*
(Specifically man - not woman: that seems too obvious. And man only, excluding Jesus.)
Is there a traditional consensus answer to this question among those in a position to know? If so, I haven't heard it.
There would seem to be three fairly clear candidates: St John the Baptist, who Jesus described as the holiest man to have lived up to that point; St John the Apostle (and - I assume - author of the Gospel, Epistles and Revelation), and St Paul.
Of these, I do not know, but I would guess that perhaps St John the Apostle was the holiest man who ever lived, the man who achieved the highest degree of theosis: most fully, deeply and constantly communed with God.
*
Tuesday 14 May 2013
Monday 13 May 2013
The Holy Trinity explained! - by Orson Scott Card
*
From:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695233910/Theology-LDS-god-is-in-harmony-with-the-Bible.html?pg=all
From:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695233910/Theology-LDS-god-is-in-harmony-with-the-Bible.html?pg=all
Here's a theological argument between a traditional Christian (TC) and a biblical Christian (LDS):
TC: The Trinity consists of three parallel lines, which touch each other.
LDS: If they touch each other, they're not parallel.
TC: Nevertheless, they are parallel, and they touch. They touch at every point.
LDS: If they touch at every point, they're the same line. Not three.
TC: They touch at every point, yet there are three.
LDS: That doesn't make
any sense. Lines can't be different yet the same, parallel yet
intersecting. The words stop having any meaning when you say such
things.
TC: That's because you have a finite, mortal mind, which cannot comprehend the nature of geometry.
LDS: That's just
crazy. The Trinity is three lines, completely distinct, perfectly
parallel, so they go infinitely in the same direction. That's simple,
it's clear, and it's true. In fact, we've seen the lines.
TC: That's blasphemy! You can never see the lines! They're only imaginary!
LDS: Your lines are imaginary. The lines we've seen are real.
TC: Then you are not Geometers!
And that's where the discussion always ends.
*
I side with the LDS-ite in this debate - because, even if I might disagree with this sufficiency and precision of this formulation of the Trinity, I can at least understand what it is I am disagreeing-with! To agree or disagree with the TC definition of the nature of the Trinity is to assent to, or dissent from, the content of a sealed black box which might contain anything or nothing, or both everything and nothing...
*
The metaphysical 'law' of Comparative Advantage - an assumption masquerading as a discovery
*
[If you don't already know what the economic 'law' of Comparative Advantage is, then don't bother reading this.]
*
What is interesting about Comparative Advantage is that it is a metaphysical assumption and not a discovery. In this it resembles evolution by Natural Selection.
What both Comparative Advantage and Natural Selection do is make a set of assumptions and then state that IF these assumptions hold, THEN such-and-such consequences WILL follow.
Neither are empirically 'true' - rather they are logically true in the sense that IF the assumptions do indeed hold, THEN certain outcomes WILL follow - but strictly this has nothing (and I mean nothing) necessarily to do with what happens in real life, what is empirically observable - what is real, consequential, important in terms of the world.
*
Because we can never know for sure whether the assumptions of CA (or NS) hold, and even if we could know, there are an open-ended number of other processes at work in the real world, of unknown strength; such that EVEN IF comparative advantage was operating it could easily and often be small, weak, utterly swamped, invisible to observation, insignificant in real terms.
*
So, Comparative Advantage is only 'true' by definition, but is not the kind of thing which can be tested. It certainly is not always true or important in practice, indeed it cannot be known whether or not CA is applicable in any specific situation.
In other words, CA was not discovered - it was devised; it is not empirical science it is metaphysics (i.e. potentially a framework of science), is is not a finding, it is an assumption.
*
Yet economists persist is describing CA asif it was a discovery, asif it was testable, asif it is necessarily and empirically applicable and important in all situations!
All that can be said is that when CA is built-into an analysis or investigation, then such-and-such is the consequence of building-it-in.
*
In principle, since it provides the framework for the subject; Comparative Advantage could never be disproved (nor proved) by anything that ever could be discoverable by economists - just as Natural Selection cannot ever be disproved (nor proved) by anything a biologist might discover.
To treat Comparative Advantage as part of the 'science' of economics is mistaken, a misunderstanding, just plain wrong - Comparative Advantage just is not that kind of a thing!
Comparative stands outside-of economics - it is part of philosophy.
*
[If you don't already know what the economic 'law' of Comparative Advantage is, then don't bother reading this.]
*
What is interesting about Comparative Advantage is that it is a metaphysical assumption and not a discovery. In this it resembles evolution by Natural Selection.
What both Comparative Advantage and Natural Selection do is make a set of assumptions and then state that IF these assumptions hold, THEN such-and-such consequences WILL follow.
Neither are empirically 'true' - rather they are logically true in the sense that IF the assumptions do indeed hold, THEN certain outcomes WILL follow - but strictly this has nothing (and I mean nothing) necessarily to do with what happens in real life, what is empirically observable - what is real, consequential, important in terms of the world.
*
Because we can never know for sure whether the assumptions of CA (or NS) hold, and even if we could know, there are an open-ended number of other processes at work in the real world, of unknown strength; such that EVEN IF comparative advantage was operating it could easily and often be small, weak, utterly swamped, invisible to observation, insignificant in real terms.
*
So, Comparative Advantage is only 'true' by definition, but is not the kind of thing which can be tested. It certainly is not always true or important in practice, indeed it cannot be known whether or not CA is applicable in any specific situation.
In other words, CA was not discovered - it was devised; it is not empirical science it is metaphysics (i.e. potentially a framework of science), is is not a finding, it is an assumption.
*
Yet economists persist is describing CA asif it was a discovery, asif it was testable, asif it is necessarily and empirically applicable and important in all situations!
All that can be said is that when CA is built-into an analysis or investigation, then such-and-such is the consequence of building-it-in.
*
In principle, since it provides the framework for the subject; Comparative Advantage could never be disproved (nor proved) by anything that ever could be discoverable by economists - just as Natural Selection cannot ever be disproved (nor proved) by anything a biologist might discover.
To treat Comparative Advantage as part of the 'science' of economics is mistaken, a misunderstanding, just plain wrong - Comparative Advantage just is not that kind of a thing!
Comparative stands outside-of economics - it is part of philosophy.
*
Sunday 12 May 2013
The necessity of understanding God anthropomorphically - as a person, as a Father
*
Before I was a Christian, I was very interested by animism (treating nature as sentient) including such things as the anthropomorphism of treating animals as persons with distinctive character, motivations etc (which is normal among hunter gatherers; and seems to be the most effective way to understand many large animals, and to hunt, farm or train them).
I believe that this way of thinking is fundamental to being human - to the extent that not thinking animistically or anthropomorphically causes alienation: causes that distinctive sense of isolation from a meaningless world which is endemic among modern adults.
*
I am also increasingly convinced of the necessity primarily to think of God in an anthropomorphic way - to regard God as a person - specifically as a Father, the Father to us all.
Indeed I think this is a key to Christianity, and that to think of God as primarily an abstraction (to think of God as being His attributes, for instance) opens the door to infinite error and provides a short-cut out of Christianity.
To understand God, we need to think of Him as a perfect Father - and this kind of understanding is almost universally available to humans - it is not restricted to philosophers.
*
When a difficult question comes up about God and mankind, then the main way to answer it is to imagine how we would behave if we were perfectly Good and mankind were all our beloved children.
So, for example, the question that so tormented the medievals about the fate of unbaptized children and virtuous pagans who died before Christ's incarnation. Were they consigned to hell merely because they were unbaptized and did not know Christ (through no fault of their own); or, if they were saved, then did baptism and faith not really matter?
I would suggest that the way to answer such questions is to assume that God is at least as Good as we are and that therefore he regards all of mankind much as a loving Father regards his beloved children.
This means that whatever the answer, it cannot be that unbaptized children and virtuous ancient pagans are consigned to hell.
*
The difficulty of capturing the behaviour of a Good and loving Father inside a theological, philosophical and legal set of principles is so great that the task is actually hopeless - and if we insist in reasoning from abstract principles to determine how God actually does behave - then the end result is likely to be either a monster or else so vague as to be worthless as an object of personal devotion.
*
So, for a Christian, God must be regarded primarily anthropomorphically, as a person - and this applies to God the Father just as much as to Jesus Christ His Son.
Of course, God is much more than we are, and cannot be wholly captured by modeling his behaviour on ours - but as we are enjoined to love God and this means He must be regarded anthropomorphically, primarily as a person, and the metaphor of personhood we have been given is Fatherhood.
*
Some people may be able - for specific purposes - to regard God as something other than a person (rather as economists might regard persons as rational, utility-maximizing agents) - but this is hazardous (and for the same kind of reasons that economic Man is a hazardous concept).
So, although often seen as evidence of greater insight, I strongly doubt whether it is legitimate to regard non-anthropomorphic (abstract) concepts of God as being higher than the simple concept of God as our Good, our perfectly loving, Father in Heaven.
*
Before I was a Christian, I was very interested by animism (treating nature as sentient) including such things as the anthropomorphism of treating animals as persons with distinctive character, motivations etc (which is normal among hunter gatherers; and seems to be the most effective way to understand many large animals, and to hunt, farm or train them).
I believe that this way of thinking is fundamental to being human - to the extent that not thinking animistically or anthropomorphically causes alienation: causes that distinctive sense of isolation from a meaningless world which is endemic among modern adults.
*
I am also increasingly convinced of the necessity primarily to think of God in an anthropomorphic way - to regard God as a person - specifically as a Father, the Father to us all.
Indeed I think this is a key to Christianity, and that to think of God as primarily an abstraction (to think of God as being His attributes, for instance) opens the door to infinite error and provides a short-cut out of Christianity.
To understand God, we need to think of Him as a perfect Father - and this kind of understanding is almost universally available to humans - it is not restricted to philosophers.
*
When a difficult question comes up about God and mankind, then the main way to answer it is to imagine how we would behave if we were perfectly Good and mankind were all our beloved children.
So, for example, the question that so tormented the medievals about the fate of unbaptized children and virtuous pagans who died before Christ's incarnation. Were they consigned to hell merely because they were unbaptized and did not know Christ (through no fault of their own); or, if they were saved, then did baptism and faith not really matter?
I would suggest that the way to answer such questions is to assume that God is at least as Good as we are and that therefore he regards all of mankind much as a loving Father regards his beloved children.
This means that whatever the answer, it cannot be that unbaptized children and virtuous ancient pagans are consigned to hell.
*
The difficulty of capturing the behaviour of a Good and loving Father inside a theological, philosophical and legal set of principles is so great that the task is actually hopeless - and if we insist in reasoning from abstract principles to determine how God actually does behave - then the end result is likely to be either a monster or else so vague as to be worthless as an object of personal devotion.
*
So, for a Christian, God must be regarded primarily anthropomorphically, as a person - and this applies to God the Father just as much as to Jesus Christ His Son.
Of course, God is much more than we are, and cannot be wholly captured by modeling his behaviour on ours - but as we are enjoined to love God and this means He must be regarded anthropomorphically, primarily as a person, and the metaphor of personhood we have been given is Fatherhood.
*
Some people may be able - for specific purposes - to regard God as something other than a person (rather as economists might regard persons as rational, utility-maximizing agents) - but this is hazardous (and for the same kind of reasons that economic Man is a hazardous concept).
So, although often seen as evidence of greater insight, I strongly doubt whether it is legitimate to regard non-anthropomorphic (abstract) concepts of God as being higher than the simple concept of God as our Good, our perfectly loving, Father in Heaven.
*
Saturday 11 May 2013
Why construct Christian utopias?
*
I was very struck by the following comment from 'Elspeth' who blogs at Traditional Christianity:
I was very struck by the following comment from 'Elspeth' who blogs at Traditional Christianity:
*
Marriage-topia, sex-topia, male-topia, white-topia (Not me of course LOL), game-topia, trad-topia. I could go on but you get my point.
Marriage-topia, sex-topia, male-topia, white-topia (Not me of course LOL), game-topia, trad-topia. I could go on but you get my point.
The only way to accomplish this (as the liberals have figured out),
is to enact and enforce rules such that everyone must succumb to them. Some
of these are overt and enforceable laws, others are politically correct
codes of behavior that are subtly enforced until they become the norm.
So we decided that if we make everyone succumb to the
Christian/traditional code of morality, all will be well.
The problem is
that nowhere in the New Testament do we see the Messiah or apostles
concerned with anything about the lifestyles of those outside of the
faith.
The only concern is for their souls. They knew that with
repentance and an experience with Christ comes a change in behavior.
We seem obsessed with how their degeneracy is affecting our lives and
comfort while showing no concern for their souls.
This, of course, says
something about the state of our souls.
*
*
[My emphasis added, and slightly edited with typos corrected.]
*
Friday 10 May 2013
Intelligence declined one SD since Victorian times - why NOT?
*
Okay - so simple reaction time data indicates that average general intelligence has declined by about one standard deviation (15 IQ points) since the late 1800s.
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/taking-on-board-that-victorians-were.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-over-promoted-society-bishops-and.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-are-genetic-causes-of-dysgenic.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-decline-in-general-intelligence.html
What next?
Should we believe it?
*
Well, here are a few considerations:
1. Simple reaction times are the most objective evidence we have concerning trends in general intelligence.
Therefore we should:
a. believe them, or
b. come-up with something better, or
c. show how these studies of reaction times are incompetent, or
d. assume that the studies of reaction times are dishonest, or
e. assume that this data is wrong on the basis that most data is wrong (and because we are under no obligation to believe any particular bit of data - quite the contrary, there must be good reasons for believing any specific proposition)
*
2. Any other data which can be brought to bear on the matter of declining intelligence is (I think) relatively 'soft', subjective and imprecise compared with reaction times - (things like rates of major innovation, rates of geniuses etc) so - although I see much of what seems to be consistent with a significant and relatively rapid decline in general intelligence - it is unlikely to convince someone who does not want to believe in the first place.
On the other hand, even if it does not support, does any of this long terms evidence of general intelligence contradict the thesis that it has declined?
I mean, is there any decent evidence that general intelligence has actually risen? (aside from the Flynn effect of increasing pen and paper IQ test scores - which is not relevant here since it is what is being explained, and therefore inadmissible as evidence).
Has, for instance, per capita performance improved since the late 1800s in any 'g' related and quantifiable human endeavour? I know this is tricky to answer, since there are shifts in the specialized activities of intellectuals (e.g. away from study of The Classics and towards some of the sciences, or medicine) - but is there is reasonably compelling evidence of this sort of improvement?
*
3. If is is decided that we should, after all, accept the best evidence as showing a significant decline in average intelligence since the late 1800s, then there is quite a lot of further work to be done on the mechanism - because, on the whole, present understanding of 'dysgenic' mechanisms in relation to intelligence is not adequate to explain the rapidity of this decline.
(I mean, that calculations based on differential reproduction and heredity of intelligence predict a much slower rate of decline than could lead to one SD reduction in 'g' in the space of just four or five generations.)
The accumulation of deleterious mutations with the relaxation of selection due to high rates of child mortality is my first best guess at the likely 'extra' mechanism (and Michael Woodley agrees)
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-are-genetic-causes-of-dysgenic.html
but really this is just a best guess, and the detailed mechanisms of how this might work are unclear.
However, it could make interesting science in trying to find-out!
*
Okay - so simple reaction time data indicates that average general intelligence has declined by about one standard deviation (15 IQ points) since the late 1800s.
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/taking-on-board-that-victorians-were.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/the-over-promoted-society-bishops-and.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-are-genetic-causes-of-dysgenic.html
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-decline-in-general-intelligence.html
What next?
Should we believe it?
*
Well, here are a few considerations:
1. Simple reaction times are the most objective evidence we have concerning trends in general intelligence.
Therefore we should:
a. believe them, or
b. come-up with something better, or
c. show how these studies of reaction times are incompetent, or
d. assume that the studies of reaction times are dishonest, or
e. assume that this data is wrong on the basis that most data is wrong (and because we are under no obligation to believe any particular bit of data - quite the contrary, there must be good reasons for believing any specific proposition)
*
2. Any other data which can be brought to bear on the matter of declining intelligence is (I think) relatively 'soft', subjective and imprecise compared with reaction times - (things like rates of major innovation, rates of geniuses etc) so - although I see much of what seems to be consistent with a significant and relatively rapid decline in general intelligence - it is unlikely to convince someone who does not want to believe in the first place.
On the other hand, even if it does not support, does any of this long terms evidence of general intelligence contradict the thesis that it has declined?
I mean, is there any decent evidence that general intelligence has actually risen? (aside from the Flynn effect of increasing pen and paper IQ test scores - which is not relevant here since it is what is being explained, and therefore inadmissible as evidence).
Has, for instance, per capita performance improved since the late 1800s in any 'g' related and quantifiable human endeavour? I know this is tricky to answer, since there are shifts in the specialized activities of intellectuals (e.g. away from study of The Classics and towards some of the sciences, or medicine) - but is there is reasonably compelling evidence of this sort of improvement?
*
3. If is is decided that we should, after all, accept the best evidence as showing a significant decline in average intelligence since the late 1800s, then there is quite a lot of further work to be done on the mechanism - because, on the whole, present understanding of 'dysgenic' mechanisms in relation to intelligence is not adequate to explain the rapidity of this decline.
(I mean, that calculations based on differential reproduction and heredity of intelligence predict a much slower rate of decline than could lead to one SD reduction in 'g' in the space of just four or five generations.)
The accumulation of deleterious mutations with the relaxation of selection due to high rates of child mortality is my first best guess at the likely 'extra' mechanism (and Michael Woodley agrees)
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-are-genetic-causes-of-dysgenic.html
but really this is just a best guess, and the detailed mechanisms of how this might work are unclear.
However, it could make interesting science in trying to find-out!
*
A three point plan to solve everything
*
It may seem a hopeless situation - but that is despair talking. In fact everything can be sorted out, if only we are sensible about things.
I offer you a three point plan of action.
*
1. If we simply start-out from a different place - not this place - then things become straightforward.
2. If the people who start-out are different people - and not these people we see around us, certainly not them! - then we ought to be able to deal with these matters.
3. Different people, starting from a different place would certainly be useful - but even without these, victory could so easily be ours if only people wanted different things than people want.
*
Really, everything falls into place with simply this: the world's problems are formidable, but soluble, if only things were not as they are but as we would prefer them to be.
I would like you to remember that - and work towards it by every means possible.
Starting from the wrong place and with all the wrong kind of people; that is, people who don't actually want what you want them to want - organize the situation to get someplace much better.
*
The cunning trick is to use those people who don't want something to persuade - or coerce if necessary - all the other people who don't want it either to do it anyway.
It is all a matter of subtle analysis and the precise application of leverage, and it all comes tumbling down - or rather builds itself into something wonderful...
*
It is perfectly simple, we simply need to change people's fundamental motivations.
That is all!
That would work!
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
*
Ladies and gentleman - I thank you.
(Bows three times, and takes a seat.)
*
(Beep Beep Beep - Irony alert!)
It may seem a hopeless situation - but that is despair talking. In fact everything can be sorted out, if only we are sensible about things.
I offer you a three point plan of action.
*
1. If we simply start-out from a different place - not this place - then things become straightforward.
2. If the people who start-out are different people - and not these people we see around us, certainly not them! - then we ought to be able to deal with these matters.
3. Different people, starting from a different place would certainly be useful - but even without these, victory could so easily be ours if only people wanted different things than people want.
*
Really, everything falls into place with simply this: the world's problems are formidable, but soluble, if only things were not as they are but as we would prefer them to be.
I would like you to remember that - and work towards it by every means possible.
Starting from the wrong place and with all the wrong kind of people; that is, people who don't actually want what you want them to want - organize the situation to get someplace much better.
*
The cunning trick is to use those people who don't want something to persuade - or coerce if necessary - all the other people who don't want it either to do it anyway.
It is all a matter of subtle analysis and the precise application of leverage, and it all comes tumbling down - or rather builds itself into something wonderful...
*
It is perfectly simple, we simply need to change people's fundamental motivations.
That is all!
That would work!
And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
*
Ladies and gentleman - I thank you.
(Bows three times, and takes a seat.)
*
(Beep Beep Beep - Irony alert!)
Thursday 9 May 2013
I'm blogging at Mad in America
*
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/treating-one-disease-by-causing-another/
Aficionados of BC's Miscellany will recognize most of my forthcoming postings as adapted from ideas published here.
*
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/treating-one-disease-by-causing-another/
Aficionados of BC's Miscellany will recognize most of my forthcoming postings as adapted from ideas published here.
*
Wednesday 8 May 2013
Why is the secular Right blogosphere seething with hatred?
*
(Indeed, the same applies to much of the 'hard line' - legalistic, hyper-correct, over-systematic - Christian reactionary blogosphere.)
*
Taken as a whole, the Right are a mass of despisers.
*
Yes, of course the Left is intrinsically evil, and reality and truth are on the Right.
But this is what we find.
The public arena of the Right is dominated by those who are very obviously in the grip of hatred, who are consumed with loathing and despising, and who revel in the fact. They glory in their own invective.
*
Why? I think the answer lies in the human heart.
The human heart, in its natural state (in our childhood, and among most people inhabiting simpler and better societies) is open and warm - yet in a world full of evil, in a world where we are bombarded with evil and where Good is mocked, subverted and attacked unceasingly - there is a strong tendency to harden and close the heart as self-protection.
Indeed, the temptation to harden and close may prove irresistible, except when there is a strong Christian faith (most other religions do not value an open and warm heart).
A Christian must strive to live by love, but a hard-closed heart makes this impossible.
Not difficult: impossible.
*
If your heart is hard and closed, and you are content with this situation or perhaps even pride yourself on your toughness and power to resist influence - then you are not a Christian; and it does not matter what you do, what rules you follow, nor what you profess.
From a Christian perspective, if society is ruled by those with closed and hardened hearts who do not acknowledge nor try to remedy this; then it is a hellish state, and it does not matter much what the rules are nor who does the ruling.
*
We are not allowed to protect ourselves from the evil of the world by closing ourselves off from it and making ourselves indifferent to it - and if we succeed in this aim of autonomy, this carries its own punishment of absolute alienation and utter aloneness.
The only permissible defense against evil, and the only one which works over the long haul, is to maintain the heart as open and warm, childlike; but to block the access of evil by love - this love comes by grace (undeserved) from God if we allow it.
People must be realistic, they need to be tough - but this is not a legitimate end in itself, and if tough-realism is adopted as an end in itself it is merely a shortcut to evil.
*
It's quite simple to state: we must be realistic and tough and we must have warm and open hearts.
That is, incidentally, exactly what we are taught by the heroes of the best of literature: especially by Tolkien, more recently by JK Rowling.
This is not just a theory, not merely abstract advice - it has been worked-out for us imaginatively and in detail in Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, Harry Potter.
*
(Indeed, the same applies to much of the 'hard line' - legalistic, hyper-correct, over-systematic - Christian reactionary blogosphere.)
*
Taken as a whole, the Right are a mass of despisers.
*
Yes, of course the Left is intrinsically evil, and reality and truth are on the Right.
But this is what we find.
The public arena of the Right is dominated by those who are very obviously in the grip of hatred, who are consumed with loathing and despising, and who revel in the fact. They glory in their own invective.
*
Why? I think the answer lies in the human heart.
The human heart, in its natural state (in our childhood, and among most people inhabiting simpler and better societies) is open and warm - yet in a world full of evil, in a world where we are bombarded with evil and where Good is mocked, subverted and attacked unceasingly - there is a strong tendency to harden and close the heart as self-protection.
Indeed, the temptation to harden and close may prove irresistible, except when there is a strong Christian faith (most other religions do not value an open and warm heart).
A Christian must strive to live by love, but a hard-closed heart makes this impossible.
Not difficult: impossible.
*
If your heart is hard and closed, and you are content with this situation or perhaps even pride yourself on your toughness and power to resist influence - then you are not a Christian; and it does not matter what you do, what rules you follow, nor what you profess.
From a Christian perspective, if society is ruled by those with closed and hardened hearts who do not acknowledge nor try to remedy this; then it is a hellish state, and it does not matter much what the rules are nor who does the ruling.
*
We are not allowed to protect ourselves from the evil of the world by closing ourselves off from it and making ourselves indifferent to it - and if we succeed in this aim of autonomy, this carries its own punishment of absolute alienation and utter aloneness.
The only permissible defense against evil, and the only one which works over the long haul, is to maintain the heart as open and warm, childlike; but to block the access of evil by love - this love comes by grace (undeserved) from God if we allow it.
People must be realistic, they need to be tough - but this is not a legitimate end in itself, and if tough-realism is adopted as an end in itself it is merely a shortcut to evil.
*
It's quite simple to state: we must be realistic and tough and we must have warm and open hearts.
That is, incidentally, exactly what we are taught by the heroes of the best of literature: especially by Tolkien, more recently by JK Rowling.
This is not just a theory, not merely abstract advice - it has been worked-out for us imaginatively and in detail in Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, Harry Potter.
*
A satisfying and coherent theory of Christ's atonement
*
When I became a Christian I was reassured by CS Lewis's statement in Mere Christianity that there were many theories of the atonement of Christ, but the important thing was not the theory but the thing itself: that it worked, not how it worked.
*
I was reassured over the following years because the theories, or accounts of causality, related to the atonement which I encountered and with which I engaged with were all significantly deficient.
Either they did not make logical sense, or else they failed to explain that which needed to be explained.
*
The only 'solution' seemed to be to place mysterious black boxes at strategic junctions in the argument.
Well, in my explorations of Mormon theology I have, I think, now come across an account of the Atonement (or else creatively-misunderstood one!) which 'covers all the bases' so far as I am concerned
http://www.blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf
*
(By the way, I really like the way that Blake Ostler does philosophy - I find it very congenial and convincing. My kind of philosopher! Here he is at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVAqXOvN9ag&list=PL3B7ABE1C68779849
I watched this lecture just last night and was absolutely gripped.
I was both surprised, and not-at-all suprised, that Ostler is an 'amateur' who makes his living as an attorney and not by teaching philosophy - that is probably an essential in order to do real philosophy (i.e. for the right reasons) these days.)
*
I doubt whether many people could be bothered to plough-through an account of the atonement as I understand it now - but what I found interesting about all this was retrospectively to identify the assumptions which had been blocking my understanding.
The first background blocking assumption was that human souls/ spirits were created at conception/ birth - but when I assumed that our souls had pre-existence, then the possibility arose that we had chosen mortal life on earth (behind a veil of forgetfulness) - which voluntary act solves one class of problems - for example explaining how those born before Christ may be saved (i.e. because they knew, pre-mortally but not explicitly, that Christ would be coming).
*
The other false/ blocking assumption was that the atonement of Christ's birth and death was wholly about us, necessary for the benefit of humans alone - whereas I now believe that the process was also necessary for Christ: incarnate mortality was profoundly 'educative', and the way in which He learned by experience that which he needed to learn in order to save us.
When Christ's sufferings are seen as voluntarily undertaken and empathically-motivated, and that Christ as a personage was changed by His sufferings, permanently expanded in His understanding - then it all seems to make logical sense to me: for the first time.
So the Atonement was for us; but was undertaken by Christ in order to become able to save us.
*
When I became a Christian I was reassured by CS Lewis's statement in Mere Christianity that there were many theories of the atonement of Christ, but the important thing was not the theory but the thing itself: that it worked, not how it worked.
*
I was reassured over the following years because the theories, or accounts of causality, related to the atonement which I encountered and with which I engaged with were all significantly deficient.
Either they did not make logical sense, or else they failed to explain that which needed to be explained.
*
The only 'solution' seemed to be to place mysterious black boxes at strategic junctions in the argument.
Well, in my explorations of Mormon theology I have, I think, now come across an account of the Atonement (or else creatively-misunderstood one!) which 'covers all the bases' so far as I am concerned
http://www.blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf
*
(By the way, I really like the way that Blake Ostler does philosophy - I find it very congenial and convincing. My kind of philosopher! Here he is at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVAqXOvN9ag&list=PL3B7ABE1C68779849
I watched this lecture just last night and was absolutely gripped.
I was both surprised, and not-at-all suprised, that Ostler is an 'amateur' who makes his living as an attorney and not by teaching philosophy - that is probably an essential in order to do real philosophy (i.e. for the right reasons) these days.)
*
I doubt whether many people could be bothered to plough-through an account of the atonement as I understand it now - but what I found interesting about all this was retrospectively to identify the assumptions which had been blocking my understanding.
The first background blocking assumption was that human souls/ spirits were created at conception/ birth - but when I assumed that our souls had pre-existence, then the possibility arose that we had chosen mortal life on earth (behind a veil of forgetfulness) - which voluntary act solves one class of problems - for example explaining how those born before Christ may be saved (i.e. because they knew, pre-mortally but not explicitly, that Christ would be coming).
*
The other false/ blocking assumption was that the atonement of Christ's birth and death was wholly about us, necessary for the benefit of humans alone - whereas I now believe that the process was also necessary for Christ: incarnate mortality was profoundly 'educative', and the way in which He learned by experience that which he needed to learn in order to save us.
When Christ's sufferings are seen as voluntarily undertaken and empathically-motivated, and that Christ as a personage was changed by His sufferings, permanently expanded in His understanding - then it all seems to make logical sense to me: for the first time.
So the Atonement was for us; but was undertaken by Christ in order to become able to save us.
*
Tuesday 7 May 2013
Sin is Self-Absorbed Alienation
*
As we grow from childhood we all freely (but initially innocently) make the choice to hide ourselves from God and each other by hardening our hearts.
We betray ourselves by violating the law of love and choose to harden our hearts against God and others.
In so doing, we alienate ourselves from authentic existence and engage in numerous behaviors that injure our relationships with others.
We engage in a self-deceived way of being where we convince ourselves that remaining alienated will bring us the greatest happiness.
Blake Ostler
http://www.blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf
*
COMMENT: This passage resonates strongly with my own experience: that as a child my heart was open and warm but at points throughout growing-up and adult life I felt a very strong temptation to close and harden my heart; and indeed made strenuous attempts to achieve this; and indeed for exactly the reason of believing that completing the process and remaining alienated would bring me the greatest happiness - because then I would be independent of circumstances. As this progressed, however, I became increasingly alienated from authentic existence and engaged in numerous behaviours that injured my relationship with others. From this I was, more than once, by good fortune and my failure to have completed the corruption, rescued - several times by a temporary stay, then by a potentially permanent re-birth.
*
As we grow from childhood we all freely (but initially innocently) make the choice to hide ourselves from God and each other by hardening our hearts.
We betray ourselves by violating the law of love and choose to harden our hearts against God and others.
In so doing, we alienate ourselves from authentic existence and engage in numerous behaviors that injure our relationships with others.
We engage in a self-deceived way of being where we convince ourselves that remaining alienated will bring us the greatest happiness.
Blake Ostler
http://www.blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf
*
COMMENT: This passage resonates strongly with my own experience: that as a child my heart was open and warm but at points throughout growing-up and adult life I felt a very strong temptation to close and harden my heart; and indeed made strenuous attempts to achieve this; and indeed for exactly the reason of believing that completing the process and remaining alienated would bring me the greatest happiness - because then I would be independent of circumstances. As this progressed, however, I became increasingly alienated from authentic existence and engaged in numerous behaviours that injured my relationship with others. From this I was, more than once, by good fortune and my failure to have completed the corruption, rescued - several times by a temporary stay, then by a potentially permanent re-birth.
*
Monday 6 May 2013
Tolkien envy bleg
*
Was JRR Tolkien ever envious about anything?
Documentation requested:
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/was-tolkien-envious-bleg.html
*
Was JRR Tolkien ever envious about anything?
Documentation requested:
http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/was-tolkien-envious-bleg.html
*
Rowan Williams and Catweazle - separated at birth?
*
Rowan Williams - the incompetent ex-Archbishop of Canterbury:
And Catweazle - the incompetent Anglo-Saxon wizard from 1970s childrens's tv:
?
*
Rowan Williams - the incompetent ex-Archbishop of Canterbury:
And Catweazle - the incompetent Anglo-Saxon wizard from 1970s childrens's tv:
?
*
Choosing a church - advice from an in-expert
*
The most important thing is to become a Christian - that alone is of great benefit; but the second step is to (try to) choose a church - that is difficult, and perhaps more difficult than before.
In general, I suggest choosing a specific congregation rather than a denomination - but of course Christianity is mostly set-up in terms of denominations (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Mormon etc).
*
But in choosing a church, what should be the criteria?
Here I offer the lessons of my own experience in hope that it may show the possibilities as well as the great difficulties of church choosing; and perhaps encourage one or two people.
*
So, if we assume that the perfect church for you - one which is nearby and which energizes, inspires, consoles, strengthens and educates - does not exist or is not available, then how do you choose?
*
When I became a Christian I simply took up the denomination in which I had been baptized and schooled - Church of England .
However, this turned out to be anything but an easy choice - because the CoE was riven with conflict - and I very soon realized I would have to take sides.
Over a period of time, this made my choice for me.
*
The two primary conflicts in the CoE relate to women ministers/bishops and same-sex 'marriage' - and in choosing the Christian side of both these issues, almost all Anglican churches were eliminated from consideration.
Very fortunately, one that remained was nearby, and an exceptionally large and alive family-orientated conservative-evangelical church with good teaching - so it wasn't really difficult for me.
*
And, given my views on the use of fertility as a religious evaluation...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/above-replacement-fertility-necessary.html
I would require that a church to which I make a significant commitment or contribution must have plenty of families, and be orientated towards marriage and children (must at least look as if the standardized fertility rate among devout adherents exceeds two) - otherwise, it is probable that in supporting the specific church, I would be supporting an organization that is net anti-Christian (as is most of the Church of England).
*
(What is difficult, and will no doubt remain so - due to my nature - is taking a full and proper part in church life. I am 'not a joiner' and also lazy. So my membership is a semi-detached affair. But that is much better than nothing - much better than trying to be a solo-Christian working only from books...)
*
But in joining this particular church, what was difficult was giving-up several of the aspects of church which had most appealed to me - two things specifically: the traditional Anglican liturgy based upon The Book of Common Prayer and use of the Authorized Version of the Bible - and the frequent Communion (several times a week) in which I used to participate in an Anglo-Catholic Church.
These produced an intense aesthetic and mystical response in me, with high frequency and reliability.
So this was, and is, a very considerable sacrifice and loss - and it is taking me a while to get used to the absence.
*
So, at the end of applying this process of choosing sides, and applying two filters; I find that I have lost a lot - but gained more, in the sense of being associated-with (of not exactly a part of) that rarest of institutions: a 'thriving' Christian church with sound teaching.
*
The most important thing is to become a Christian - that alone is of great benefit; but the second step is to (try to) choose a church - that is difficult, and perhaps more difficult than before.
In general, I suggest choosing a specific congregation rather than a denomination - but of course Christianity is mostly set-up in terms of denominations (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Mormon etc).
*
But in choosing a church, what should be the criteria?
Here I offer the lessons of my own experience in hope that it may show the possibilities as well as the great difficulties of church choosing; and perhaps encourage one or two people.
*
So, if we assume that the perfect church for you - one which is nearby and which energizes, inspires, consoles, strengthens and educates - does not exist or is not available, then how do you choose?
*
When I became a Christian I simply took up the denomination in which I had been baptized and schooled - Church of England .
However, this turned out to be anything but an easy choice - because the CoE was riven with conflict - and I very soon realized I would have to take sides.
Over a period of time, this made my choice for me.
*
The two primary conflicts in the CoE relate to women ministers/bishops and same-sex 'marriage' - and in choosing the Christian side of both these issues, almost all Anglican churches were eliminated from consideration.
Very fortunately, one that remained was nearby, and an exceptionally large and alive family-orientated conservative-evangelical church with good teaching - so it wasn't really difficult for me.
*
And, given my views on the use of fertility as a religious evaluation...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/above-replacement-fertility-necessary.html
I would require that a church to which I make a significant commitment or contribution must have plenty of families, and be orientated towards marriage and children (must at least look as if the standardized fertility rate among devout adherents exceeds two) - otherwise, it is probable that in supporting the specific church, I would be supporting an organization that is net anti-Christian (as is most of the Church of England).
*
(What is difficult, and will no doubt remain so - due to my nature - is taking a full and proper part in church life. I am 'not a joiner' and also lazy. So my membership is a semi-detached affair. But that is much better than nothing - much better than trying to be a solo-Christian working only from books...)
*
But in joining this particular church, what was difficult was giving-up several of the aspects of church which had most appealed to me - two things specifically: the traditional Anglican liturgy based upon The Book of Common Prayer and use of the Authorized Version of the Bible - and the frequent Communion (several times a week) in which I used to participate in an Anglo-Catholic Church.
These produced an intense aesthetic and mystical response in me, with high frequency and reliability.
So this was, and is, a very considerable sacrifice and loss - and it is taking me a while to get used to the absence.
*
So, at the end of applying this process of choosing sides, and applying two filters; I find that I have lost a lot - but gained more, in the sense of being associated-with (of not exactly a part of) that rarest of institutions: a 'thriving' Christian church with sound teaching.
*
Saturday 4 May 2013
Is it possible to do good things for bad reasons? Not for long...
*
Much of modern life is predicated on the assumption that it is possible, indeed usual, to do good things for bad reasons; that motivations are detachable from actions.
And, of course, in a short term and restricted sense the two are indeed separable.
*
For example, it is routinely assumed that health services, environmental preservation, feeding the malnourished... these kinds of things are assumed to be good in themselves, and worth doing without respect to motivation - most people would assert that it is more important that such things actually be done, than it is to focus on the motivations for doing them.
Because of this assumption that action and motivation are separable, we get government agencies that supposedly "do good" funded by coercive confiscation of resources; and also NGOs, charities, voluntary groups who are devoted to these 'good works' without reference to any motivation for these good works - or at least this is their official stance...
*
Modernity is about the specialization of works, in detachment from faith.
*
In practice, what is found is that individuals or groups which purport to do good works without motivation soon end up not doing good work at all - but being selfish (at many levels) while gaming a set of rules.
What is found is that, over the medium- to long-term, faith determines works.
And lack of faith generates indifference to the actual outcomes of works.
*
Government agencies or charities set-up without faith and purportedly to alleviate poverty/ protect the environment/ pursue 'justice' without regard to larger motivation; instead create and sustain poverty/ destroy the environment/ implement systematic injustice while consuming their allocated resources in selfishness.
*
In practice, the necessity, the inevitability, of motivation means that it cannot be dispensed with - either by individuals or by groups - but faith either returns by another route, or else lack of faith generates an indifference to the actuality of works.
*
Much of modern life is predicated on the assumption that it is possible, indeed usual, to do good things for bad reasons; that motivations are detachable from actions.
And, of course, in a short term and restricted sense the two are indeed separable.
*
For example, it is routinely assumed that health services, environmental preservation, feeding the malnourished... these kinds of things are assumed to be good in themselves, and worth doing without respect to motivation - most people would assert that it is more important that such things actually be done, than it is to focus on the motivations for doing them.
Because of this assumption that action and motivation are separable, we get government agencies that supposedly "do good" funded by coercive confiscation of resources; and also NGOs, charities, voluntary groups who are devoted to these 'good works' without reference to any motivation for these good works - or at least this is their official stance...
*
Modernity is about the specialization of works, in detachment from faith.
*
In practice, what is found is that individuals or groups which purport to do good works without motivation soon end up not doing good work at all - but being selfish (at many levels) while gaming a set of rules.
What is found is that, over the medium- to long-term, faith determines works.
And lack of faith generates indifference to the actual outcomes of works.
*
Government agencies or charities set-up without faith and purportedly to alleviate poverty/ protect the environment/ pursue 'justice' without regard to larger motivation; instead create and sustain poverty/ destroy the environment/ implement systematic injustice while consuming their allocated resources in selfishness.
*
In practice, the necessity, the inevitability, of motivation means that it cannot be dispensed with - either by individuals or by groups - but faith either returns by another route, or else lack of faith generates an indifference to the actuality of works.
*
Friday 3 May 2013
Nothing to work with... The problem of motivation
*
People often advocate this or that socio-political change in opposition to the Leftist and secular domination of modern societies - but such plans and hopes get nowhere because there is (next to-) nothing to work with in the functional systems of modernity.
*
So, for example, there might be (there are) many sensible proposals for reforming and revitalizing the Church of England (as a whole) in a conservative direction - but the organization is so corrupted by Leftism that there is nothing to work with. As a whole, there is no motivation for change. Indeed, as a whole, the motivation is for more of the bad stuff!
*
(So where does one start? Only one possibility. Forget the whole. Start with those parts (no matter how small) where there is something to work with, some motivation. Build-on-them.)
*
Or, universities, or health service provision, or the law, or public administration or the media... Easy to see what's wrong, easy to make plans to put them right - but when it comes to action, there is nothing to work on, and no overall desire to do anything constructive - the process doesn't even get started.
*
Or a nation and nationalism - anyone can perceive the long-term impossibility of trying to run a country when there is n control of borders, no deportation, active subsidy of invaders and law-breakers, an active denigration and exploitation of natives at the expense of non-natives, of producers at the expense of consumers, of workers at the expense of the economically inactive and so on. This is a no-brainer.
But what when the natives/ producers/ workers are indifferent to patriotism, national interest, their own culture, the medium-term future as of course they are - or else the current situation would not have arisen and could not be hidden?
Then there is nothing to work with, and no motivation to work.
*
The underlying problem is demotivation - the constraint is that hardly anybody, any group, any institution, any nation or super-national body is motivated to do the right and necessary things.
(If they were, we could not be where we are.)
The modern world is suffering a generalized paralysis of the insane: we are not just demotivated (which is passive), but we have an insane positive motivation for that which is destroying us.
Therefore, there is no point at all in hatching general plans and schemes for change which depend on non-existent motivations.
*
Indeed, we should be doing exactly the opposite: start-from motivation, and start-with the motivated.
We should root our hopes and plans and dreams in those who want Good things; those who are thinking, talking, acting, and working courageously to attain Good things.
Then we would have something to work with and motivation to work.
*
But then, of course, this means that we don't get to daydream about bringing the rest of the world into line with a check-list of our own preferences; but instead have to accept some external and already existing source of motivation.
We must join, not lead.
*
People often advocate this or that socio-political change in opposition to the Leftist and secular domination of modern societies - but such plans and hopes get nowhere because there is (next to-) nothing to work with in the functional systems of modernity.
*
So, for example, there might be (there are) many sensible proposals for reforming and revitalizing the Church of England (as a whole) in a conservative direction - but the organization is so corrupted by Leftism that there is nothing to work with. As a whole, there is no motivation for change. Indeed, as a whole, the motivation is for more of the bad stuff!
*
(So where does one start? Only one possibility. Forget the whole. Start with those parts (no matter how small) where there is something to work with, some motivation. Build-on-them.)
*
Or, universities, or health service provision, or the law, or public administration or the media... Easy to see what's wrong, easy to make plans to put them right - but when it comes to action, there is nothing to work on, and no overall desire to do anything constructive - the process doesn't even get started.
*
Or a nation and nationalism - anyone can perceive the long-term impossibility of trying to run a country when there is n control of borders, no deportation, active subsidy of invaders and law-breakers, an active denigration and exploitation of natives at the expense of non-natives, of producers at the expense of consumers, of workers at the expense of the economically inactive and so on. This is a no-brainer.
But what when the natives/ producers/ workers are indifferent to patriotism, national interest, their own culture, the medium-term future as of course they are - or else the current situation would not have arisen and could not be hidden?
Then there is nothing to work with, and no motivation to work.
*
The underlying problem is demotivation - the constraint is that hardly anybody, any group, any institution, any nation or super-national body is motivated to do the right and necessary things.
(If they were, we could not be where we are.)
The modern world is suffering a generalized paralysis of the insane: we are not just demotivated (which is passive), but we have an insane positive motivation for that which is destroying us.
Therefore, there is no point at all in hatching general plans and schemes for change which depend on non-existent motivations.
*
Indeed, we should be doing exactly the opposite: start-from motivation, and start-with the motivated.
We should root our hopes and plans and dreams in those who want Good things; those who are thinking, talking, acting, and working courageously to attain Good things.
Then we would have something to work with and motivation to work.
*
But then, of course, this means that we don't get to daydream about bringing the rest of the world into line with a check-list of our own preferences; but instead have to accept some external and already existing source of motivation.
We must join, not lead.
*
Gratitude - the difference between Christian and atheistic Joy
*
As spring really begins to get moving, and I can perceive the first sign of emerging beech leaves - feelings of Joy are common when standing in the garden or walking around the place.
*
This always has been the case for me - but before I was a Christian I had nothing to do with this Joy - except to hope it would continue for as long as possible.
This amplified my innate tendency to cling to happiness; so that all Joy was bittersweet, even as I experienced it.
And I assumed this-Joy-now would be lost, utterly, when my memory for it had gone, or become distorted, or I had died.
*
But now, as a rule, Joy moves on to gratitude for that Joy; and I know that this specific Joy as I experience it will be permanent: so that now Joy is wholly Good.
That, as much as anything, encapsulates the profound difference between being a Christian and not: Christians are (or ought to be) grateful for Joy, and find in Joy both consolation and expectation.
*
I am using 'Joy' here in the sense established by C.S Lewis in his memoir Surprised by Joy.
*
As spring really begins to get moving, and I can perceive the first sign of emerging beech leaves - feelings of Joy are common when standing in the garden or walking around the place.
*
This always has been the case for me - but before I was a Christian I had nothing to do with this Joy - except to hope it would continue for as long as possible.
This amplified my innate tendency to cling to happiness; so that all Joy was bittersweet, even as I experienced it.
And I assumed this-Joy-now would be lost, utterly, when my memory for it had gone, or become distorted, or I had died.
*
But now, as a rule, Joy moves on to gratitude for that Joy; and I know that this specific Joy as I experience it will be permanent: so that now Joy is wholly Good.
That, as much as anything, encapsulates the profound difference between being a Christian and not: Christians are (or ought to be) grateful for Joy, and find in Joy both consolation and expectation.
*
I am using 'Joy' here in the sense established by C.S Lewis in his memoir Surprised by Joy.
*
Thursday 2 May 2013
Modern life - since the sexual revolution = dating and careers
*
'Modern Life' as it is portrayed in the mass media - in innumerable novels, movies, TV shows and commentaries - is depicted as essentially a matter of dating and careers.
In fact, the 'work' side is usually left-out (unless it is 'cool'); and life is a matter of dating - and dating is a matter of sex; albeit much is made of the delay between dating and sex - presumably this makes for a good plot.
(Indeed, the effectiveness of this narrative constraint of delay, plus the attractions of a successful career, are perhaps the only things that stand between modern culture and the explicit propagation of a radically-simplified view of modern life as sex, sex and then more sex - and the narrative complications this leads to.)
*
But my point is that this is the implicit world view of mainstream modernity.
As a child or teen looks ahead: that is what they see, that is what is in prospect. They see a career - education, training, jobs - and they see the prospect of dating a string of (hopefully) appealing folk.
That Is Life.
*
This is the primary triumph of the Left - to have excluded marriage and the family from the mainstream depictions of Modern Life.
Now, marriage and family must fight for a niche in the framework set by the primary demand for education-work and for serial dating.
Depictions and advocacy of marriage and family nowadays are required to justify the abandonment of the primary lifestyle narrative of modernity.
*
This is a tall order!
Essentially it means that if marriage and family are to be depicted positively, desirably, in mainstream culture, they must be portrayed as providing a superior form of the kind of life characterized by careers and dating.
That is, since a life based around work and dating seems to offer (from the teenage vantage point) progress and stimulation, prestige and excitement, self-esteem and strong emotions yet with an escape clause (you can always quit the job, quit the relationship, move somewhere else - this providing the pornographic appeal of 'travel' to the modern mind) - therefore marriage and family must also be presented as providing similar 'goods' to the work and dating lifestyle - while also retaining the escape clause.
Which is exactly how marriage and family are generally depicted - a mainstream trope is about people escaping marriage and family - because they fail to live-up-to the standards of a life based on dating and career - and re-entering the mainstream of a modern life focused on career-progess and serial dating.
*
Things keep moving; and for the elites the depiction of marriage and family as the primary lifestyle path is now regarded not just as dull and stultifying (which was the attitude of avant garde intellectual Leftism from the late 19th century, becoming dominant and mainstream from the mid-1960s) - but wrong.
So positive depictions of, and advocacy for, a life based on the expectations and hope of marriage and family, are increasingly regarded as actively evil, and these must be prevented and punished.
*
But what a bleak, empty, nihilistic and despair-inducing prospect of life it is - this dating and work scenario!
It is the kind of thing which could only satisfy a person as a life-plan in that most deranged and impatient period of youth; and even then only for a few years at most.
After which it is an infallible recipe for despair and hysterical distraction-seeking, for suicidal-tending hopelessness on a mass scale...
Which (looking around) is precisely the effect it is having - and this was (no doubt) the intended effect all along.
*
'Modern Life' as it is portrayed in the mass media - in innumerable novels, movies, TV shows and commentaries - is depicted as essentially a matter of dating and careers.
In fact, the 'work' side is usually left-out (unless it is 'cool'); and life is a matter of dating - and dating is a matter of sex; albeit much is made of the delay between dating and sex - presumably this makes for a good plot.
(Indeed, the effectiveness of this narrative constraint of delay, plus the attractions of a successful career, are perhaps the only things that stand between modern culture and the explicit propagation of a radically-simplified view of modern life as sex, sex and then more sex - and the narrative complications this leads to.)
*
But my point is that this is the implicit world view of mainstream modernity.
As a child or teen looks ahead: that is what they see, that is what is in prospect. They see a career - education, training, jobs - and they see the prospect of dating a string of (hopefully) appealing folk.
That Is Life.
*
This is the primary triumph of the Left - to have excluded marriage and the family from the mainstream depictions of Modern Life.
Now, marriage and family must fight for a niche in the framework set by the primary demand for education-work and for serial dating.
Depictions and advocacy of marriage and family nowadays are required to justify the abandonment of the primary lifestyle narrative of modernity.
*
This is a tall order!
Essentially it means that if marriage and family are to be depicted positively, desirably, in mainstream culture, they must be portrayed as providing a superior form of the kind of life characterized by careers and dating.
That is, since a life based around work and dating seems to offer (from the teenage vantage point) progress and stimulation, prestige and excitement, self-esteem and strong emotions yet with an escape clause (you can always quit the job, quit the relationship, move somewhere else - this providing the pornographic appeal of 'travel' to the modern mind) - therefore marriage and family must also be presented as providing similar 'goods' to the work and dating lifestyle - while also retaining the escape clause.
Which is exactly how marriage and family are generally depicted - a mainstream trope is about people escaping marriage and family - because they fail to live-up-to the standards of a life based on dating and career - and re-entering the mainstream of a modern life focused on career-progess and serial dating.
*
Things keep moving; and for the elites the depiction of marriage and family as the primary lifestyle path is now regarded not just as dull and stultifying (which was the attitude of avant garde intellectual Leftism from the late 19th century, becoming dominant and mainstream from the mid-1960s) - but wrong.
So positive depictions of, and advocacy for, a life based on the expectations and hope of marriage and family, are increasingly regarded as actively evil, and these must be prevented and punished.
*
But what a bleak, empty, nihilistic and despair-inducing prospect of life it is - this dating and work scenario!
It is the kind of thing which could only satisfy a person as a life-plan in that most deranged and impatient period of youth; and even then only for a few years at most.
After which it is an infallible recipe for despair and hysterical distraction-seeking, for suicidal-tending hopelessness on a mass scale...
Which (looking around) is precisely the effect it is having - and this was (no doubt) the intended effect all along.
*
Wednesday 1 May 2013
If Leftism does not come from Christianity - where does it come from?
*
There is more than one answer - but an important factor is the psychological consequences of modernity: which is functional specialization.
From my book Thought Prison (2011)
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/ :
*
The millennium-deep roots of political correctness
The West took a turn toward legalism, logic and bureaucracy around AD 1000 (‘the Great Schism’) when the Roman Catholic Church (gradually) broke away from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church the Byzantine Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople.
Like most long term policy mistakes the East-West schism was initially richly rewarded (otherwise the mistake would not have been made) – since it led to tremendous 'progress' in first philosophy and scholarship (especially Thomas Aquinas) with the development of universities, then later in science and technology, and later still in the economy.
*
But schism led on to more schisms, with no end in sight.
But the benefits and the mistake were alike in being built-on continuous specialization of function; progressive specialization of all functions, with limit.
The Great Schism built-into the thought systems of the West a fatal error, of which PC is a remote and indirect consequence.
*
Once modernity (progressive specialization) has been built into a system, it cannot stop itself - and it cannot stop itself because continual specialization creates (or indeed itself is) continually increasing autonomy, so there is no way of one part of the system stopping another.
You just get more and more specialization of function until the whole social system falls apart into useless fragments; and all the King's Horses and all the King's men cannot put Humpty together again.
*
By secularizing knowledge, by creating The University – by making philosophy autonomous of the Church (instead of having learning institutionally focused in monasteries) the West eventually made political correctness - which is now everywhere and inescapable.
And PC is the West's Nemesis, because the West cannot decisively overturn PC without overturning that which made it The West.
The West cannot overcome PC without ceasing to be The West.
Yet, if this overturning of PC does not happen, then the West will itself be subverted by PC.
In other words, The West is built upon error: its strength is also its weakness; its power is also that which is self-destroying; even as The West built its great structures it was simultaneously gnawing at their foundations.
*
Here is the double-bind:
To be anti-PC is to be anti-The West (always in tendency, albeit not by intention)
Yet at the same time, to be pro-PC is to be anti-The West (always in tendency, and also by intention)
And/ So/ But The West never was sustainable.
*
Looking back, The West was a blip on the graph of history - albeit a thousand year 'blip'! –with a hundreds year long, gradual up-tick and the rapid decades long collapse looming ever-closer.
Just so soon as The West began to implement its assumptions towards completion (which is political correctness), just so soon The West began actively (as well as passively) to destroy itself.
**
There is more than one answer - but an important factor is the psychological consequences of modernity: which is functional specialization.
From my book Thought Prison (2011)
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/ :
*
The millennium-deep roots of political correctness
The West took a turn toward legalism, logic and bureaucracy around AD 1000 (‘the Great Schism’) when the Roman Catholic Church (gradually) broke away from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church the Byzantine Roman Empire with its capital in Constantinople.
Like most long term policy mistakes the East-West schism was initially richly rewarded (otherwise the mistake would not have been made) – since it led to tremendous 'progress' in first philosophy and scholarship (especially Thomas Aquinas) with the development of universities, then later in science and technology, and later still in the economy.
*
But schism led on to more schisms, with no end in sight.
But the benefits and the mistake were alike in being built-on continuous specialization of function; progressive specialization of all functions, with limit.
The Great Schism built-into the thought systems of the West a fatal error, of which PC is a remote and indirect consequence.
*
Once modernity (progressive specialization) has been built into a system, it cannot stop itself - and it cannot stop itself because continual specialization creates (or indeed itself is) continually increasing autonomy, so there is no way of one part of the system stopping another.
You just get more and more specialization of function until the whole social system falls apart into useless fragments; and all the King's Horses and all the King's men cannot put Humpty together again.
*
By secularizing knowledge, by creating The University – by making philosophy autonomous of the Church (instead of having learning institutionally focused in monasteries) the West eventually made political correctness - which is now everywhere and inescapable.
And PC is the West's Nemesis, because the West cannot decisively overturn PC without overturning that which made it The West.
The West cannot overcome PC without ceasing to be The West.
Yet, if this overturning of PC does not happen, then the West will itself be subverted by PC.
In other words, The West is built upon error: its strength is also its weakness; its power is also that which is self-destroying; even as The West built its great structures it was simultaneously gnawing at their foundations.
*
Here is the double-bind:
To be anti-PC is to be anti-The West (always in tendency, albeit not by intention)
Yet at the same time, to be pro-PC is to be anti-The West (always in tendency, and also by intention)
And/ So/ But The West never was sustainable.
*
Looking back, The West was a blip on the graph of history - albeit a thousand year 'blip'! –with a hundreds year long, gradual up-tick and the rapid decades long collapse looming ever-closer.
Just so soon as The West began to implement its assumptions towards completion (which is political correctness), just so soon The West began actively (as well as passively) to destroy itself.
**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)