*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/charles-williams-regrettable-tendency.html
*
Tuesday 15 May 2012
What do I miss from evangelical Anglicanism?
*
Of the three Anglican churches I attend with regularity, although semi-detached I am most involved (including my children's activities) with one that is evangelical and protestant.
Since I am sure that evangelical protestants have a fully valid path to salvation, the question arises why I also (apparently) 'need' to worship at an Anglo-Catholic and an old-fashioned BCP-using Anglican church.
What do I miss in an excellent evangelical Anglican church that these other churches provide?
In no particular order:
1. A full, traditional Anglican liturgy, in 'traditional language' and with formal, composed prayers and collects.
2. Frequent holy communion, and the attitude that this is a sacred rite.
3. Saints, as an ideal for life, mentioned in prayer.
4. Theosis - the idea that different people are by different degrees advanced in holiness - leading up to Saints but including various levels of spiritual advisers.
5. Monasticism and the life of 'a religious' - conceived as the ideal path, potentially the highest path (but with greater spiritual hazards than a lay life): the idea of monks as spiritual leaders.
6. The recognition that we live in a world populated by a multitude of intermediate spirits (angels and demons) between man and God - that things like the sun, moon, stars, major landscape phenomena, nations, human associations, and individuals have their own angelic 'guardians' or intelligences.
7. Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
8. Prayers for the dead.
9. Making the sign of the cross.
*
NOTE - Although not the subject of this post, I suppose I ought to mention what I do get from evangelical Anglicanism! Primarily, sound Biblical teaching and prayer - and this as a consequence of courage and vigour in the faith. Optimism, energy, humour; youth and families - the sense of a proper church demographic. Evangelism (obviously). Tough virtuousness.
*
Of the three Anglican churches I attend with regularity, although semi-detached I am most involved (including my children's activities) with one that is evangelical and protestant.
Since I am sure that evangelical protestants have a fully valid path to salvation, the question arises why I also (apparently) 'need' to worship at an Anglo-Catholic and an old-fashioned BCP-using Anglican church.
What do I miss in an excellent evangelical Anglican church that these other churches provide?
In no particular order:
1. A full, traditional Anglican liturgy, in 'traditional language' and with formal, composed prayers and collects.
2. Frequent holy communion, and the attitude that this is a sacred rite.
3. Saints, as an ideal for life, mentioned in prayer.
4. Theosis - the idea that different people are by different degrees advanced in holiness - leading up to Saints but including various levels of spiritual advisers.
5. Monasticism and the life of 'a religious' - conceived as the ideal path, potentially the highest path (but with greater spiritual hazards than a lay life): the idea of monks as spiritual leaders.
6. The recognition that we live in a world populated by a multitude of intermediate spirits (angels and demons) between man and God - that things like the sun, moon, stars, major landscape phenomena, nations, human associations, and individuals have their own angelic 'guardians' or intelligences.
7. Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
8. Prayers for the dead.
9. Making the sign of the cross.
*
NOTE - Although not the subject of this post, I suppose I ought to mention what I do get from evangelical Anglicanism! Primarily, sound Biblical teaching and prayer - and this as a consequence of courage and vigour in the faith. Optimism, energy, humour; youth and families - the sense of a proper church demographic. Evangelism (obviously). Tough virtuousness.
*
Monday 14 May 2012
The Lame Joke as a permanent feature in modern life
*
The form of pseudo-art termed 'installation' - which at best expensively and elaborately instantiates some momentarily-diverting shock or notion; has led to the permament erection or construction of The Lame Joke as a feature of modern life.
An entity which is mildly-amusing on first viewing is made into something which must be viewed hundreds of times, with exponentially increasing weariness and irritation.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen I present:
The Lame British Coins-of-the-Realm Joke
[see also http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/money-as-measure-of-cultural-decline.html ]
*
The Lame Sculpture Joke
*
The Lame Collapsing Fence Joke
*
The form of pseudo-art termed 'installation' - which at best expensively and elaborately instantiates some momentarily-diverting shock or notion; has led to the permament erection or construction of The Lame Joke as a feature of modern life.
An entity which is mildly-amusing on first viewing is made into something which must be viewed hundreds of times, with exponentially increasing weariness and irritation.
*
Ladies and Gentlemen I present:
The Lame British Coins-of-the-Realm Joke
*
The Lame Sculpture Joke
*
The Lame Collapsing Fence Joke
*
Breaking the tyranny of linear and sequential causality - Sheldrake
*
Looking back on my engagement with the work of Rupert Sheldrake last year, I can see that the greatest benefit was to free me from the tyrannical grip that linear, sequential causality had upon my imagination.
Since this was the reasoning style I used in science and medicine, it had become not just habitual to me - but I felt that it was the only truly valid mechanism by which the elements and parts of the universe were in relation to one another.
Sheldrake made me see that this was an assumption, a metaphysical assumption, and not a discovery.
In understanding field thinking about causality I saw that it was different-from linear sequential thinking (I had tended to think it was a different way of saying much the same thing), and thus opened my mind to the possibility of other ways in which the parts of reality influenced each other.
Also, field thinking clarified for me that influence may be across time and space - or rather, that the idea that this does not happen is a simplifying assumption in (most types of) science; rather than a necessary constraint.
I then realised that that linear sequential causality had been locking me into a view of reality which was necessarily unrealistic, hopeless and meaningless (not that other ways of thinking about causality are the opposite - real, hopeful, meaningful; but that when linear sequential causality is monolithically dominant, then reality is necessarily appalling to the human mind).
The specific details of morphic fields and morphic resonance may be a more- or less-accurate and complete metaphysical description of reality - ultimately, they can be at most a metaphorical hence partial summary of reality - but that was not their most important aspect for me.
What is most important is that I now perceive that the lack of an explicit, linear, sequential causal chain between phenomena may indeed rule-out useful scientific analysis (of the kind with which I am familiar); but this lack does not rule-out a causal connection between phenomena.
*
Looking back on my engagement with the work of Rupert Sheldrake last year, I can see that the greatest benefit was to free me from the tyrannical grip that linear, sequential causality had upon my imagination.
Since this was the reasoning style I used in science and medicine, it had become not just habitual to me - but I felt that it was the only truly valid mechanism by which the elements and parts of the universe were in relation to one another.
Sheldrake made me see that this was an assumption, a metaphysical assumption, and not a discovery.
In understanding field thinking about causality I saw that it was different-from linear sequential thinking (I had tended to think it was a different way of saying much the same thing), and thus opened my mind to the possibility of other ways in which the parts of reality influenced each other.
Also, field thinking clarified for me that influence may be across time and space - or rather, that the idea that this does not happen is a simplifying assumption in (most types of) science; rather than a necessary constraint.
I then realised that that linear sequential causality had been locking me into a view of reality which was necessarily unrealistic, hopeless and meaningless (not that other ways of thinking about causality are the opposite - real, hopeful, meaningful; but that when linear sequential causality is monolithically dominant, then reality is necessarily appalling to the human mind).
The specific details of morphic fields and morphic resonance may be a more- or less-accurate and complete metaphysical description of reality - ultimately, they can be at most a metaphorical hence partial summary of reality - but that was not their most important aspect for me.
What is most important is that I now perceive that the lack of an explicit, linear, sequential causal chain between phenomena may indeed rule-out useful scientific analysis (of the kind with which I am familiar); but this lack does not rule-out a causal connection between phenomena.
*
The stupidest modern atheist criticism of Christianity
*
...is that Christianity is a ridiculous fairy tale when compared with the real problems of life such as war, starvation and disease.
And that to preach the gospel to people suffering from w, s & d is therefore insulting, disgusting and obscene when what these people need is peace, plenty and health.
*
And yet Christianity arose, grew and has reached astonishing levels of devotion in situations of human fear and suffering far beyond anything suffered by modern atheists, or indeed by anyone alive in the modern world (except for certain diseases).
Many of the greatest works of Christianity (by the Disciples, the Apostle Paul, Boethius...) were actually written under conditions of imminent torture and death; many others under conditions of extreme voluntary ascetic deprivation - fasting, freezing cold or parching heat, isolation...
*
What really is insulting, disgusting and obscene is to preach atheism, and therefore nihilism, to people living under conditions of war, starvation and disease - because this is to preach that their lives have been, are and will be meaningless and purposeless; and that they and everyone who they know and who ever have lived exist alone in a universe of pain from which any relief is partial and evanescent; and then they and everything they value will be annihilated leaving no trace.
*
Atheism is merely an indirect way of preaching the necessity of immediate despair and urgent suicide.
Nihilism may clear the path to a wider range of gratifications and diversions for healthy but jaded hedonists living trapped inside abstract fantasies and under conditions of peace, prosperity and comfort...
But atheism is not just stupid but indeed is pure poison - existential torment - for people living in contact with the real world - with war, starvation and disease.
*
Of course there is another common, and opposite, atheist criticism of Christianity - which is that people are Christian only because of war, starvation, disease and other extreme hardships - and this is why they invent and cling-to such nonsense. But that when you get intelligent and knowledgeable people living in peace, prosperity and comfort and with leisure to reason and critique; only then do they become able to reject self-gratifying fantasies, and can at last see through the illusions of religion, and perceive the meaninglessness and purposelessness of reality.
In one view Christians are seen as avoiding harsh reality by fantasy; in the other view Christians are seen as overwhelmed by harsh reality and therefore unable to be rational.
In one view atheists are self-perceived as braver than Christians in terms of honestly facing-up to the horror of reality; in the other view atheists are self-perceived as more rational than Christians precisely because their reality is much pleasanter and they are not required to be brave.
Atheists will often oscillate between these two opposite criticisms.
*
...is that Christianity is a ridiculous fairy tale when compared with the real problems of life such as war, starvation and disease.
And that to preach the gospel to people suffering from w, s & d is therefore insulting, disgusting and obscene when what these people need is peace, plenty and health.
*
And yet Christianity arose, grew and has reached astonishing levels of devotion in situations of human fear and suffering far beyond anything suffered by modern atheists, or indeed by anyone alive in the modern world (except for certain diseases).
Many of the greatest works of Christianity (by the Disciples, the Apostle Paul, Boethius...) were actually written under conditions of imminent torture and death; many others under conditions of extreme voluntary ascetic deprivation - fasting, freezing cold or parching heat, isolation...
*
What really is insulting, disgusting and obscene is to preach atheism, and therefore nihilism, to people living under conditions of war, starvation and disease - because this is to preach that their lives have been, are and will be meaningless and purposeless; and that they and everyone who they know and who ever have lived exist alone in a universe of pain from which any relief is partial and evanescent; and then they and everything they value will be annihilated leaving no trace.
*
Atheism is merely an indirect way of preaching the necessity of immediate despair and urgent suicide.
Nihilism may clear the path to a wider range of gratifications and diversions for healthy but jaded hedonists living trapped inside abstract fantasies and under conditions of peace, prosperity and comfort...
But atheism is not just stupid but indeed is pure poison - existential torment - for people living in contact with the real world - with war, starvation and disease.
*
Of course there is another common, and opposite, atheist criticism of Christianity - which is that people are Christian only because of war, starvation, disease and other extreme hardships - and this is why they invent and cling-to such nonsense. But that when you get intelligent and knowledgeable people living in peace, prosperity and comfort and with leisure to reason and critique; only then do they become able to reject self-gratifying fantasies, and can at last see through the illusions of religion, and perceive the meaninglessness and purposelessness of reality.
In one view Christians are seen as avoiding harsh reality by fantasy; in the other view Christians are seen as overwhelmed by harsh reality and therefore unable to be rational.
In one view atheists are self-perceived as braver than Christians in terms of honestly facing-up to the horror of reality; in the other view atheists are self-perceived as more rational than Christians precisely because their reality is much pleasanter and they are not required to be brave.
Atheists will often oscillate between these two opposite criticisms.
*
Sunday 13 May 2012
State Christianity - a good thing, yes, but what kind of thing?
*
I favour State Christianity - on something approximating the Eastern Roman Empire/ Byzantine/ Orthodox/ Holy Russian model - and in this often find myself in disagreement with both Protestants and Roman Catholics - and with some statements of CS Lewis (who, at times, wrote against 'theocracy' as the very worst form of government).
*
But I believe this disagreement is due to misunderstanding of how State Christianity ought to work.
State Christianity is not about forced conversions nor even compulsory devotions - at least, these are certainly not the essence of the matter.
State Christianity is based on the accurate recognition that there is no such thing as neutrality: the State will either favour Christianity, or it will favour something else (another religion, atheism, communism or whatever).
*
What does it mean, then, to 'favour' Christianity?
To understand, look at modern England, or the USA or any similar nation in the Anglosphere or Europe. Nowadays the State favours the secular perspective, such that all analysis in public discourse, all criticisms and all justifications of policy are done in secular terms (usually 'utilitarian' - that is aiming at increasing happiness or reducing suffering - never mentioning salvation).
*
Consequently, wherever a modern person may turn, and whatever he may do, he will be confronted with communications and discourses that exclude, conflict-with or deny Christianity.
This happens at schools and colleges, in commercial interactions, from government agencies, and of course the mass media world of advertising and entertainment.
Simply walking around the corridors and streets, he will be saturated with the secular perspective - his emotions and passions will be stimulated; his motivations will be played-upon and manipulated in a manner purely secular, subversive-of and excluding the Christian.
*
By contrast, imagine all this in reverse.
A world where all of these sources of communications and discourses tended to be consistent with, or to support, Christianity - so that wherever they turn they will be reminded of Christianity, and familiarised with, schooled in, trained in Christian modes of discourse and evaluation.
Where the creative and brainy people would be paid (not forced, or no more than they are now forced) to put their best efforts into Christian-supportive work, rather than as now enlisted to destroy Christianity directly and indirectly. Where artists, musicians and architects would be expected to create beauty, not sickening ugliness and soul-killing emptiness; where writers would be expected to be truthful - not bureaucratically-forced to lie in the service of profits and power.
That is what the State can do for Christianity. Support a Christian-friendly milieu rather than (as now) supporting a Christian-hostile milieu.
*
So long as the State is a secular realm, then of course the State will support a secular perspective - therefore the State and the Church must ideally work together.
Or, to put it the other way around, if we actually aim at separation of Church and State, as many modern Christians do, then we are aiming at the creation of a large, perhaps the largest, realm of modern life as independent of, autonomous from, Christianity - and this is exactly what we get.
Then the secular State will (as institutions do) grow and extend its sway, encroaching upon the Church, until everything is secular.
In Britain we have reached that point.
*
How this is specifically arranged is a secondary matter - and of course any possible arrangements will be corrupted because humans are corrupt - but that is the proper aim of society: a harmony of state and Church, with no secular realm.
***
Note: I suppose it is necessary to clarify that a Christian State is something which emerges from an already-Christian population, and then encourages the process to continue. The Christian State is not something parachuted in, landed on top of a secular society. When the Roman Empire became Christian under Constantine, it was a recognition of the state of affairs and the dominant trends, more than an imposition: but once the State had been Christianized then this led to greater devoutness and a higher state of Christianity (in the Eastern Empire, especially) than had been possible before. Or, to put it briefly, when Christianity was under an anti-Christian state the Saints were martyrs - who died in and for the faith; under a Christian State the Saints were characterized by advanced ascetic holiness and wisdom.
*
I favour State Christianity - on something approximating the Eastern Roman Empire/ Byzantine/ Orthodox/ Holy Russian model - and in this often find myself in disagreement with both Protestants and Roman Catholics - and with some statements of CS Lewis (who, at times, wrote against 'theocracy' as the very worst form of government).
*
But I believe this disagreement is due to misunderstanding of how State Christianity ought to work.
State Christianity is not about forced conversions nor even compulsory devotions - at least, these are certainly not the essence of the matter.
State Christianity is based on the accurate recognition that there is no such thing as neutrality: the State will either favour Christianity, or it will favour something else (another religion, atheism, communism or whatever).
*
What does it mean, then, to 'favour' Christianity?
To understand, look at modern England, or the USA or any similar nation in the Anglosphere or Europe. Nowadays the State favours the secular perspective, such that all analysis in public discourse, all criticisms and all justifications of policy are done in secular terms (usually 'utilitarian' - that is aiming at increasing happiness or reducing suffering - never mentioning salvation).
*
Consequently, wherever a modern person may turn, and whatever he may do, he will be confronted with communications and discourses that exclude, conflict-with or deny Christianity.
This happens at schools and colleges, in commercial interactions, from government agencies, and of course the mass media world of advertising and entertainment.
Simply walking around the corridors and streets, he will be saturated with the secular perspective - his emotions and passions will be stimulated; his motivations will be played-upon and manipulated in a manner purely secular, subversive-of and excluding the Christian.
*
By contrast, imagine all this in reverse.
A world where all of these sources of communications and discourses tended to be consistent with, or to support, Christianity - so that wherever they turn they will be reminded of Christianity, and familiarised with, schooled in, trained in Christian modes of discourse and evaluation.
Where the creative and brainy people would be paid (not forced, or no more than they are now forced) to put their best efforts into Christian-supportive work, rather than as now enlisted to destroy Christianity directly and indirectly. Where artists, musicians and architects would be expected to create beauty, not sickening ugliness and soul-killing emptiness; where writers would be expected to be truthful - not bureaucratically-forced to lie in the service of profits and power.
That is what the State can do for Christianity. Support a Christian-friendly milieu rather than (as now) supporting a Christian-hostile milieu.
*
So long as the State is a secular realm, then of course the State will support a secular perspective - therefore the State and the Church must ideally work together.
Or, to put it the other way around, if we actually aim at separation of Church and State, as many modern Christians do, then we are aiming at the creation of a large, perhaps the largest, realm of modern life as independent of, autonomous from, Christianity - and this is exactly what we get.
Then the secular State will (as institutions do) grow and extend its sway, encroaching upon the Church, until everything is secular.
In Britain we have reached that point.
*
How this is specifically arranged is a secondary matter - and of course any possible arrangements will be corrupted because humans are corrupt - but that is the proper aim of society: a harmony of state and Church, with no secular realm.
***
Note: I suppose it is necessary to clarify that a Christian State is something which emerges from an already-Christian population, and then encourages the process to continue. The Christian State is not something parachuted in, landed on top of a secular society. When the Roman Empire became Christian under Constantine, it was a recognition of the state of affairs and the dominant trends, more than an imposition: but once the State had been Christianized then this led to greater devoutness and a higher state of Christianity (in the Eastern Empire, especially) than had been possible before. Or, to put it briefly, when Christianity was under an anti-Christian state the Saints were martyrs - who died in and for the faith; under a Christian State the Saints were characterized by advanced ascetic holiness and wisdom.
*
Saturday 12 May 2012
Argument errors of Christian reactionaries - using Leftist reasoning
*
It is counter-productive (strengthens the enemy) for Christian reactionaries to argue against some Leftist policy on the basis that it:
Upsets people. (Somebody is always upset by everything.)
Is inefficient. (Liberals don't care about efficiency.)
Is dysfunctional. (Liberals take functionality for granted - if they did not, they would not be liberals.)
Wastes money. (Liberals don't care about wasting money. Indeed, they equate wasting money - their own money, or other people's - with altruism.)
Is silly/ absurd. (Liberalism operates by taking more and more silly/ absurd things seriously.)
Is trivial. (For Liberals nothing is trivial if it opposes Liberalism.)
On the basis that procedures ought to be neutral. (Procedural neutrality is impossible, and its pursuit is evil - what matters is deciding which side will be favoured; and that should be the side of truth, beauty and virtue. The task is for procedures to achieve a Good result - not for procedures to be neutral.)
*
Arguments Christian reactionaries should use against Leftist policies:
They are destructive of Good/ Truth/ Beauty/ Virtue; are evil/ dishonest/ ugly/ sinful.
They do not conform to Reality.
*
Of course none of these arguments will convince Liberals - indeed they are meaningless to to the Liberal perspective. What then?
Just keep repeating and repeating them anyway.
Because these arguments are the proper reasons for Christian reactionaries to argue against things: Good reasons; the real reasons; true, beautiful and virtuous reasons.
*
(At some level whatever they may say or do, Liberals know for sure that they are wrong. Objectively, finally, ultimately wrong. And that is why they are anti-life; why they live for distraction and destruction; why they idolize the evil, selfish and self-mutilating; and why they are fixated upon sterility, suicide and euthanasia. Never in human history has there been such visceral loathing as Liberals feel for themselves: they want their own extinction more profoundly than they want anything else.+)
*
(+ Lest I be misunderstood: Liberals know for sure that they are wrong, but they do not know that we are right - they believe that we are wrong, but they do not know what is right. They know that they are wrong now because they know they have changed their Liberal beliefs several times already and will have to continue changing their beliefs every few years. So they know their current Liberal beliefs cannot be right; and they also know that whatever future Liberal beliefs they may embrace will only be for a while; since they will be equally unstable. Their tragedy is that they know that Liberalism is false, ugly and evil - but they think they know the same about Christianity - so they have no hope and cannot find rest. Except, temporarily, in forgetfulness, that is in ceasing to be conscious - hence ceasing to be human. Thus they yearn to become animal, or for permanent distraction, or - as they mistakenly suppose will happen - to have consciousness finally annihilated by death.)
It is counter-productive (strengthens the enemy) for Christian reactionaries to argue against some Leftist policy on the basis that it:
Upsets people. (Somebody is always upset by everything.)
Is inefficient. (Liberals don't care about efficiency.)
Is dysfunctional. (Liberals take functionality for granted - if they did not, they would not be liberals.)
Wastes money. (Liberals don't care about wasting money. Indeed, they equate wasting money - their own money, or other people's - with altruism.)
Is silly/ absurd. (Liberalism operates by taking more and more silly/ absurd things seriously.)
Is trivial. (For Liberals nothing is trivial if it opposes Liberalism.)
On the basis that procedures ought to be neutral. (Procedural neutrality is impossible, and its pursuit is evil - what matters is deciding which side will be favoured; and that should be the side of truth, beauty and virtue. The task is for procedures to achieve a Good result - not for procedures to be neutral.)
*
Arguments Christian reactionaries should use against Leftist policies:
They are destructive of Good/ Truth/ Beauty/ Virtue; are evil/ dishonest/ ugly/ sinful.
They do not conform to Reality.
*
Of course none of these arguments will convince Liberals - indeed they are meaningless to to the Liberal perspective. What then?
Just keep repeating and repeating them anyway.
Because these arguments are the proper reasons for Christian reactionaries to argue against things: Good reasons; the real reasons; true, beautiful and virtuous reasons.
*
(At some level whatever they may say or do, Liberals know for sure that they are wrong. Objectively, finally, ultimately wrong. And that is why they are anti-life; why they live for distraction and destruction; why they idolize the evil, selfish and self-mutilating; and why they are fixated upon sterility, suicide and euthanasia. Never in human history has there been such visceral loathing as Liberals feel for themselves: they want their own extinction more profoundly than they want anything else.+)
*
(+ Lest I be misunderstood: Liberals know for sure that they are wrong, but they do not know that we are right - they believe that we are wrong, but they do not know what is right. They know that they are wrong now because they know they have changed their Liberal beliefs several times already and will have to continue changing their beliefs every few years. So they know their current Liberal beliefs cannot be right; and they also know that whatever future Liberal beliefs they may embrace will only be for a while; since they will be equally unstable. Their tragedy is that they know that Liberalism is false, ugly and evil - but they think they know the same about Christianity - so they have no hope and cannot find rest. Except, temporarily, in forgetfulness, that is in ceasing to be conscious - hence ceasing to be human. Thus they yearn to become animal, or for permanent distraction, or - as they mistakenly suppose will happen - to have consciousness finally annihilated by death.)
Friday 11 May 2012
Reality is objective, universal and permanent (*not* subjective, private, evanescent)
*
The biggest lie of secular Leftism is that reality is subjective, private and personal, a matter of temporary emotions and experiences...
This is a lie, and the secular Left know it is a lie, and this is demonstrated by the fact that they will not allow any anti-Left thoughts to exist anywhere in anybody's mind, nor will they allow contradictory private behaviour anywhere, nor will they ever regard as trivial public expressions contrary to their taboos.
All breaches of ideal Leftism are (or may be) treated with the utmost seriousness, are never forgotten nor allowed to fade.
For the Left nothing is trivial - when it is anti-Left.
*
And in this, the Left is absolutely correct: nothing is trivial.
Everything that happens everywhere is (or may be) of permanent and universal significance.
*
The secular Left want to demoralise its opposition by a paradoxical ideology of 1. the supremacy of the individual and 2. the triviality of the individual.
But that which is behind the Left knows that there are no individuals.
*
Christians should know this too: everything matters, and it matters forever - there is no such thing as an individual - we are all in it together.
There is no subjective, all is objective.
Even 'delusions', wrong ideas, are objective; because all ideas and emotions, whether true or false, are part of reality.
*
The Left knows this - it promotes delusions, because it knows that if delusions exist in human minds then they are objectively real in their effects. Delusions make a difference.
The Left promote ugliness and subverts beauty because they know that the effects are (instantly) universal - the Good is damaged, and permanently.
The Left will lie, habitually, and for no apparent visible gain; because every lie is public and significant, every lie is effectual in the subversion of Good. No lie is trivial - every lie stands to the credit of evil, now and forever.
The Left mocks virtue and delights in the inversion of morality and the denial of wickedness; every time vice is relabelled as virtue, then reality is permanently stained.
*
Th Left knows that everything matters forever, and the Left itself acts on the basis of this knowledge.
This is why the Left never sleeps, is always active in its work, always seeking new horizons, fresh targets and schemes.
*
The Left is a demonic spirit for the destruction of Good - and every act of destruction is significant because irreparable.
*
What the Left fears above all is repentance.
This world cannot be washed and made new, but the individual soul can be cleansed by repentance.
It is vital to the Left project for this fact to be obscured, and itself trivialised by labelling it as subjective, private and personal - irrelevant.
Yet Christian repentance is perhaps the most significant act a person can make, and is always needed.
*
The biggest lie of secular Leftism is that reality is subjective, private and personal, a matter of temporary emotions and experiences...
This is a lie, and the secular Left know it is a lie, and this is demonstrated by the fact that they will not allow any anti-Left thoughts to exist anywhere in anybody's mind, nor will they allow contradictory private behaviour anywhere, nor will they ever regard as trivial public expressions contrary to their taboos.
All breaches of ideal Leftism are (or may be) treated with the utmost seriousness, are never forgotten nor allowed to fade.
For the Left nothing is trivial - when it is anti-Left.
*
And in this, the Left is absolutely correct: nothing is trivial.
Everything that happens everywhere is (or may be) of permanent and universal significance.
*
The secular Left want to demoralise its opposition by a paradoxical ideology of 1. the supremacy of the individual and 2. the triviality of the individual.
But that which is behind the Left knows that there are no individuals.
*
Christians should know this too: everything matters, and it matters forever - there is no such thing as an individual - we are all in it together.
There is no subjective, all is objective.
Even 'delusions', wrong ideas, are objective; because all ideas and emotions, whether true or false, are part of reality.
*
The Left knows this - it promotes delusions, because it knows that if delusions exist in human minds then they are objectively real in their effects. Delusions make a difference.
The Left promote ugliness and subverts beauty because they know that the effects are (instantly) universal - the Good is damaged, and permanently.
The Left will lie, habitually, and for no apparent visible gain; because every lie is public and significant, every lie is effectual in the subversion of Good. No lie is trivial - every lie stands to the credit of evil, now and forever.
The Left mocks virtue and delights in the inversion of morality and the denial of wickedness; every time vice is relabelled as virtue, then reality is permanently stained.
*
Th Left knows that everything matters forever, and the Left itself acts on the basis of this knowledge.
This is why the Left never sleeps, is always active in its work, always seeking new horizons, fresh targets and schemes.
*
The Left is a demonic spirit for the destruction of Good - and every act of destruction is significant because irreparable.
*
What the Left fears above all is repentance.
This world cannot be washed and made new, but the individual soul can be cleansed by repentance.
It is vital to the Left project for this fact to be obscured, and itself trivialised by labelling it as subjective, private and personal - irrelevant.
Yet Christian repentance is perhaps the most significant act a person can make, and is always needed.
*
Thursday 10 May 2012
Implications of living under an elite of evil madmen
*
I have been arguing - that our ruling elite are evil and insane (rather than being well-meaning fools, corrupt careerists or clever sillies).
So what?
Tactics and strategy.
*
Tactics - there is no point in using argument, persuasion, reason or evidence on evil mad people. It will just inflame them.
Do not set out to educate, raise-consciousness, permeate culture - if they do not ignore you, they will listen carefully and learn, and use the information to plan counter-measures.
Either defend yourself by main force, or don't defend yourself.
*
Strategy.
Avoid the crazy wreckers if you can - keep communications to a minimum - lest you personally become a part of their delusional system.
Do not read their stuff, listen to their propaganda, nor seek their advice, nor expect their support, nor their agreement.
(You already know what they will say: variations on Good is bad, bad is Good - impose lies, destroy beauty and make ugly, virtuous people are evil and selfish hedonists are admirable, yeah yeah...)
*
Do not build broad alliances with crazy evil people, the alliances work one way and against you.
Work around-them, within constraints - do not work with them.
*
You will be accused of being paranoid: don't argue the point, don't provide evidence, don't defend yourself.
But take extra care about those who make the accusation.
*
Meanwhile pray - for repentance and conversion - a Great Awakening. Godly and good government.
Pray for courage.
Think of the present and eternity - try not to think of the future, not to speculate on scenarios nor to make plans, except at times when decisions must be made.
*
Avoid resentment against the evil madmen - or hatred will consume you. So pray for a soft, warm, loving heart.
*
Adapted from the works of CS Lewis, Fr Seraphim Rose and the martyrs of communism.
*
I have been arguing - that our ruling elite are evil and insane (rather than being well-meaning fools, corrupt careerists or clever sillies).
So what?
Tactics and strategy.
*
Tactics - there is no point in using argument, persuasion, reason or evidence on evil mad people. It will just inflame them.
Do not set out to educate, raise-consciousness, permeate culture - if they do not ignore you, they will listen carefully and learn, and use the information to plan counter-measures.
Either defend yourself by main force, or don't defend yourself.
*
Strategy.
Avoid the crazy wreckers if you can - keep communications to a minimum - lest you personally become a part of their delusional system.
Do not read their stuff, listen to their propaganda, nor seek their advice, nor expect their support, nor their agreement.
(You already know what they will say: variations on Good is bad, bad is Good - impose lies, destroy beauty and make ugly, virtuous people are evil and selfish hedonists are admirable, yeah yeah...)
*
Do not build broad alliances with crazy evil people, the alliances work one way and against you.
Work around-them, within constraints - do not work with them.
*
You will be accused of being paranoid: don't argue the point, don't provide evidence, don't defend yourself.
But take extra care about those who make the accusation.
*
Meanwhile pray - for repentance and conversion - a Great Awakening. Godly and good government.
Pray for courage.
Think of the present and eternity - try not to think of the future, not to speculate on scenarios nor to make plans, except at times when decisions must be made.
*
Avoid resentment against the evil madmen - or hatred will consume you. So pray for a soft, warm, loving heart.
*
Adapted from the works of CS Lewis, Fr Seraphim Rose and the martyrs of communism.
*
Wednesday 9 May 2012
Libertarians, Open Borders and the Welfare State
*
One of the most mistaken arguments that I hear repeated comes from libertarians (mostly) - and I used to believe it myself.
It is that an open-border, unrestricted immigration and migration policy would be optimal so long as there is no welfare state to distort the market.
*
This argument seems to derive from drawing an analogy between immigration-migration and free trade: since libertarians are convinced by Ricardo's 'law' of comparative advantage (that trade increases efficiency, and benefits both sides on average), they wish to apply the same principle to people as they do to economic goods.
So unrestricted movement of humans is seen as 'free trade' in humans.
*
The main, deepest, arguments about this is the same as applies to free trade: that economic theory is an extremely simplified, partial, biased account of reality - like a toy model of balls and sliding rods representing a vastly complex dynamic reality. Of course simplification is a necessary aspect of all science. But it does entail that the applicability of any economic principle can never be assumed to be general, but must always be demonstrated in specific instances.
*
But the specific argument against the equation of open borders with free trade is that it only works if you are genuinely prepared to treat humans exactly like economic goods.
*
If too many economic goods are imported, and are not wanted, they may be dumped or allowed to rot - the libertarian argument applies the same logic to people.
If the existence of a welfare state is supposed to make a difference to the viability of free trade, then it means that libertarians are proposing that if unrestricted human movement across borders leads to a gross excess of humans in one place, far in excess of economic need, then they will be allowed to starve to death.
Indeed, the libertarian argument entails that - assuming the population of the host nation do not want, as individuals, to support the economically-surplus population, they will be made to starve to death whether they like it or not.
*
In fact, most libertarians don't mean exactly this - they assume that the lack of a welfare state would stop the migrant populations from moving in the first place - and that they would stay-put and starve to death in the counties of their origin.
So the problem would, libertarians tend to say, never arise - or rapidly be self-correcting.
But this is to introduce further, and implausible, assumptions about human motivation.
If borders are open, there is no compelling reason why poor people would not move en masse to rich places, welfare state or not; and no reason to assume that the amount of such movement would be titrated against the supply of welfare state, charity or any other form of resource transfer.
*
So, whether they recognize it or not, libertarians linkage of open borders with elimination of the welfare state entails accepting that the host population enforces starvation-to-death upon economically surplus migrants - which is indeed, to treat people as economic goods.
Yet, libertarians mostly would not accept that open-ended numbers of excess migrants be corralled and starved to death (in situations where the host population do not choose to support them, and where the arrivals are disruptive to the libertarian host society).
Therefore the argument made in favour of open borders and unrestricted human moment on condition of the elimination of ther welfare state is dishonest - since most libertarians will not (or would not) accept the logical consequences of their policy that humans be treated en masse in a fashion precisely analogous to economic goods.
*
NOTE:
The Leftist argument in favour of open-borders is different from the libertarian in that it either ignores the effects of welfare states on human motivation or approves it. Unlike libertarianism, which is a hobby of intellectuals, Leftism is of course mainstream and almost universal in modern politics (including the media, education, public administration and the law).
Modern mainstream politics is in favour of unrestricted immigration and open borders - and can only excuse the universal disregard of this moral imperative as an unprincipled exception (i.e. as a pragmatic immorality).
Thus principled Leftists press continually for open borders and unrestricted movement of humans across the world, on egalitarian and moral (rather than economic) grounds: as a mechanism of re-distributing and equalizing resources between the wealthy and poor peoples of the world.
This method precisely depends-upon an open-ended commitment to the continuation and expansion welfare state of each developed country, so that US or UK or Swedish or Australian welfare becomes - in effect - a universal entitlement. By this Leftist account, economically surplus migrants must (as a matter of moral principle) be supported by the host nation for as long as they need support - and up to the same standard of living as the host nation - by coercive extraction of resources from the host population (i.e. taxes) without limit.
So the essence of the difference between libertarianism and Leftism in their favouring of open borders is that libertarians would enforce the starving to death of economically surplus immigrant populations; while Leftists would enforce the starving to death of the economically productive host populations. Both are of course wrong; but Leftism is worse because more dishonest, and more rapidly and completely destructive.
Or, consistent and principled libertarians are evil for treating people as economic goods, Leftists are evil for their aggressive totalitarian commitment to destroy all societal order based on natural law.
*
One of the most mistaken arguments that I hear repeated comes from libertarians (mostly) - and I used to believe it myself.
It is that an open-border, unrestricted immigration and migration policy would be optimal so long as there is no welfare state to distort the market.
*
This argument seems to derive from drawing an analogy between immigration-migration and free trade: since libertarians are convinced by Ricardo's 'law' of comparative advantage (that trade increases efficiency, and benefits both sides on average), they wish to apply the same principle to people as they do to economic goods.
So unrestricted movement of humans is seen as 'free trade' in humans.
*
The main, deepest, arguments about this is the same as applies to free trade: that economic theory is an extremely simplified, partial, biased account of reality - like a toy model of balls and sliding rods representing a vastly complex dynamic reality. Of course simplification is a necessary aspect of all science. But it does entail that the applicability of any economic principle can never be assumed to be general, but must always be demonstrated in specific instances.
*
But the specific argument against the equation of open borders with free trade is that it only works if you are genuinely prepared to treat humans exactly like economic goods.
*
If too many economic goods are imported, and are not wanted, they may be dumped or allowed to rot - the libertarian argument applies the same logic to people.
If the existence of a welfare state is supposed to make a difference to the viability of free trade, then it means that libertarians are proposing that if unrestricted human movement across borders leads to a gross excess of humans in one place, far in excess of economic need, then they will be allowed to starve to death.
Indeed, the libertarian argument entails that - assuming the population of the host nation do not want, as individuals, to support the economically-surplus population, they will be made to starve to death whether they like it or not.
*
In fact, most libertarians don't mean exactly this - they assume that the lack of a welfare state would stop the migrant populations from moving in the first place - and that they would stay-put and starve to death in the counties of their origin.
So the problem would, libertarians tend to say, never arise - or rapidly be self-correcting.
But this is to introduce further, and implausible, assumptions about human motivation.
If borders are open, there is no compelling reason why poor people would not move en masse to rich places, welfare state or not; and no reason to assume that the amount of such movement would be titrated against the supply of welfare state, charity or any other form of resource transfer.
*
So, whether they recognize it or not, libertarians linkage of open borders with elimination of the welfare state entails accepting that the host population enforces starvation-to-death upon economically surplus migrants - which is indeed, to treat people as economic goods.
Yet, libertarians mostly would not accept that open-ended numbers of excess migrants be corralled and starved to death (in situations where the host population do not choose to support them, and where the arrivals are disruptive to the libertarian host society).
Therefore the argument made in favour of open borders and unrestricted human moment on condition of the elimination of ther welfare state is dishonest - since most libertarians will not (or would not) accept the logical consequences of their policy that humans be treated en masse in a fashion precisely analogous to economic goods.
*
NOTE:
The Leftist argument in favour of open-borders is different from the libertarian in that it either ignores the effects of welfare states on human motivation or approves it. Unlike libertarianism, which is a hobby of intellectuals, Leftism is of course mainstream and almost universal in modern politics (including the media, education, public administration and the law).
Modern mainstream politics is in favour of unrestricted immigration and open borders - and can only excuse the universal disregard of this moral imperative as an unprincipled exception (i.e. as a pragmatic immorality).
Thus principled Leftists press continually for open borders and unrestricted movement of humans across the world, on egalitarian and moral (rather than economic) grounds: as a mechanism of re-distributing and equalizing resources between the wealthy and poor peoples of the world.
This method precisely depends-upon an open-ended commitment to the continuation and expansion welfare state of each developed country, so that US or UK or Swedish or Australian welfare becomes - in effect - a universal entitlement. By this Leftist account, economically surplus migrants must (as a matter of moral principle) be supported by the host nation for as long as they need support - and up to the same standard of living as the host nation - by coercive extraction of resources from the host population (i.e. taxes) without limit.
So the essence of the difference between libertarianism and Leftism in their favouring of open borders is that libertarians would enforce the starving to death of economically surplus immigrant populations; while Leftists would enforce the starving to death of the economically productive host populations. Both are of course wrong; but Leftism is worse because more dishonest, and more rapidly and completely destructive.
Or, consistent and principled libertarians are evil for treating people as economic goods, Leftists are evil for their aggressive totalitarian commitment to destroy all societal order based on natural law.
*
Tuesday 8 May 2012
Doing real science after the corruption of science
The following is a version of the deleted-ending of my forthcoming book Not even trying: the corruption of real science.
You must never get into a situation where what is published in your name is anything other than the truth as best you understand and can express it.
**
Real science is still possible, but in the future real science could happen only under what are likely to seem rather restrictive conditions.
Still, restrictive or not – they are perfectly possible.
Drawing together the threads of this book – the conditions for real science can be summarised as:
1. Reconnect
2. Bind yourself to the iron law of truth
3. Follow your motivation
4. Find a Master
5. Be an amateur
6. Read the real literature
7. Get methods from the problem
8. Critique yourself
9. Communicate truthfully
1. Reconnect
2. Bind yourself to the iron law of truth
3. Follow your motivation
4. Find a Master
5. Be an amateur
6. Read the real literature
7. Get methods from the problem
8. Critique yourself
9. Communicate truthfully
1. Reconnect with the tradition of real science. To do real science from where we now are is a matter of ‘reconnecting’ with a broken tradition. You are in a similar situation to the scholars of the dark ages in Europe who tried - and succeeded - in keeping alive a slender thread of classical learning handed on from the broken Western Roman Empire (the Eastern Empire centred in Constantinople being largely inaccessible).
2. Truth is an iron law. Only do science if you are genuinely motivated to discover the truth and will practice the habit of truth.
3. Follow your motivation. Your motivation to discover and describe truth will need to be somewhat specific, as the advantage of science comes from focusing time and effort somewhat more narrowly than is normal – but no more narrowly than you spontaneously feel is interesting.
4. Find a Master. You must spiritually apprentice yourself to a Master. This may be someone you can actually work with on this earth; but more likely someone you have never met - and it may be someone who died a long time ago. But you need someone to model yourself upon, learn from and imitate. By ‘imitate’ I mean empathically-identify-with such as to intuit their essence, and then try to model your own behaviour on this intuited essence. So this will be someone to whom you will pay close attention, and in whose presence you will spend a lot of time (although this time and attention may be to printed words – articles, books, histories, memoirs biographies etc). Nonetheless, although in a spiritual condition of apprenticeship, you will physically be working mainly in solitude.
5. Be an amateur. Do not expect to make real science your livelihood. Devotion to truth almost certainly means you must practice science as: 1. A self-funded amateur; and 2. Out-with the normal career structures of science, including outside the professional research literature - since otherwise you will almost certainly be corrupted by the requirements. If you are a professional researcher you will spend most of your time fighting-off your own corruption by ‘the system’, and will have little enthusiasm, energy and effort left-over for real science.
6. Read the real science literature. You need to understand what is already validly known. The answer is ‘probably not all that much’ – but either way you need to discover it. But where should you look? The short answer is to start again from scratch and use ‘discernment’ (which needs to be developed). Believe what you personally observe, and what people whom you trust are sure about. Probably, you can read only old research literature, except when you have specific reason to be highly-confident that a particular modern researcher is honest and reliable.
7. Derive methods from your problem (not vice versa). What you actually do - your methods - will depend on your talents, your interests, your opportunities – these will arise from the interaction between yourself as an individual and the ‘problem’ you are tackling. Your methods might be theoretical or empirical. If theoretical they might be critical or constructive. If empirical they might be statistical, observational, experimental. And so on. It is hard to be more precise than that.
8. Critique yourself. Critique will be, in the first place, self-critique – if you are obsessed with your ‘problem’, thinking about it a lot and looking for relevant knowledge and alert for observations; then this will happen spontaneously.It need not be contrived nor forced, it is merely a consequence of being bound by the Iron Law.
9. Communication. Communication is dictated by the nature of what is available, whether you have any co-workers etc. But whatever the mode of communication it must, non-negotiably be compatible with absolute truthfulness. This usually rules-out peer reviewed communication – since this will usually entail changing your communications in order to achieve publication.
You must never get into a situation where what is published in your name is anything other than the truth as best you understand and can express it.
Monday 7 May 2012
Taking church bells for granted
As a child, living in a village in Somerset, I got used to the sound of church bells - specifically the sound of change-ringing.
*
(Citing from my own memory and experience, I haven't checked this:)
There are usually six or eight bells - the lowest is called the tenor.
Change ringing usually begins with a descending scale, ending with the tenor; then change ringing introduces variations by swapping the position of two bells at a time in a predetermined mathematical sequence, but still ending each six/ eight note sequence with the tenor.
Something like:
1 2 3 4 5 6
2 1 3 4 5 6
2 3 1 4 5 6
2 3 4 1 5 6
2 3 4 5 1 6
3 2 4 5 1 6 etc.
Church bell 'compositions' are therefore the various mathematical sequences which take the bells back to the original descending scale.
*
To ring all possible combinations of the bells would obviously take a very long time (depending on the number of bells) - and usually there is just a shortish sequence of a few minutes, so I presume these are short simple compositions or a segment of a long sequence, perhaps?
Obviously I don't/ can't listen attentively to bell for long periods and can't recognise exactly what is going-on in terms of mathematical sequences; but something like the above is usually what is happening - the swapping of position of two bells in the sequence, ending with the low tenor.
*
The difficulty of change ringing is to keep the sequence of bells evenly spaced, despite making these changes in the order of bells (and keeping track of the sequence, because the ringer has to know what he is going to do before he does it) - and constrained by the fact that a bell cannot be run early, but only held-back and delayed.
(I think I recall that, for mechanical reasons, church bells can normally only be held-back by one position in the sequence - i.e. its ring delayed by only one position in the sequence - not two; and this is the reason for the method of changes.)
*
Anyway, since I moved up north from Somerset thirtysomething years ago, although there are church bells everywhere here, I have never at any time nor place heard good change ringing, never heard anything to match Backwell village church and the surrounding areas.
Certainly not at Durham Cathedral (I once lived next door) where the bell ringing was (forgive the expression) diabolical.
*
Bad change ringing is uneven, and the whole thing usually collapses when two (or more) bells end-up overlapping or ringing at the same time - sometimes one sequence starts before the other is finished.
*
What I did not realise at the time is that Somerset was special. It must have had - I presume (I haven't checked) - a great tradition of bell ringing, which is far from universal.
It is an example of the way in which, as a child, we take things for granted.
England is a land of near-universal church bells, and of change ringing; but good bell ringing is very far from universal, in fact it is very rare indeed.
**
Any brief yet comprehensible technical corrections to the above would be warmly welcomed! But I was mainly concerned to emphasise my own level of comprehension as an untutored but keen listener to church bells.
Note added 5.6.19 - The mystique and method of change ringing is very well described in Dorothy L Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey detective novel The Nine Tailors, set in the East Anglian Fenlands which she knew well from her childhood, and which is a major centre of bell-ringing. It's a very enjoyable book - the best of the four or five Sayers whodunnits I have read, so far.
*
(Citing from my own memory and experience, I haven't checked this:)
There are usually six or eight bells - the lowest is called the tenor.
Change ringing usually begins with a descending scale, ending with the tenor; then change ringing introduces variations by swapping the position of two bells at a time in a predetermined mathematical sequence, but still ending each six/ eight note sequence with the tenor.
Something like:
1 2 3 4 5 6
2 1 3 4 5 6
2 3 1 4 5 6
2 3 4 1 5 6
2 3 4 5 1 6
3 2 4 5 1 6 etc.
Church bell 'compositions' are therefore the various mathematical sequences which take the bells back to the original descending scale.
*
To ring all possible combinations of the bells would obviously take a very long time (depending on the number of bells) - and usually there is just a shortish sequence of a few minutes, so I presume these are short simple compositions or a segment of a long sequence, perhaps?
Obviously I don't/ can't listen attentively to bell for long periods and can't recognise exactly what is going-on in terms of mathematical sequences; but something like the above is usually what is happening - the swapping of position of two bells in the sequence, ending with the low tenor.
*
The difficulty of change ringing is to keep the sequence of bells evenly spaced, despite making these changes in the order of bells (and keeping track of the sequence, because the ringer has to know what he is going to do before he does it) - and constrained by the fact that a bell cannot be run early, but only held-back and delayed.
(I think I recall that, for mechanical reasons, church bells can normally only be held-back by one position in the sequence - i.e. its ring delayed by only one position in the sequence - not two; and this is the reason for the method of changes.)
*
Anyway, since I moved up north from Somerset thirtysomething years ago, although there are church bells everywhere here, I have never at any time nor place heard good change ringing, never heard anything to match Backwell village church and the surrounding areas.
Certainly not at Durham Cathedral (I once lived next door) where the bell ringing was (forgive the expression) diabolical.
*
Bad change ringing is uneven, and the whole thing usually collapses when two (or more) bells end-up overlapping or ringing at the same time - sometimes one sequence starts before the other is finished.
*
What I did not realise at the time is that Somerset was special. It must have had - I presume (I haven't checked) - a great tradition of bell ringing, which is far from universal.
It is an example of the way in which, as a child, we take things for granted.
England is a land of near-universal church bells, and of change ringing; but good bell ringing is very far from universal, in fact it is very rare indeed.
**
Any brief yet comprehensible technical corrections to the above would be warmly welcomed! But I was mainly concerned to emphasise my own level of comprehension as an untutored but keen listener to church bells.
Note added 5.6.19 - The mystique and method of change ringing is very well described in Dorothy L Sayers's Lord Peter Wimsey detective novel The Nine Tailors, set in the East Anglian Fenlands which she knew well from her childhood, and which is a major centre of bell-ringing. It's a very enjoyable book - the best of the four or five Sayers whodunnits I have read, so far.
Sunday 6 May 2012
Tom Shippey - the only indispensable Tolkien scholar.
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tom-shippey-great-tolkien-scholar.html
*
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/tom-shippey-great-tolkien-scholar.html
*
Saturday 5 May 2012
Not on my wavelength
*
It is a strange phenomenon, which may have little or no significance, but I often find that there are authors who I feel I ought to like, but who I just don't get or else who 'rub me up the wrong way' and create irritation and hostility.
*
An example is John Henry (Cardinal) Newman.
I have read quite a lot by and about Newman - most recently a full biography; and despite recommendations form authors whom I admire, and the fact that he is the patron Saint of the new Anglican Ordinariate, I continue to dislike him personally in such a way that this prevents me getting any good from his writings.
The dislike is not strong, more like a low-grade annoyance, but it blocks the necessary receptivity.
*
I suspect this is exactly what it seems, one of those instances when - as in everyday life - you can't seem to get along with somebody; there is a persistent awkwardness.
For me, this crops up all over the place - things I want to like but can't.
*
So as to be somewhat even-handed between Western and Eastern Catholicism, I could mention the artistic style of icons as another thing to which I cannot warm.
As an idea, I like icons; I like the general effect in a church or home (indeed, I like it very much) especially when combined with mosaics - but as individual things, from an aesthetic perspective (whether Greek or Russian or any other I have seen), I don't appreciate icons, find them a negative experience.+
*
It applies to places. Italy for example. Despite everything wonderful that was or is in Italy and came from Italy, and despite all that everyone says, I just don't warm to the idea of Italy - something about Italy annoys me and always has.
(I once set foot there, for about 4 hours on a day trip from Austria, and found its effect on me just as negative as I feared.)
Rome as an idea or ideal does not attract (whereas the idea of Byzantine Constantinople, despite the icons, is almost literally intoxicating).
*
There doesn't seem to be anything one can do about such aversions; we just have to work-around them - as we work-around our irrational aversions among people with whom we must, nonetheless, get along.
*
+ Note - I think this may be related to the un-Englishness of icons. If England had remained Orthodox, then perhaps there would be an English style of icon-writing - maybe something like the illustrations of Pauline Baynes (based on the Luttrell Psalter)
It is a strange phenomenon, which may have little or no significance, but I often find that there are authors who I feel I ought to like, but who I just don't get or else who 'rub me up the wrong way' and create irritation and hostility.
*
An example is John Henry (Cardinal) Newman.
I have read quite a lot by and about Newman - most recently a full biography; and despite recommendations form authors whom I admire, and the fact that he is the patron Saint of the new Anglican Ordinariate, I continue to dislike him personally in such a way that this prevents me getting any good from his writings.
The dislike is not strong, more like a low-grade annoyance, but it blocks the necessary receptivity.
*
I suspect this is exactly what it seems, one of those instances when - as in everyday life - you can't seem to get along with somebody; there is a persistent awkwardness.
For me, this crops up all over the place - things I want to like but can't.
*
So as to be somewhat even-handed between Western and Eastern Catholicism, I could mention the artistic style of icons as another thing to which I cannot warm.
As an idea, I like icons; I like the general effect in a church or home (indeed, I like it very much) especially when combined with mosaics - but as individual things, from an aesthetic perspective (whether Greek or Russian or any other I have seen), I don't appreciate icons, find them a negative experience.+
*
It applies to places. Italy for example. Despite everything wonderful that was or is in Italy and came from Italy, and despite all that everyone says, I just don't warm to the idea of Italy - something about Italy annoys me and always has.
(I once set foot there, for about 4 hours on a day trip from Austria, and found its effect on me just as negative as I feared.)
Rome as an idea or ideal does not attract (whereas the idea of Byzantine Constantinople, despite the icons, is almost literally intoxicating).
*
There doesn't seem to be anything one can do about such aversions; we just have to work-around them - as we work-around our irrational aversions among people with whom we must, nonetheless, get along.
*
+ Note - I think this may be related to the un-Englishness of icons. If England had remained Orthodox, then perhaps there would be an English style of icon-writing - maybe something like the illustrations of Pauline Baynes (based on the Luttrell Psalter)
Friday 4 May 2012
England, and The Church of England, as a latent Byzantine polity
*
It is, perhaps, surprising that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England, who appoints the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and who (via her parliament) controls many aspects of the Church.
In modern times, and indeed for most of its history, this has been a mostly (not wholly) malign influence - sometimes called 'Erastianism' - meaning the State controlling the Church.
*
It is particularly malign that the Prime Minister and the House of Commons have usurped almost all of the Monarch's prerogatives - so that the PM actually chooses the Archbishops, and it was a vote in the Commons that rejected the 1928 revision to the Prayer Book (not that I favour that revision - I do not).
*
And yet, the fascinating things is that - although perverted and inverted - the Constitution of England is, in its basic shape - very much like the 'ideal' (I mean, ideal to me!) constitution of the Byzantine Empire.
*
For instance, the Monarch of England is meant to be by the Grace of God, chosen by God (and not, therefore, hereditary, nor appointed by Parliament - except when these procedures lead to the correct answer).
The Monarch chooses the Patriarch (Archbishop of Canterbury) who rules the Church, yet the Patriarch could (in principle) excommunicate the Monarch and exert other types of authority over him.
The Monarch chooses the Government by asking the leader of a Party to form a government - usually this is the 'winner' of a general election; but it could be someone else.
The Monarch can also dismiss any government for breaching the constitution (this actually happened in 1975 when the Queen's representative dismissed the Australian government led by Gough Whitlam).
And many of the primary aspects of English life retain the form of being done in the Monarch's name, and by his authority.
*
For a Christian reactionary, this situation is strange.
In real life the English constitution has been and is being used to impose an atheist, anti-Christian and Leftist democratic agenda; but in principle, if the English people became devoutly Christian Monarchists - pretty-much everything essential is in-place to make England a Byzantine Monarchy.
All that would be required is to remove all committees and votes, reverse the direction of power; and to live by the spirit of the constitution instead of merely by its letter.
*
It is, perhaps, surprising that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England, who appoints the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and who (via her parliament) controls many aspects of the Church.
In modern times, and indeed for most of its history, this has been a mostly (not wholly) malign influence - sometimes called 'Erastianism' - meaning the State controlling the Church.
*
It is particularly malign that the Prime Minister and the House of Commons have usurped almost all of the Monarch's prerogatives - so that the PM actually chooses the Archbishops, and it was a vote in the Commons that rejected the 1928 revision to the Prayer Book (not that I favour that revision - I do not).
*
And yet, the fascinating things is that - although perverted and inverted - the Constitution of England is, in its basic shape - very much like the 'ideal' (I mean, ideal to me!) constitution of the Byzantine Empire.
*
For instance, the Monarch of England is meant to be by the Grace of God, chosen by God (and not, therefore, hereditary, nor appointed by Parliament - except when these procedures lead to the correct answer).
The Monarch chooses the Patriarch (Archbishop of Canterbury) who rules the Church, yet the Patriarch could (in principle) excommunicate the Monarch and exert other types of authority over him.
The Monarch chooses the Government by asking the leader of a Party to form a government - usually this is the 'winner' of a general election; but it could be someone else.
The Monarch can also dismiss any government for breaching the constitution (this actually happened in 1975 when the Queen's representative dismissed the Australian government led by Gough Whitlam).
And many of the primary aspects of English life retain the form of being done in the Monarch's name, and by his authority.
*
For a Christian reactionary, this situation is strange.
In real life the English constitution has been and is being used to impose an atheist, anti-Christian and Leftist democratic agenda; but in principle, if the English people became devoutly Christian Monarchists - pretty-much everything essential is in-place to make England a Byzantine Monarchy.
All that would be required is to remove all committees and votes, reverse the direction of power; and to live by the spirit of the constitution instead of merely by its letter.
*
Thursday 3 May 2012
Wednesday 2 May 2012
Societal collapse due to the end of science
*
Quite aside from the insanity of the Left, which will end Western civilisation prematurely, modernity will collapse anyway, due to the end of science.
*
It is scientific revolutions (and technological breakthroughs) which caused and sustained modernity; modernity being the growth of productivity such as to outstrip the growth of populations.
*
In an important sense it is economic growth (growth in food production and also the production of other essentials) which underpins modernity.
Indeed, as Ernest Gellner saw, modernity depends on economic growth in two ways: firstly to keep people alive, and secondly to maintain coherence - because modern societies are societies of material bribery (rather than societies of material coercion and spiritual bribery, as in the past).
But economic growth depends on significant and frequent breakthroughs in productivity (more stuff for fewer man hours), and breakthroughs in productivity derive from science-technology broadly conceptualised.
*
And breakthroughs in science-technology - what do they depend on?
Well, I believe they depend upon creative genius - in other words breakthroughs were generated by the high density of creative geniuses (in relatively few cultures) who were positioned such as to make a difference by their work.
Yet there are no creative geniuses any more (or too few, or if there are enough, then they are not able to influence things).
Not enough creative geniuses = no modernity.
*
No creative geniuses (or not enough of them) means no breakthroughs (or not enough of them); which means stagnant productivity - indeed declining productivity due to the evolution of parasitism (e.g. bureaucracy, economically inactive populations etc).
And stagnant or declining productivity means the end of modernity which means societal collapse leading to population collapse and a new equilibrium at much lower total population (and population density).
The first collapse will be of cohesion, since the population cannot be bribed when there is not enough with which to bribe them.
And to impose cohesion by force and religion instead of bribery would itself end modernity.
*
The second collapse will be of starvation, disease and predation (mostly by people) - the triple major causes of human mortality
*
Modernity was therefore merely a temporary escape from the Malthusian Trap, lasting about 8 generations, driven - it seems, by the coincidence of a high density of creative genius in the West (and the conditions which enabled them to be effective in societal transformation) - all of which factors have by now disappeared.
*
Presumably, society will return to its pre-modern level of complexity - agrarian states, cohering due to a mixture of military coercion and religiousness.
This will happen, sooner or later, but on a timescale of decades not of centuries.
The only major uncertainty is - which religion?
*
Quite aside from the insanity of the Left, which will end Western civilisation prematurely, modernity will collapse anyway, due to the end of science.
*
It is scientific revolutions (and technological breakthroughs) which caused and sustained modernity; modernity being the growth of productivity such as to outstrip the growth of populations.
*
In an important sense it is economic growth (growth in food production and also the production of other essentials) which underpins modernity.
Indeed, as Ernest Gellner saw, modernity depends on economic growth in two ways: firstly to keep people alive, and secondly to maintain coherence - because modern societies are societies of material bribery (rather than societies of material coercion and spiritual bribery, as in the past).
But economic growth depends on significant and frequent breakthroughs in productivity (more stuff for fewer man hours), and breakthroughs in productivity derive from science-technology broadly conceptualised.
*
And breakthroughs in science-technology - what do they depend on?
Well, I believe they depend upon creative genius - in other words breakthroughs were generated by the high density of creative geniuses (in relatively few cultures) who were positioned such as to make a difference by their work.
Yet there are no creative geniuses any more (or too few, or if there are enough, then they are not able to influence things).
Not enough creative geniuses = no modernity.
*
No creative geniuses (or not enough of them) means no breakthroughs (or not enough of them); which means stagnant productivity - indeed declining productivity due to the evolution of parasitism (e.g. bureaucracy, economically inactive populations etc).
And stagnant or declining productivity means the end of modernity which means societal collapse leading to population collapse and a new equilibrium at much lower total population (and population density).
The first collapse will be of cohesion, since the population cannot be bribed when there is not enough with which to bribe them.
And to impose cohesion by force and religion instead of bribery would itself end modernity.
*
The second collapse will be of starvation, disease and predation (mostly by people) - the triple major causes of human mortality
*
Modernity was therefore merely a temporary escape from the Malthusian Trap, lasting about 8 generations, driven - it seems, by the coincidence of a high density of creative genius in the West (and the conditions which enabled them to be effective in societal transformation) - all of which factors have by now disappeared.
*
Presumably, society will return to its pre-modern level of complexity - agrarian states, cohering due to a mixture of military coercion and religiousness.
This will happen, sooner or later, but on a timescale of decades not of centuries.
The only major uncertainty is - which religion?
*
Tuesday 1 May 2012
What is the harm of libertarianism?
*
Given that it has zero chance of attaining power or introducing its favoured policies - what is the harm of principled libertarianism?
Simply that it is destructive. It helps to destroy the traditional order, it helps to destroy hierarchy, it helps to destroy existing sources of countervailing power.
So, libertarians supply arguments which are used or exploited by Leftists with which to atomise society - to break down professions, guilds, unions, protections, privileges insofar as they help maintain the traditional (existing) order.
Libertarians want freedom of the individual from all forms of authority, but the only authorities they are actually allowed to subvert and usurp are those forms of authority which the Left dislikes. A one-sided liberation, always tending to assist socialism.
Libertarians help create the chaos and weakness which is then used by Leftists to create their statist, communist, socialist, politically correct society.
This happens because it is much, much, much easier to destroy Good than to create Good.
The libertarians (sincerely) believe that they are only destroying the Good in order to introduce something Better (better, that is, from the perspective of efficiency) but that doesn't actually happen, because libertarians are so weak.
They can accomplish the easy task of destruction, but they never accomplish the vastly more difficult task of making something better.
*
Note: I was a libertarian - mostly from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s; and although I considered myself standing in opposition to the Leftist and politically correct intellectual mainstream, and although I did meet up with some trouble and strife; I was remarkably tolerated, and it seemed remarkable to me at the time.
But, in fact, the tolerance was more than remarkable - it was sinister; in the literal sense that my libertarianism was being 'used' as a 'tool' of the Left that was directed and selectively deployed. When not useful to the Left, libertarianism was simply ignored or over-ruled.
However, against this background of Leftist tolerance for libertarianism (a tolerance based on self-confidence that libertarianism is helpless against the Left when it comes to power) there are periodically - at least annually - blood sacrifices of libertarians who make the mistake of applying their analysis to the politically correct taboos.
But libertarians who steer clear of the Leftist taboos are given almost limitless tolerance - serving the Left as ideological resources and providing a self-gratifying illusion of the Left tolerating dissent.
*
Given that it has zero chance of attaining power or introducing its favoured policies - what is the harm of principled libertarianism?
Simply that it is destructive. It helps to destroy the traditional order, it helps to destroy hierarchy, it helps to destroy existing sources of countervailing power.
So, libertarians supply arguments which are used or exploited by Leftists with which to atomise society - to break down professions, guilds, unions, protections, privileges insofar as they help maintain the traditional (existing) order.
Libertarians want freedom of the individual from all forms of authority, but the only authorities they are actually allowed to subvert and usurp are those forms of authority which the Left dislikes. A one-sided liberation, always tending to assist socialism.
Libertarians help create the chaos and weakness which is then used by Leftists to create their statist, communist, socialist, politically correct society.
This happens because it is much, much, much easier to destroy Good than to create Good.
The libertarians (sincerely) believe that they are only destroying the Good in order to introduce something Better (better, that is, from the perspective of efficiency) but that doesn't actually happen, because libertarians are so weak.
They can accomplish the easy task of destruction, but they never accomplish the vastly more difficult task of making something better.
*
Note: I was a libertarian - mostly from the early 1990s to the mid 2000s; and although I considered myself standing in opposition to the Leftist and politically correct intellectual mainstream, and although I did meet up with some trouble and strife; I was remarkably tolerated, and it seemed remarkable to me at the time.
But, in fact, the tolerance was more than remarkable - it was sinister; in the literal sense that my libertarianism was being 'used' as a 'tool' of the Left that was directed and selectively deployed. When not useful to the Left, libertarianism was simply ignored or over-ruled.
However, against this background of Leftist tolerance for libertarianism (a tolerance based on self-confidence that libertarianism is helpless against the Left when it comes to power) there are periodically - at least annually - blood sacrifices of libertarians who make the mistake of applying their analysis to the politically correct taboos.
But libertarians who steer clear of the Leftist taboos are given almost limitless tolerance - serving the Left as ideological resources and providing a self-gratifying illusion of the Left tolerating dissent.
*
Metaphors for sin
*
1. The Good as a series of interlocking Laws - sin as law-breaking. This metaphor has become over-dominant, literalized and dangerous.
2. Sanctity as being turned-towards God, orientated towards God; sin as the act of turning away, damnation as being permanently turned-away from God (closed off, from pride).
3. Sin as a dark and opaque stain, marring the purity of white light - Tolkien's favourite metaphor. Used by CS Lewis to explain original sin spreading through humanity.
4. The Good as warmth and light, sin as coldness and shadow - e.g. Russian Saints who may survive extreme cold, and Saints who are surrounded by a glow.
*
1. The Good as a series of interlocking Laws - sin as law-breaking. This metaphor has become over-dominant, literalized and dangerous.
2. Sanctity as being turned-towards God, orientated towards God; sin as the act of turning away, damnation as being permanently turned-away from God (closed off, from pride).
3. Sin as a dark and opaque stain, marring the purity of white light - Tolkien's favourite metaphor. Used by CS Lewis to explain original sin spreading through humanity.
4. The Good as warmth and light, sin as coldness and shadow - e.g. Russian Saints who may survive extreme cold, and Saints who are surrounded by a glow.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)