cannot affect Heaven. 

My understanding is therefore that this-world cannot be other than it is; which is a consequence of God's Loving creation in a context of primal chaos, creation in the context of Beings that all have some tendency to death, to selfishness, to sin (and some Beings apparently incapable of Love). 

This world is temporary, and creation here is like the rule of a wise and wholly-Good parent imposed on children (i.e. Beings) who vary in their innate degrees of Goodness, and obedience. 

But for eternal life and Heaven to exist, these Beings (us, you and me, included) must be released from obedience in order to choose freely whether or not we want Heaven. 

So, this world is mixed: and has in it both evil (primal chaos, entropy, selfishness...), and also Good - vast and renewing manifestations of God's creative Love. 

Therefore; every Being or entity in this world has direct and personal experience of evil and Good. 

Every Being in this world is in a position to make the eternal commitment to live wholly by Love in a wholly Good "other place" that is Heaven - a Heaven that already exists, and to which we each can go by following Jesus Christ through resurrection, after death.

In other words; we can, will, and must choose either Heaven; or else "more of the same, mixed, kind of thing".  

But this world is not staying the same. 

This world apparently accumulates evil through time, because evil just-is cumulative, and Beings that choose evil become more evil..

(Unless the Beings repent; which means precisely making a commitment to follow Jesus to Heaven.) 

Also; Beings that commit to Good are incrementally being removed from this-world and segregated in Heaven. 

In other words; this mixed world already contains Hell in part and in places; but is becoming more Hell-ish with time. 

In conclusion; Beings such as our-selves can choose Heaven or Hell - both of which we all have experienced in this mixed world. This is the choice between eternally living only by Love; and not making this commitment. 

We can choose Heaven, or we can choose to reject Heaven. 

We can also choose to "delay" our choice -- but this is, in its actual effect, a here-and-now rejection of Heaven, and embrace of this mixed-world, which is tending towards Hell. 

We can go-back on this rejection of Heaven at any time: repentance is always open to every Being. 

But, in this mixed but evil-accumulating world, and given that un-repented evil will become more evil; delaying the choice of Heaven does make salvation more and more difficult. 

Repentance is never impossible, but always gets more difficult with delay. 

The essence of Rudolf Steiner - according to Christopher Bamford (1943-2022)

The late Christopher Bamford was the editor-in-chief of Rudolf Steiner Books; and provided many excellent introductions to variously-themed collections of Steiner's lectures. 

Here Banford was interviewed for a documentary about Steiner; and from about 6-28 minutes, he provides a really excellent insight into what is best, deepest and most important about the work of Rudolf Steiner. It is a distillation of many years of reading, thinking and editorial work. 

For anyone with even the slightest interest in Steiner this deserves careful and focused listening. 

TW - Although Bamford was born in Wales, and lived his adult life in the USA, the trace of accent is Hungarian, deriving from childhood and youth.  

In case the video goes down, I will provide my own paraphrased summary of what Bamford says, derived from notes I took while watching. 

Where I amplify upon Bamford, I will put my own notions into [squared brackets]. 

***

The essence of Steiner's message is that we are already, here and now, living in a spiritual world. This is true despite our habits of reductionist-positivistic thinking - which actually materializes the world; nonetheless we live in a spiritual world: here and now. 

Everything is consciousness. 

...And all consciousness is of a Being which is conscious. 

We inhabit a world of Beings in relationships. 

So, reality consists of relationships in consciousness. 

These relationships continue after that transformation which is death - indeed our relationships with the so-called-dead are highly significant. 

The so-called-dead are not just active on this life on earth, that is their major focus and interest; they desire (sometimes need) to be involved in our lives. 

This reality was reflected in religions where ancestors were with the living, and participating in everyday life. 

After 'death' we will be with those we had relationships with during this life. And in this life we should continue to stay connected with those we love who have 'died'. 

Such two-way relationships continually strive to operate via the spiritual (not material) world; [which is why it is vital to acknowledge that this is primarily a spiritual world].  

Steiner's teaching is about The Earth - which is the centre of concern for the universe. This concern includes the Earth, and Men, through the long history of its developmental-evolution. 

The purpose of the Earth and Men - what this world is essentially for - is the creation of relationships. And this is vital because only on Earth and among Men can Beings learn to love. 

Steiner's most fundamental teaching is that the most important thing in reality is the cultivation of Love; and the development of consciousness of Love.

Therefore, consciousness [i.e. personal awareness, by a Being, of that which is] has a positive transformative capability.

Also both love and freedom are needed and inseparable - you cannot have one without the other. 

[Steiner's concept of freedom is related to the development of consciousness; we become free by first becoming conscious and then by choosing; and this applies to love.] 

The most important activity of the universe takes place on earth, and the rest of reality participates in the development of Love between beings on Earth. 

[This is creation. Our life on Earth is spiritual; this spiritual life is about love; and this love is creation. Creation is made-of love; and the aim of evolution is to develop this love and consciousness of love.]

Earth is the centre of reality. And Love is what makes creation possible - what makes creation happen.  

The gods [i.e. divine Beings, and God the primary creator] are focused on the Earth. Humanity is therefore "the religion of the gods". 

The incarnation of Jesus Christ turned the universe inside-out. God was beyond and 'there', but God is now right here. 

Jesus's instruction to love one another meant that Men could become his friends. Indeed, we must love among our 'brothers and sisters' or else we cannot love God. 

[Love among Men is not sufficient, but it is essential. The first commandment to love God, and the second commandment to love fellow Men are no longer, since Christ, possible to separate. Both are necessary for each other.]

Steiner realized the centrality of Christ by a personal and initiatory experience of consciousness; which reality became a central and guiding light of his whole life and teaching.  

Christianity began as a religion but became more than a religion. The reality of Christ is now global, and in all Men and all religions, everywhere.   

Primary creation (of God the Father) is opt-out; the second creation (of Jesus Christ) is opt-in

The primary creation was imposed-upon the pre-existing and eternal Beings by God. 

This imposition was by necessity. Before creation, Beings existed in isolation and without relationships - thus direction, purpose and meaning in a creation based-upon Love emerged only after primary creation. 

In this sense, also, freedom and the capacity for an agency based on distinguishing the self from the not-self was only possible post-creation. 

(i.e. We cannot know we are a self until after we know of other selves.)  

Therefore it was impossible for any Being to opt-out of creation, until after creation, because there could be no consent to creation, nor of 'opting', until after creation had-happened -- hence the necessity for its imposition. 

But Love is by mutual consent only; and this meant that Beings were 'incorporated' into primary creation without consent; and (it seems) some of them withdrew consent almost immediately. 

To be clear: all the Beings of creation (even Satan, the first rebel against God) have been, even if briefly, subordinated to God's creation. 

Probably some who withdrew consent - who rapidly opted-out of creation - were incapable of Love; probably others were capable of Love, but did Not wish to make Love the basis of 'organization'... 

Those who opted-out include what we regard as Satan and the demons - in other words these were never-incarnated spirit Beings. 

Because primary creation cannot be undone or reversed (because now Beings Know about each other) the 'rebels' ultimate or distal 'goal' (insofar as they are explicitly aware of it) is a power-based reality; in which Beings are in a situation of antagonism and attempted domination or exploitation - which themselves (and, maybe, some recruits?) as the dominant exploiters. 

In a nutshell; the demons, and all others who have rejected Love/ God/ creation at some later point - aspire to a reality based-on relationships of power and selfishness. 

Thus they have chosen to opt-out of primary creation.

In primary creation (which was all of creation before the advent of Jesus Christ) God operates as a power acting-upon us, i.e. upon Beings. 

In a sense; God does creation to us. 

Living in creation is therefore the default situation; from-which we would need to opt-out if we did not want it.  

This imposed-creation situation was recognized by all the old religions, and still is recognized (at least implicitly) by those religions that have a supreme God but do not recognize the truth and desirability of Jesus Christ. 

Therefore the Old Gods, and the understanding of the ancient monotheistic God of the Hebrews or the later God of Islam - regard God as primarily power. 

And such a God of non-optional imposed-creation demands of us obedient service above all else - which goes-with a relationship as essentially one of awe, fear, submission, propitiation etc. That is; a relationship analogous to that of an ignorant peasant towards the absolute Emperor of vast domains. 

As I said; this attitude is a natural consequence of the primary creation in which creation was done to us. Our understanding-of and relationship-to God is of one who is done-to - who is insignificant; not one who participates-in, or who himself contributes something of substantive value. 

The secondary creation was made-to-happen by Jesus Christ; and this fundamentally changed our relation with God. 

The second creation was (for the first time) an opt-in situation, and made God (potentially) the supreme beloved Father of a vast family -- rather than King of 'a people'. 

Since the second creation; God no longer requires or desires us to regard him as primarily a power, but a loving parent; God no longer requires our obedient submission to His imposed authority, but invites our loving participation in his continuing work of creation. 

The secondary creation involves Beings that are already free agents, and who know about other Beings; it involves making the choice of an eternal commitment to live harmoniously with other beings guided by, and in a condition of, mutual love. 

This secondary creation mode-of-Being is achieved by the willing transformation that is resurrection - and the second creation is called Heaven, a situation where we go by our own active desire.  

In the second creation; we are Not supposed-to regard God as remote, incomprehensible, as like a Monarch or a Judge before which we ought-to abase ourselves in submission and obedience... 

And we are Not supposed to regard our-selves as insignificant, superfluous, functionless... but as irreplaceable and able to add some-thing worthwhile to what-is - across eternity.  

We are instead supposed to have an attitude to God of love, gratitude, joy, positivity, energy, excitement; a desire to bring the best of ourselves to the work of God's divine family; to join-in with the plans of divine creating.  

Because the second creation is opt-in; some who reject God include those who opted-out after becoming incarnated into this mortal life. They lived in primary creation as pre-mortal spirits without opting-out; but after they were born as Men, they made the decision (whether before or after death) "not to opt-into" the second creation.

To clarify: Because the second creation is opt-in; there are those who positively reject the second or the first creation (presumably Satan and the demons, but probably others too), but also those who negatively do not want the second creation. These may still be prepared not to opt-out from the first creation - these would include many religious but-not-Christian people, including some self-identified Christians who actually don't want what Jesus offers!.   

The difference between dwelling in the first and second creation is therefore a vital difference for Christians to grasp; if they are not to fall-into an attitude to God that fits the opt-out primary, but not the opt-in secondary creation.

"Christians" who get their idea of God from the pre-Jesus era of the Jews of the Old Testament, tend to have the 'negative' attitudes of the first creation (e.g. the primacy of obedience to power), but fail to understand or embrace the essential qualitative difference that Jesus made. 

Such people are sometimes therefore de facto non-Christians, in terms of their attitudes and expectations, and their desires. 

But the reality is that Jesus Christ changed the fundamental possibilities of reality; things are possible since Jesus that were not possible before Jesus.

The Big Question is whether we personally want what Jesus made possible - or not? 

If we want it, we each must choose it. 

We must then opt-in...

H/T - Loic Simond for a comment that triggered the thinking that led to this post. 

Causation versus Free Agency

It is an implicit assumption of modern culture and life that everything is caused - except what is random. 

Because everything is caused, it is assumed that these causes (if known) are like the 'laws of science' and entail exactly what happens. 

But there is also 'randomness', chance, the undetermined... Which is (somehow, in an unprincipled way) also incorporated into the 'everything is caused' determinism by means of statistical properties. 

If reality really is caused, then this fundamental incorporation of of randomness doesn't make any coherent sense (as Einstein clearly saw) - nonetheless, it has happened, randomness is incorporated into a deterministic world-view; and is justified on the basis that 'it works' to predict things... 

...Or rather, attributed randomness sometimes seems to work; because whether something 'works' depends on (essentially arbitrary) prior decisions about what counts as having worked, or alternatively failed to work.

(And this becomes even less precise when what counts as having worked gets defined retrospectively to include - or indeed be entirely - what has already happened; as with climate change 'predictions...) 

Yet, there is no such thing as randomness 'in real life' and therefore no 'probability'- these are actually just mathematical tools, that may be useful in particular situations; although the nature of scope of the situations in which it is valid cannot be known. In practice the validity of particular instances of statistical reasoning is a matter of 'common sense' - or more likely the exercise of power to control discourse.   

But what of free agency, free will - or what-you-call-it? I mean the thinking of Beings (especially Men); at those times when they are thinking with their real and divine 'selves'? 

(Accepting that Men may - often do - behave 'automatically; and are not 'free' at all times, but only potentially and some-times.)

Free agency cannot be either caused/determined, or random/statistical. Free agency must be something other, which is expressive of a Being itself, arises wholly from that Being - and not, therefore, a product of causes acting-upon that Being.  

To cut the argument short: I believe that genuine Free Agency is either an incomprehensible Mystery and gift from God (which is the mainstream/ classical Christian view); or else (as I believe) Free Agency is a property of Beingness, to be found to a greater or lesser extent in all Beings. 

Which means that all Beings have a divine aspect.

Which means that while there is one God who is creator of this creation we inhabit; creation itself consists of Beings who are all 'gods' in this vital sense of having some potential degree of Free Agency.   

In other words, reality is alive and conscious and consists of Beings/ gods that are in relationships with one another  (in some real way, but varied between Beings). 

If so, then what is the role of causation?  

My understanding is that causation is a series of hypotheses that are useful in inverse proportion to the exercise of free agency. 

In a world where free agency is seldom exercised; then causation is highly predictive. 

Here in mortal life upon earth; things are different according to different times and places, and among different individuals. But the more that agency is active, the less causality is operative. 

Bu, in a world where free agency is ignored or denied, and its effects are suppressed: causal thinking (and its bastard offspring 'randomness') appears to operate as a complete explanation of reality.

(Hence the common idea that - in principle - science can explain everything that is real.) 

In other words; Western Man has (for some generations) been living at, or near-to, an extreme where free agency is hardly a factor in life; and where, because of this exclusion, causal and determinative thinking seems to work very well as an explanation, for prediction, and to manipulate the world (including people). 

Conversely, in a world where free agency is highly frequent and determines thought; there is very little for causal thinking to explain. 

At the extreme - in Heaven - I assume that almost-everything is a consequence of free agency in the context of relationships between Beings; things happen because they are willed to happen. 

Therefore: in Heaven there is essentially no causation; but only free agency and relationships. 

There is a further aspect governing the operations of free agency; which is the extent to which it is groupish or individual. 

If we focus on Men, then in the past free agency seems to have been much more active than now. Hence prediction was 'anthropomorphic'; in terms of personal factors such as motivations, desires and relationships. 

But this ancient agency was not individualistic - it operated at a groupish level such as the clan, tribe, village, guild, or even (later) the nation. Thus, understanding and prediction treated groups as we might regard individuals, and focused on their attitudes to each other, strengths and weaknesses etc. 

Modern agency has, however, become very individualistic; and insofar as free agency genuinely exists and is deployed (which is apparently not much, very seldom), it operates at the personal level rather than in groups. 

What appears superficially to be group agency, is actually a product of causal and determinative thinking; manipulating individuals (eg. via laws, rules and propaganda) to conform behaviour to external will. 

Part of this manipulation is to encourage individuals to believe they are already living by free agency; when in fact they have 'switched-off' their own agency; and are thinking almost-entirely in terms of automatic, mundane, externally-inculcated and -imposed concepts and information.  

To conclude; the destiny which God wishes from Men is to live by free agency, individually exercised; and voluntarily to choose to align this free agency with God's desires for His creation. 

But this is a choice. Some choose not to use free agency, and even to deny its reality; while others use this agency to reject the divine hopes and plans - and instead to serve the adversaries of God. 

In other words such Men choose Not to be free. And probably this applies to most Men, at least in The West. 

At the most basic level, service to the Adversary entails opening one's own soul to thinking hostile to God; and this often takes the form of dishonestly pretending to an individual agency which is, in fact, being denied and suppressed. 

Thinking therefore (i.e. here-and-now, in this world that has rejected God) becomes a thing very much causally determined. 

Men's behaviours become understandable by reduction to to causal reasoning and statistics. 

Men become predictable and controllable.