Bruce Charlton's Notions

*
I have recently said some rather negative things about Swedenborg - this is misleading and I am (already) feeling guilty about it!

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=swedenborg

The fact is that I regard Swedenborg as a true Mystical Christian, but I just cannot digest his writings.

On The Other Hand; I very much like the video reflections of a young Swedenborgian chap called Curtis Childs - which have been regularly posted on YouTube over the past year; I especially like some of these One Minute vids:


Childs is a communicator of extraordinary ability and effectiveness - and can be genuinely inspiring.

Clearly, he is a man of his generation in terms of speech style and liberal/ new age-compatible socio-politics; but in these and other videos on the Off The Left Eye site sponsored by the Swedenborg Foundation, he functions a kind of one-man-band of evangelism and engagement with modern disaffected youth which much larger Christian organizations can only regard with awe, wish-for, and perhaps learn-from.

One individual can make a significant difference.
*

*

My answer: I have read Gary Lachman's biography, RW Emerson's essay in Representative Men, watched a dozen or two YouTube vlogs, and sampled a few of Swedenborg's books and essays.

My conclusion is that Swedenborg was a genuine visionary and a genius, and has had admirers whom I respect; and therefore I regard his work is worthwhile and contains valuable insights.

I am also sure that much of his writing is mistaken, wrong. For whatever reason, he made many mistakes and could not discriminate between truth and error and published both, jumbled. This is, indeed, usual with mystics and visionaries such as William Blake. 

However, I personally find Swedenborg 'unreadable' in the sense that I don't enjoy reading it, I didn't get anything out of it - as I read it wouldn't 'go in' - consequently I remember nothing.

So - undoubtedly a great man - but not for me.

*

First I will reproduce a comment I published on Steve Sailer's blog a couple of days ago:

I read Dark Star Rising a couple of months ago, in a review copy; but have been holding-off publishing my thoughts until the official publication date. 

Gary Lachman is a very solid and well known writer on ‘occult’ topics – I have read quite a few of his previous books (e.g. on Rudolf Steiner, Swedenborg, and historical surveys of sixties spiritual counter culture, Western esotericism etc). All are very good. 

He also wrote a really *excellent* biography of Colin Wilson called Beyond the Robot (indeed, I first came across Lachman around 2000 when we both used to contribute to a small, Colin Wilson oriented magazine). 

Having said all that positive stuff, and to my surprise and disappointment – I found Dark Star Rising a poor book; far below the high standards I have come to expect from GL – lacking both (minimal) objectivity; and with a meagre, distorted, and fundamentally mistaken factual basis. Histrionic and sloppy. I’ll say more specifically, when I review it properly on my blog. 

But I would say: please don’t be put off reading Lachman’s earlier work by this book; which is probably, unfortunately, going to get a fair bit of publicity… 


I now find that I have not the heart to review Dark Star Rising in any kind of detail, as I intended. It's not just that it is a very poorly researched book - in which all the evidence about the 'Alt-Right' comes from its mass media/ party political enemies (amazingly; nothing at all about the roots in Mencius Moldbug nor the current domination by Vox Day and his gang, to mention two egregious omissions).

This means that the straw man which Lachman is attacking is essentially just another variant of his own secular progressivism.

(Trump himself is, of course, a progressive and a sexual revolutionary - a child of materialism, utilitarianism, economism, big business, public relations and propaganda; a figure of the mass media, advertising, social media... He also has virtues (including courage and independence of mind); and Trump's enemies are far worse than Trump himself; and Trump is almost always attacked most viciously for what he does right, not for his flaws. But Trump Just-Is A Man of the Left, by world-historical standards. Obviously!)

Lachman leaves out genuine religious reactionaries - or rather, explains-them-away; I think because he personally does not believe that people could genuinely and primarily be motivated by a religion (especially not Christianity) but that it is a front for reactionary (i.e. racist, sexist, 'phobic' politics). In his comments on Russia, it is clear that he regards the massive Christian revival there as a complete fake; a cover-up.


It's not just that all kind of prejudicial assumptions are built-into this book's argument - unexamined, undefined, untested - especially about key concepts like 'extreme right wing', 'white supremacists' (that mythical power bloc, consisting mainly of false flag operatives, subversive infiltrators and agents provocateurs) and the like: the slur words of the billionaire/ big-finance-subsidised Social Justice Warrior activists in the mass/ social media; in pressure-groups, NGOs and 'charities; and dominating all powerful or well-funded institutions...

It seems just a waste of time to be specific in analysis and critique, because the book is written from that point of view of moral inversion which is mainstream among the Global Elites - so it is clear that Gary Lachman has been corrupted.

However valuable I found Gary Lachman's earlier work; it is clear that he now has crossed the line, abandoned all his earlier standards of scholarship and fairness; and joined the forces of darkness. He has been confronted by a moment-of-truth, he has made a decision, he has taken a crucial step; and the process of corruption has apparently been very rapid.


But there is a lesson to be learned here. Lachman's previous stance was broadly 'agnostic' - at least, that was the perspective from which his books were written. He seems like a decent kind of man, worked hard, wrote clearly, did useful stuff...

Yet it was always clear that Lachman shared the mainstream 'anything but Christianity' kind of reflexive leftist/ progressive/ pro-sexual revolution perspective... which is all-but universal among those active in the perennialist, spiritual, esoteric, neo-pagan, self-help, personal development world.

Here and now, this agnostic stance of suspended judgement is non-viable: things have come to a point; because of the pervasive domination of New Left/ Political Correctness in all major social institutions everyone is incrementally being brought to a fork in the path, a decision yes or no.

I see this all around me. We live in a world of spiritual warfare. It cannot be hidden from, choice cannot be evaded. We cannot 'keep our heads down' because everyone is located and they must stand-up and raise their hands (and voices) to endorse and promote the current, evolving Leftist totalitarian narrative in all its respects - or else...


For the past decade and more, I have been seeing people whom I have known (sometimes for decades), very suddenly and swiftly (so fast I only see the after-effects) become fundamentally-corrupt - becoming allies, servants and advocates of evil.

The number who make the right choice is very small indeed - and I am talking about a really tiny percentage.

That's how it is.


These times are times of clarity - clarity so long as we don't imagine there is anything like a quantitatively-equal division between those who choose good and evil.

So long as we are prepared to see what ought-to-be obvious - that nearly-everybody is choosing evil. It may well be that every-single-person in your social group has chosen evil: it is that common, it is that kind of proportion.

Then, if we have been noticing; we will be dismayed and disappointed but we will not be at all surprised - when friends and relations, as well as bosses, colleagues and public figures - when they nearly-all get it wrong.

Given what they believe and disbelieve; given what they prioritise in Life: what did we expect?

*
Since I advocate and practice a type of Mystical Christianity, I need to point out the severe problems with this kind of spiritual life, under modern Western conditions.

The problems are specific cases of Conquest's, or Charlton's, Second Law:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/charltons-second-law-to-replace.html

Which is that - nowadays - unless an institution or organization or church is primarily Christian, it is not Christian at all, but instead some version of New Leftism, Liberalism, Progressivism or Socialism.

This applies to mystical practice, as it does to everything else from charities, through educational institutions, and science and economics, to arts and hobbies.

*

1. People who take the mysticism, and leave the Christianity.

In other words, they gain the partial benefits of mysticism - in feeling more alive in a living world - but stop at that point. They do not proceed to the Christianity. They never achieve or accept an understanding of the purpose of life; but live in transcendental moments that lack any discernible meaning, and which are typically (almost invariably) de facto threaded-together by mainstream secular Leftism, including the perspective of the on-going sexual revolution.

2. People who focus on the mysticism in order to be able to ignore the ethics. They use their mystical knowledge and experiences in order to discard moral constraints that are part of real traditional Christianity - especially where these liberations are validated by modern mainstream Leftism; and especially when they are motivated to take advantage of sexual liberation (various kinds of sex outwith traditional marriage) for themselves.

In effect, they use mysticism as a rationale for rejecting (they would say transcending) the basic ethical constraints of traditional Christianity.

*

For example,  the poet and illustrator William Blake was a mystical Christian, but the large academic industry based upon him are not Christian - but instead use Blake to validate a primarily socio-political agenda.

For example, Jacob Bronowski wrote an early and very influential book which was instrumental in the late 20th century re-discovery of Blake - William Blake: a man without a mask. Bronowski was hostile to both Christianity (becoming a very well know atheist humanist), and he was also hostile to mysticism. His book (beautifully written and very informative) yokes Blake to a radical, revolutionary political agenda.

Later Blake scholars approved Blake's mysticism, but not his Christianity - Kathleen Raine (with her eclectic 'spiritual values') would be a representative of this. Among the millions who have studied Blake at college over the past couple of generations, I would be surprised if any had been converted to Christianity since that basic of Blake's thought is relativized into insignificance, grossly de-emphasized - and generally simply disregarded.

Something similar applies to Walt Whitman - although Whitman's Christianity seems to have been less profound and foundational than was the case with Blake.

*

Similarly, the religious and spiritual organizations founded by Steiner are now dominated by typical Leftist concerns of a New Age type (progressive education, alternative medicine, organic horticulture and environmentalism). Steiner himself focused everything in his vastly detailed system of Spiritual Science firmly and explicitly on Christ - but that has become an optional extra, and in practice left-out.

I suspect that Swedenborgians have gone the same way - but I am not sure.

(For some Westerners, Eastern Orthodox is treated in this kind of way - because Orthodoxy minus living in an Orthodox country - with an Orthodox monarch and church-focused way of national life - can be seen as simply a de-ethicized, eclectic, pick-and-mix Christianized spiritual option. 'Celtic' Christianity would be another version.)

*

Mystical Christianity is - in and of itself - valid. It is just that in our modern cultural context, in practice, it is extremely prone to corruption.

Therefore, to recommend any type of Mystical Christianity is very risky.

However, I believe it is a risk that needs to be taken - because for some people this is the essential path-into Christianity. For these people, if there is no Mystical Christianity, then they will not be Christians.

So, cognisant of the risks, I want to develop a path through mysticism and into Christianity.

*

The apparent corruptibility of Mystical Christianity is therefore a serious problem, but one which I hope may be tackled and solved. Because (to reiterate) for many disaffected people in modern life, the main problem is alienation, feeling cut off from Life - and that is what most demands to be addressed.

This is why the likes of RW Emerson, and Jung, and Joseph Campbell have been of such interest to Westerners - because they address the most pressing problem.

In The Power Of Myth Campbell hit the nail: People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That's what it's all finally about. 
My position is that Campbell was dead right when he said 'that's what we're really seeking'; and dead wrong when he said 'that's what it's all finally about'. Campbell's perspective offers real and immediate spiritual benefits; but its built-in anti-Christian perspective means that the adherent then 'gets' stuck'.

The very effectiveness of mysticism - although only a partial effectiveness, indeed may serve to prevent the next step, into Christianity.

*

I know this from personal, lived experience. I was in that position for a long time - more than two decades, during which I pressed forward all the time towards a completing and fulfilment within this 'Romantic' Transcendentalist position but never got any further because - from this perspective - there is nowhere to go.

One is simply told to be satisfied with a life without purpose - a life of isolated epiphanies.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/firkins-on-emerson.html

*

What is required is a spiritual discipline that starts with mysticism in a Christian frame, which presents the path as a seamless progress from mysticism into Christianity - this being set out from the beginning.

But my impression is that this path is not available in any institutional, organizational or church setting; it is therefore a path which must be traversed alone.

Therefore, my current advice (for what it is worth!) would be for would-be Mystical Christians to embark on the spiritual path, but always with the aim of a specific denomination in-view - e.g. to become a mystic en route to becoming an Evangelical, Western or Eastern Catholic, Mormon or whatever...

This may, or should, help to keep the mystic within the protections (if not on-the-rails) of real Christianity; I mean, within bounds of moral teachings and focused upon Christ - and away-from the siren seductions of New Leftism and the 'liberations' of the sexual revolution.    
*

I am re-reading Colin Wilson's excellent book about Rudolf Steiner: the man and his vision (1985) - which he opens by saying that Steiner's core assumption is twofold: that there is a super-sensible, spiritual world hidden 'behind' the everyday world of the senses - and from-which the perceived world is derived. And secondly; that thus world is knowable by those who choose to develop their latent abilities. 

So far, this is hardly distinctive; except that the way in which the hidden ('occult') world was discovered was not by trance, dream or other 'hallucinatory'-state but by an intensification of the alert, awake, clear thinking that Steiner regarded as characteristic of science.

Steiner therefore called his practice a Spiritual Science (and the specific type of spiritual science he recommended, he termed Anthroposophy).

But when we are told of a spiritual world behind the perceptual world; this naturally seems to evoke a picture in our minds of two perceptual worlds. 

In other words, we often imagine the surface everyday world of solid-things, then - separated from it by a barrier - another world of spirit-things. 

When we imagine ourselves knowing the spiritual world, therefore we imagine seeing/ hearing/ touching the spiritual world by something like of an extra set of new senses.  

At times, especially in his later career as a leader in the Theosophical Society then originator of Anthroposophy; Steiner writes exactly like that about his own experiences. 

I don't think the nature of Heaven can be understood by direct assault on the problem; but only via several prior stages of discernment. 

Note: this is not what I myself did - my own procedure was much more haphazard; but it strikes me in retrospect that progress only occurred with a linear sequence of intuitive assumptions:

First we need to decide what God wants with creation, including why; and how this purpose relates to Man. In different words: where is creation aiming; and how do I personally fit in? 

It is necessary also - either at this, or some other, point - to understand how and why the life/ death/ resurrection/ ascension of Jesus Christ was necessary to this aim. 

(If Jesus is not considered absolutely necessary to God's plan for creation, then there is no compelling reason to be A Christian.) 

Then we can move onto the question of what kind of Heaven God would want; what fits in with God's creative intent for Man.

At some such point; the focus can shift to yourself; and the question of what it is that situation you would most want after your death; especially if it is forever.   

And only then does it make much sense to research the various Heavens that have been described through history - because only then will you have criteria to evaluate them, their coherence and believable-ness; and to exercise your intuitive discernment about which Heaven (or aspects of the Heavens described) is plausible and desirable. 

In researching Heaven I read a wide range of descriptions of Christian Heaven. These included:

Fourth Gospel ('John')

Books of Revelation

Pauline Epistles 

Evangelical Church of England

Roman Catholic 

Russian Orthodox

Mormon (CJCLDS)

William Arkle 

Swedenborg

Rudolf Steiner

Only after something-like this prolonged 'quest' did I reach the ('very simple!) understanding of Heaven that I now believe.

*
Blake was a mystic - was divinely inspired - had direct access to and received evidence of reality.

Mystics provide us with what might be termed objective evidence; but most mystics are just as prone to misunderstand, misinterpret, and falsely-systematize objective evidence evidence as are you and I.

Blake was also a Man, of knowledge incomplete and fallible, and (perhaps more than usually) prone to hatred and resentment.

So, we can benefit greatly from the inspired wisdom of Blake - but need also to recognize that Blake's own understanding of Blake's own wisdom was rather poor - which is why so much of his writing is essentially meaningless (and hardly even attempts to be meaningful).

But if we consider The Marriage of Heaven and Hell from " Without Contraries is no progression" up to the end of the Proverbs of Hell "Enough! or Too much!"; then we are confronted with as profound and as concentrated a catalogue of truth as human hand has penned.

(With the exception of the Apostles.)

http://www.bartleby.com/235/253.html

Our task is to regard this as divinely-inspired evidence; but to edit-out Blake's own false interpretations and systematizations of this evidence.

And this is what we must do with all (true) mystical insight - whether from the Prophets and Saints; or from other modern Christian (or at least self-identified Christian) mystics like Pascal, Traherne, Swedenborg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Rudolf Steiner and William Arkle.

*